St. Peter and St. Paul believed that God is the God of Jesus...how then can they have believed Jesus is God as well?

[MH84]

How does one explain these passages:

Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

www.biblegateway.com

 

[VociMike]

Jesus was fully man in addition to being fully God. And a fully Jewish man, to be exact, fulfilling all righteousness (that is, all Jewish male righteousness). So of course the Jewish God would be his God.

 

[Contarini]

How does one explain these passages:

Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

www.biblegateway.com

Look at Psalm 45:6-7, which addresses someone as “God” and then speaks of this “God” as having a “God.”

I know that on a literal-historical level this is talking about the Davidic king. But Christians have always interpreted it as referring to Christ (see Heb. 1:9). And it certainly refutes the linguistic argument that “God” cannot have a “God.”

Edwin

 

[MH84]

Jesus was fully man in addition to being fully God. And a fully Jewish man, to be exact, fulfilling all righteousness (that is, all Jewish male righteousness). So of course the Jewish God would be his God.

Peter and Paul wrote after Jesus had already ascended. Jesus was no longer a Jewish rabbi; he was back in glory.

Anyway, how can a divine Person (Jesus) have a God when He is fully divine?

Who is the Jewish God according to you?

 

[MH84]

Look at Psalm 45:6-7, which addresses someone as “God” and then speaks of this “God” as having a “God.”

I know that on a literal-historical level this is talking about the Davidic king. But Christians have always interpreted it as referring to Christ (see Heb. 1:9). And it certainly refutes the linguistic argument that “God” cannot have a “God.”

Edwin

6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.

7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

1. The Old Testament writer couldnt have thought that God had a God when this psalm was written.
2. How do you know that “God, your God” is not referring to the same being. eg. *Father, my father *or Bobby, (my dear)Bobby, has returned?

 

[Fidelis]

Re: St. Peter and St. Paul believed that God is the God of Jesus…how then can they have believed Jesus is God as well?

Perhaps because, unlike us, they didn’t feel that had to have a complete empirical grasp of the concept to believe it. Based on what they saw, what they experienced, and what God revealed to them, they found it worthy of belief. That is what is know as faith.

God said it. They believed it. That settled it.

That goes for me too.

 

[rpp]

49 Jesus answered, "I am not possessed; I honor my Father, but you
dishonor me.

50 I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks it and he is the one who judges.

51 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever keeps my word will never see death."

52 (So) the Jews said to him, "Now we are sure that you are possessed. Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, 21 who died? Or the prophets, who died? Who do you make yourself out to be?"

54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’

55 You do not know him, but I know him. And if I should say that I do not know him, I would be like you a liar. But I do know him and I keep his word.

56 Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it 22 and was glad.

57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” 23

58 24 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, **before Abraham came to be, I AM.” **

John 8:49-58 NAB

Emphasis mine.

18 11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Matthew 28: 18-20 NAB

I think someone is just beginning to get an inkling of the mystery of the Trinity.

 

[MH84]

Perhaps because, unlike us, they didn’t feel that had to have a complete empirical grasp of the concept to believe it. Based on what they saw, what they experienced, and what God revealed to them, they found it worthy of belief. That is what is know as faith.

God said it. They believed it. That settled it.

That goes for me too.

This is what you seem to be saying: They believed Jesus had a God. However, they weren’t sure how Jesus could have a God and still be God at the same time, but then they still believed in that Jesus was fully God anyway.

Sorry that doesnt make sense to me.

What was their “faith”? You are putting what you believe into what you think they believed arent you?

 

[rpp]

Jesus DID NOT have a God. The Jewish people never taught that there were multiple Gods.

Jesus is God. The second person of the Trinity; one God in three persons.

The other persons of the Trinity are God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. That is why we Jesus instructed us to baptize in the Name of all Three.

 

[MH84]

rpp, you are avoiding the OP verses. Please just look at those.

Btw rpp, I’ve heard from another poster that Matthew 28:19 was “found only in copies of Matthew dating from the 4th century”. IOW, that it was an interpolation. No one has refuted that, or hasnt bothered to.I thought it was a very strong scriptural evidence, but now Im not sure.

 

[MH84]

Jesus DID NOT have a God. The Jewish people never taught that there were multiple Gods.

Jesus is God. The second person of the Trinity; one God in three persons.

The other persons of the Trinity are God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. That is why we Jesus instructed us to baptize in the Name of all Three.

Look at the OP!

 

[VociMike]

Peter and Paul wrote after Jesus had already ascended. Jesus was no longer a Jewish rabbi; he was back in glory.

Anyway, how can a divine Person (Jesus) have a God when He is fully divine?

Jesus did not cease to be fully man when he ascended.

Are you really arguing that Jesus was/is not God? Or what exactly is your claim here?

 

[Contarini]

1. The Old Testament writer couldnt have thought that God had a God when this psalm was written.

As a Christian, I believe that the primary author of Holy Scripture is God. I admitted that on the “literal-historical” level this is referring to the king, who is sometimes referred to as “elohim” (a god) in the Old Testament. For those of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible is more than just a historical text.

1. How do you know that “God, your God” is not referring to the same being. eg. *Father, my father *or Bobby, (my dear)Bobby, has returned?

