Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
|
[This post was created from a comment in the Jesus is God… yes & no! thread.] I decide to login to OST for the first time in a while, hoping against hope that I might discover some sign that my Eemerging brothers are embracing the Christ of Faith only to find myself left gasping with disbelief at the nature of this conversation! Good grief! I only thank God that the Disciples weren’t this confused else they’d still be in that Upper Room now with not one jot of the New Testament ever seeing papyrus! I’m tired of hearing the perennial argument elsewhere — even from pulpits of those who should know better — that the Bible never claims that Jesus is God. Doesn’t it? What about the ‘I AM’ statements of Jesus in the Gospels — a blatant identification of Himself with the God of Israel. This link with the Old Testament reminds us of the Genesis 1 utterance by God: “Let US make man in OUR image.” God speaking, not schizophrenically, but as an entity comprised of three persons yet one. Remember the Kendrick hymn? “Hands that flung stars into space, to cruel nails surrendered.” Now I’m no Kendrick fan, actually, but hey, credit where it’s due, those few words alone will see more souls won to Christ than a million written on this site at the current state it’s in! My last plea is to Isaiah 9v6: “For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, MIGHTY GOD, EVERLASTING FATHER, Prince of Peace.” If that ain’t a prophecy that Jesus IS God, then… what?? No doubt I shall be enlightened by my more learned colleagues. |
Comments
A parable...
I decide to login to OST for the first time in a while, hoping against hope that I might discover some sign that my Eemerging brothers are embracing the Christ of Faith only to find myself left gasping with disbelief at the nature of this conversation! Good grief! I only thank God that the Disciples weren’t this confused else they’d still be in that Upper Room now with not one jot of the New Testament ever seeing papyrus!
The emerging church is like ground that had become too hard for anything to grow in, trampled over by too many feet, leached of its life. So the gardener came and began to dig deep, very deep, into the earth, turning the clods, breaking them up, pulling out broken roots, picking out the rocks and rubbish that had been buried there for years; he dug in compost and looked to the heavens for rain. After many days, his back aching, his hands blistered, the ground was made new, and he could start planting again - and many weeks after that he rejoiced to see the fruit of his labours.
Incidentally, Ivan, I have the impression that the disciples were very confused at times.
Clarification
I have copied and pasted the following two paragraphs from another thread on OST that is discussing a totally different subject. They express articulately my own thoughts about the phrase "Jesus is God". All credit to Andrew for composing these words.
[The statement "Jesus is God"], whatever its essential merits, developed as an explanation, rationalization or condensation of a complex set of experiences and ideas. The interpretive process works from complex reality to simplified doctrine. Problems always arise when we reverse the order, taking not the reality but the doctrine as the starting point or premise for our thinking - when, for example, we begin to make the complex reality conform to the contours of the doctrine, cutting off all the bits that don’t fit; or when we start drawing conclusions from the doctrine which may seem intrinsically coherent but which no longer have an explanatory relationship to the reality.
To give a rough analogy: a doctrine is a highly compressed version of what it purports to describe or explain, but the compression process is not precise and it is not ‘lossless’. Information gets distorted or filtered out - just as a jpeg file loses image information in the course of being compressed - so that the doctrine itself, the theory, becomes a fundamentally ‘flawed’ representation of the truth and an unreliable premise on which to base further arguments.
When I started this thread I was not questioning the status of Jesus (whom in practice I treat as God) but was rather questioning the value of using a statement so compressed as "Jesus is God" because of its potential to mislead people who lack the necessary background knowledge to avoid drawing false inferences from it. I am thinking here especially of my experiences of talking with Muslims, whose denial of the deity of Christ often seems to me to be a right rejection of a distorted, unbiblical doctrine about Jesus which they have inferred from the statement "Jesus is God". Also perhaps we Christians are at risk of being insidiously deceived if we chant "Jesus is God" glibly without remembering the fuller biblical picture of God’s nature. The nuances of our idioms and phrasing may shape our thinking more than we realise. A fuller picture of God would have to take account of:
- the apparent primacy of the Father (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:28) and the dependency and derived authority of the Son (e.g. John 5:19, John 5:26)
- the individuality of each of the Father, Son, and Spirit, which must be held in tension with the ontological oneness of God
- the perichoresis of the Father, Son, and Spirit
- the fact that the reverse statement ("God is Jesus") is an erroneous definition of God
- the Bible’s tendency to use the word ‘God’ to refer to the Father exclusively (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 2 Cor. 13:14)
and more …
On the subject of Isaiah 9:6, I think some people put more weight on this verse than it can support. In English
translations the word ‘Father’ in Isaiah 9:6 is printed with a capital F. This is correct because the word ‘Father’
is being used as a title. When we see the word ‘Father’ with a capital F we might automatically assume it is
refering to God the Father. But in the case of Isaiah 9:6 I think it is merely saying that the child to be born
would have a fatherly role - in other words, that he would act as a guide and guardian for God’s people. The
capital F is used because it is a title rather than an ordinary noun.
