is jesus a god?

by javig 304 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Javig,

    I see your point but it is an interpretive one, not a "scriptural' one.

    I separate the two thusly:

    Scripture is what is plainly stated, ie: Jesus healed a blind man and rose Lazarus from the dead.

    Interpretation is what we get when we interpret a passage that doesn't seem to have an "obvious" meaning, John 1: 1 is a fine example.

    John states that the word is god, Lagos en Theos, yet before that he states that the word was ith God, Lagos en pros Theos.

    So How can Jesus (lagos) be God and be with God? why would John insist on making a distinction? I mean to say that Jesus is God certainly is enough to imply that Jesus was with/is one with God, so why make the satement of "location"?

    This is where interpretation comes in.

    To me Jesus is God, because he can be nothing other than God, for he is all that God is, how can he be anything else?

    Of course I am referring to Jesus's nature and not his "persona" and to be honest, the original trinity doctrine referes to the same thing.

  • sacolton
    sacolton

    The important question is: Is it essential for salvation to consider Jesus as God or a god?

    Jesus says in John 8:24, "Unless you believe that I Am, you shall die in your sins." According to Jesus it was very critical that we have a particular belief about him, and if we don't then we are lost in our sins. It isn't enough to simply believe in Him. And by the way, that text in John 8 is when Jesus was addressing particular people who had believed in Him in some fashion. But one needs to have an accurate belief in Jesus, not just any belief in Jesus in order for the true Christ to be their savior. I think that those are very critical distinctions and we have to hold to those if the word Christian is going to continue to mean something in particular and not just any religious thought that has to do with some man or any man named Jesus.

    I don't think that a person can repudiate the deity of Christ and call themselves a Christian because I think that the notion of the deity of Christ--God becoming man, God in three persons, one essence--is an essential defining doctrine of the faith. In other words, if you reject an essential or defining doctrine then you cannot call yourself by the title that is defined by these doctrines.

    Every word has a definition and usually the definition entails a couple of different things that make the full definition, and if the details are not there, you can't apply the word. The same is true of "Christian." The word Christian and being a Christian entails a couple of particular things historically. One of those particular things is that you believe in the unique deity of Jesus Christ--the Trinity, God become man, Jesus Christ being fully God and fully man, two natures, one person. If you reject that, you might have a very nice religion, but you just don't have Christianity. So in that sense you can't be a Christian and reject the deity of Christ.

    Part of the reason I would say that is that we are to believe in God and in Jesus Christ as He is in Himself. In other words, it doesn't seem to me that you can deny the nature of God, the nature of the God of the Scripture, and still call yourself a Christian. John says in John 4:24, "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth." In other words, there are some fundamental things you have got to have right about God or at least not be willing to repudiate. You can learn them, but once you repudiate them you are repudiating the very God you are saying you are seeking to worship. This is a God who is one God in essence and in substance, but has three persons, Father, Son and the Spirit; and the second person, called the Logos in John 1, takes on humanity, becomes a real man such that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures--the full nature of divinity and the full nature of humanity. And if you reject such a thing, I don't see how you can then say I have put my faith in Jesus because the Jesus that you put your faith in is not the Jesus of the Scriptures, and it is only the Jesus of the Scriptures who really saves you.

    So I think that it's actually very critical and I think it's important to point out that Paul himself talked about another Jesus that was preached that some unfortunately accept, but a Jesus that is contrary to the Jesus of Scriptures. In fact, Jesus warned in Matthew 24 that one characteristic of the end times is the fact that false messiahs would come and claim to be someone special and mislead many. And I think that false messiahs are individuals who claim to be messiah or else substitute definitions for the Jesus of Scripture. I think the denial of the deity of Christ is such a substitution.

    Which to choose? To consider Jesus Christ the God of us as Thomas did ... or accept Him as "a god"?

  • lovelylil2
    lovelylil2

    sac,

    I do not deny the divinity of Christ, just so you know. But the trinity doctrine was developed later. If a Christian accepts Christ as the Lord of their Life but is struggling to fully understand the trinity concept, does that make them any less a Christian than I am? I do not think so. Peace Lilly

  • sacolton
    sacolton

    I don't think fully understanding the Trinity is necessary. Humans can't be expected to comprehend the nature or form of God - much like trying to comprehend the ability to live forever ... or the vastness of the universe and many other things.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Lilly,

    I am not a trinitarian, not in the sense that I believe Jesus to be YHWH, I believe Jesus to be the son of God and for all intents and purposes, God, in regards to our salvation, he is our Lord and Saviour and was Paul wrote, the exact form of God in who, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.

    But notice that in all the scripture and all the times that Paul "insinuates" the Jesus is God, Paul never once says "Jesus is God", nope, he does however comment quite thoroughly on Jesus being Divine, for over anythign else, except God.

    sacolton,

    "All the call on the name of Jesus and believe him to be the son of God, our lord and saviour, that he died and was ressurected and rules at our Fathers side, shall be saved".

