'How Jesus Became God': Skeptic scholar asks why it matters

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | 1/04/15 | Rebecca I. Denova

[Kackikat]

Amen.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

It was the council of Nicea in 325 Anno Domini that much of the 'other gospels' were lost and/or discredited. That is when the politics of the the Roman emperor Constantine forced the different groups that called themselves ‘Christian’ to consolidate. I fear much was lost at this time and modern religious scholars become archaeologists and must pick through the trash heaps of the holy lands to try to glean anything.

A significant myth. Christendom was fighting these false Christians and their fake Gospels from day one, and yet affirming our own work-- if not explicitly giving a list (though Papias lists 4 Gospels), then at least by quoting the vast majority of the New Testament even as soon as before the 1st century had even concluded.

As for looking into "dust bins." If you want to know what you're missing, these false Gospels are indeed available. You can go read the Gospel of Thomas, for example, and discover that it was likely written by a retard without a Jewish background, if you compare what it says and its qualities with the very Jewish New Testament.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Importantly, these men were very well read, accomplished scholars, so were not just armchair opinionaters. They were working from the best references and resources available. So they not only had to define what Christianity was, but immediately defend it against comparisons to other religions that had at least some similarities.

Who are these people you are referring to? I am quite confident these people debating about how to define Christianity and faced with "predicaments" exist entirely in your own mind.

[Zuriel]

**It took me hours with my cold (than normal) stiff fingers to write this, by God’s grace, and i think i am done for a while.**

I can relate. The wife and I have the thermostat dialed back to 65. But, I am grateful to not be working today. As a flatbed/stepdeck semi driver, I’d be dealing with chaining, strapping, and tarping in a snow storm. I hate fighting a cold stiff tarp. I’m off tomorrow as well, thank God.

Anyway, here’s at least a partial reply, since there are other chores awaiting me.

Are you and your words two separate and distinct persons?

Jesus Christ spent a great deal of time explaining that he is in the Father and the Father is in him. He gives the Father credit for ALL of the divine power placed in him.

So, when Thomas worshipped him as Lord and God, he was acknowledging Him as Lord, AND as the express image of the INVISIBLE God that dwelled in Christ. The Lord had taught him individually that the Father was in him (Jn 14:5-7), and expounded futher to Philip and the rest of the disciples as the passage continues.

To every verse you present, intending to show Jesus Christ as a person of God, separate and distinct from the Father, I will simply agree with the Son, and say: When you see Jesus Christ, you are seeing the Father, just as he taught his disciples.

And his divine words are from the Father. He said that many times.

Peter is probably believed by all on this thread to have full revelation of the Godhead. The Son confirmed his witness. Later, his preaching on Pentecost, and to the house of Cornelius, not only give testamony to the plan of salvation, but display that revelation of the Godhead to the hearers. Everyone should read those two passages slowly and carefully.

It should be noted that Paul also understood the Godhead. He declared that the fullness of the Godhead is found bodily IN Jesus Christ. Want to find the Father? Paul said look to Christ. Just as Christ told Thomas and the others to.

**Indeed: “Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” (John 12:44-45) And which is because He is God as the visible person of the Trinity.**

You started out great, using the scriptures. You should have harmonized them with the similar verses of chapter 14. Instead, you interpret at the end, also ignoring Paul’s declaration that the Christ is the image of the INVISIBLE God. Yes, God is invisible, but his attributes are wonderfully displayed to man, by a man that he made, and dwells in.

Peter declared “that God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”.

As I said, Paul understood the Godhead perfectly, showing it even in his salutations near the beginning of his epistles; “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Notice it doesn’t say “..and God the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Notice that Paul also doesn’t add, “and from God the Holy Ghost”. That’s because that Paul knew that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father.

Paul knew that the only God is God the Father, and that he is fully, without limit, IN Jesus Christ, and has MADE this same Jesus both Lord and Christ.

**But what you left out is what Heb. 1 goes on to say, which as with other examples, attributes to the Son Scriptures which originally were ascribed towards God.**

I left out nothing. When you see that God the Father is a Spirit, and omnipresent, and that he has placed his Spirit without limit and irremovable IN Christ, then you see Christ as he intended his disciples, and you and I, to see him.

