The Deity of Jesus

[dwight92070]

You cannot compare your boasting with the apostle Paul's. He was an apostle and a teacher and he said that "All this time you have been thinking that we are defending ourselves to you. Actually, it is in the sight of God that we have been speaking IN CHRIST; and all for your upbuilding, beloved." 2 Corinthians 12:19 He claims that his boasting was actually done at the direction of Christ. Can you say the same thing? None of the New Testament writers said that they used your "method" for finding truth.

[dwight92070]

You had previously accused me of insincerity, prayerlessness, and loving to argue. Are not these also evil judgments against me? These too, only God can know, you cannot know these things. How could you know anything about my prayers and my sincerity? Your statement about prolonged periods of time, humbling yourself in prayer - how does that line up with Jesus' words to pray in secret? Those who tell others about their sincerity, humility, and prolonged periods of prayer already have their reward in full, according to Jesus' words in Matthew 6:5. Have you ever read in my posts, where I told others about my prolonged periods of prayer and my humility and my sincerity? NO, and you won't find that, because Jesus told us NOT to do that. As far as your accusation that I love to argue, I was not the one who started the argument here. As soon as I disagreed with your "method" or your viewpoint on original sin, or on logic, you come after me with your judgments, saying that if I was sincere, humble, and if I prayed for long periods of time, then I would receive answers from God - the same answers that you got. It doesn't work that way. Many sincere, humble, praying people, disagree with you.

[dwight92070]

Jesus said, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and 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.' Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?"
There can be no doubt that Philip was asking to see God. Jesus told Him, "He who has seen Me has seen (God) the Father."
If Jesus didn't want his disciples (or us, his disciples today) to believe that He was God, then He should never have made statements like that. None of us can say, "If you've seen me, you've seen God." No Bible author made such a statement. If we're mistaken in thinking that Jesus is God, then it's Jesus' own statements that have caused us to make that error in judgment. Not only those but the statements of several Bible authors give us the same information, that Jesus is Who He says He is - God.

"God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."
1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV

[darinhouston]

Jesus said, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and 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.' Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?"
There can be no doubt that Philip was asking to see God. Jesus told Him, "He who has seen Me has seen (God) the Father."
If Jesus didn't want his disciples (or us, his disciples today) to believe that He was God, then He should never have made statements like that. None of us can say, "If you've seen me, you've seen God." No Bible author made such a statement. If we're mistaken in thinking that Jesus is God, then it's Jesus' own statements that have caused us to make that error in judgment. Not only those but the statements of several Bible authors give us the same information, that Jesus is Who He says He is - God.

"God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."
1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV

Even if I conceded your "interpretation," this argument makes zero logical sense for a Trinitarian. No Trinitarian with any claim to any of the orthodox theories of the Trinity believes Jesus IS one and the same as the Father. Besides, he doesn't say "Do you not believe that I AM the Father?" He says the Father is "IN" him. But, arguing interpretation with you is typically fruitless. Hopefully you'll at least see the illogical of your own interpretation.

[dwight92070]

Jesus said, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and 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.' Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?"
There can be no doubt that Philip was asking to see God. Jesus told Him, "He who has seen Me has seen (God) the Father."
If Jesus didn't want his disciples (or us, his disciples today) to believe that He was God, then He should never have made statements like that. None of us can say, "If you've seen me, you've seen God." No Bible author made such a statement. If we're mistaken in thinking that Jesus is God, then it's Jesus' own statements that have caused us to make that error in judgment. Not only those but the statements of several Bible authors give us the same information, that Jesus is Who He says He is - God.

"God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."
1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV

Even if I conceded your "interpretation," this argument makes zero logical sense for a Trinitarian. No Trinitarian with any claim to any of the orthodox theories of the Trinity believes Jesus IS one and the same as the Father. Besides, he doesn't say "Do you not believe that I AM the Father?" He says the Father is "IN" him. But, arguing interpretation with you is typically fruitless. Hopefully you'll at least see the illogical of your own interpretation.