Compare this with Isaiah 22:20-21 where God says:
In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
The Messiah’s parental (or fatherly) character was expressed in Luke 13:34 and John 14:18.
And anyway, even traditional trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father.
The Hebrew for ‘Mighty God’ in Isaiah 9:6 is ‘El Gibbor’, where El = God, and Gibbor = Mighty or Heroic. The word El (plural Elohim) is nearly always used in the Bible to refer to the supreme deity, but it is occasionally used to refer to powerful people, rulers, judges, angels, or pagan gods (for example: Psalm 82:6, Isaiah 44:10). Apart from Isaiah 9:6, the combined phrase ‘El Gibbor’ occurs 2 other times in the Old Testament: Isaiah 10:21 and Ezekiel 32:21. In the last of these references ‘El Gibbor’ is certainly not the supreme deity.
Re: Clarification
Ivan, I just don’t understand your reasons for being upset with the discussions here. Do you suggest that Andrew should reject any post that isn’t 100% fundamentalist in nature?
What impression do we create with attitudes that thinking or asking certain questions is "off-limits"? This is exactly why most people reject Christianity. Christianity has become a joke to most of the world and Christians have become a metaphor for stupidity and ignorance. You can ignore that reality by keeping your head in the sand or you can open your eyes and work with others to be sure our theology and terminology evolves to maintain a place of influence on the world around us.
At the heart of this important question (is Jesus God?) is an underlying reality that gets buried in the discussion. The world is crying out to embrace the message of Jesus that a new community of love, acceptance, and equality is emerging and it is available to everyone. Unfortunately the only message that Christianity seems willing to deliver is "Jesus is God and you must believe this list of doctrines about him exactly as I have outlined them or die". We have the most worderful and simple message that anyone could want to hear but we choose to deliver something that is hard to swallow instead. I don’t get it.
If you have ever taken a communications course you will understand that the first rule in communicating is to take responsibility for what your listener "hears and understands". It is your responsibility as a communicator to not just be sure of what you say, but to be sure of what is heard. You may try to defend that you are not saying these things, but I promise that is what is being heard.
Re: Clarification
"The Hebrew for ‘Mighty God’ in Isaiah 9:6 is ‘El Gibbor’, where El = God, and Gibbor = Mighty or Heroic. The word El (plural Elohim) is nearly always used in the Bible to refer to the supreme deity, but it is occasionally used to refer to powerful people, rulers, judges, angels, or pagan gods (for example: Psalm 82:6, Isaiah 44:10). Apart from Isaiah 9:6, the combined phrase ‘El Gibbor’ occurs 2 other times in the Old Testament: Isaiah 10:21 and Ezekiel 32:21. In the last of these references ‘El Gibbor’ is certainly not the supreme deity."
Do you think then that Jesus was this powerful person? If He was this powerful ruler, His life would have looked a whole lot different, and the outcome of His life would have as well don’t you think? C.S. Lewis presents it correctly in his Lord, liar, lunatic model. Jesus must have been one of the three, but certainly not just a powerful person.
Robbie
Re: Clarification
Hi Robbie
I certainly agree that Jesus was not just a powerful person. I think you can make a strong case for the deity of Christ from elsewhere in the Bible, but I am personally not convinced that Isaiah 9:6 is an unambiguous proof-text. Otherwise, why didn’t the Jews anticipate a divine Messiah? I think they expected the Messiah to be closely connected with God (divinely appointed, divinely empowered, possessing divine authority, etc.) but not to be God himself.
Likewise I am not persuaded that the name "Immanuel" in Isaiah 7:14 / Matthew 1:23 is strong evidence for Christ’s deity, because it is not unusual in Jewish thought for God’s presence to be mediated to his people through a human individual - e.g. Judges 2:18; 1 Samuel 10:7; Luke 7:16. Also, the name Elihu (Job 32:2) means literally "God is he" without necessarily implying that the owner of that name is divine.
