Trinity - How can Jesus be God if he is the Son of God? (myth, belief)

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by Reformed Liberal

Could you show me that link other than the Jdub's site. That's the first I heard of that and I dabble in ancient greek and I don't know how you got that from that verse.



Isn't that a bit of a stretch, he criticizes people that call Him good, which the rich ruler didn't totally understand but he does not rebuke people for calling Him God????
[How about Jesus meant, be careful using the term "good" loosely because no human can claim it only God is good, so if you are calling me good then you are calling me God and if you are calling me God then you must believe.
Jesus already knew that the rich ruler would not give up his money therefore the young ruler was not ready to hear the gospel, notice Jesus let Him go and didn't call him back. Jesus wanted the ruler to see the seriousness of his question, therefore he took the young ruler through the Laws.
This story has nothing to do that Jesus rejected He was God. This story is about the Ten Commandments and how the rich young ruler was breaking the "idolatry" commandment. His God was money and he wasn't willing to give it up for anything.]

Thomas called Jesus, "my Lord my God"??? what was in question here?

Something you should know about me is that I will never reference websites when answering a question. Neither will I examine links unless I know them to be factual. So you don't have to worry about my ever referring you to a Watchtower website.

The reason some bible translations word John 1:1 differently deals w/ the fact that Jesus is stated as being 'with' God and 'God' in the same verse in the KJ. Scholars have debated this over the years. The absence of the definite article 'ho' before 'theos' in this instance is reason enough for some who are schooled in ancient greek to render the verse as I mentioned in my prior post.

I think Jesus' response to the one who calls him 'Good' (regardless of his reason) shows that he is not claiming equality w/ God. If you don't agree, I'm not asking you to. Thomas' thinking when he called Christ 'my god' is unknown to us. Jesus did not reprimand him (that we know of) and we don't know why. You may speculate if you wish and determine that this means he is claiming to be God. But keep in mind, there are many 'gods' and Jesus divine nature does qualify him as such. It doesnt mean that he is the Almighty God, however and I don't believe that he is.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

The Word was God is not an accurate translation of the Greek. Some bible translations read 'The Word was a god', 'the Word was godlike', or 'the Word was divine'. Therefore, it doesnt render him equality with Almight God. It simply describes his position prior to his human existence, in the busom position with his Father. This is in keeping w/ verse 18 of the same verse which says that 'no man has seen God at any time'.

He does rebuke people for calling him 'Good' if you'll remember, proclaiming that no one is Good but God.. Evidently, Thomas' devotion to God was not in question when he made this statement or Jesus would most certainly have rebuked him. When examined contextually, I do not believe there is confusion.

Hello alicenavada,

Good luck with all the scripture that says there is but one God and then to say there is another God. Its quite simple ,there is the divine and the created. The divine has always been and has a common will. Moses himself saw God but not his face thus there is the lessor and the greater(Exodus 33:20-23). If it has divinity, it is God, if its created, it is not.

Isaiah 48

12"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
(W)I am He, (X)I am the first, I am also the last.
13"Surely My hand (Y)founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;

Revelation 1

17When I saw Him, I (BI)fell at His feet like a dead man And He (BJ)placed His right hand on me, saying, "(BK)Do not be afraid; (BL)I am the first and the last, 18and the (BM)living One; and I (BN)was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have (BO)the keys of death and of Hades.

Polytheism differers in that their will differs. Zeus had his agenda and Apollo his. They did not know the mind of the other. Christianity does not have the concept of opposing or different wills but is a matter of what is manifested. My immune system without my conscious over site, removes pathogens because that is of my will to live. If a tissue were to become alien to my will we consider that a tumor or something that is no longer what I am. Again this all boils to if God is one , then he is one of what?

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by gwynedd1

Hello alicenavada,
Its quite simple ,there is the divine and the created. The divine has always been and has a common will.

Thank you. This is exactly the reason I believe as I do.

[gwynedd1]

Originally Posted by freedom

Which is it?

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

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Apparently one that is Filled with the Holy Ghost is able to see God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.

So you are correct when you say man has a tough time understanding, but with the spirit of God there is no mystery. The Holy Spirit can and will lead one into All truth.

godspeed,

freedom

Hi freedom,

When we say we see an apple we have only seen the skin of an apple. It is just as Moses saw him but not his face.

[Fundamentalist]

Originally Posted by alicenavada

I think Jesus' response to the one who calls him 'Good' (regardless of his reason) shows that he is not claiming equality w/ God.If you don't agree, I'm not asking you to

I see NO such evidence in that passage to make such an absolute statement claiming for or against. You can speculate but not enough to know absolutely.

