[Jonegy]

You think? In your worm's eye view of mankind's rekigious experience, why did you leave out Akhenaton's monotheism? ???



M:)

Had a quick look on Wikipedia - yes it "appears" he did initiate proto-monotheism - not being an egyptologist or theologist this fact hadn't come across my path although I had remembered his wife was Nefertiti.

Re "my worm's eye view" -

I bow to the "expert" - and we all know the definition of an "expert"

[galveston]

Morganite,
I understand your answer when you assert that Jesus never SAID that He is God. Aren't we missing something in this discussion? The concept that the Eternal Son laid aside His attributes of Diety(omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience) when He came to earth as a human baby? He read the Scripture "The spirit of the LORD is upon me - - -" announcing that it had just been fulfilled. Jesus operated in the power of the Holy Spirit, independent of His deity powers. Otherwise, we could never hope to emulate Him, which thing He consistently taught we should do after we are filled with that same Holy Spirit, as in Acts 2:4 and later recorded occurrences. Just because He never claimed to be the Father, or the Holy Spirit does not mean that He is not Deity. He has been given all power and judgment, and when the last rebel has been put away and proper order restored to the universe, He will turn everything back over to the Father. (I'm sure you can find all the relevant verses.) I like some of your points!

[hashyash]

I believe that Jesus is God
Jesus is God manifested in the Flesh . 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Jesus DID say I and my father are one. John 10:30

[Morganite]

Remember When Peter Called Jesus The Messiah? Jesus Told Him This Was Revealed To Him By The Father In Heaven. Bear In Mind That "emanuel" In Hebrew Means "god Be With Us."

A slight but significant correction. Immanuel means: "God with us" or "with us is God." "God be with us" is a prayer for the Presence, not a statement of Presence.

M:)

I believe that Jesus is God
Jesus is God manifested in the Flesh . 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Jesus DID say I and my father are one. John 10:30

'Are' is plural. He did not say "I and my father IS one."

He did not say "I AMthe father."

He said "My father is greater than me" "Why do you call me good? There is only one good and that is God!"

Etc.

M:)

Had a quick look on Wikipedia - yes it "appears" he did initiate proto-monotheism - not being an egyptologist or theologist this fact hadn't come across my path although I had remembered his wife was Nefertiti.

Re "my worm's eye view" -

I bow to the "expert" - and we all know the definition of an "expert"

I assure you that I am not under pressure!

:)

M:)

[Morganite]

Morganite,
I understand your answer when you assert that Jesus never SAID that He is God. Aren't we missing something in this discussion? The concept that the Eternal Son laid aside His attributes of Diety(omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience) when He came to earth as a human baby? He read the Scripture "The spirit of the LORD is upon me - - -" announcing that it had just been fulfilled. Jesus operated in the power of the Holy Spirit, independent of His diety powers. Otherwise, we could never hope to emulate Him, which thing He consistently taught we should do after we are filled with that same Holy Spirit, as in Acts 2:4 and later recorded occurrences. Just because He never claimed to be the Father, or the Holy Spirit does not mean that He is not Diety. He has been given all power and judgment, and when the last rebel has been put away and proper order restored to the universe, He will turn everything back over to the Father. (I'm sure you can find all the relevant verses.) I like some of your points!

Galveston,

You are quite correct, and your reference to kenotic Christology supplies what once was an essential element in our quest for understanding of the differences between God the Father and God the Son, and militates cogently against any view that they are or could be the same Person.

Kenotic Christology, which you appear to understand well, is a doctrine of the person of Christ that seeks to understand him in terms of a kenosis or self-emptying of the Logos, whereby it was able to manifest itself in the finite life of a human being. Advocates of kenotic christology are uneasy about theological developments except as they refer to the humanity of Christ, an idea for which they try to give place in their thinking.

Kenoticism is a kind of mediating theology incorporating the traditional incarnational understanding of Christ, but modifying it in such a way as to safeguard against those docetic tendencies that seem to have dislodged the classical christology of past centuries.