I was not referring to that, but to the phrase “your throne, O God” in the previous verse.

Edwin

 

[MH84]

As a Christian, I believe that the primary author of Holy Scripture is God. I admitted that on the “literal-historical” level this is referring to the king, who is sometimes referred to as “elohim” (a god) in the Old Testament. For those of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Bible is more than just a historical text.

I was not referring to that, but to the phrase “your throne, O God” in the previous verse.

Edwin

Thanks for this response. I have a related question: How do we know that when Jesus was called “God” in the NT, it didnt have the same weight as the author calling David “god” in the OT? The English translations of the OT even has David called god with a capital G.

 

[agangbern]

Thanks for this response. I have a related question: How do we know that when Jesus was called “God” in the NT, it didnt have the same weight as the author calling David “god” in the OT? The English translations of the OT even has David called god with a capital G.

Why should they not have the same weight? The passage, “Thy throne, Oh God…”, is quoted by St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews. And there it is clear that God Himself addressed the Son as God. The divinity of Christ, the Son, is not different from the divinity of the Father. The divinity that is in the Father is the same divinity that is in the Son. There is only ONE GOD, and this ONE GOD is manifested in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father did address the Son as God; and the Son did address the Father as God; each of the three persons did address each other as God. But that did not make God three gods. Only the persons manifesting the ONE GOD is three.

 

[rpp]

rpp, you are avoiding the OP verses. Please just look at those.

No I am not. However, no verse in the Bible stands on it’s own. The writings of the Bible must be taken in their larger context. One of the great flaws of Protestantism is the common practice of cherry-picking statements in the Bible.

The Bible must be considered within the total context of the rest of the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Teachings of the Church. Do you really think you are the first person in 2,000 years to come with this?

Btw rpp, I’ve heard from another poster that Matthew 28:19 was “found only in copies of Matthew dating from the 4th century”. IOW, that it was an interpolation. No one has refuted that, or hasnt bothered to.I thought it was a very strong scriptural evidence, but now Im not sure.

First you have it backwards. This anonymous poster made a claim. They need to back it up with evidence from legitimate and authoritative sources. Without anything solid, there is nothing to refute.

I have never heard of the claim you present here. Considering how the Gospels were preserved in the Early Church, I find such a claim dubious at best. There are lots of people who try to discredit all or part of the Bible for lots of motives. The burden of proof lies on the person making such a claim, not on the listeners to refute it.

 

[rpp]

Look at the OP!

This post was in response to some later posts on the thread referring to Psalm 45.

 

[MH84]

No I am not. However, no verse in the Bible stands on it’s own. The writings of the Bible must be taken in their larger context. One of the great flaws of Protestantism is the common practice of cherry-picking statements in the Bible.

The Bible must be considered within the total context of the rest of the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Teachings of the Church. Do you really think you are the first person in 2,000 years to come with this?

You are actually again avoiding the OP verses I brought up.

Have you ever stopped and thought that the “larger context” you are thinking about, is actually a few verses which prove the divinity of Jesus? You will hold for example John 1:1 and John 20:28 as being the context of your personal opinion on what is context. But the problem I see is that when I bring up other verses (like the ones above), people will continually just say “read in context” or to look at other passages, but the problem is those other verses are still there, like Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3.

Just look at the verses from Sts. Paul and Peter on there own and explain them. Simple. If you can’t don’t worry about it.

 

[MH84]

First you have it backwards. This anonymous poster made a claim. They need to back it up with evidence from legitimate and authoritative sources. Without anything solid, there is nothing to refute.

I have never heard of the claim you present here. Considering how the Gospels were preserved in the Early Church, I find such a claim dubious at best. There are lots of people who try to discredit all or part of the Bible for lots of motives. The burden of proof lies on the person making such a claim, not on the listeners to refute it.

Is it that surprising considering the interpolation of the Johannine Comma? Perhaps some people thought that they could add more “truth” to the word of God.

Addition:
Btw, where else besides Jesus commanding His disciples in Matthew 28:19 where the people baptised “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”? I don’t think there is anywhere else in the bible where this formula was used. How come they early Christians didnt baptise using the Trinitarian formula?

 

[rpp]

You are actually again avoiding the OP verses I brought up.

Have you ever stopped and thought that the “larger context” you are thinking about, is actually a few verses which prove the divinity of Jesus? You will hold for example John 1:1 and John 20:28 as being the context of your personal opinion on what is context. But the problem I see is that when I bring up other verses (like the ones above), people will continually just say “read in context” or to look at other passages, but the problem is those other verses are still there, like Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3.

Just look at the verses from Sts. Paul and Peter on there own and explain them. Simple. If you can’t don’t worry about it.

No. As I said, I am not ignoring those verses. If you do not believe me, there is simply nothing else to say.

I ALL the cases you quoted, these were part of greetings or closing of letters. They were verses that were intended to expound upon the character of and attributes of God in specific ways.

To me it appears that YOU are the one who is ignoring or discounting parts of the Bible. Why do you not address the verses I gave you or the ones that you yourself mentioned. You list “Catholic” on your profile. Yet you are promoting views of Jesus that are more in keeping with Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Arian Heresy