However, if you believe Jesus is God (from other evidence) then you will probably hear Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 as double entendres - containing a 2nd meaning for people who are already ‘in the know’ about the Messiah’s true identity. I would contend you can only interpret those texts as hinting at Christ’s deity a posteriori, but it seems to me a bit wobbley to use them as major bulwarks to defend the deity of Christ.
Using God's Word
I originally created an account on OST with the hopes of learning a thing or two about the way people thought outside of my traditional group of friends and teachers. I am currently a Junior at Columbia International University in Columbia, South Carolina, working on my B.A. with a double major in Inter-Cultural Studies and Bible. I plan on being a missionary to the middle east when I graduate. I say this not to give any sort of qualification, but because as I read these comments on this sight, it discourages me. I feel like you all can use any text you want in Scripture to prove whatever point you like. I once heard John Piper say that if you hear someone get up in the pulpit and begin preaching new things from an old text, you better listen carefully, because if it hasn’t been preached before, there’s a good chance it’s not correct. I guess I feel the same way.
Do I agree with some things that the Emerging Church is doing? Yeah, I think there’s some good stuff going on there, but I also see a lot of things that go against traditional and essential doctrines of the Christian faith. I get the impression that some of you think that Jesus wasn’t God. This is an essential of the Christian faith that you are bringing into question. I’m all about Augustine’s saying, "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." So I won’t put up a fuss about a lot of what the Emerging Church is doing, because they are for the most part, non-essentials. But questioning Jesus’ deity is where I’m gonna have to draw the line. If Jesus wasn’t and isn’t God, then I would throw away my missionary plans. If I had to go and tell people that Jesus was put on a cross because He claimed to be God when really He wasn’t, I would be proclaiming not the love of a Savior, but the lies of a decietful lunatic.
Are there those who are a part of this website who really and truly believe in their heart of hearts that Jesus is not one with the Father and the Holy Spirit? I don’t mean to come accross in a challenging or demeaning way, but I guess this is just something that gets me, or perhaps the Holy Spirit inside of me, fired up. Until next time,
Robbie
Re: Using God's Word
Reformed Arminian, dearest friend, I do not think this site exists to comfort us, but rather to stretch us and to rethink thoughts that haven’t been thought in a little while.
Andrew’s parable is marvelous. I suggest you reread it. Your missionary zeal is admirable, and it may be that you would be right in preventing some of us from preaching some of these thoughts from the pulpit. But this is not the pulpit. If certain thoughts are off limits, then we cage ourselves in, and we risk intellectual dishonesty. I think many of us here believe that we can safely ask dangerous, heretical questions, because we trust that God’s Spirit will guide us. If Jesus is in fact God, have a little faith that the evidence will point that way. But don’t deny the evidence for the sake of a creed.
Also, while missionary zeal is admirable, I hope and trust and pray that the zeal is for the Kingdom, and not some narrowly-defined set of propositional doctrines. While Augustine and Piper both have some wonderful things to teach us, I hope you take much of what they say with a grain of salt. I shall leave it at that.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Re: Using God's Word
I am interested in your premise that the proposition "Jesus was God" is an essential of the Christian faith. Are you meaning by this that anyone who does not assent to that proposition cannot be considered a true Christian? And if so, on what basis?
I’m hearing a lot these days that "We are saved by God’s grace, not by assenting to a list of propositions," or "Christianity is about a personal relationship, not head-knowledge about." Scripturally, I see the apostles boiling the essential down to accepting Jesus as the Messiah, trusting in Jesus for forgiveness of sins, following Jesus, acknowledging Jesus as Lord, etc. What we don’t find—in the evangelistic sermons of Acts, for example—are statements like "Unless you believe Jesus was God, you cannot be saved, even if you wish to come to him in repentence and accept him as Lord, savior, and Christ."
Now, many of the participants in this conversation do in fact believe that Jesus is God (in some mysterious sense), but are simply looking for a Biblical basis for singling this doctrine out of many and making it as essential and central as you suggest, particularly when the concept of Trinity is more mysterious than easily graspable, while right and left people are ignoring the mystery. Why not say that our salvation depends on accepting that Jesus went to the temple when he was 12? Upon believing that he is now in physical form in heaven? There are lots of things we believe about Jesus, that Scripture states even more clearly than "Jesus was God," that are not considered essential to Christian fellowship. How good are the reasons for considering essential this particular proposition?