One of the earliest and most ardent promoters of kenoticism was Soren Kierkergaard whose parable of the incarnation contains not merely a krypsis (hiding) but a genuine renunciation or emptying (kenosis). The word kenosis is an allusion to Paul's (some scholars think it is pre-Pauline) famous hymn in praise of Christ:

"Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not count on equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (heauton ekenose), taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and evefry tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father."
[Philemon 2.4-8]

Proponents of kenoticism rely heavily on this passage and, to a lesser extent, on 2 Corinthians 8.9:

"For you know the grace of our Lord jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich"

Probably the most persuasive argument for kenoticism came from the pen of Gottfried Thomasius in his "Christi Person und Werk." He subtitles it 'The Exposition of Evangelical-Lutheran Dogmatics from the Centre-point of Christology.' It might be available in translation.

Thomasius explicitly separates himself from Schleiermacher's position that the person of Christ is to be understood as the completion of the creation of humanity, and even more strongly from Strauss's view that it expresses the general truth of the unity between the divine and the human. Both these views are unsatisfactory because they fail to make adequate distinciton between creaturely being and the being of God, although Thomasius does not go as far as Kierkegaard in thinking that there is an infinite qualitive difference between the divine and the human. He holds that man has the capacity for receiving God and being penetrated by God, and he claims that such affinity is a necessary presupposition for a doctrine of the incarnation.

Thomasius also sood firmly behind the position of Lutheran christology, the dominant tradition of which maintained that akhtough the Logos infinitely surpasses in knowledge, life, and action the bounds of a merely human existence, yet in the mystery of the incarnation, the Logos was wholly present in Christ and nothing of the Logos remained outside of him.

This is in direct opposition to Calivinist christology that during the incarnation the Logos also existed outside of Christ (illud extra Calvinisticum). Thomasius believed that if one admitted such an existence of the Logos outside of Christ, then one would get into the difficulties of a dual personlaity. For only if one holds - as othodoxy is supposed to require - that though there are two natures in the incarnate Christ, there is a unitary person, and this is the divine person of the Logos, is dualism avoided. If you can perform the mental gymnastic required to understand what the argument is about, then it is difficult not to give Thomasius the point!

For if the person of the Logos is the person of Christ, then we not are forced to postulate a double personality? But how can the infinite Logos be reduced or compressed (speaking metaphorically, but earnestly) into the finite compass of the human Jesus? At this point we recognise Thomasius' problem as being the problem of all christologies, and the language must almost certainly always be metaphorical. How can the infinite be revealed in the finite? If we are to think of the infinite making itself known in and through the finite, whether in an incarnation or in some other way, therem mustn be some reductions, some dimming down, some filtering, some contraction of scale, some kenosis.

Then we are left to ask. If such a dimming down, reduction, or emptying actually took place, must this not have resulted in the failure to reveal all? If the divinity of the Logos has was so diminished how could the infinity of God be revealed?

In the incarnation it is claimed that God - the Logos - divested hmself of some of his divine attributes, particularly omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in order that the unchangeable and invisible Almighty God could relate to the world as a human being, indistinguishable from other all human beings. This is an insurmountable difficulty unless Jesus Christ is who he revealed himself as being, which is not God the father ("My Father is greater than I"), but the Son of God: the Son who had emptied himself of the glory and power he had shared with his Father at Creation and who prayed in Gethsemane that they might be restored to him.

It is evident that the incarnate Lord was no omnipotent man, no omniscient man, no miracle worker, but one who exercised no other lordship than the ethical one of truth and love. If God the Father had emptied himself of the divine attributes that the Son temporarily laid aside, then he would have ceased to be Almighty God. Christ's whole exercise of power was absorbed in his world-redeeming activities.

