The Great Debate: Is Jesus God?

[jeremiah]

I just don't see anything to suggest this was in anyone's mind other than some pretty vague and mysterious language by John which could have other explanations and which is very difficult to get consensus in translation.

good morning darin,
i resonate with the basic thrust of what you've been discussing here, so don't mistake this for antagonism. but would you not also include some of paul's statements along with john's? such as, what's called "the carmen christi" in phillipians ch 2, and also "...and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory..." 1 titus 3:16(edit- wow what a blunder, i meant timothy. thanks paidion)? or are you starting to understand these more along the lines of "agency" ?

grace and peace...

[Paidion]

What's "the carmen christi" of Philippians chapter 2? I searched and couldn't find anything like that in the chapter.

As for "...great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh..." in I Timothy 3:16, this is the way the Textus Receptus Greek has it, and thus the translations which are based on it, such as the King James, New King James, Websters, etc. The Greek text used seems to be the fourth century Alexandrius text. Most modern translations which consider Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, etc., translate the relative pronoun as "who" or "he". The majority of the modern translations have "He was manifested in the flesh."
Unfortunately, no papyri prior to 300 A.D. containing I Timothy are extant.

In the Greek of the period all words were written in capitals. The relative pronoun was spelled "OC" (pronounce "hos". The sigma looked like a "C". Copyists could easily change the omega (O) to a theta (Θ) by placing a single stroke through it. The two letters now looked like this: ΘC. Then by placing a stroke over the two letters (which I do not know how to show here) the two letters were an abbreviation for "ΘΕΟC" ("theos" or "God"). As far as I know there are no manuscripts which appear to have been "ΘC" with the stroke over it, in which the two strokes appear to have been erased. So I presume that those manuscripts which which contain "ΘC" with a stroke over it, have added the overstroke as well as the stroke in the centre of the "Θ".

[darinhouston]

What's "the carmen christi" of Philippians chapter 2? I searched and couldn't find anything like that in the chapter.

I googled it and came up with this: http://www.justforcatholics.org/09.06.pdf

Looks like it's a term describing what is called the "hymn of Christ" relating it seems to the kenosis and subsequent glorification of Christ.

[darinhouston]

I just don't see anything to suggest this was in anyone's mind other than some pretty vague and mysterious language by John which could have other explanations and which is very difficult to get consensus in translation.

good morning darin,
i resonate with the basic thrust of what you've been discussing here, so don't mistake this for antagonism. but would you not also include some of paul's statements along with john's? such as, what's called "the carmen christi" in phillipians ch 2, and also "...and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness,God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory..." 1 titus 3:16(edit- wow what a blunder, i meant timothy. thanks paidion)? or are you starting to understand these more along the lines of "agency" ?

grace and peace...

I don't think "mere" agency answers all the questions. There is a real sense to me in which Christ is much more than agency addresses. I do think a number of the main objections folks typical raise can be answered (to my mind, at least) by agency, but I don't think it answers all that Scripture describes. I think the fact that He shared the same Holy Spirit that to my mind IS God makes Him much more than a mere agent (or even a royal prince/successor notion) and I can see Him as God in that sense without there being a need for any Trinitarian formulation. So, I think I'm leaning more to a God-man view than a Unitarian might, though technically I think it's still a Unitarian position since I don't see any need for individual "persons" within a god-head. I don't think it's necessary to see Jesus Christ as having pre-incarnate existence as such. That Holy Spirit and its Logos nature pre-existed and has been manifested in many ways over Creation history, but not until the begotten man who was incarnate and indwelt by that Spirit did such manifestation fully reflect/manifest the totality of who God is sufficiently to be called the perfect image of God. As an aside, we know Jesus isn't literally the perfect representation of God since even in the Trinitarian formulation He emptied Himself of certain attributes or glory of God in the incarnation. We know what it means without carrying it to such a literal extreme as many do.

