Who is Jesus? Son of God or God?

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Hi, J. Having some trouble with some guy around here, as I see...
Well, have you recieved my last U2U? The one in which I was explaining the body theory.
See ya,
John

You might have to send it again. I'm not the one having the trouble with the understanding, the Word says what it says. Not everyone is given to know what is in that book. Not because they are incapable of recieving revelation, but because they see God through the jaded eyes of an adult. The key is to see Jesus through the heart of a child, through the eyes of a child. They will see him the day they can do that. The children who ran to him, never saw him before, but they knew him when they did see him as did the children in the temple who praised him before he was crucified. The jaded adults didn't praise him, so the children did and even if the adults managed to stop up the mouths of the children the rocks would have cried out. The heart of a child is the key, and through the eyes of a child shall he be seen.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Jesus never claimed to be greater than the Father, but Jesus never said he was not equal to the Father either.

Perhaps you missed the verse i posted, where he said specifically "my Father is GREATER then I" and Greater then all...

Greater then is not "equal to" brother...

Unfortunatly i don't have time today to deal with the rest of your reply... but i think this is a good place to re-evaluate the concept

reply to post by Akragon

Perhaps you missed the verse i posted, where he said specifically "my Father is GREATER then I" and Greater then all...

Sure, when Jesus said this, he was here in the flesh.

God is greater than flesh.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Jesus never claimed to be greater than the Father, but Jesus never said he was not equal to the Father either.

Perhaps you missed the verse i posted, where he said specifically "my Father is GREATER then I" and Greater then all...

Greater then is not "equal to" brother...

Unfortunatly i don't have time today to deal with the rest of your reply... but i think this is a good place to re-evaluate the concept

I'll stand by Philipians 2. Jesus came to be a servant, in human form in humility. This was symbolized by his washing the feet of the disciples before his crucifiction.

reply to post by Deetermined

As for Bible verses pertaining to Christ dying for our sins:

Isaiah 53:4-12

You are bringing up the "Suffering Servant" section of Isaiah.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

You are quoting from the King James, where the translators were under orders to come up with a Bible version that supported the doctrines of the Church of England. There are other newer translations without that bias that do not translate it that way and gives a different meaning than what it says here, where the person is somehow a sacrifice to pay for sins.
Obviously this section of Isaiah is not a prophecy about some future person in particular, but was spelling out an ideal servant based on the model of Moses who was lifted up into heaven after his death so has no sepulcher where people could go to honor him.
There is no way to make a one-for-one correlation, for example, Jesus did not have offspring he could watch from heaven. This is another example of borrowing from an OT source that talked about things that was useful to illustrate the Gospel story as to how Jesus fit into a traditional outlook on what they may have expected.

reply to post by Deetermined

More on Christ dying for our sins:
Hebrews 9:26-28
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Jesus, being a good person could have gone straight to heaven like Enoch or Elijah, but chose to make a sacrifice to help others.
The word translated in your quote from the KJV, verse 26 "to put away" is the Greek word athetesis, which means to abolish. It is not saying to abolish just the guilt of sin, but sin itself. How he did that was to bear the sins and to have them die with him and to be raised up free from those sins and for us to be united as one with the glorified Christ.

Hebrews 7:26-27
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

In chapter 7 of Hebrews, Jesus is being compared to Melchizedek, then having Jesus' unique form of priesthood compared to the one which was in the temple, so the "offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's" was them, and Jesus' priestly service was different, and in one way especially that it was a one time event. The other thing that Hebrews points out as being peculiar to Jesus' priestly service is that he himself was the offering to gain admittance to the most holy place. Once in, he takes that same blood and uses it to consecrate a new covenant, rather than appeasing the demands of the old. In this new system there is no accumulation of sin debt, but a life of holiness in Christ, and all former sins are forgotten.

reply to post by Deetermined

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

See my comments in my post above.
remission = forgiveness, the opposite of payment

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

I'll stand by Philipians 2.

So who "exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,"?
It says God did.
Apparently some other God than Jesus.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Torah. Moses wrote about God period, the Savior Yahweh. The only way he could write about Jesus was if Jesus is Yahweh.

Moses said there would be another prophet like himself who would come and Jesus saw that person as himself.