Finally, I would venture to say that many trusted preachers who have never questioned such things from the pulpit have most definately discussed these questions at some point as part of their theological preparation. The alternative is that they are preaching about matters they have never really thought about, claiming things they haven’t really checked out, saying things they may not be able to back up. Rather than seeing this site as a pulpit, think of it is a conference room, where the concern is to consider arguments as to what precisely is baby and what is bath water. Pleas to not throw out X are not as helpful as arguments supporting the definition of X as baby. Sometimes everyone will agree X is baby—but still struggle to explain why. Then it can be helpful to assume X is not baby, and see what supports the objections to this.
Same view - different language?
Ivan and Robbie,
I suspect that you and I are not as different as you think. We use different language to talk about Jesus, but in practice our attitude and behaviour towards him are probably very similar. When I started this thread I was trying to initiate discussion about the semantics of the statement “Jesus is God” rather than about the reality which that statement purports to describe. I admit I was taken aback by some people on the Roman Catholic and Orthodox sites who virtually labelled me as a heretic. My search for the right words to convey the truth about Jesus as clearly and meaningfully as possible makes me baulk at saying “Jesus is God”, but I cannot think of any act of worship due to God the Father that I would not be equally happy to render to Jesus Christ. (I speak for myself and not for the emergent movement as a whole.)
To quote Andrew again (this time slightly paraphrased):
The process of reducing a complex reality to a simplified doctrine inevitably creates potential for misunderstanding and wrong inferences. The danger is that we unconsciously make the complex reality conform to the contours of the doctrine, cutting off all the bits that don’t fit; or we start drawing conclusions from the doctrine which may seem intrinsically coherent but which no longer correspond to the reality. A doctrine is a highly compressed version of what it purports to describe or explain, but the compression process is not precise and always loses some key details. Information gets distorted or filtered out so that the doctrine itself becomes a fundamentally flawed representation of the truth.
I think I have a higher Christology than some other participants in OST. I think I am right and they are wrong, but I am interested to understand why they think what they think, and I am prepared to change my own views if persuaded. And for those on OST who have a lower Christology than me, I do not regard them as lesser Christians. I recognise they share my awareness that the truth is bigger than our neat formulae and systematic doctrines can capture, and they share my desire to avoid letting our relationship with Jesus be trammelled by our cultural conditioning. I have discovered that love, trust, and obedience to Jesus are not the monopoly of people with orthodox (with a small ‘o’) doctrine.
Re: Using God's Word
In response to all that has been written, I guess I would just like to ask the following question to sort of find out where you all are coming from with this, in my opinion, essential Christian doctrine of Jesus’ divinity: If Jesus is not God, then is it possible that His death on the cross does not provide full atonement for sins? If Jesus is not God, then who is He?
Please check the following references if you do not already know them!
Phillippians 2:5-11, 3:20-21; Colossians 1:15-23; Hebrews 1:1-4, 8-14, 2:5-18
I understand that this website is not a pulpit but a conference type atmosphere where ideas are tested and tried. I guess I was just suprised that this question would be raised. It never occurred to me that Jesus could be anyone else but God from the evidence in Scripture. I would like to see some references that go the other way, that explain Christ as just a human. And I don’t mean references that need to be explained away by demonstrating that a certain greek/hebrew word can be translated three different ways and that the author probably chose the least likely one. If Christ’s deity is so heavily debated in the world today, I would like to see some references that clearly explain how He was fully man without being fully God at the same time, and how we as His followers today know that He is alive and that His sacrifice offered full atonement for our sins. I just heard that song on the radio, "Mary Did You Know?" I love that line that says, "When you’ve kissed your little baby, you’ve kissed the face of God." What great theology!
Looking forward to your replies,
Robbie
Re: Using God's Word
Robbie,
my point of view to this question is to go back to biblical language about Jesus. My impression is that if we were to use biblical language and narration , we would not argue so much. The problem, as I see it, is that in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th century the greek mind within christianity was trying to find a definition of the ‘Jesus is God’ statement. There was a common sense that ‘Jesus is God’ somehow, but develpment and disagreement of what is to be understood by this. Was he ‘from God’s essence’, or ‘same as as God’s essence, or in which exact way was he pre-existent or not, …It’s partly based on logic, but then when it get’s too complicated, then we are asked to accept that this belongs to God’s mystery and we should not question it. And then once the definition of how Jesus was exactly God got established, the next thing was that Mary was called ‘Mother of God’ and whoever said Mary was just Mother of Christ was heretic, and so on and on. (I wonder why Mary’s mother was never called ‘the grandmother of God’?)
I might be totally wrong to suggest that going back to the narrative development of the Bible might help us to look at Christ with a fresher and even more exact look. From a narrative point of view it is interesting to me to study Jesus’ responses of People attributing names and titles to him, and which titles he uses for himself. It seems to me he really liked the expression ‘son of man’, taken from Daniel. He also likes to refer to himself often as ‘the son of God’, and his numerous references to his father support that.
In Mt.16,17 ff Jesus asks his desciples who they think he is. Peter answers ‘you are the Christ, the son of the living God’. Jesus gets absolutely excited about that. He really likes to be called like that.
How else did Jesus respond? When Thomas falls on his knee and says: ‘my Lord and my God’ ( John 20,28 ) Jesus doesn’t even comment on that. I am not saying he doesn’t accept this title; but what I am saying is that this confession doesn’t really make him excited unlike Peter’s confession does with ‘Christ, the son of the living God’.
In John 10,33, when the Pharisees are upset with Jesus that he ‘claims to be God’ (in their eyes), he puts himself on the same level as the ‘gods’ mentioned in the psalms.So here as well; he isn’t too excited about the title ‘God’
Saying all that is not proofing some sort of theology or dogma. It is just showing from a narrative point of view how Jesus views himself and how he thinks about different titles.
If we used the ‘Jesus is God’ statement more in the context of the New Testament (and that is in my understanding not as frequently and very qualified), then we would not end up arguing so much. Why is it not enough to use for Jesus the titles he used himself? Why can’t we call Jesus the ‘son of God’, the ‘Christ’ the ‘son of man’, the ‘saviour’, and even also sometimes with Thomas ‘our lord and God’? Doesn’t it seem a bit strange (again:not saying it is necessarily wrong) to a NT context to call him ‘co-equal’, co-eternal, ‘one in essence’ begotten, not made’…)?
not to forget: merry christmas to you all!
‘
Re: Using God's Word
An argument from the thoughts of Jesus which are not recorded in Scripture? When Peter confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" I’m not sure how we are to understand that "Jesus gets absolutely excited about that." It seems to me that Jesus simply responds, "Yes, and you only know that because my Father revealed it to you!" I’m not sure if we can compare Jesus’ level of excitement in these confessions. When Thomas (who had 8 days earlier, verbally expressed his doubt that Jesus was indeed resurrected from the dead), confesses Jesus as "My Lord and my God," Jesus responds not by denying this claim, but by affirming it with the question, "Have you believed because you have seen me?" When the Pharisees are ready to stone Jesus in John 10, Jesus tells them that even though they may not believe Him, they should at least believe His works, "that you may know that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Jesus supports the anger of the Pharisees with this comment. I don’t see how any of these texts show that Jesus is more comfortable with Peter’s confession then with those of Thomas, the Pharisees, and even His own.
All this to say, yes, I do think that calling Jesus "the Son of God," "the Christ", "the Son of man", Savior, or "Lord and God" is OK. I praise Him as such all the time! But I do not find it even a bit strange, especially in a NT context to call Jesus a co-equal, co-eternal, one in essence, etc., because the NT makes all these claims (John 1:1-18). Is it just me or does it seem like John writes his gospel with the intent of proving that Jesus is God?
Robbie
Re: Using God's Word
Hi Robbie,
i think you are right in asserting Jesus response to Thomas was more affirming than I put it. I read the context now and realized you are right. (so if I want to make a point in considering a ‘narrative’ context and not even read the context I am disproving myself!).
However I still see Jesus being excited after Peter makes his confession about Jesus being ‘the Chist, son of the living God’. Jesus’ response :‘“Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah!’ actually shows some excitement in Jesus response.
And I think much emphasis can be put here, since Jesus specificially asked his desciples of who he is. With Thomas, it was more an exclamation and an acknowledgement after realizing he was blind before. I do see a diffence here. Also verse 20 ‘Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.’ affirms that this is how Jesus would describe himself.
With regards of the response of the Pharisees that Jesus confirms their anger, I disagree. As a response he says: do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (Again here: Son of God) And please tell me how I should understand Jesus’response before that when he says ‘“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? if not showing that what he just said was not too far off of what they as experts of the Old Testament could have expected anyway and nothing intrinsicially ‘new’?
‘Is it just me or does it seem like John writes his gospel with the intent of proving that Jesus is God?’
I think the gospel of John is all about proving that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. this is the theme that comes up often and is confirmed in John 20,31 ‘but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’ Again: Christ, the son of God, not just plainly ‘Jesus is God’
Robbie, please understand that I am not disproving the statement ‘Jesus is God’ I also believe that Jesus is God. But I think it should be said a bit more carefully and put a bit more in perspective of the NT, and I just do not think the NT is full of ‘Jesus is God’ statements.