[jriccitelli]

I have to apologize to Paidion, I now understand what you said on 4-22, Paidion said; "You are using the word "God" in two different senses in #2".
I was not thinking of God in two different senses in 'that' context, but I agree that Jesus and scripture do occasionally speak of God in two, or more, different senses.
Senses in the sense that scripture also speaks of Jesus (and many things) in two different senses; For example;
'The son of Mary' vs. 'The Son of God'
'Jesus the carpenter from Galilee' vs. 'Jesus the Lamb who is Lord of lords and King of kings' (Rev.17:14)
'Jesus the accursed of God' vs. 'Jesus the One exalted'; "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing."
'Jesus who was dead' vs. 'is also alive forevermore' (Rev.1:17)
'God who is Rapha', is also 'God who kills and devours' (Hosea 13:8)
God is in a sense 'compassionate', and in another sense God is an 'enemy' (Jer. 30:14)
I am in a sense 'dead', and in another sense I am 'alive'

Nevertheless no matter what sense an 'object' is spoken of there is only 'one object', there is One God (the main object), One Jesus (a part of the One, yet still the main object).
There is 'one' me, and my spirit is 'part' of what makes up myself with my body, yet my spirit is also as much me as my body is me.
I see the incarnation of Christ (God) to be a clothing of the All Mighty so that we might know Him, and as God walked with Adam in the Garden, God certainly would have had to envelope Himself in something more approachable than Omnipotent power and infinite potential.

[Perry]

(a part of the One, yet still the main object)

<Picture Perry eating popcorn, waiting for the challenges to that statement.>

[jesusrules777]

darin: I love how you include your wife in the picture for your profile. It appears as though you don't see yourself as a single person, but you and your wife are truly "one flesh" as God designed!

In terms of the Godhead (being) comprised of three persons, we can best understand this scenerio by the fact that we were created in His image. The human (being) was created in this image with a spirit, soul and body. (3 in one) We could relate the human body to Jesus, the human soul to God and the human spirit to the Holy Spirit. You see, the Godhead is also soul, Spirit and body.

In addition, the human soul is also three in one. The mind (Jesus), the will (God), and the spirit,(Holy Spirit). As we willingly submit and surrender our mind to Jesus, we can actually have the "mind of Christ" that Paul speaks about. As we submit and surrender our will to God's will, (He gives us the desires of our heart) we make more godly choices. Finally, our human spirit can actually be transformed into the Holy Spirit as we choose spiritual rebirth.

We were brilliantly designed in His image to allow Him to integrate Himself completely into our being (3 in one) as we mature in the santification process so we can come to the place of "no longer I that lives, but Christ who lives in me."

Isn't God amazing!!

[Paidion]

The problem, for a Trinitarian, with your body/soul/spirit analogy, JR, is that the human being is a single individual consciousness (whether he is made up of body, soul, and spirit, or not). But for a Trinitarian, God is a compound Being comprised of THREE divine Individuals, each one a different consciousness.

Your analogy works well for Modalists — those who believe God is a single Individual who expresses Himself in three modes, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Are you a Modalist, JR?

[darinhouston]

I also think comparing Jesus simply to the "mind" of God is too simplistic. He is so much more and so much less. He was (and seems still to be for eternity future) a man. He appears not to always have been a man. Also, the incarnation of the man Jesus did not seem to share (or "be") the mind of God. He only knew what the Father told Him. He did, however, share the same Spirit which communicated the "mind" of God to Him. So, it seems to have been the Spirit that indwelled and enlivened Him which was uniquely God, and not the mind (should we now capitalize "Mind?"). The "Logos" became flesh, but in what sense? Was the flesh that was created to illustrate perfectly the Logos of God? Or was it a literal transformation? We have no way of knowing and Paidion's translation of John 1 shows just how sketchy the historic understanding can be based on literal dogmatizing of principles from a few passages with very tricky translations.

[jesusrules777]

"Are you a Modalist, JR?"

No, I'm just a follower of Jesus.

darin,

Simplicity seems to be the best way to understand what is complicated. Jesus used parables so His sheep could understand. Intellect can often get in the way of Truth and revelation. Our brain which is physical and will die with our body, can cloud the ability of our mind (part of our soul which will be with us for eternity) to understand spiritual reality.