"JESUS IS LORD"/ "JESUS IS GOD" controversy

[Kts1816]

I have said that he was human/ God

 

[PaladinSword]

Like people will say the God of OT and NT are different… technically they are the same. At least that’s how I see it.

 

[PaladinSword]

Oh I’m just saying I’m trying not to be a heretic. Not you. I think too much.

 

[Usagi]

Jesus is God.

Jesus is not the Father, Who is also God. Neither is the Holy Spirit, Who is also God.

There is only one God, not three.

All of these truths are revealed in Scripture, in different places.

The task of the Church, in defining the doctrine of the Trinity, was to determine how all of those things could simultaneously be true without discounting any of them to privilege another. Trinitarian and Christological heresies result from emphasizing one of those at the expense of the others.

 

[purestmoney]

If the Father is the source and ground of all Being and we all derive our own existence from God, then it seems to me that we all have an intimate connection with The Father. But Jesus is the only one who fully knew and relaized this intimate relationship, lived and breathed it. Ate it as his food. We, on the other hand, hardly have a clue and even hold doubts. The life and teaching of Jesus show us the way if we only follow his path and believe. What makes him different, a true “Sone of God” is his realization, loyalty and obedience. Few of us could be obedient to the cross. We balk at our own smaller crosses.

You answer still proves that Jesus is the Son of God and not God

 

[purestmoney]

Like people will say the God of OT and NT are different… technically they are the same. At least that’s how I see it.

No but by speaking like a human with brain, action of God in the Old testament is far far different from that in the new testament especially if Jesus is God. The Bible also said “No one has seen God” but many people has seen Jesus whom we now know as GOD. the truth is, with human reasoning, it is still confusing

 

[PaladinSword]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Umm… bye.

 

[purestmoney]

I have said that he was human/ God

this can still be believed in the picture of HIM being God, be to say there is a God and Jesus also is God will be complicating, i can still believe that God, seeing the situation of things in the world, came down physically by Himself as Jesus. That can easily be believed but you will still wonder if he made mistake in the Old testament and corrected them in the new testament because you will consider OLD testament as too Hash compared to NEW

 

[HarryStotle]

I can take you through virtually a tonne of evidence that he did claim to be God in all of the Gospels – in a very Jewish way. There are also numerous Old Testament allusions to God as Trinity and the eternality of the Messiah/Son of Man.

What isn’t “obvious” to you is that Jesus was speaking to first century Jews and NOT to you, directly.

You might want to start here:

 

[HarryStotle]

That’s false, the book of acts says they had no charge against him. They executed him simply for challenging their authority.

He was charged with blasphemy, which under Jewish law at the time was a capital offence.

Now the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ” Yet not even so did their testimony agree. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I AM; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments, and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. (Mark 14:55-64)

So, the proceedings occurred in this order:
1.The chief priests and Sanhedrin wanted Jesus sentenced to death.
2.Their witnesses could not agree and the testimony of at least two witnesses was required: (Deuteronomy 19:15: “One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand.” )
3. The chief priest asked Jesus directly “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
4. Jesus answered with three unmistakable references to himself as God i) I AM - the divine name in Exodus; ii) you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, which is, essentially, taking the authority reserved to God for oneself and iii) you will see the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven" which is an action reserved for God alone in all instances in the Old Testament.
5. The Council of the Jews had “no need of witnesses” precisely because the entire council witnessed Jesus’ declarations about himself.
6. They declared him guilty of blasphemy, for which the penalty was death under Jewish law.

Which passage in Acts contradicts this?

 

[HarryStotle]

You answer still proves that Jesus is the Son of God and not God

Being the “son of” implies that the nature of the “father” is passed onto the son.

The son of a human being will be a human being, not a tree or an amoeba or an anteater.

The Son of God, implies that the Son has God’s nature, and since God is one, then the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) share the one nature of God.

That is what the words “begotten” and “proceeds from” in the Creeds imply: true God from true God, eternally begotten of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, etc.

 

[HarryStotle]

My comment is Arian?

Jesus was one of the many representations of the almighty God.
In human nature better understandable by Us.

Likely docetism or modalism, depending upon what you mean by “representations.”

Your ideas sound more pantheistic or Hindu depending upon what you mean by “God.” Hindus believe in a one, all-pervasive Supreme Being (Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, or Shakti, Atman, depending upon the sect) who is both immanent and transcendent, both Creator and Unmanifest Reality who takes on various forms or representations.

Likely not Arian since the fundamental tenet of Arianism was that Jesus was created at some past time and was not God, perhaps in some attenuated sense “divine,” but not one in being or nature with God.

 

[otjm]

John 8: 58 is explicit. Saying “I AM” is saying explicitly that he is God - that is how God identified Himself to Moses. “Tell Pharoah…”

That is why the Jewish leaders went ballistic; Christ specifically and explicitly identified himself as God.

 

[otjm]

Well said, and thanks for the links!

 

[Darryl_B]

I spent the first 25 years of my life in a Christian sect which believed Jesus Christ was “special” but not God, of course when I questioned what made Jesus Christ “special” and in what way was he “special” I generally got awkward responses.

Truth be told God could have made any one of us “special” by that definition (yes there really was no definition), if God made Jesus Christ a “special man” He could just do the same thing for all of us, and if Jesus Christ were just a “special man” Christianity becomes pointless. If there were salvation it would be man saving man, not God saving man.

Emmanuel was regarded as not “God with us”, but “a God-like man with us” which is much like going to an Elvis concert and witnessing an Elvis impersonator. You come away feeling empty.

 

[whyeyeman]

Acts 13:28 - “And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed.”

 

[Shakuhachi]

It doesn’t prove anything. it is one way of looking at it. There is no proof of mystery.

Do we, can we have a share in God’s being?

 

[whyeyeman]

Could Jesus have simply said, “I am God, like my Father and both of US you shall worship.” Yes, but what I find interesting is that Jesus is conveying to them exactly this point, even without using such explicit language.

Where?

(16 characters)

 

[HarryStotle]

Acts 13:28 - “And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed.”

Jesus would only have had “guilt worthy of death” if he was actually guilty of blasphemy – and THAT only if he actually wasn’t God. The Jews couldn’t have found “in him” THAT guilt unless they actually had authority from God to find God himself guilty of claiming to be God. Where was their authority to do that? Did they gain THAT authority merely through their own ambition or presumption? Nope.

If Jesus was God, then they had no such authority to declare Jesus guilty of blasphemy – to “find guilt in him.”

Given that God raised Jesus from the dead and that the Temple in Jerusalem itself was destroyed as a result of God’s judgement upon the Jewish leaders in fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel, then Jesus’ claims about himself are vindicated.

…an anointed one [the Messiah] shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. (Dan 9:26-7)

The Temple sacrifices ENDED with its destruction and the desolation of the Holy Place.

Jesus, therefore, was proved to be God contra the claims of the Jewish leaders who thought he was guilty of something he wasn’t. Ergo, they didn’t actually “find guilt in him,” they just thought they did.

 

[whyeyeman]

Again, you take the words of the people who executed our Lord over the words of Christ himself.