    I am paraphrasing of course, but that is the core of Christian salvation.

    If on choose to view the relationship between God, Jesus and the HS as a "triune" relationship, thatis fine.

    The crucial matter is one of Jesus's divinity and his oneness with God and the HS, one must truly believe that part, HOW we believe that part is up to the individual.

  • lovelylil2
    lovelylil2

    Sacramento,

    Agreed!

  • Inkie
    Inkie

    Javig: Greetings.

    Thank you, Javig, for not being in a rush. Sometimes I work long hours and can’t get back to people as quickly as I should like. As to your questions: “[W]hy you personally don’t see the bible as many, including me, to be inspired and infallible word of GOD. If you can? answer me these questions.”

    Well, first, the Bible nowhere states that it is the “infallible word of God.” Nowhere. Second, the Bible does state that Christ severely warned the Scribes as to their occupation when he said: “Woe to your scribes, etc.” That itself should give one pause for serious consideration. Yes? Third, the Bible itself warns us of those who tamper with its contents. It even goes so far as to list, in some places, the consequences for doing so. Yes? Fourth, the prophet Jeremiah warned us of the “false stylus” of the scribe. Yes? Fifth, Christ said that one of the reasons he came was to tell us the “truth” in contrast to what the scribes and Pharisees of that time were telling the people. Yes? My conclusion? All of the above tells me, that the Bible is not the “infallible word of God.” The fact that the Bible can be and has been tampered with is itself blatant evidence that it is not “infallible.” As to the Bible’s inspiration, the Bible states that “all scripture is inspired of God, NOT ‘all the Bible is inspired of God.” In the last chapter of Luke in two places it is recorded there that Jesus identified what “scripture” is. He is reported to have said there that “scriptures” are the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. He didn’t identify any other writings to be “scripture,” thus I can conclude that the Bible contains “some scripture” but that not all of it is scripture. Also, in other places in the Bible, the Bible states most emphatically that Jesus Christ himself is the “Word of God.” And, no, the expression “written word of God” appears nowhere in the Bible. So, for me, the “scriptures,” which Jesus identified, are inspired, while the other books not identified by Christ are not inspired. They, like history books or epistles, contain valuable information—but not “inspired” information. Please note that the first five books of the Bible (called the Pentateuch) are alleged to have been written by Moses. A careful reading of them will show you they were not written by him. To the extent that they quote the things Moses said and did and received from God, to that extent one may consider them inspired because they quote the writings of Moses. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy were written ABOUT Moses but not BY Moses. In all four of those books, Moses is written about in the Third Person. Do you understand what that means? These books were not written by him. And, all of it has been tampered with such the Christ needed to come to tells us the “truth” of things.

    I trust that the above answers your questions regarding what I mean by “some scripture” and “not scripture,” and in answer to your question of “what is the meaning you are putting to the word ‘srciptures’?” I trust the above also answers: “What parts of the bible you don’t take as scripture? And inspired? And infallible?”

    You ask: “Also, as good as the ‘scriptures’ are (and I grant you they are good, to a point’…tell me, to what point they are good?”

    The point to which the “scriptures” are good is to that point in which they have not been tampered with. Do you not see that? The “scriptures are extremely valuable and “beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, that the man of God may be fit for every good work”; but only to the point in which they have not been tampered with. For example, and this is merely an example (one that I hope you get [no disrespect intended]), if a legal document is tampered with, will the courts rely on it. Come now? That tampered document will be thoroughly examined by numerous experts to determine its validity. They have to determine which part of the legal text has been tampered with, how, and why so, etc., etc., etc. And sometimes the legal document is rejected in parts or even in toto. The “scriptures” are more valuable than any legal document, and while we may trust much of the “scriptures,” caution needs to be employed when things have been tampered with. I’m sure you will agree and see my point.

    You ask: “[W]hich bible translation you personally see as a truthfull rendering of the original manuscript?” I think that all Bible translations have truthfulness in them. I also think all Bible translations have error in them. One Bible translation may have more of one thing than the other, but they are all many many many times removed from the originals. There are not originals extant. Are there? All we have available to us are copies of copies. I would tend to think that depending on one’s upbringing and religious education by being born and raised in a religious organization that one might think one Bible translation is better than another. At one time I have had 37 different translations on my home bookshelves. For one reason or another, they were all good, they were all poor. You choose. I have no favorites.

    I hope that I have answered your questions to your satisfaction as to what I believe.

    Respectfully,

    --Inkie

  • lampstand
    lampstand

    here is some interesting scripture for everyone to read...

    Proverbs 8:10-36

    ...pay close attention to verses starting at 22-31, but really you should read the whole chapter.

    I would like to know your thoughts about this scripture.

    Ciao,

  • lampstand
    lampstand

    apparently, nobody is willing to read my last post...pitty

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    apparently, nobody is willing to read my last post...pitty

    You can start by actually posting the verses....;)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit