Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  Littletoe,

  Anything Jesus does it done with God's power, so it does not originate in himself, while it does originate in God, and hence Isaiah 44:24.
• 

  Mondo1

  Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of non-living things.
• 

  Mondo1

  You rather hit the nail on the head. Jesus was more than these things, and yet all were God's creation, and so if he could make use of these lesser things, he could certainly make use of Jesus, a greater creation.
• 

  M.J.

  Then, does it follow, since "I" refers to Jehovah or "God", that this designation can be inclusive of Jesus?
• 

  LittleToe

  Mondo:

  Anything Jesus does it done with God's power, so it does not originate in himself, while it does originate in God, and hence Isaiah 44:24.

  While he claimed (while on earth) to do nothing of his own initiative, at what point does he ever state that he borrows the Father's power?

  Aside from that you already accepted that the Word made all things, so surely Isa.44:24 contradicts that if you believe that Isaiah is only refering to the Father?

  I'm not particularly trying to be controversial, here. I'm just trying to find some consistency in your statements, but thusfar it eludes me. Please be assured that it isn't from a lack of knowledge of the WTS position and the frame of words you are using, as I was an Elder for years. It's simply because I no longer find internal consistency in the WTS theology. It has more holes in it than a sieve.

  I'll grant you that the Trinity doctrine isn't without it's issues, but IMHO it makes more sense of more of the texts. But even stepping back from that, there are no holes at all in the simple acceptance of the deity of Christ (with or without the Trinity doctrine), especially if you apply the name YHWH to him and assume that he grew up.
• 

  Mondo1

  While he claimed ( while on earth ) to do nothing of his own initiative, at what point does he ever state that he borrows the Father's power?

  I beleive Hebrews 1:2 articulates this quite clearly, stating that Jesus upholds all things by the word of his (the Father's) power. (follow back in the context.. his glory (the Father's) and his being (the Father's)). Further, as a created being, anything Jesus had in terms of power would have to be sourced in the Father, for there is no power than does not originate with God in some way.

  Aside from that you already accepted that the Word made all things, so surely Isa.44:24 contradicts that if you believe that Isaiah is only refering to the Father?

  I fail to see how such is true. Hebrews 1:1-2 demands that it be a reference to the Father though.

  I'm not particularly trying to be controversial, here. I'm just trying to find some consistency in your statements, but thusfar it eludes me. Please be assured that it isn't from a lack of knowledge of the WTS position and the frame of words you are using, as I was an Elder for years. It's simply because I no longer find internal consistency in the WTS theology. It has more holes in it than a sieve.

  Hopefully you can see by now that I am not one to hold to something because the WT says it. In fact, I disagree with them on a number of details in these things.

  I'll grant you that the Trinity doctrine isn't without it's issues, but IMHO it makes more sense of more of the texts. But even stepping back from that, there are no holes at all in the simple acceptance of the deity of Christ ( with or without the Trinity doctrine ), especially if you apply the name YHWH to him and assume that he grew up.

  Please do not misunderstand. I fully accept the deity of Christ. I believe this is spelled out in several places, such as Colossians 2:9. I simply recognize that his deity does not originate in himself as the Almighty God, but he has been given it by the Father. (Col. 1:19)
• 

  LittleToe

  Mondo:
  I'm enjoying this immensely. I take great pleasure in being able to discuss theology with people who have a variety of viewpoints. It's nice to see that, while some of the basic premises are similar, you aren't just doling out all the stale WTS stuff.

  I can see how you come to that conclusion from your reading of Heb.1. My own reading is slightly different. Please bear with me and I'll explain how by highlighting the text of Heb. 1:1-4 from the NWT:

  God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets (additional reflection: who actually brought the message to the prophets? Evidently it was "God", but was this really the Father, or was it actually his representative?), has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whomhe made the systems of things. (Emphasis has been on "God",but at this point this now change to the Son...) He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, andhe sustains all things by the word of his power(who is it who actually speaks the word of power, since "word" isn't a title here, and if it were then it would evidently be self-refering?); and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places (additional reflecton: is this a title of God or a position?). So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.

  Heb.1:3 has a parallel in Col.1:17. I don't see why he has any need to "borrow" power to perform the function that he exercises. I could understand where you were coming from if you were claiming he needed his Father's approval/authority, but I don't see how he would be tasked with a job that he had no ability to perform. Further, if you hold that he was created, then why would he be created without the inate ability to do what he was created for?

  In other words, is the whole theory of borrowed power based upon a single interpretable phrase?

  I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just asking if you see my perspective, and my difficulties with your perspective? I certainly much prefer your perspective (as revealed thusfar) to that of the WTS, even though it doesn't go quite as far as my own.
• 

  LittleToe

  I didn't want to mix up the points, so I've made a separate post of this...