As for your question regarding the atonement and Jesus must have been ‘God’ in order to atone; I would like to know why you think the saviour must have been ‘God’ to save us. Your argument derives from St. Athanasius, I think, and it has been used frequesntly, but I still don’t understand the logic behind? I am not saying Jesus isn’t God, I just don’t get it why the atonement question is an argument that ‘Jesus must be God.’
Thanks!
Re: Using God's Word
You are correct about the gospel of John. I was clearly the last gospel of the 4 and came about much later (probably a lifetime later or mor). So the story is more the story of the later christian church and contains it claims to prove itself as a viable religion competing in the world for market share. That is why it has a more supernatural view of Jesus. Compare it to the others and you see exactly how that makes sense. It is a beautiful book, but it clearly has a different source and intent. It is more of a retelling of the stories that had circulated about Jesus for a couple of generations of early Christians.
Re: Using God's Word
Robbie,
That is because you only look in scripture for answers.
If you are asking us to find a reference that proves Jesus was not God by looking only in a collection of books that were compiled and translated by people that were making a case to prove Jesus was God, then I don’t think you could get a satisfactory response. That would be illogical. If you are going to debate theological ideas outside of your own circle then you will need to be more open minded or at least courteous in allowing others to decide where and how they will find their own references.
What you are doing is equivalent to saying, “prove that aliens don’t exist”. The obvious answer to that question would be, “well, every day I walk out my door and there are no aliens and no one has ever proven they do exist”. The same could be said about Jesus. Every day I walk out my door and meet people and none are god/man creatures. That doesn’t seem to be the way the universe works. Nothing that science has uncovered would prove Jesus was God. The concept of a man/god combination creature is the oddity here and would need to be proven somehow. If our answer to the world about Jesus is “prove he wasn’t God” then it is no wonder that today Christianity is no longer the “norm” and is being lumped in with other religions that include reincarnation or witchcraft or ghosts.
Having made that rather sarcastic comment (I’m sorry). I have to follow it by saying I DO belief Jesus is God, but I wouldn’t try to use the bible to prove it because it can’t. The bible can prove only that its human authors believed Jesus was God. And it barely does that. It might be stretched far enough to make a case that Jesus believed he was God but that case would be even weaker. But it in no way could it be proof that Jesus was God. For me the proof that Jesus was in many ways God is that without Jesus I wouldn’t know of God. Without Jesus I would not have begun the transformation of my prideful selfish nature into a self-less nature. Accepting Jesus changed me in what seems to be a process counter to my human nature. That means he is to me more than human. In that way he has become divine.
Re: Using God's Word
My 2 questions have still not been answered. If Jesus is not God, would His sacrifice have provided full atonement for sin? And if Jesus is not God, then who was/is He?
Danutz, are you saying that we should value personal experience over God’s Word? What about 2 Timothy 3:16-17? If we cannot use the Bible to prove things in the Bible, how are we as Christians ever going to grow? What is this website good for if we cannot use the Bible? Would I try and proove to a non-believer that the Bible is God’s Word by using the Bible? Probably not, because as you hinted at, it’s circular logic. But to fellow Christians, I should certainly hope that we are going to value God’s word as the highest authority. Is Jesus God because you believe He is, or do you believe that Jesus is God because He believes He is?
Re: Using God's Word
1. Answering your questions….Atonement from what? An angry God demanding death of everyone that disobeys him (or death of himself or death of his son…I’m not sure if you see it as suicide or child abuse). Jesus’ death was the result of sinful pride by those that killed him. I don’t see it as atonement, but as evidence that he was willing to live the message he preached about (not resisting evil and turning the other cheek). I guess my answer is no to atonement. My answer to who Jesus was would depend on who was asking. To Mary he was a son. To his disciples he was a teacher. To the Romans he was a dangerous revolutionary. To the Jewish leaders he was a heretic. To me he is my savior, redeemer and revealer of ultimate truth. To many he is God and that is why they worship him. I would prefer to follow him rather than worship him, but that is my opinion. Given his teachings, do you think Jesus would have wanted to be worshipped or followed?
2. We definitely should value truth over everything no matter if the truth is first realized through our experiences or texts.
3. Every text proves itself if that same text is the only thing used to measure it.
4. Why would you want to prove the bible is God’s words? Wouldn’t it be a better case to prove it isn’t? Wouldn’t God be a more acceptable answer if he were not the author? If you believe the bible is God’s word don’t you have to accept that he killed women and children and commands the eternal punishment of nearly everyone he created? If you realize it isn’t his words you can come to understand those instances were just people using God as an excuse to kill for the betterment of their own lives. I certainly hope we are NOT going to value the biblical texts over God or Jesus or truth.
