Did Jesus believe He was serving a greater Being (His Father) than Himself? I see conflicting messages in the Bible.

[MH84]

Angelos:

Jesus has claims of equality with God because He describes His second coming exactly in the same way as God’s descent from heaven in the OT.

My response:
I was looking for this last night. Can you please show me the OT reference?

Angelos:

Although Son of God means the same thing, the Church calls Jesus God the Son because of the heretical teachings concerning Jesus’ divinity. There are many groups that pick up a few obscure verses in the NT to support their erroneous teachings even today.

My response:
This is not right. The Catechism admits that “Son of God” doesnt necessarily mean God the Son. See para. 441:

441 In the Old Testament, “son of God” is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings.44 It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called “son of God”, it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts.Those who called Jesus “son of God”, as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.45

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a2.htm

I have a quote from the JB which supports what Ive been saying as well. Look at post #12 of this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=205710

Angelos:

I have also discovered an interesting verse in the NT. Jesus claims that the Church is His:

Matthew 16:18 I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.

In the NT epistles, the Church is said to belong to God:

1Cor. 10:32 Do not give offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God,

Gal. 1:13 For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I was savagely persecuting the **church of God **and trying to destroy it.

My response:

1. You could be right
2. I have heard that one or two occasions of the phrase “church of God” in the NT could have been “church of Christ” instead. Im not sure which ones. Im not sure if Im even correct in my assertion. If I’m not, the belief that Jesus is God could be right. However the main verse that seems to get mentioned is this:

Acts 20:28 (NASB)
28"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Acts 20:28 (ESV)
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

However, there is debate over this. Here’s the footnote to the ESV:

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[a] which he obtained with his own blood.********
Footnotes:

[a] Acts 20:28 Some manuscripts *of the Lord *
** Acts 20:28 Or *with the blood of his Own ***

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2020:28;&version=47;

Therefore I presume that Acts 28:20 could be translated:

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of the Lord, which he obtained with the blood of his Own.

This is just perfect for the theme of this thread isnt it?

My Jerusalem Bible renders Acts 20:28 as:

“…which the Holy Spirit has made you the overseers, to feed the Church of God [q] which he bought with his own blood. [r]”

However, the footnotes read:

[q] Var. ‘the Church of the Lord’. 1 P 2:9-10 speaks of the people which God made his own (following Is 43:21; cf. Acts 18:10+); this people was the ‘Congregation (=Church) of God’, 5:11, one of Paul’s favourite expressions, cf. 1 Co 1:2; 10:32; 11:22, etc.

[r] A difficult phrase sometimes rendered ‘acquired by him at the price of the blood of his own Son’, cf. Rm 8:32; Jn 3:16. But we may see underlying the expression a certain flexibility of thought, since the work of the Father (= ‘God’) and of the Son is so inseparably one(cf., for example, Rm 8:31-39). For the doctrine, cf. Ep 5:25-27; Heb 9:12-14; 13:12.

1. Angelos, the two verses you used may be the literal translations (and supportive of the divinity of Christ), however with Acts 20:28, I think there is not enough clarity for use as a proof.

However, the context of your quotes (1Cor. 10:32; Gal. 1:13) doesnt prove that Paul thought Jesus was equal to God, or God the Son. I mean one could argue that everything Jesus had was owned by God. In a way, just like nothing on earth is really my own (God allowed me to own property or willed directly for me to own property), even though in a way it is my property in for example a legal sense. I clarify this more simply. If a Protestant founded a church, he may rightly say that it is his church (founded for his fellow Christians). However, he would admit that ultimately that church belongs to his God.

What Im trying to say here is that even if Jesus was not God, Jesus could say that the Church was His and that He was to build His Church. However, it would be also right to say that the Church is His Father’s church. After all, Jesus was sent by the Father.

 

[Angelos]

MH84 asked:
I was looking for this last night. Can you please show me the OT reference?

I respond:
The Old Testament says that YHWH manifests Himself and descends from the sky with His angels and on the clouds.

The Lord hath reigned, let the people be angry he that sits on the cherubims: let the earth be moved. (Psalms 99:1)

Dark clouds surround him; equity and justice are the foundation of his throne. (97:2)

There is no one like God, O Jeshurun, who rides through the sky to help you, on the clouds in majesty. (Deuterenomy 33:26).