  Please do not misunderstand. I fully accept the deity of Christ. I believe this is spelled out in several places, such as Colossians 2:9. I simply recognize that his deity does not originate in himself as the Almighty God, but he has been given it by the Father. (Col. 1:19)

  I can understand this perspective also, especially in reference to each having their own role, and the Father being the source of that which is carried out by the Son. I don't think we're in complete disharmony on this issue.

  Where we may need to tease out the semantics is over when this occured since I hold that this occured in eternity, which is timeless, rather than specifically after the resurrection. It's akin to the question "when did he become the Son?", to which the answer usually comes "was the Father ever not the Father and, if not, how could he be so without a Son?"

  An additional significant issue is understanding what is mean by "equality" in the Trinity. Most would hold this to be due to their substance being identical (a point I know you agree with). Just as you and I are made of the same substance, we are also equal. That has no bearing on what roles we have in life, wherein one might be another's boss.

  The reason I conjoin these subjects is because I see the very essense of the substance of the Divine as having an eternal quality. By their very "Divine nature" they dwell in eternity, and hence are not subject to the constraints of time such as ourselves. Hence they are first and last, and have no need to foresee or tweak events, as they exist in an ever-present "now", or "I AM".

  Just my 2p
• 

  Mondo1

  Do you see how you jump in quoting Hebrews 1:3?

  He - Jesus

  His - The Father

  His - The Father

  He - Jesus

  His - Jesus or the Father?

  You say the final his is Jesus, but if we follow what is being spoken of in the context, AUTOU would continue to be the Father, not the Son.

  If he was created with an ability or power, that power still originated with God, for God gave that to him, so God is still the source of it, is he not?

  This is not the only text though. Let us go back to John 5:30, where he plainly says, "I do nothing of myself." In other words, in and of himself, Jesus does nothing. How then does he do what he does? By God working through him, and thus he making use of God's power. Consider Jesus' miracles. We speak of him doing this or him doing that, but was he acting of himself, using his own power? According to Acts, it was God who performed them in him. So it would have been the Father's power.

  With that said, I would certainly grant your position with Jesus as a created being as far as he was created with the power and ability, but at the end of the day, I still see that being sourced in the Father as his creator.
• 

  Mondo1

  Where we may need to tease out the semantics is over when this occured since I hold that this occured in eternity, which is timeless, rather than specifically after the resurrection. It's akin to the question "when did he become the Son?", to which the answer usually comes "was the Father ever not the Father and, if not, how could he be so without a Son?"

  I have commonly heard this argument from Trinitarians and it strikes me as contradictory. The verse says, when translated literally, that God "happily chose" this for Jesus. Now to choose something is an action. An action has to be performed for it to take place, and yet to say that it "occured in eternity" is to really say that it was always this way and so it never really happened as the text says, it just was. But as the text says it happened, how can you accept that it was always so?

  Now, on the matter of him being Father without a Son, I believe that the same would be said of him as creator. Since there was not always creation, he has not always been the creator. I suspect the answer to this is found in that he has always had the ability to do it.

  An additional significant issue is understanding what is mean by "equality" in the Trinity. Most would hold this to be due to their substance being identical ( a point I know you agree with ). Just as you and I are made of the same substance, we are also equal. That has no bearing on what roles we have in life, wherein one might be another's boss.

  I would agree with that, to an extent, but also being made of the same substance, a father and a son are made of the same substance, but the father always comes before the son and while they are made of the same type of stuff, they are not a single being as Trinitarians argue for God. I see the Trinitarian position flatly contradicted in the assertion of them being one being in Hebrews 1:3 though, for Jesus is said to be the copy of God's being, or the copy of his substance. Whenever you have a copy of something you always have two, the original (God the Father) and the copy (Jesus Christ).

  The reason I conjoin these subjects is because I see the very essense of the substance of the Divine as having an eternal quality. By their very "Divine nature" they dwell in eternity, and hence are not subject to the constraints of time such as ourselves. Hence they are first and last, and have no need to foresee or tweak events, as they exist in an ever-present "now", or "I AM".

  I would agree that the substance is eternal. I would disagree that the life is eternal. In other words, Jesus Christ did not always exist, but I believe God formed him of his own substance, of his own being. Once formed, God gave him life. Hence, according to the most ancient punctuation of John 1:4, we read: "What came to be in him was life and the life was the light of men." I believe that after God formed him he then gave him life, and that life came to be in him, much like in the creation account of Adam. We are told that "the life was the light of men" for in the life coming into this one, he created the one that would come to be the Messiah, who is identified as such.