5. Anything you yield control to becomes God for you. Jesus is my God because I have yielded the direction of my life to his vision. I could make a variety of things God. Some people make sex, money, drugs, or religion into God. I’ve chosen Jesus, so I guess you could correctly say that he is God for me because I chose him as God.
Re: Using God's Word
danutz-
sweet name.
hey, i’ve been following this dialogue for about a week or so now and i have read all of it up to this point. i just thought i would throw my two bits into this discussion because i am intrigued by the variety of opinions and interpretations found here. by intrigued, honestly i mean both curious and somewhat concerned because some of what i believe to be essential to Christian faith has been called into question. this is the mindset i have as i write this post. here we go…
truth is to be valued above all things? Ok, as long as by truth you mean Jesus, who is "the truth." But where do we find truth? Wesley has his quadrilateral, the Reformers held to sola scriptura, the disciples had Jesus himself with them until he died and sent them the Holy Spirit, the enlightenment and modernist thinkers had reason, and our postmodern age hails opinion and experience. So where do we find truth? It seems that truth, as you understand it, comes differently to each person. And i would agree with that, i think. but is there a difference between general and specific revelation in your understanding of truth? is there a difference between the revelation of general truth and the revelation of saving truth? i do not operate under the Barthian assumption that Scripture falls into the same categories as music, art, preaching, conversations and experiences, that all of them can communicate the Word of God if illumined by the Holy Spirit. Scripture is set apart from the rest in that it always communicates the Word because it is God’s words. Scripture is authoritative and infallible, and it is God’s written word for his church. if you do agree with the above assumption that general/natural revelation does not really exist, then we are conversing with irreconcilable presuppositions about Scripture that make any sort of intelligent dialogue extremely difficult unless both of us understand exactly where the other is coming from and make our comments accordingly.
additionally, i will not choose to not believe something because it makes me uncomfortable. I do not like the idea that God damns people to hell. but my dislike for that seemingly harsh reality does not give credence to a denial of that reality. for who is the creature to question the creator (as God asks Job in so many words, Job 38-42)? therefore, i will not rework my understanding of scripture and claim that it is not God’s words just because there are things in it that i do not like, that do not resonate with my personal experience or what i currently believe or do not believe about God.
i guess what i really don’t understand when i read your post (and i would really like to understand it) is this:
who is Jesus? who is God? what are his main characteristics? does he judge? does he love? does he punish? does he always give grace? does he accept all people, whether they believe in him or not? is He made in my image, or am i made in His? and how do i come to these conclusions about him? are these conclusions found by my interactions with other people? through meditation? through prayer? through reading the Word? through service? through rational discussion? a professor friend of mine, Dr. Jerry Root, uses this quote in every one of his classes: "i want God, not my idea of God" (the quote has mystical roots and finds its way into writers like sayers and lewis). so where do we find God, not our idea of God? This seems to be the question we are trying to ask here.
i wish for this life to be iconoclastic. i wish for it to constantly cause the boxes into which i put ideas to explode. so i want to hear what you are saying and genuinely understand what you are saying. but i haven’t yet. and it’s not your fault so much as it is my poor listening skills. so if you could, who do you believe God is? what is he like? what in Scripture do you think is accurate, and what do you think is inaccurate, and why? to give you a glimpse into my perspective, i do not believe that Scripture distorts the picture of God, but i believe that it just provides an incomplete one, because God is infinite and there is no way that a 1400 page book could contain all of who he is. but i do believe that the foundational principles of who he is are found in this book, and i do not believe that they can be disputed if the book says that they are true. i do not deify Scripture—but the speaker of these words is God, the one deity, the Trinity.
Re: Using the Scriptures
Dear Reformed Arminian… I think part of the reason you are not getting answers is because many of us do not share some of your assumptions. Not that your assumptions are wrong (they may or may not be), but we simply might not have the same starting point.
I think Danutz is trying to point out that the proposition "Jesus is God" is quite a lofty claim to set out and prove… and that using the Scriptures isn’t nearly as easy to do as we’d like to believe. It turns out that we need to assume a lot of things about Scripture in order to make that kind of a case. It could be that Danutz doesn’t share your assumptions.
Both Scripturally and experiencially (why do you draw such a deep division between the Bible and experience?), Jesus’ relationship to God is not known through argument, but rather through story and life change. I think it is this idea that Danutz is latching on to (though I could be wrong).