Acts 3:22 Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers. You must obey him in everything he tells you.

Acts 7:37 This is the Moses who said to the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.’

I don't understand why any Christian would consider Jesus as the Creator, maybe the spirit of Jesus has joined back but Jesus always spoke of himself as not the Father.

I can understand why humans are so quick to argue though, they just like to bicker like ignorant animals that can talk over very small things that we know nothing about.

reply to post by greyer

I don't understand why any Christian would consider Jesus as the Creator, maybe the spirit of Jesus has joined back but Jesus always spoke of himself as not the Father.

This strange "Jesus=The Father/Creator" theology is something I have come across only in the last few years.

Most Christians include Jesus and the Holy Spirit as part of God. But these christians follow what appears to be an entirely different theology... that Jesus is the Creator himself.

Either way, my point of view is that Christians argue among themselves regarding the status of Jesus.... so till they sort that out between themselves, they are really in no position to preach anything to anyone.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by greyer

 

I don't understand why any Christian would consider Jesus as the Creator, maybe the spirit of Jesus has joined back but Jesus always spoke of himself as not the Father.

This strange "Jesus=The Father/Creator" theology is something I have come across only in the last few years.

Most Christians include Jesus and the Holy Spirit as part of God. But these christians follow what appears to be an entirely different theology... that Jesus is the Creator himself.

Either way, my point of view is that Christians argue among themselves regarding the status of Jesus.... so till they sort that out between themselves, they are really in no position to preach anything to anyone.

Well, I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was the Father (and that makes zero sense, so I'm not surprised,) but Jesus as creator, that's nothing new.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3 NIV)

That's pretty cut and dry, I would say.

reply to post by adjensen

Well, I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was the Father (and that makes zero sense, so I'm not surprised,) but Jesus as creator, that's nothing new.

You must have missed the OPs sig declaring Jesus is Yahweh.
Yahweh is understood by most christians to be God in the Old Testament... i.e - The father.'

So this Jesus = Yahweh theology basically teaches that Jesus is the Father.... defying basic logic and common sense.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I don't argue in linguistics. If you want to, wait for OP to return.

reply to post by adjensen

I don't argue in linguistics. If you want to, wait for OP to return.

What linguistics?
I'm posting what christians believe in straight forward terms?

a) christians know Yahweh to be the God of the Old Testament. (Yes or no?)
b) Yahweh was the one who Jesus called "Father" (Yes or no?)

These are direct statements... feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

So... when someone says "Jesus is Yahweh" is the same as saying Jesus is the Father.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
So... when someone says "Jesus is Yahweh" is the same as saying Jesus is the Father.

Like I said, linguistics, take it up with the person who made the claims.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not a simple concept. If you don't understand it, go do some reading: The Blessed Trinity. We are not theology professors, it's not on us to get you up to speed.

reply to post by adjensen

Like I said, linguistics, take it up with the person who made the claims.

Then the post you replied to earlier was not addressed to you.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is not a simple concept. If you don't understand it, go do some reading: The Blessed Trinity. We are not theology professors, it's not on us to get you up to speed.

I've read enough on the trinity to know that its unbiblical....and that Jesus never said anything about God being a trinity.
And no I'm not asking any of you to get me "up to speed" on an unbiblical doctrine.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by adjensen
I've read enough on the trinity to know that its unbiblical....and that Jesus never said anything about God being a trinity.

I would suggest that you reread John, then. If there is no trinity, you're going to be a little hard pressed to sort that out (and, in a less clear fashion, the rest of the New Testament -- the Doctrine of the Trinity is pretty much ever present in those books.)

And no I'm not asking any of you to get me "up to speed" on an unbiblical doctrine.

If Christ isn't divine, then who is he? As the New Testament defines him as divine, do you reject that text? And if you do, what are you arguing with me about?

Who is Jesus Christ, to you?

I'll look for your answers in the morning :-)

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Done! See ya around.

reply to post by adjensen


The only actual reference to the trinity within the bible is in 1 john which reads...

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

and its well known that verse 5:7 was inserted much later.... because its not found in any original documents...

Comma Johanneum

Skorpion is right... the trinity is completely unbiblical... it found its way into christianity some 300 years after the fact...