The Deity of Jesus

[dwight92070]

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).

Quotes from Steve on that same recording: "He (Jesus) is the Everlasting Father intruding into our world in the person of His Son" " ... the Father is greater than I, but I'm Him." "mysterious, but not entirely non-sensical" On another occasion, when I called Steve, he made statements like: "In one sense they are separate from one another. In another sense, they are each other.", speaking of the three persons of the Trinity. That is Trinity 2.0 talk. "It's above my paygrade."

[dizerner]

Just a point, aviad, translated as "Everlasting Father," is a somewhat more ambiguous phrase, literally meaning "Father of Eternity."

You can be father with X quality (such as "everlasting"), or you can be the father of X property ("eternity").

If we take it as the Messiah "begetting" or "authoring" an eternity, he is not then being technically called "the Father."

[darinhouston]

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).

Quotes from Steve on that same recording: "He (Jesus) is the Everlasting Father intruding into our world in the person of His Son" " ... the Father is greater than I, but I'm Him." "mysterious, but not entirely non-sensical" On another occasion, when I called Steve, he made statements like: "In one sense they are separate from one another. In another sense, they are each other.", speaking of the three persons of the Trinity. That is Trinity 2.0 talk. "It's above my paygrade."

Well, whatever Steve may or may not think about it, it is simply not Trinitarian to think of Jesus as being the Father in any sense at all - Trinity 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 or whatever. One of the hallmarks of Trinitarian orthodoxy (even modern versions, of which there are many) is that there is no sense in which the three persons of the trinity are not distinct. They are all "God" but they are as much separate individual persons as you and I are. If Steve means what it sounds like he might mean by your paraphrase, then he is more aligned with my views than any Trinitarian. Since I see the Father as "God" (and God alone) and see God as "Spirit" and the Spirit living in and through Jesus, then there is a sense in which the Spirit is in the world in and through Jesus. But, he is not the same person in any context as the Father (or Spirit).

[darinhouston]

Well, whatever Steve may or may not think about it, it is simply not Trinitarian to think of Jesus as being the Father in any sense at all - Trinity 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 or whatever. One of the hallmarks of Trinitarian orthodoxy (even modern versions, of which there are many) is that there is no sense in which the three persons of the trinity are not distinct. They are all "God" but they are as much separate individual persons as you and I are. If Steve means what it sounds like he might mean by your paraphrase, then he is more aligned with my views than any Trinitarian. Since I see the Father as "God" (and God alone) and see God as "Spirit" and the Spirit living in and through Jesus, then there is a sense in which the Spirit is in the world in and through Jesus. But, he is not the same person in any context as the Father (or Spirit).

I went back and listened to Steve - it wasn't very clear but I think you misunderstand him -- though he does sound more like a Sabellian/modalist (in contrast to a Trinitarian) in some ways of talking about Jesus and the Father being merely manifestations of God. He clarifies himself to really distance his views from that but one of his examples is that you might see the Cloud (in the wilderness wanderings) and say that is God manifest on earth - not that the cloud "IS" God but that you see him breaking in and being seen by us as the Cloud.

He doesn't make the following suggestion, but in a similar way you could say the Church is the manifestation of God in the world today and that if you want to know God you know him by how he's represented by the Church. This makes further sense since the Church is the Body of Christ and when you see the Church you see Christ (though it is not ontologically the same person).

Basically, all efforts to make sense of God outside a strictly monotheistic position become illogical if you talk about them long enough. That is a good indication that we should perhaps rethink our presuppositions. It could still be true, of course, but if we don't at least recognize the possibility that it's got a few fundamental presuppositions that might be flawed, then we're just being stubborn dogmatists.

[dwight92070]

Apparently you have a presupposition that when you speak of the ontology of God, specifically in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it must be logical, or else it cannot be valid. I disagree with that, and I gave you scripture as to why. Did you forget that Christ is God's mystery? That means that WHO He IS cannot be fully comprehended, because God cannot be fully comprehended, yet you seem to think that He can be.

[darinhouston]

Apparently you have a presupposition that when you speak of the ontology of God, specifically in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it must be logical, or else it cannot be valid. I disagree with that, and I gave you scripture as to why. Did you forget that Christ is God's mystery? That means that WHO He IS cannot be fully comprehended, because God cannot be fully comprehended, yet you seem to think that He can be.

Mystery is not logical contradiction in revelation - it is incomplete revelation beyond our understanding. Not in conflict with sound reasoning.

How the Spirit operates is a mystery - how Jesus could be born of a virgin is a mystery. The way in which the atonement works is in large part a mystery. Saying someone is both x and not x is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction and God is not the author of confusion. Partial revelation, yes, but not confusion. Confusion comes from doctrines of men.

[dwight92070]

Apparently you have a presupposition that when you speak of the ontology of God, specifically in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it must be logical, or else it cannot be valid. I disagree with that, and I gave you scripture as to why. Did you forget that Christ is God's mystery? That means that WHO He IS cannot be fully comprehended, because God cannot be fully comprehended, yet you seem to think that He can be.

Mystery is not logical contradiction in revelation - it is incomplete revelation beyond our understanding. Not in conflict with sound reasoning.

How the Spirit operates is a mystery - how Jesus could be born of a virgin is a mystery. The way in which the atonement works is in large part a mystery. Saying someone is both x and not x is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction and God is not the author of confusion. Partial revelation, yes, but not confusion. Confusion comes from doctrines of men.