As for your question about the atonement… Well, let me ask you what about Jesus’ divinity makes the atonement valid? Even if Jesus were God the Father, how could his death satisfy the penalty owed someone else??? And please don’t quote a Bible passage. Morally speaking, if God’s justice is so intransigent that he MUST have a sacrifice for every wrongdoing, how can it be so lax as to the object of that punishment? I don’t necessarily disagree with your view mind you, I’m simply highlighting a few of the difficulties of the theory of atonement you seem to be attached to. There are numerous threads on OST on this particular topic, and I would recommend you read them all.
Other views on the atonement would ‘work’ if Jesus had been a mere man. And these are not wacky ‘liberal’ views… many of them are quite well founded in Scripture.
One last note: Scripture is not God’s Word, but rather is the primary witness to God’s Word: Jesus the Messiah. The Word was not made paper, the Word was made flesh… sometimes I think the conservative view of Scripture (inerrant, God-dictated, etc.) approaches idolatry. We do not worship pieces of paper, but rather a living Spirit who moves in all things.
Blessings to all in this Christmas season,
-Daniel-
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
False teachings about God
These scriptures Christians point out are being interpreted incorrectly and I will make proof Jesus isn’t God and Yes! You will still deny what a simple 4 year old child can see as actual fact and truth.
1. Does God pray to himself I have asked many Christians and they all say NO!
2. If God doesn’t pray to himself then explain this.
When Jesus hung on the cross what are the two most known biblical documented things he said?
1. Jesus was Praying.
2. To Whom was Jesus praying to?
1. Answer: Jesus was praying to God.
a. Jesus Prayer: Father why have thou forsaken me?
Definition of Forsaken
1. To desert; to abandon.
Thesaurus: abandon, reject, forswear, cast off, renounce, turn one’s back on.
2. Completely abandoned; forlorn.
Thesaurus: outcast, rejected, abandoned, desolate, forlorn, disowned, jilted, shunned, deserted, discarded, isolated.
2. Answer: Jesus was praying to God.
b. I thought you Christians said God doesn’t pray to himself?
c. Even Jesus doubted God. (Read Definition of Forsaken) that came out of Jesus mouth to God on the cross.
3. Answer: Jesus once again prayed to God and said: Forgive them for they know not what they do.
a. Once again Jesus was praying to God at that moment.
Common Sense: If Jesus is God that means when he was on the cross that God prayed to himself and Christians admit that God doesn’t pray to himself, so all the real facts are on the cross with Jesus praying to God and also losing faith in him as you read what Forsaken means that he said to God.
Now why would God ask himself on the cross why he was forsaken his own self? You Christians say Jesus is God and that’s 100% False.
Definition of False
1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of Jesus.
2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony about God.
3. Not genuine or real: false teachings about Jesus being God.
Can you see the simple insanity here yet?
It’s insanity to deny the actual fact that God isn’t Jesus by saying Jesus is God because when you say Jesus is God then you have contradicted your own words about God not Praying to himself and Jesus did pray and to whom? God the creator of all living things.
See Definition of False
I doubt you will open your eyes to the truth here because your too brain washed by that religion to see the truth due to twisting other scriptures to suit your egotism about Jesus being God.
You can lie to yourself and man; but you can’t to God and when you say Jesus is God, you just lied even if you think you haven’t because all the proof is here in this email.
Jesus Is Not God.
Jesus and God are one in the sense that they work together in harmony; but they are two different deities in one Godly created universe.
Re: Jesus is God... yes & no!
Ivan, Amen brother, that’ll preach!
If Jesus isn’t God, then what good was His atoning death (Rom. 3:25)? If Jesus isn’t God, then how in the world was He able to forgive sins (Mark 2:5)? If Jesus isn’t God, then why did the demons confess Him as such (Mark 5:7)? If Jesus isn’t God, then why did He claim to be one with the Father (John 17:21)? And yes, Isaiah 9:6 proclaims our Savior’s divinity! And yes, Jesus proclaiming to be the I AM (John 8:58) that spoke to Moses in Exodus 3 at the burning bush is a definite sign that at least Jesus thought He was God! Thank you for your response Ivan! Let it be known that none of us would be here today if the God of the universe had not become Emmanuel ("God with us" - Is. 7:14, Matt. 1:23), and paid the price on Calvary that only He could pay. This beautiful truth should show us how wonderful a God we serve, that He would give His life for ours to make Romans 8:1-4 ring joyously true in our hearts!
In Him,
Reformed Arminian