Sing to God! Sing praises to his name! Exalt the one** who rides on the clouds**! For the Lord is his name! Rejoice before him! (Psalm 68:4)

As Aaron spoke to the whole community of the Israelites and they looked toward the desert, there the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, (Exodus 16:10).

And whenever Moses entered the tent, **the pillar of cloud would descend **and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses (Exodus 33:9).

to you who are being afflicted to give rest together with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels. (2 Th 1:7).

MH84 wrote:
This is not right. The Catechism admits that “Son of God” doesnt necessarily mean God the Son. See para. 441:

441 In the Old Testament, “son of God” is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings.44 It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called “son of God”, it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus “son of God”, as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.45

I respond:

Ironically, the part of the Catholic Catechism you have quoted answers the question why the Church deems it necessary to state that Jesus is God the Son. If a person reads and interprets every term in the NT in the light of the OT solely, errors and wrong conclusions become inevitable. The fact that the term Son of God pertained to adoptive sonship in the OT does not inherently add Jesus into the category of adopted sons. The Catechism only underlines the possibility that people calling Jesus Son of God expressed their belief in Him as the true Messiah according to the literal meaning of the Old Testament texts, not taking into consideration the new meaning that the term gained through Jesus in the NT.

 

[Angelos]

MH84 wrote:

1. You could be right
2. I have heard that one or two occasions of the phrase “church of God” in the NT could have been “church of Christ” instead. Im not sure which ones. Im not sure if Im even correct in my assertion. If I’m not, the belief that Jesus is God could be right. However the main verse that seems to get mentioned is this:

Acts 20:28 (NASB)
28"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Acts 20:28 (ESV)
28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

However, there is debate over this. Here’s the footnote to the ESV:

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God,[a] which he obtained with his own blood.**
Footnotes:

[a] Acts 20:28 Some manuscripts of the Lord
** Acts 20:28 Or with the blood of his Own

Therefore I presume that Acts 28:20 could be translated:

28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of the Lord, which he obtained with the blood of his Own.

This is just perfect for the theme of this thread isnt it?

I respond:**

I do not remember having quoted Acts 20:28, which you uncannily mark as the main verse. I admit that the verse in question has linguistic problems in the original text, but I fail to see how this probable replacement of the word Christ with God can affect the other verses I have quoted as evidence.

MH84 wrote:
3. Angelos, the two verses you used may be the literal translations (and supportive of the divinity of Christ), however with Acts 20:28, I think there is not enough clarity for use as a proof.

I respond:

So you conclude that the supposed vagueness in Acts 20:28 is evidence for the invalidity of the other verses that have no textual problems? All those verses are independent of one another. How can you claim that the doubt concerning one verse will affect the sense of all the others talking of the Church of God?

MH84 wrote:

However, the context of your quotes (1Cor. 10:32; Gal. 1:13) doesnt prove that Paul thought Jesus was equal to God, or God the Son. I mean one could argue that everything Jesus had was owned by God. In a way, just like nothing on earth is really my own (God allowed me to own property or willed directly for me to own property), even though in a way it is my property in for example a legal sense. I clarify this more simply. If a Protestant founded a church, he may rightly say that it is his church (founded for his fellow Christians). However, he would admit that ultimately that church belongs to his God.

What Im trying to say here is that even if Jesus was not God, Jesus could say that the Church was His and that He was to build His Church. However, it would be also right to say that the Church is His Father’s church. After all, Jesus was sent by the Father.

I respond:

So were sent the apostles by Jesus Himself, yet they never claimed the Church to be theirs. If a Protestant founds a church, he has the right to call it his own church because he knows that there are many other churches that are not founded by him and follow different teachings. In this context the word “my” distinguishes the community that adheres to that person’s teachings from the other communities. However, Jesus did not have the idea of another church in mind when He made that statement.

Besides, Jesus does not say that God or the Father will give Him a church that already exists, but that HE will build HIS Church on the rock. Thus, Jesus is both the constructor and owner of the Church. He is not the means, but the very source. Consequently, there is something more personal in Jesus’ words than basic theology.

Read what Paul says:

1 Corinthians 1:11-17 For members of Chloe’s household have made it clear to me, my brothers and sisters, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name! (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.

1 Corinthians 3:4-5 For whenever someone says, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” are you not merely human? What is Apollos, really? Or what is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and each of us in the ministry the Lord gave us.

If your reasoning were true, Paul would have added Jesus’ name next to Apollos’ and his and warned people not to worship Jesus, who was sent by God as the other apostles.

**