Jesus is God

[Otherness]

Homer>>>Jesus can not simultaneously be both Father and Son<<<

Dizerner>>>Jesus called the Father's will “not my will.”<<<

Yes, there is (creation needs there to be) the reality of OTHER in the Being of God. The very spiritual NATURE of creation, in that it is essentially (simply / really) expressed thoughts (words), calls for this... else there is no escape from (even) pan(en)theism.

God and His creation “coexist” in each other's presence, just as our thoughts coexist with us. So, unless there is the (ontological) spiritual reality of what OTHER(ness) IS (itself) there is no REAL “difference” (space) between God and creation, and something like Hegelianism is, logically, a direct (inescapable) inference.

The ontological distinction of God and Creation is to be found in the ontological distinction of God and the Word (John 1). God establishes the ontological distinction that creation needs (in order to produce the fruit He seeks : the existence of truly other beings in a love relationship with Him) by existing in His Trinitarian (Creative) State. This State of Being is a state of OTHER, and “now”... what the reality of OTHER...IS...is as real as He IS : there is the absolute (ontological) spiritual reality of OTHER...for this is our God (Creator) Himself!

I believe God's testimony concerning the nature of creation. I look around at the “natural world” in which I am embedded and I “see” His words (expressed thoughts)...not the cold hard world of the material / physical reality we have defaulted to in our fallen state. The veil isn't (perfectly) gone, but my faith almost sees right through it after all these (grace-filled) decades with Him (Acts 17: 28).

The Father is other than (not) the Son, the Son is other than (not) the Father. This “otherness” is essential to the “otherness” that Creation is vis-a-vis the Creator. It is because of His triune existence that Creation can be both in Him, but “organically” distinct from Him. When the Word became flesh He brought the Divine Nature into our organically distinct reality, and by the way He lived, died, and rose again He organically changed it. Forgiveness and holiness are as much a part of our reality now as are the mountains and trees...no wonder they shout and clap their hands!

[dizerner]

Otherness, you remind me of some early church fathers and how they talked.

It is indeed the single greatest miracle and most remarkable thing that could ever be, that God could become one of his own creations, and share their ontology.

[dwight92070]

Dwight,

I am mostly with you on the Trinity but would take exception to this:

because He knew He was the Father

Jesus can not simultaneously be both Father and Son.

The apostle John said that He was simultaneously both the Father and the Son.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (distinct from God the Father), and the Word was God (equal to God the Father). We know that the Word is Jesus - John 1:14

Philip wanted to see a separate "person", other than Jesus, when He asked Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus could have said, "Well Philip, I can't really do that, because the Father is in heaven, and besides that, no one can see the Father and live to tell about it."

Instead He told Philip: "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Earlier in John 14, Jesus said, "If you had known Me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

When we look at Jesus, if we don't see the Father, then we have not come to know Jesus. We see Jesus by faith. And when we see Jesus by faith, we also see the Father by faith. The apostles saw Him physically. Yet they still needed faith to believe that they were seeing the Father when they looked at Jesus in the flesh.

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father (Jesus' preexistence) and was manifested to us (His incarnation) - what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father , and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete."

When John talked about Jesus, it gave him great joy. The Word became flesh and "dwelt among us", John said. John knew that God was dwelling among them in flesh and blood.

Jesus said, "Do not let your heart be troubled (one thing that could trouble us is wondering how Jesus can be both the Father and the Son at the same time). Believe in God, believe also in Me." Just as you believe in and have faith in God, in that same way, believe in and have faith in Jesus. Why? Because He is God in the flesh.

It doesn't matter what you call this belief. Modalism or Trinitarianism or whatever other-ism, what matters is that it lines up with the Bible. How about Bible-ism?

In discussing this with Steve, he stated that in one sense Jesus is the Father, in another sense Jesus is distinct from the Father.

It appears that this causes many people to stumble, even here on the forum. Jesus is called "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense ... (but) he who believes in Him will not be put to shame." Even believers can stumble over Jesus and His words at times. John 6:61 - "But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, 'Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?'"(apparently speaking of His preexistence as the Word)

We tend to strive to make sense of the being of God Himself, using our finite logic - and we fall short. Many other spiritual things seem to be almost easy to accept, given that we have the Holy Spirit in us, as our teacher.

Is it confusing? It could be, but it is not my understanding of it that makes it confusing. Jesus' own words can be confusing and seemingly contradictory. Even verses in the Bible can be confusing, when looking at the essence of God Himself. But we have to believe Him, whether "all the pieces fit together or not". Here's an area where it's especially important to "lean not on our own understanding, but we must trust in the Lord with all our heart."

[darinhouston]

This whole line of discussion is good evidence that this is essentially a speculative theology and should not be a foundational dogma and test of orthodoxy.

