Jesus is God

[dizerner]

The page for those interested:

https://www.str.org/w/nine-early-church ... sus-is-god

[dizerner]

12 reasons I believe Jesus is God:

1. A mere creation cannot have eternally co-existed with God.

2. A mere creation cannot have co-created the world.

3. A mere creation cannot be enough to atone for an infinite crime against holiness.

4. A mere creation cannot contain the principle of life itself inside it.

5. A mere creation cannot destroy the power of death in itself.

6. A mere creation cannot receive worship from every created thing.

7. A mere creation cannot hold all authority in heaven and earth.

8. A mere creation would have admonitions not to idolize or worship it.

9. A mere creation cannot potentially live inside of all human beings.

10. A mere creation would not even be directly associated with anything divine.

11. A mere creation cannot demand that nothing be loved more than it as it would be commanding idolatry.

12. A mere creation cannot call itself the only absolute way and truth.

At the point you are willing to accept all 12 things, it is virtually indistinguishable for me from God anyway, and Jesus is God to you whether you use the term "God" or not. The Father is just an order of rank above Jesus with the same attributes and this corresponds to Trinitarian theology.

[Homer]

Dizerner,

Thanks for the great posts!

Homer

[darinhouston]

Darin, that may be true of some church fathers, but I don't think you can say it was true of all of them. The following church fathers and their quotes indicate to me that many of them thought Jesus was God, not necessarily a subordinate God. In fact, since there is only one God, how can there even be a subordinate God? That would move into the area of idolatry.

I do not suggest they all thought Jesus was a subordinate God, but only that you have to be very careful taking quotes out of context. Often, their larger teachings make it clear that whatever they mean by terms used in this debate (even terms like "God") they often mean something entirely different (and often contradictory) to what a modern Trinitarian might mean by them.

[Homer]

Darin,

You wrote:

I do not suggest they all thought Jesus was a subordinate God, but only that you have to be very careful taking quotes out of context. Often, their larger teachings make it clear that whatever they mean by terms used in this debate (even terms like "God") they often mean something entirely different (and often contradictory) to what a modern Trinitarian might mean by them.

Can you show some examples that support what you say? Are you referring to the immediate context or something written elsewhere. The 36 quotes cumulatively seem to be a powerful witness to the early belief in something close to a Trinity. Meantime I will check the immediate context in the ante Nicene Fathers.

[dwight92070]

Revelation 5:13 "AND EVERY CREATED THING which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, 'To Him who sits on the throne, AND TO THE LAMB, be blessing, and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.'"

Notice the Lamb is NOT INCLUDED in EVERY CREATED THING. The Lamb was not created, He always was.

Paidion has said that Jesus was not created, rather He was begotten. That is a distinction without a difference, because if there ever was a time when He DID NOT EXIST, and then later HE EXISTED, the only possible explanation is that God created Him.

[darinhouston]

Darin,

You wrote:

I do not suggest they all thought Jesus was a subordinate God, but only that you have to be very careful taking quotes out of context. Often, their larger teachings make it clear that whatever they mean by terms used in this debate (even terms like "God") they often mean something entirely different (and often contradictory) to what a modern Trinitarian might mean by them.

Can you show some examples that support what you say? Are you referring to the immediate context or something written elsewhere. The 36 quotes cumulatively seem to be a powerful witness to the early belief in something close to a Trinity. Meantime I will check the immediate context in the ante Nicene Fathers.

Not off-hand. But, I have heard too many lectures rebutting these "simple" statements - most of them mean something else as clearly evidenced in other writings or in other parts of the same writings (often in the immediate context), and others evolved considerably. Dale Tuggy has dealt with a number of these issues, but it is a bit of an investment of time. On https://trinities.org he may have articles or audio dealing with specific fathers or specific writings that may be of interest if you are really looking to understand these references. I will say that Tuggy is often too quick to jump to conclusions, but most of the time he is very thoughtful and complete (maybe overly complete).

Sean Finnegan dealt with a number of these in response to "proof-texts" from the "Fathers" made by Matt Slick (but mostly around the notion of the Trinity itself and not so much the divinity issues in general, but that alone should be revealing on how the "Fathers" are often abused).

(audio and other resources) https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-262- ... ore-nicea/
or
(video with paper) https://restitutio.org/2019/04/12/the-t ... ore-nicea/

And if you prefer to read, here's his paper... https://restitutio.org/wp-content/uploa ... n-2019.pdf

[dwight92070]

John 8:23-24 - "And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM (the name of God), you will die in your sins.'"

[darinhouston]

John 8:23-24 - "And He was saying to them, "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I AM (the name of God), you will die in your sins.'"

ORRRR...

"You are OF below (being both in the world and of the world -- worldly), I am OF above (being in the world but not of the world... concerned about the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Kingdom of this world)...."

"...unless you believe that I am he (not Yahweh, the name of God, but the very common way of saying I am the one you are talking about -- the Messiah), you will die in your sins.'"

The entire theme of the conversation is consistent with this -- the pharisees were of this world and would die and remain in this world - he was of heaven and he would end up where he belongs - in heaven. They were thinking with an earthly perspective - he brought a heavenly/kingdom-minded perspective and that was the type of Messiah he was.

John 18:33 is more explicit...

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

[dwight92070]

"...unless you believe that I am he (not Yahweh, the name of God, but the very common way of saying I am the one you are talking about -- the Messiah), you will die in your sins.'" John 8:24

Dwight - So let's assume that you are right, that Jesus is saying that He is the Messiah here. Was He also saying that He is the Messiah in John 8:58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born I AM (the Messiah)? I think not. It's clear that He is identifying Himself here with Yahweh. He did the same thing in verse 28.

Dwight - But even if He was claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of God, this ALSO is a claim to being God, as the apostle John made clear in John 5:18: "... because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, MAKING HIMSELF EQUAL WITH GOD." This verse is clearly John's opinion or commentary about what it meant for Jesus to call God His own Father, not simply what the Jews were thinking.

Dwight -Jesus and His disciples DID break the Sabbath. He healed on the Sabbath, worked on the Sabbath (John 5:17), told the paralytic to carry his pallet on the Sabbath, the disciples rubbed the heads of grain on the Sabbath, made clay on the Sabbath etc. He was the Lord of the Sabbath, so He was not bound by the Sabbath day law. But He was also ushering in the New Covenant, where the Sabbath law (and all the ceremonial laws) were no longer in effect.

Dwight - Likewise, He was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.