Peter told Cornelius to get up - not to bow down to him. He said that he too was just a man. Two angels on two separate occasions told John not to bow down to them. They each told John to worship God. Jesus refused to bow down and worship Satan and quoted the Old Covenant: You shall (bow down) and worship only the Lord God.
Yet the New Testament is filled with many people that fell at Jesus' feet and worshiped Him. He never once rebuked them for that. He never said to them: Don't do that, you should only worship God. He received and even, on occasion, encouraged people to worship Him.

So if Jesus is not God, then the Bible gives us a HUGE contradiction, doesn't it - just on this one point alone? There are many other apparent contradictions in the Bible, many of which would cause great confusion - UNLESS you accept the plain and simple meaning of multitudes of scriptures that tell us that Jesus is God. But you refuse to believe the obvious and you always make up some way of rationalizing those scriptures or quote someone else who does the same thing - to change the plain meaning to something that will not allow the truth that Jesus is God.
You are correct - confusion comes from the doctrines of men and their twisting of scripture. You spread confusion and you twist the scripture to make it say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.
Truly, Jesus is not YOUR God.

[darinhouston]

Apparently you have a presupposition that when you speak of the ontology of God, specifically in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it must be logical, or else it cannot be valid. I disagree with that, and I gave you scripture as to why. Did you forget that Christ is God's mystery? That means that WHO He IS cannot be fully comprehended, because God cannot be fully comprehended, yet you seem to think that He can be.

Mystery is not logical contradiction in revelation - it is incomplete revelation beyond our understanding. Not in conflict with sound reasoning.

How the Spirit operates is a mystery - how Jesus could be born of a virgin is a mystery. The way in which the atonement works is in large part a mystery. Saying someone is both x and not x is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction and God is not the author of confusion. Partial revelation, yes, but not confusion. Confusion comes from doctrines of men.

Peter told Cornelius to get up - not to bow down to him. He said that he too was just a man. Two angels on two separate occasions told John not to bow down to them. They each told John to worship God. Jesus refused to bow down and worship Satan and quoted the Old Covenant: You shall (bow down) and worship only the Lord God.
Yet the New Testament is filled with many people that fell at Jesus' feet and worshiped Him. He never once rebuked them for that. He never said to them: Don't do that, you should only worship God. He received and even, on occasion, encouraged people to worship Him.

So if Jesus is not God, then the Bible gives us a HUGE contradiction, doesn't it - just on this one point alone? There are many other apparent contradictions in the Bible, many of which would cause great confusion - UNLESS you accept the plain and simple meaning of multitudes of scriptures that tell us that Jesus is God. But you refuse to believe the obvious and you always make up some way of rationalizing those scriptures or quote someone else who does the same thing - to change the plain meaning to something that will not allow the truth that Jesus is God.
You are correct - confusion comes from the doctrines of men and their twisting of scripture. You spread confusion and you twist the scripture to make it say what you want it to say, not what it actually says.
Truly, Jesus is not YOUR God.

He is my Lord. There are interpretation and presuppositions in your examples that make some views seem inconsistent in some ways but not contradictory. These are easily qualified statements which avoid contradictions - not the same category of logic at all as saying someone is a distinct person from another but also they are the same person. That's the stuff of something being both black and non-black.

[dwight92070]

Quoting Darin: "Saying someone is both X and not X is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction, and God is not the author of confusion."
The Bible does not say that Jesus, the Son, is both the Father and not the Father. It appears to say that He is distinct from the Father but He is also the Father. Even though Jesus is different from the Father, He still remains the Father.

" ... God is not the author of confusion ..." 1 Corinthians 14:33 The context here is order during the assembly of church. God wants us to have order and peace during our assembly together. You cannot apply that verse to the ontology of God. You cannot obligate God to change his very being, in order for us to not be confused by Who He is, or what His makeup is. He is beyond our little brain to comprehend. I AM THAT I AM or I AM WHO I AM. If we are confused by the ontology of God, so be it, God's not going to change, just so you and I won't be confused about His very being. He doesn't owe us a full-on 100% explanation of Who He is or what form He takes.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Here we see the Word as distinct from God, but He is also God.
This does not say: "The Word is both God and not God". It seems to be saying: "The Word is distinct from God, yet at the same time, He is God." Confusing? Of course it is. So what? The Bible nowhere says that He has to fully explain Himself to us. Our salvation doesn't depend on it, thank God, so if it's confusing, not a problem - we can still be content, saved, and yet remain confused about that particular issue.

[dwight92070]

Apparently you have a presupposition that when you speak of the ontology of God, specifically in reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it must be logical, or else it cannot be valid. I disagree with that, and I gave you scripture as to why. Did you forget that Christ is God's mystery? That means that WHO He IS cannot be fully comprehended, because God cannot be fully comprehended, yet you seem to think that He can be.

Mystery is not logical contradiction in revelation - it is incomplete revelation beyond our understanding. Not in conflict with sound reasoning.

Dwight - These statements themselves are inconsistent. If we have incomplete revelation, then that means that there is knowledge that we don't know about. So there is no way to know whether that unknown knowledge contains logical contradictions or not. Therefore it is possible that yet unknown knowledge (which is mystery) could contain logical contradictions.

How the Spirit operates is a mystery - how Jesus could be born of a virgin is a mystery. The way in which the atonement works is in large part a mystery. Saying someone is both x and not x is not a mystery - it is a logical contradiction and God is not the author of confusion. Partial revelation, yes, but not confusion. Confusion comes from doctrines of men.