[dizerner]

The logic of, "if something is hard to figure out or argued a lot it can't be foundational," is a non sequitur.

But clearly the disciples did not fully know who Jesus was yet their trust in his atonement for their sins had still saved them.

[dizerner]

The Biblical data is 3 Persons, 1 Being.

Not 3 Beings, and not 1 Person.

[dwight92070]

Post by dwight92070 » Fri May 05, 2023 5:30 am

Homer wrote: ↑
Thu May 04, 2023 8:09 am
Dwight,

I am mostly with you on the Trinity but would take exception to this:

"because He knew He was the Father"

Jesus can not simultaneously be both Father and Son.

The apostle John said that He was simultaneously both the Father and the Son.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (distinct from God the Father), and the Word was God (equal to God the Father). We know that the Word is Jesus - John 1:14

Philip wanted to see a separate "person", other than Jesus, when He asked Jesus to show them the Father. Jesus could have said, "Well Philip, I can't really do that, because the Father is in heaven, and besides that, no one can see the Father and live to tell about it."

Instead He told Philip: "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Earlier in John 14, Jesus said, "If you had known Me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

When we look at Jesus, if we don't see the Father, then we have not come to know Jesus. We see Jesus by faith. And when we see Jesus by faith, we also see the Father by faith. The apostles saw Him physically. Yet they still needed faith to believe that they were seeing the Father when they looked at Jesus in the flesh.

"What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life - and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father (Jesus' preexistence) and was manifested to us (His incarnation) - what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father , and with His Son Jesus Christ. These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete."

When John talked about Jesus, it gave him great joy. The Word became flesh and "dwelt among us", John said. John knew that God was dwelling among them in flesh and blood.

Jesus said, "Do not let your heart be troubled (one thing that could trouble us is wondering how Jesus can be both the Father and the Son at the same time). Believe in God, believe also in Me." Just as you believe in and have faith in God, in that same way, believe in and have faith in Jesus. Why? Because He is God in the flesh.

It doesn't matter what you call this belief. Modalism or Trinitarianism or whatever other-ism, what matters is that it lines up with the Bible. How about Bible-ism?

In discussing this with Steve, he stated that in one sense Jesus is the Father, in another sense Jesus is distinct from the Father.

It appears that this causes many people to stumble, even here on the forum. Jesus is called "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense ... (but) he who believes in Him will not be put to shame." Even believers can stumble over Jesus and His words at times. John 6:61 - "But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, 'Does this cause you to stumble? What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?'"(apparently speaking of His preexistence as the Word)

We tend to strive to make sense of the being of God Himself, using our finite logic - and we fall short. Many other spiritual things seem to be almost easy to accept, given that we have the Holy Spirit in us, as our teacher.

Is it confusing? It could be, but it is not my understanding of it that makes it confusing. Jesus' own words can be confusing and seemingly contradictory. Even verses in the Bible can be confusing, when looking at the essence of God Himself. But we have to believe Him, whether "all the pieces fit together or not". Here's an area where it's especially important to "lean not on our own understanding, but we must trust in the Lord with all our heart."

[dizerner]

Jesus said he was one with his believers too, it doesn't make them one person.

A person is defined as having a will.

Father, Spirit, Son all have wills in Scripture.

And Jesus said the Father's will was "not My will."

[dwight92070]

Jesus said he was one with his believers too, it doesn't make them one person.

A person is defined as having a will.

Father, Spirit, Son all have wills in Scripture.

And Jesus said the Father's will was "not My will."

He says that He and the Father are One, after which He almost got stoned, so we know how the Jews understood that. They thought He was claiming to be God.

Where does Jesus say that He is one with his believers? I don't see that anywhere. It's possible I missed that. Paul said something close to that in 1 Corinthians 6:17.

Paul said that the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit (with Him). But that's a far cry from Jesus being one with His Father. Otherwise, we would hear of the Jews threatening to stone Paul too.

I agree with you that each of the three "persons" have wills. Each has a name too. Each appears to function differently. I already said that each is distinct from the other. But they are also one in essence. As Steve said, in one sense they are distinct. In another sense, they are all one.

[darinhouston]

The logic of, "if something is hard to figure out or argued a lot it can't be foundational," is a non sequitur.

But clearly the disciples did not fully know who Jesus was yet their trust in his atonement for their sins had still saved them.

Well, I agree generally but that is not my point so it's a bit of a straw man. It's not the difficulty of it but the nonsensical illogic of the discussion and the irreconcilable positions in support of it. Can't and shouldn't are also two different things. Even if true. There are no doubt many things that are true that aren't necessary to be believed or agreed upon to be foundational dogma to our faith. This is not one of them - if it were, it would be taught plainly and clearly even if it is done in a way that is unfathomable to us.