Kenoticism is not without its cruitics, and rightly so. The major assault to the Thomasian view was best voiced by Sanday of Oxford, who acknowledged the dostrine was not without merit, but objected that it made too much of a relatively small section of biblical material and ignored the major NT teachings about the person of Christ. A more damaging view came from Rischl who pointed out the difficulty of seeking to maintain that the essential or immanent attributes of the divine Logos [absolute power, truth, holiness, and love] are retained in the incarnate Christ, while the relative attributes [omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence] are divested, because, he argues, 'even if omnipotence and the like are only relative attributes of God and of the divine Logos - relative, that is, in relation to the world - is not this very relation the limit within which alone any knowledge of God is possible?Moreover, the conception of the divine Logos has its origin exclusively in the relation of God to the world, so that we cease to conceive the Logos of God in the way which the conception itself requires, if in any particuilar case we think away his whole relation top the world."

Others observed that Thomasius seemed to be laying claim to a detailed 'inside' knowledge of the pre-existent Word, and if one could know so much of the Logos prior to the incarnation, what was then the point of the incarnation or what fresh revelation could it bring?

Kenoticism has had its best days. It flowered briefly in Germany, and later in England, and had a brief appearance under the redoubtable scholar Bishop Charles Gore, onetime Bishop of Oxford. although Gore later abandoned it, since when it is little more than a talking point in which theologians and shcolarly ministers take an historical interest, while non-scholarly ministers and intersted laypersons struggle to get their heads aorund it, and all it entails, suggests, and are all equally disappointed when they eventually come up against its major obstacles and contradictions. Those who still maintian that kenotic christology is the way to go have chosen a poor hill to die on.

Thank you, Galveston, for stirring up in me a remembrance of interesting things past.



M:)RGANITE

[arcura]

The posts on this have been very interesting to me. There has been a lot of thought involved in several of them.
While I do believe that Jesus Christ is both the son of God and God the Son part of the holy trinity, I find other points of view to be thought provoking and very interesting to see how others believe and approach that belief.
I hope such post continue on this subject: Did Jesus say He is God and in what ways did He indicate such?
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[RickJ]

Morganite disagrees (with this): Jesus did not say he was God - Thomas called him God. The argument from silence that because there is no record of what Jesus said in reponse is unsatisfactory. Many thungs will have been said at that tinme of which there is no record come down.

I can't be sure if the disagreement is that it's a bad argument or that Jesus is not God, so I'll add to it.

Since the NT seems to imply it, the earliest Christians discussed it at length and agreed that he IS. It is a staple of Christianity, period.

So no, Christ did not say "I am God and I mean that literaly". Christians and non-Christians alike must agree with this

... so it's fine for one to argue that He is not God, but that's not any different than a Christian saying Ganesha is not a God.

Now, if one who calls himself Christian says "Jesus is not God", then that is material for a thread all by itself...

... and regarding "record coming down", that's an easy one. How far back can we go to see "Christian" teaching that he is NOT God? I know of a group that started in the 1800s that has become quite popular... but up to then the "variety" of Christians are in agreement.

[Hope12]

Hello,
That is a very popular belief in our time. But did you know that this is not what was taught by Jesus and his disciples? So, we worship the One that Jesus said to worship.’ ‘When Jesus was teaching, here is the commandment that he said was greatest.. . Mark 12:28-30 28 Now one of the scribes that had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’

.Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. He said.. . John 14:28 “28 YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am”
Matt. 24:36 “36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” For any who believe Jesus is God, perhaps you can explain it to me.’ ‘If the Son is equal to the Father, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son does not?’

A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:

Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to Him : Read the Bible!

(Matthew 3:17) Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

(John 8:42) Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth.

(John 14:28) YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.

(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”

(1 Corinthians 11:3) But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.

(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.

A voice from the heavens that said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’”—MATTHEW 3:17.
Here are some scriptures that those who try to teach that Jesus is God. Each one of these scriptures point to the fact that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and they are two separate beings. Those who try to prove their false teaching use these scripture. If anyone want to go through them one at a time, and discuss why and how they prove that Jesus is Not God, I will be happy to do so. Just let me know. All of these scriptures prove that Jesus is not God.