For some time now, I don't remember exactly when, I have not come to understand the Trinity, as it often is presented, or should I say, the orthodox view. My understanding of that view is that the three persons in the Godhead, are each themselves God, and yet there remains just one God. Also the three persons in the Godhead are distinct from each other. But Isaiah 9:6 identifies the Son as being the Mighty God (the Father). Also John 1 identifies God (the Father) as being the Son. Then 2 Corinthians 3:17 says that the Lord (the Son) is the Spirit. Then Luke says in Acts 5:3-4 that the Holy Spirit is the same as God (the Father). Yet, at the same time,they are distinct from each other.

So when Jesus says that when we see Him, we see the Father, we know He means God. So I accept the orthodox view but add to it what the scripture reveals - that each of the three are also the other. I'll name this belief "the Trinity 2.0" I think Steve Gregg believes this too. He doesn't have to say "Do you believe that I AM the Father?" because He just told them that He was - "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." So if arguing interpretation with me is fruitless, it is no less fruitless arguing interpretation with you. Obviously both the Trinity and the Trinity 2.0 are not logical. But that does not mean that they are not Biblical.

[darinhouston]

Jesus said, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and 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.' Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?"
There can be no doubt that Philip was asking to see God. Jesus told Him, "He who has seen Me has seen (God) the Father."
If Jesus didn't want his disciples (or us, his disciples today) to believe that He was God, then He should never have made statements like that. None of us can say, "If you've seen me, you've seen God." No Bible author made such a statement. If we're mistaken in thinking that Jesus is God, then it's Jesus' own statements that have caused us to make that error in judgment. Not only those but the statements of several Bible authors give us the same information, that Jesus is Who He says He is - God.

"God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory."
1 Timothy 3:16 NKJV

Even if I conceded your "interpretation," this argument makes zero logical sense for a Trinitarian. No Trinitarian with any claim to any of the orthodox theories of the Trinity believes Jesus IS one and the same as the Father. Besides, he doesn't say "Do you not believe that I AM the Father?" He says the Father is "IN" him. But, arguing interpretation with you is typically fruitless. Hopefully you'll at least see the illogical of your own interpretation.

For some time now, I don't remember exactly when, I have not come to understand the Trinity, as it often is presented, or should I say, the orthodox view. My understanding of that view is that the three persons in the Godhead, are each themselves God, and yet there remains just one God. Also the three persons in the Godhead are distinct from each other. But Isaiah 9:6 identifies the Son as being the Mighty God (the Father). Also John 1 identifies God (the Father) as being the Son. Then 2 Corinthians 3:17 says that the Lord (the Son) is the Spirit. Then Luke says in Acts 5:3-4 that the Holy Spirit is the same as God (the Father). Yet, at the same time,they are distinct from each other.

So when Jesus says that when we see Him, we see the Father, we know He means God. So I accept the orthodox view but add to it what the scripture reveals - that each of the three are also the other. I'll name this belief "the Trinity 2.0" I think Steve Gregg believes this too. He doesn't have to say "Do you believe that I AM the Father?" because He just told them that He was - "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." So if arguing interpretation with me is fruitless, it is no less fruitless arguing interpretation with you. Obviously both the Trinity and the Trinity 2.0 are not logical. But that does not mean that they are not Biblical.

If they are not logical, they are not Biblical. I do not believe Steve believes Jesus is the Father. I believe there are other ways to take the passage that are not illogical. If he is the exact image of the Father, then it is as if you are seeing the Father even if he is NOT the Father, himself. If I have a photo and send it to a friend whose never seen me and he says I don't know what you look like, I might say if you've seen that photo, you've seen me. That doesn't make the photo me. It really isn't all that complicated if you let go of just a little bit of dogma.

[Homer]

Darin,

You wrote:

If I have a photo and send it to a friend whose never seen me and he says I don't know what you look like, I might say if you've seen that photo, you've seen me.