Concerning Hebrews chap 1: IF you believe in a literal handing over of power from one God the image, to another God the image, the first image is from henceforth powerless.

I will pose the same riddle to you, as I have to others, personalizing it of course:

Are you ‘Massachusetts the daniel1212’, or ‘daniel1212 of Massachusetts’?

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

No, I am but one person.

The Scriptures however reveal God is three distinct persons. The Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Christ is uncreated.

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

“From one God the image, to the other God the image”

Here is revealed the total lack of understanding Christian doctrine. There is no “other God”.
Christians insist and have for 2,000 years, there is only ONE God.

The Father calls the Son “God”. He doesn’t call Him another God.

Jehovah Witnesses deliberately misstate the Trinity, why??

[one Lord one faith one baptism]

Is the Holy Spirit a person or just an impersonal force or power?

[Zuriel]

**Jesus Christ is uncreated.**

So, ‘Son’ is just a position designation in a heirarchy, by your interpretation.

Paul says that the Son is “the image of the INVISIBLE God, the firstborn of every creature”. Col. 1:15

John says that the “faithful and true witness” is the “beginning of the creation of God”. Rev. 2:14

[Zuriel]

**Here is revealed the total lack of understanding Christian doctrine. There is no “other God”.**

Well, your trinity doctrine teaches that one person of God, hands over his power to another person of God, making the former person of God no longer in power. That’s your logic, so go ahead and own it.

In the garden, when Jesus Christ prayed to the Father, he called the Father ‘the only true God’.

After his resurrection, when speaking to Mary Magdalene, Jesus Christ told her that “I ascend unto my Father, and to your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Jn 20:17

[21twelve]

That was my thought as well. It may be hard for me to understand the words/translations in their meaning - along with all of the knowledge of other parts of the Bible and history. But the religious people in charge at the time fully understood what Jesus was claiming. (And was/is).

[Zuriel]

**Is the Holy Spirit a person or just an impersonal force or power?**

The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, to do the will of the Father. It does not have a will of it’s own. (see Jn 16:13). The Son had his own will, which was not to die, but said, “not my will, but thine, be done”.

As there is no phrase ‘God the Son’ in the scripture, neither is there a phrase, ‘God the Holy Ghost’ (Spirit). That is not by accident, or by oversight.

[21twelve]

“Is the Holy Spirit a person or just an impersonal force or power?”

We did a Bible study last year. I had always thought of the Holy Spirit as a force (although not impersonal). But the study claimed and referenced scripture that the Holy Spirit is a “person”.

I'm not sure of all the mechanics of it all (Holy Spirit as a “person”, the Trinity as One, etc.) But I do know that my relationship with God is not some with some nebulous force - but is a personal one. And perhaps different attributes of God I relate to the different forms of the Trinity. (Miracles = Holy Spirit, Salvation = Jesus, Grace = God, etc. Of course those get moved around all the time depending on my circumstances, mood, season of the church, etc.)

[daniel1212]

Are you and your words two separate and distinct persons?

No, as my word is not even a person, as Scripture says the Word is, and that person is explicitly said to be God. Your tactic is that of not dealing with the concept as God reveals it.

Christ is also called the Lamb of God, the Door, and many other metaphors, but Christ is a also person and is called the Word because words express who were are. Creation also expresses God, as do all God's words. But the Word expressly does so and is a person and as person He is God, who took upon flesh. .

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

He gives the Father credit for ALL of the divine power placed in him.

Which commitment of function and authority is not contrary to Christ being God by nature. There is order within the Trinity.

So, when Thomas worshipped him as Lord and God, he was acknowledging Him as Lord, AND as the express image of the INVISIBLE God that dwelled in Christ.

Please. This is reading into the text what is necessary to conform to your Arianism. Thomas did not say. "My express image of the INVISIBLE God," by "My Lord and my God," which is consistent with John's theme of the word being God by nature, and the one Isaiah saw in His glory.

You started out great, using the scriptures. You should have harmonized them with the similar verses of chapter 14. Instead, you interpret at the end,

Wrong, unlike you here i stuck with the scriptures which teach that the LORD whom Isaiah saw in His glory in Is. 6 was Christ. "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." (John 12:41) This is what clearly defines why "he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." (John 12:45) He that believe on The Son, believe on the Father, as Christ is God. "...we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)

Peter declared “that God hath MADE that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ”.