Genesis 1:1:
Genesis 1:26:
Deuteronomy 6:4:
Isaiah 7:14:
Isaiah 9:6:
Isaiah 43:10:
Isaiah 43:11
Isaiah 44:6:
Micah 5:2:
Matthew 1:23:
Matthew 3:16,
Matthew 28:19
John 1:1:
John 1:18
John 1:23
John 2:19
John 5:18
John 8:58
John 10:30
John 14:9:
Acts 20:28:
Romans 9:5
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
2 Corinthians 13:14
Philippians 2:5, 6
Colossians 2:9
1 Timothy 3:16
Titus 2:13
Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:10-12
1 John 5:7
1 John 5:20
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:17
Revelation 22:12
Revelation 22:13
Just what I have understood from the Bible.

Take care,
Hope12

[arcura]

That was a lot of work but I still believe in the Trinity - Three persons in ONE GOD.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arucra)

[galveston]

Morganite,
Point #6: The Bible should have said "Reed Sea", not "Red Sea". Does it really make a difference? How deep is the Reed sea? Deep enough to drown an army? I know that conventional wisdom says that Egypt could not have lost its king and army at that time, but when you take into consideration that several of the kings of Egypt certainly could have reigned concurrently rather than consecutively, it becomes easily possible. Egypts history does (I believe) show a time when one king reigned for a long time, followed by a very short reign, then followed by a queen ruling over a much reduced Egypt. I'm not sure you are deyning any miracle at the sea or just correcting a name.

Morganite,
Your enlightenment on kenoticism is good, but something is being overlooked in most, if not all, of this whole discussion. What is being left out is the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed the complete anointing of the Holy Spirit (who proceeds from the Father). Every work that Jesus did and every thing that He taught was by the Holy Spirit. When we understand that, all of the seeming conflicts that have been pointed out about kenoticism disappear. Jesus was the first vessel that the Holy Spirit was poured into in that fashion, but that same Holy Spirit was later poured into the members of the first Church at Jerusalem, enabling them to continue the ministry that Jesus (The Son of Jehovah) began.

[arcura]

Galvaston,
AND the Holy Spirit resides in all who accept him.
Peace and kindness to all.
Fred (arcura)

[STONY]

Ah Yes, Let's Examine The Word Expert Phonetically. First Of All An "ex" Is A Has Been And A "spert" Is A Drip Under Pressure... lol.
Thanks For Bringing That Joke To Mind. Haven't Told It In Years But It Still Brings A Smile To This Old Face.

[galveston]

Arcura,
Yes, absolutely, the Holy Spirit does indeed fill those human vessels who will approach The Father, through the Son, even in this late day.
You know, I re-read the origingal question and realized that there were actually two questions asked, not one. No wonder we have so many divergent views!

[arcura]

galveston.
That was very observant. I wonder how many others noticed that.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[wbminyard]

One answer to this question was with Godly Wisdom.
Another answer to this question was with secular confusion.
Since we are talking about eternity, it is important to know the difference...

[arcura]

Yes it is important to know the difference,
But I'm at a loss, to which 2 answers are you referring?
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

[Morganite]

Mr. Starman,
If You Read In Gen. It Speaks Of God Creating Mankind. "let Us Create Man In Our Own Image." The "us" And "our"
In That Statement Make It A Corporate Decision Between The Father, Son And Holy Spirit As To The Creation Of Mankind.

Thank you for pointing out the three Gods.



M:)

[xeurobebex]

Jesus never said he was GOD n yes he said he was the light n all that but did he not always talk about his father ? He never said he was GOD he said he was the son of GOD... but when his talkn his talkn for one person because it is believed that jesus and the holy spirit are one with god

[arcura]

Morganite, that is three person in one God just like you are a trinity of mind, spirit and body all in one being.

xeurobebex, perhaps you had better re-read the original post again. Jesus did say that he and the father are one being, that is God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[xeurobebex]

.. jesus never said he was GOD he said he was the son of GOD... and it is said that jesus n the holy spirit r one with god