Does Jesus Christ have a God?

[Guest]

JF,

I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, you choose to ignore all the evidence that I have provided. If you would read my previous post you will see verses from 2 Peter, John's Gospel and Epistle, and the writer of Hebrews (I left out the abundance of scripture from Paul at the request of Emmet). Not to mention the the recorded life of Jesus that display divine qualities like, the ability to forgive sin (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:48 ), raise the dead (Luke 7:14, Mark 5:41, John 11;43), and the laying down of his own life and taking it back up again. I could go on in mentioning all the healings, casting out of Demons, and feeding of the multitudes but it seems that you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Like I said earlier, if you are not a Trinitarian, that is between you and God. Personally, I am to sure if it is essential doctrine. We can debate on many things, and they are simply debates within the family. You call yourself Jesusfollower, well I pray that is true. As for me the Bible seems fairly clear on the subject of Christ deity. Although I do not fully comprehend the doctrine of the Trinity I do accept it as Biblical.

Thank you

[Guest]

Ok, you accept a doctrine you do not understand. That is because it is not Biblical, and never was, and no one does, it is man made. God wants us to know him and understand him and his Son. The answer to your supposed other proofs is in part that God gave him the right to do those things and us to, if we believe rightly. Do not misunderstand me to say that we as the Church can have the position of Lord awarded to Jesus alone. The answer to to the Scripture has been put together in a convenient place for all to see what the scholars over the years have said.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/index.php

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you for your response!

In your first citation from John 10, we have Jesus stating that he and the Father are one. I assume that this is the statement which you might identify as Jesus claiming to be God. However, given the pattern of John's own gospel, the claim to being one with the Father does not necessarily constitute a claim to Godhood. In John 17, Jesus repeatedly prays that his disciples might be one as he and his Father are one (vv. 11, 21-23). Unless one wishes to postulate that the disciples are going to merge into some Multitarian being, then the unity being spoken of here does not require an ontological, Trinitarian sense. Instead, a relational unity of devotion and purpose would be appropriate on both sides of the analogy.

Of course, your citation has the Jewish audience looking for stones again, but I will point to my previous comments regarding the Johannine motif of Misunderstanding. Beyond this, the verses following your citation suggest that Jesus has been speaking less than ontologically, since he defends himself by citing venerable precedent for language that could be misconstrued as a claim to actual Godhood; of course, such a misconstrual would have been ridiculous, but arguably the Jews' misconstrual of Jesus' words is meant to be held up as similarly ridiculous. Jesus also clarifies the issue by claiming no more than that he is the son of God (concerning which, I have already commented above).


Moving ahead, then, to your second citation.... The citation from Daniel 7 is inappropriate in the first place, inasmuch as the "son of man" there is clearly established as a figure for the community of God. However, it is not unusual for someone in Jesus' culture to sloppily apply scripture to their present circumstances; we find this kind of eisegesis not only in the gospels, but also in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Since we are at this juncture interested in Jesus' claim for himself, regardless of its inherent validity, it remains only to be noted that this "son of man" figure is seated at the right hand of power, and thus is distinguished from God himself. Beyond this, the appearance of such a figure in Daniel's vision does not demonstrate pre-existence, since it is only a vision; also, the capacity to judge and to receive service would be proper to the messianic kingship. But although you may see these three characteristics as suggestive of Godhood, I think you might admit that none of them necessarily constitute a claim to Godhood.


Moving on, then to our second article of discussion, that of the claims of the apostles. To begin with, the material from Hebrews may be set aside from this category, inasmuch as that text is anonymous and not necessarily apostolic. Second of all, as you may be aware, the grammar of John 1:1 complicates the question of what manner of divine character is being ascribed to the Logos. The usage of the definite article does suggest a distinction between the Divinity which the Logos abides with and the divinity which the Logos itself possesses. Also, as the verse is addressing the Logos, it is pertinent to ask whether the Logos should be outright equated to Jesus, or if there is a more complex relationship between the two. Thirdly, the citation from Second Peter is complicated grammatically on the one hand (depending upon one's assessment of Granville Sharp's rule), and canonically on the other hand (inasmuch as the epistle has had a shadow over its authenticity, extant even in pre-conciliar times).


And moving to our final article of discussion:

Quote:
Also, how are we to fairly gauge the credibility of these apostles?

What evedence do you have to bring against the Apostles, or why do you question their credibilty? I find that when the scriptures say someithing that a person does not want to believe they close their mind and assume that the scriptures are wrong, or that the Apostles were misstaken. However, when that claim is made the burden of proof is on the accuser.

Christianity makes extraordinary claims about what one should believe, and it makes extraordinary claims upon how one should live. On the other hand, questioning the credibility of the apostles is not extraordinary or unreasonable, taking into account the observable phenomenon that not all religious figures have been fully reliable. As such, I would ask for a reassessment of the burden of proof.

My question sets the stage for inquiry. It is simply responsible to gauge the credibility of one's witnesses. But how should we fairly do so?

Thank you again for the ongoing dialogue!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

JF,

You can keep your scholars and Unitarian website. I will continue to read the Bible and trust the Lord and Holy Spirit to guide me. But thanks for engaging with me.

Emmet,

I don't know if you have listened to any of Steve Gregg's lectures. If you have not I would suggest you start with his series on the authority of scripture.