Exactly, which does not say "made God," but "made Lord" since Lord and Christ here refers to function, not nature. The Son was God by nature before His resurrection: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.., (Hebrews 1:8)

And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: (Hebrews 1:10) Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:8)

But being the Divine Son of God the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, (1 John 4:14) and having accomplished that He was functionally given authority to "reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:25)

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Acts 2:34,35) After which time the Father shall once again functionally reign as God overall. (1Co. 15:28)

As I said, Paul understood the Godhead perfectly, showing it even in his salutations near the beginning of his epistles; “Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

And as Paul understood the Godhead, He does not simply say "God" as distinct from Christ, but "God the Father," with Christ being Lord in function, but wholly uniquely one with the Father in uncreated Divine nature.

Thus, Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:8)

Notice that Paul also doesn’t add, “and from God the Holy Ghost”. That’s because that Paul knew that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father.

Same distinction without a difference as regards being God, and thus, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi, a city of Macedonia, by Titus and Lucas. (2 Corinthians 13:14)

I left out nothing.

You have indeed.

Concerning Hebrews chap 1: IF you believe in a literal handing over of power from one God the image, to another God the image, the first image is from henceforth powerless.

That conclusion would only follow is we are referring to nature vs.function. The Father making the LORD of glory the Lord in function does not leave the former without power.

I will pose the same riddle to you, as I have to others, personalizing it of course: Are you ‘Massachusetts the daniel1212’, or ‘daniel1212 of Massachusetts’?

A logical fallacy as the analogy does not have full correspondence. If daniel1212 was said to be Massachusetts than i could be both. Son of God denotes position, as can Lord, while God denotes uncreated nature.

[Diamond]

Paul says that the Son is “the image of the INVISIBLE God, the firstborn of every creature”. Col. 1:15

John says that the “faithful and true witness” is the “beginning of the creation of God”. Rev. 2:14

I think you mean Rev. 3:14, but are you saying that the Son is a created being?

Colossians 1:15

The image (eikwn). In predicate and no article. On eikwn, see 2 Corinthians 4:4 ; 2 Corinthians 3:18 ; Romans 8:29 ; Colossians 3:10 . Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as he was before the Incarnation ( John 17:5 ) and is now ( Philippians 2:5-11 ; Hebrews 1:3 ). Of the invisible God (tou qeou tou aoratou). But the one who sees Jesus has seen God ( John 14:9 ). See this verbal adjective (a privative and oraw) in Romans 1:20 . The first born (prwtotoko). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logo passage in John 1:1-18 and to Hebrews 1:1-4 as well as Philippians 2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (LXX and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely "Biblical" (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luke 2:7 and Aleph for Matthew 1:25 ; Romans 8:29 . The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" (pash ktisew, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prwto that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Colossians 1:18 ; Romans 8:29 ; Hebrews 1:6 ; Hebrews 12:23 ; Revelation 1:5 . Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before "all creation" (angels and men). Like eikwn we find prwtotoko in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logo teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikwn (Image) and to the universe as prwtotoko (First-born).

Revelation 3:14

The beginning of the creation of God (h arch th ktisew tou qeou). Not the first of creatures as the Arians held and Unitarians do now, but the originating source of creation through whom God works ( Colossians 1:15 Colossians 1:18 , a passage probably known to the Laodiceans, John 1:3 ; Hebrews 1:2 , as is made clear by Revelation 1:18 ; Revelation 2:8 ; Revelation 3:21 ; Revelation 5:13 ).

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament (emphasis mine)

Cordially,

[Diamond]

This is reading into the text what is necessary to conform to your Arianism. Thomas did not say. "My express image of the INVISIBLE God," by "My Lord and my God," which is consistent with John's theme of the word being God by nature, and the one Isaiah saw in His glory.

daniel1212, glad you brought up the one Isaiah saw in His glory.

Zuriel, I ask you, to Whom does Isaiah refer in the following passage?

Isaiah 6 - (KJV)

6 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

² Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.