Thomas' thinking when he called Christ 'my god' is unknown to us. Jesus did not reprimand him (that we know of) and we don't know why. You may speculate if you wish and determine that this means he is claiming to be God.

No speculation. I never said, Jesus claimed to be God. I said, that the bible does blur the line in these passages I have provided. simply stating we don't know when it is clear as day Jesus did not rebuke him for such a blasphemous statement does not argue well enough against believing. You say, no blurring, That it is clear Jesus is not God yet when you come across confusing passages. you say, we don't know. I thought it was clear?

But keep in mind, there are many 'gods' and Jesus divine nature does qualify him as such. It doesnt mean that he is the Almighty God, however and I don't believe that he is.

If Jesus is a created being then He is not a god or God.

last question. How is Jesus (created being) death sufficient for all man's sins?

[alicenevada]

Originally Posted by Reformed Liberal

I see NO such evidence in that passage to make such an absolute statement claiming for or against. You can speculate but not enough to know absolutely.

No speculation. I never said, Jesus claimed to be God. I said, that the bible does blur the line in these passages I have provided. simply stating we don't know when it is clear as day Jesus did not rebuke him for such a blasphemous statement does not argue well enough against believing.

If Jesus is a created being then He is not a god or God.

last question. How is Jesus (created being) death sufficient for all man's sins?

You deny that the fact that the definite article appears before one instance of 'theos' and is absent before the second is odd? That it deserves notice? I find it quite remarkable. Speculation aside, it has been counted as worthy of attention from several bible translations. The fact The Word is 'with God' in the same sentence is reason enough for me to assume that ' a god' or 'divine' is a more accurate rendering.

The story of Thomas recongizing his Lord is profound. But so many people miss the point of it because of this statement of his. The point of the entire account is to show that though he lacked faith in the resurrection of Christ at first, he believed when Jesus made it physically clear to him. What he said (obviously in shock and wonderment) at the time is so unimportant when compared to those facts. Even if he had called him 'mom', I doubt that Jesus would have rebuked the poor guy.

Jesus can't be called 'god' if he is created? Most gods are created, arent they? And the term does not just refer to the Almighty so therefore gods can indeed be created.

Oh, and he's sufficient for all man's sins because he is perfect. Perfection buys perfection. Remember 'God gave his only begotten son'. Where is the power in that if God only gave part of Himself?

[bluepacific]

What I've always found fascinating about this subject is that you never see it as an issue of contention or even debated among Christians or Jews in the Bible. Seems like most of the debates came out of the Third & Fourth Centuries with all those eunemical councils such as in Nicea, Contantinople and Ephesus.

Also, if it's such a profound foundational doctrine, then why isn't it just plainly stated so in the Bible as opposed to all these secretive and mysterious word games and phrazes that only a handful of self-proclaimed intellectuals are able to decipher and share with the common peasants????

[Meerkat2]

Originally Posted by World Citizen

Plurality in the unity of God is implied in the Old Testament.
Father, Son, and Spirit are all called "God" in the New Testament.

Naves Topical Bible

" Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Matthew 28:18-20

World Citizen,

If Jesus is "God" why does he need the Father to give him authority, surely if he were the ultimate "God" in his own right he would not need anything given to him. He is the son of "God". I think where all of this confusion comes from is there are different names for different concepts of "God" and English only has one word for "God"

Jesus is the son of Yahweh but he is not Yahweh, he is Elohim.

[I LOVE NORTH CAROLINA]

Originally Posted by meerkat2

World Citizen,

If Jesus is "God" why does he need the Father to give him authority, surely if he were the ultimate "God" in his own right he would not need anything given to him. He is the son of "God". I think where all of this confusion comes from is there are different names for different concepts of "God" and English only has one word for "God"

Jesus is the son of Yahweh but he is not Yahweh, he is Elohim.

Because Jesus is not only God, He is fully man too. They are separate but one.
Elohim is just one of many names for Jesus.

[alicenevada]

From bluepacific-Also, if it's such a profound foundational doctrine, then why isn't it just plainly stated so in the Bible as opposed to all these secretive and mysterious word games and phrazes that only a handful of self-proclaimed intellectuals are able to decipher and share with the common peasants????


I agree w/ this wholeheartedly. If God wants us to develop a relationship with him through reading of his Word and prayer, then why would he make his very nature such a mystery?