My question sets the stage for inquiry. It is simply responsible to gauge the credibility of one's witnesses. But how should we fairly do so?

I am open to your recommendations. I assume that if these Apostles were not credible it would have come to light in the first, second or, third century. I guess by your standard we cannot believe anything testimony that was written more that 150 years ago.

Thanks again,
Robin

[Guest]

Well here is a sight that covers the trinity fairly well IMHO.

part 1
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8915
part 2
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T8916

Mivac

PS it is about 30 pages printed

[Guest]

Jim, just more double talk to justify a man made doctrine.
Right rob, don't study to show yourself approved. Go with the Majority you are always safe that way.

[Guest]

Hello, Robin,

Thank you once again for your response.

I don't know if you have listened to any of Steve Gregg's lectures. If you have not I would suggest you start with his series on the authority of scripture.

I first met Steve back in the early-to-mid-'90s, and I have listened to his radio show. He and I began a dialogue in this forum that touched on the reliability of the New Testament witnesses. It can be found under the "Challenges" category, under the "Jesus is not the messiah" subheading. The ball has been in Steve's court for some time now - but I cannot throw stones in that department, since I have an overdue response to a poster on the same thread ! And Steve is probably quite more busy than I.

Quote:
My question sets the stage for inquiry. It is simply responsible to gauge the credibility of one's witnesses. But how should we fairly do so?

I am open to your recommendations.

I will go ahead and throw out a short and incomplete list of suggestions:

(1) We may examine the internal consistency of their reports (this can help us gauge their personal attention to detail);

(2) We may compare their accounts with those of their peers (this can help us gauge their relative accuracy and consonance with contemporary concerns and understandings);

(3) We may identify their methods for interpreting earlier materials (this can help us gauge the inclinations of their analytical minds);

(4) We may consider the psychological and social stressors upon the witnesses (this can help us gauge the inclinations of their emotional minds);

(5) We may evaluate the circumstances under which we have received the witnesses' testimony (in lieu of direct examination of the witnesses, this can help us gauge the character of the evidence we have for their witness).

What is remarkable, Robin, is that you appear not to have a ready answer of your own to my initial inquiry. This suggests that you have not carefully examined the witnesses whom you have entrusted with your life.

But I would be interested in your own ideas for how one might fairly gauge the credibility of the witnesses you trust.

I assume that if these Apostles were not credible it would have come to light in the first, second or, third century.

This is a facile and perilous assumption. We might also assume that if Muhammad were not credible, it would have come to light in the first centuries of the Islamic era. As it is, we have very little reliable data about the thoughts or activities of two-thirds of the twelve apostles, and it seems telling to me that a great share of the New Testament is written by parties who never witnessed the career of Jesus, and that the majority of the early church was comprised of persons who would have found it quite difficult to conduct a practical investigation into the credibility of their faith. Even though the Bereans checked their scriptures, we don't read of any fact-finding missions to the far-flung Galilee.

I guess by your standard we cannot believe anything testimony that was written more that 150 years ago.

This is a curious statement. What do you mean?


Thank you again for your dialogue.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

I first met Steve back in the early-to-mid-'90s, and I have listened to his radio show. He and I began a dialogue in this forum that touched on the reliability of the New Testament witnesses. It can be found under the "Challenges" category, under the "Jesus is not the messiah" subheading. The ball has been in Steve's court for some time now - but I cannot throw stones in that department, since I have an overdue response to a poster on the same thread ! And Steve is probably quite more busy than I.

Thank you for directing me to your previous discussions with other in the forum. Under the thread titled "Jesus is not the messiah" you have debated this same topic with other who are far more skill and knowledgeable than I am. It seems that we could go in circles arguing whether the apostles are credible or not and eventually it comes down to faith.

Based on my reading of the New and Old Testament I see a plan laid out by God to reconcile man to himself. I read the Old Testament prophecies that point the Jesus as the messiah and the only one able to forgive the sin of the world through his sacrifice upon the cross. I read the four gospels that testify to the life of Jesus including the virgin birth, miracles, teachings, and death & resurrection. I read and believe what the apostles (including Paul) wrote, and I see their testimony to be credible and harmonious with the rest of scripture.

Christianity has always had enemies that would love to disprove or discredit the New Testament but with no real success.

I must say that I enjoy reading your posts and find you to be very polite in your responses. I will admit that you debate and present your thoughts better than I, but I must disagree with the position you take in regards to establishing the credibility of the apostles.

Thank you

[Guest]

How did this discussion change into doubting the scripture? Cece and desist, my original essay was pointing out that Jesus has a God and therefore cannot be God. Not questioning the reliability of Scripture. Holy Men Of God spoke as carried along by The Holy Spirit. Those men were Holy men of God and wrote what God told them to write, God is the author of all scripture. Take you obstinate thought to another place Phillips. Like the other thread you were talking about this.

[Guest]

How did this discussion change into doubting the scripture? Cece and desist, my original essay was pointing out that Jesus has a God and therefore cannot be God. Not questioning the reliability of Scripture. Holy Men Of God spoke as carried along by The Holy Spirit. Those men were Holy men of God and wrote what God told them to write, God is the author of all scripture. Take you obstinate thought to another place Phillips. Like the other thread you were talking about this.

thanks Jesusfallower, You always have such a polite and humble way of expressing yourself.