³ And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

⁴ And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

⁵ Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

⁶ Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:

⁷ And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

⁸ Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

⁹ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

¹⁰ Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

The Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, to do the will of the Father. It does not have a will of it’s own. (see Jn 16:13).

Ok, here is John 16:13:

13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.

John here (and in verses 14 and 26) intentionally called the Spirit "He" by using the masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos, not the neuter pronoun ekeino meaning "it". You say "it". John says "He". Who should I believe; you or John?

Moreover, Jesus called the Spirit "another allos Comforter paracletos in John 14:16. Allos means "another of like kind." And in 1 John 2.1 paracletos is applied to Jesus Christ. As Jesus is a divine Person who comforts His disciples, so also is the Holy Spirit.

As to your contention that the Spirit "does not have of will of it's own", Paul himself directly and explicitly contradicts you:

1 Corinthians 12:11

But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

There are many other instances that could be adduced, such as that you can't grieve an impersonal force, but these are sufficient to prove that your assertions above about the Holy Spirit are false.

Cordially,

[redleghunter]

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Revelation 1:7-8)

Great lay down of scriptures. From Revelation above we have this from the OT confirming:

“I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.(Daniel 7:13-14)

First and Last as declared in Isaiah 44: (YLT used below as it uses Jehovah (YHWH) for the KJV LORD)

6 Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God. 7 And who as I, doth call and declare it, And arrange it for Me, Since My placing the people of antiquity, And things that are coming, And those that do come, declare they to them? (Isaiah 44:6-7)

[Zuriel]

**No, as my word is not even a person, as Scripture says the Word is. Your tactic is that of not dealing with the concept as God reveals it.**

Jesus Christ said the words that he spoke were not his. He was/is the ultimate messenger, able to covey the will of God to man at the level of men. (And, of course, able to be the sacrifice God required to redeem mankind.) He is the visible expression of God the Father in every divine sense.

Yet, the messenger was not a robot. The Son was like any other man, with the will of a man, tempted in all points, but without sin.

He repeatedly tells us throughout the book of John where EVERY divine word or action originates: the Father. He tells us that the Father is a Spirit. He tells us that the Father is in him DOING the works, and that he is in the Father (sounds like the Father HAS to be an omnipresent Spirit. Of course, he tells us that in Jn 4:23,24).

That seems to be the stumbling block for you trinitarians. You want God the Father to be another image, separate and distinct from the image of the Son. Jesus Christ does not teach that.

You folks want the Holy Ghost to be a coequal person in the ‘trinity’. Yet, it proceeds (originates) from the Father, having no will of it’s own.

**Which commitment of function and authority is not contrary to Christ being God by nature. There is order within the Trinity.**

Your reasoning is similar to the ‘Mary worshippers’, who feel there are supernatural powers she possesses, and uses to help the trinity in handle the workload.

Jesus told the Pharissees in John 8:29, “And he that sent me is WITH me: the Father hath not LEFT ME ALONE; for I do ALWAYS those things that please him.”

Until you believe that the Father is an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Spirit, dwelling from the beginning of creation in the Son, you will be like the Pharissees in John 8; unable to realize that the Father is literally present in the image of the Son. Paul’s description is in agreement with the Son’s testamony: Who is the image of the INVISIBLE God; the firstborn of every creature.

Please show me ONE divine thing, possessed by the Son, that he did NOT receive from the Father.

God the Father is the source of ALL things divine, including his creating of the Son (the beginning).

Everywhere you think you have found the Son, separate and distinct from the Father, you are attempting to remove the Father out of the Son. The Son says that is not possible.

Rats. I just got a hot dispatch. So the truck must roll. I’ll be back in a couple of days.

[Zuriel]

I just got done with post 98, and have been dispatched to roll to KC. I will answer you when I get back. Post 98 may answer some of your position.

thanks for the discussion.

[CommerceComet]

I’ve always thought that a God that you could put in a test tube and watch him turn litmus paper blue wouln’t be a God worth worshipping.

In a similar fashion, I have always said that any god whom I could fully understand wouldn't be much of a god. Personally, I don't believe that God ever intended for man to fully understand certain things about him like the Incarnation (Deuteronomy 29:29).