We have a son who lives about 70 miles from us. If my son is having a conversation about me with a friend and his friend remarks that "I have never seen your father" and my son replies "if you have seen me you have seen my father"..............the analogy doesn't work with us.
We can not say relations we have with others in this life are a strict analogy to those of the Father and the Son.

[dwight92070]

Even if I conceded your "interpretation," this argument makes zero logical sense for a Trinitarian. No Trinitarian with any claim to any of the orthodox theories of the Trinity believes Jesus IS one and the same as the Father. Besides, he doesn't say "Do you not believe that I AM the Father?" He says the Father is "IN" him. But, arguing interpretation with you is typically fruitless. Hopefully you'll at least see the illogical of your own interpretation.

For some time now, I don't remember exactly when, I have not come to understand the Trinity, as it often is presented, or should I say, the orthodox view. My understanding of that view is that the three persons in the Godhead, are each themselves God, and yet there remains just one God. Also the three persons in the Godhead are distinct from each other. But Isaiah 9:6 identifies the Son as being the Mighty God (the Father). Also John 1 identifies God (the Father) as being the Son. Then 2 Corinthians 3:17 says that the Lord (the Son) is the Spirit. Then Luke says in Acts 5:3-4 that the Holy Spirit is the same as God (the Father). Yet, at the same time,they are distinct from each other.

So when Jesus says that when we see Him, we see the Father, we know He means God. So I accept the orthodox view but add to it what the scripture reveals - that each of the three are also the other. I'll name this belief "the Trinity 2.0" I think Steve Gregg believes this too. He doesn't have to say "Do you believe that I AM the Father?" because He just told them that He was - "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." So if arguing interpretation with me is fruitless, it is no less fruitless arguing interpretation with you. Obviously both the Trinity and the Trinity 2.0 are not logical. But that does not mean that they are not Biblical.

If they are not logical, they are not Biblical. I do not believe Steve believes Jesus is the Father. I believe there are other ways to take the passage that are not illogical. If he is the exact image of the Father, then it is as if you are seeing the Father even if he is NOT the Father, himself. If I have a photo and send it to a friend whose never seen me and he says I don't know what you look like, I might say if you've seen that photo, you've seen me. That doesn't make the photo me. It really isn't all that complicated if you let go of just a little bit of dogma.

If you look at the verse-by-verse on Steve's website for Isaiah 9 - go to 31:30 on the recording, you will hear Steve say that "Jesus is the Everlasting Father". So, yes, he also does seem to believe in the Trinity 2.0. Your statement "If they are not logical, they are not Biblical.", may apply to many doctrines in the Bible, probably most doctrines. But the Trinity or the Trinity 2.0 belief is not one of them. The ontology of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not logical - it doesn't fit into our earthly knowledge of how things or beings exist or how they work or act, etc. In fact, it is logical to deduce that the knowledge of God Himself and the makeup of the Godhead would be illogical. It only makes sense that our "little" brains cannot comprehend Him, Who created our brains. Job 38 through 41 makes that abundantly clear. We, as humans, can't even make a dent in understanding just a "tiny dot" of His creation - i.e. the earth. How could we think for five seconds that we can understand His Being? To say that "it really isn't all that complicated" is to ignore verses like Colossians 2:2 - " ...a true knowledge of God's mystery, Christ. He was not just an image - He was flesh and blood and Spirit - "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" Collosians 2:9. He is not only equal with God (John 5:18), He is God in the flesh (John 1:14) (1 Timothy 3:16).

[darinhouston]

Darin,

You wrote:

If I have a photo and send it to a friend whose never seen me and he says I don't know what you look like, I might say if you've seen that photo, you've seen me.

We have a son who lives about 70 miles from us. If my son is having a conversation about me with a friend and his friend remarks that "I have never seen your father" and my son replies "if you have seen me you have seen my father"..............the analogy doesn't work with us.
We can not say relations we have with others in this life are a strict analogy to those of the Father and the Son.

It doesn't work in the same way, no. Jesus was uniquely the exact representation of God on earth - this was the purpose of Jesus - to reflect and show us what God was like - it is an entirely reasonable way to talk about him even if it is not the same for us. The things God wants us to understand about him are embodied in and illustrated in Jesus' life. That is the context in which it is said and is entirely reasonable without inferring that he was trying to say "I am the Father." He said things like this a lot - if we wanted to say he was the Father it would have been really easy to say it. Just like I am Yahweh or I am the God of your father abraham, the one who created all and to whom you are to serve (and so forth). The vast sayings of Jesus were to reflect all glory back to the Father - not to receive it in himself. This is just not a reasonable position to suggest Jesus thought of himself as the Father or that he was trying to infer that.

[darinhouston]

For some time now, I don't remember exactly when, I have not come to understand the Trinity, as it often is presented, or should I say, the orthodox view. My understanding of that view is that the three persons in the Godhead, are each themselves God, and yet there remains just one God. Also the three persons in the Godhead are distinct from each other. But Isaiah 9:6 identifies the Son as being the Mighty God (the Father). Also John 1 identifies God (the Father) as being the Son. Then 2 Corinthians 3:17 says that the Lord (the Son) is the Spirit. Then Luke says in Acts 5:3-4 that the Holy Spirit is the same as God (the Father). Yet, at the same time,they are distinct from each other.

So when Jesus says that when we see Him, we see the Father, we know He means God. So I accept the orthodox view but add to it what the scripture reveals - that each of the three are also the other. I'll name this belief "the Trinity 2.0" I think Steve Gregg believes this too. He doesn't have to say "Do you believe that I AM the Father?" because He just told them that He was - "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." So if arguing interpretation with me is fruitless, it is no less fruitless arguing interpretation with you. Obviously both the Trinity and the Trinity 2.0 are not logical. But that does not mean that they are not Biblical.

If they are not logical, they are not Biblical. I do not believe Steve believes Jesus is the Father. I believe there are other ways to take the passage that are not illogical. If he is the exact image of the Father, then it is as if you are seeing the Father even if he is NOT the Father, himself. If I have a photo and send it to a friend whose never seen me and he says I don't know what you look like, I might say if you've seen that photo, you've seen me. That doesn't make the photo me. It really isn't all that complicated if you let go of just a little bit of dogma.

If you look at the verse-by-verse on Steve's website for Isaiah 9 - go to 31:30 on the recording, you will hear Steve say that "Jesus is the Everlasting Father". So, yes, he also does seem to believe in the Trinity 2.0. Your statement "If they are not logical, they are not Biblical.", may apply to many doctrines in the Bible, probably most doctrines. But the Trinity or the Trinity 2.0 belief is not one of them. The ontology of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not logical - it doesn't fit into our earthly knowledge of how things or beings exist or how they work or act, etc. In fact, it is logical to deduce that the knowledge of God Himself and the makeup of the Godhead would be illogical. It only makes sense that our "little" brains cannot comprehend Him, Who created our brains. Job 38 through 41 makes that abundantly clear. We, as humans, can't even make a dent in understanding just a "tiny dot" of His creation - i.e. the earth. How could we think for five seconds that we can understand His Being? To say that "it really isn't all that complicated" is to ignore verses like Colossians 2:2 - " ...a true knowledge of God's mystery, Christ. He was not just an image - He was flesh and blood and Spirit - "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" Collosians 2:9. He is not only equal with God (John 5:18), He is God in the flesh (John 1:14) (1 Timothy 3:16).

I'll have to go back and listen but I truly do not believe Steve would agree that Jesus is the same person as the Father (the first person of the trinity). If anything, he might have seen that as a reference to Jesus in some prophetic sense but not as an ontological identity. I just do not believe he would believe that.

There are things that defy our understanding we must submit to. But, if we are being illogical, we must try hard to reconsider our positions (on anything).