Is Jesus God? A look at Christology.

[Chesso 0]

Your english seems pretty darn good to me, nice work.I'll check your link out later.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Some topics on this forum made me to write an article about God, so you can read it by the bottom link and if you want to get the idea, I think you need to read it all. (English is my third language, so it isn't very fluent, I lack English words)

 

http://me.quatrux.net/browse.php/does-god-exist.html

 

I read your page, but there is not much that I can say. I see incredible ignorance about many things in science (evolution), mathematics, religion, philosophy, and the nature of man and society, but all of us are learning about these things and you do not pretend to know everything.

 

One of the philosophies that I fell in love with in seminary was the pragmatism of Charles Sanders Pierce (the only systematic philosophy by the way that was born on American soil). The main idea, as I understand it, is that the effect of believing something is part of its truth value, or to put it a bit crassly, something is true if it works for you, improving your life. I also was rather enamoured of the writings of Scott Peck M.D. (beginning with "A Road Less Traveled") a clinical psychiatrist who explores the link between spirituality and psychological health based on his observations as a clinical psychiatrist. He observed that in the process of helping them, some people left their religion and some people joined a religious group. He concluded that there was a path of spiritual development that included a stage(s) of skepticism that were more advanced than a stage(s) that we would call religious. But He, as I do, believe that there are religious commitments that go beyond skepticism, that can embrace religious, skeptical, and scientific point of view. In the skeptical stage we learn to be brutally honest, squashing the prevarications which prop up our most tempting delusions, but once we have utterly given up the addiction to certainty, it is possible to see the hints of deeper truth in religion behind all the flaws and uncertainties that lie in the way. In fact, this point is often reached when skepticism advances to the extreme of becoming skeptical about skepticism itself. Thus you will find people who seem to baffle both skeptic and religious alike in their ability to be both brutally skeptical and deeply religious at the same time.

 

I am a scientist and a vigorous defender of the value of science and its methods, strongly opposing the pseudoscience rhetoric of "Creation science". But a real understanding of how science works will also reveal its limitations. People today often think that having science, all traditions of the past are worthless superstitions and habits that ought to abandoned. But this thinking is seriously flawed. The methods of science are devastatingly accurate and efficient when it comes to the mathematical relationships between measurable quantities, but in other areas involving complex systems especially living systems, it stumbles around in almost complete ignorance. In such areas, the biggest weakness of science is revealed: the time required to examine and understand long term effects. I have felt utter amusement at the trendy behavior of the so called sciences in the areas of health and medicine. Drugs and food products firmly believed to be beneficial in one decade are declared to be dangerous and poisonous (or cancer causing) in the next decade. Thus we may realize that tradition has a strength where science is weak, for if nothing else tradition is quite aware of its long term effects. So the "wisdom of the ancients" is not as barren of value as many people of today might think and the explorations of tradition and the ideas in Christian theology and ancient Greek philosphy often bears wonderous fruit (Aristotle is one of my favorites).

 

This thread exploring the question of the divinity of Christ is no empty excercise of reporting the prejudices of a religion that clings to past certainties. Rather it is part of my own exploration of the traditions of Christiany from an untutored beginning, in which I continue to find great wisdom where I had previously not expected to find any at all.

Edited January 28, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[yuhuu 0]

Well,, if you guys do not bother to read the bible completely,,then you shouldn come to conclusions about the divinity of God. You could say your opinions, but they will be your opinions, not more, not less..And everybody has to tolerate it. But, like I said before...if you dont read it...is like hearing the first 10 seconds of the song "beautiful day" from U2 and come to the conclusion that that song is just instrumental with no lyrics....come on..You guys have to listen the whole song to come to a conclusion about that song..That is common sense..Besides,,I think it is wonderful somebody took religion in the school..The sad thing is that in most schols they dont encourage you to read the whole bible..but, they read just the verses they need you to read...And one last thing,,no matter what you think or argue or reason...Jesus will still be God...because He does not depent on your feelings or thougts...He loves you, bible says so, I believe that, period.

[Chesso 0]

And why would I read a bible, what can it teach, that is proven to be true?When I read a book of science, I can go and try these things for myself and proove that they are real, can this be said of the bible?

[mitchellmckain 0]

And why would I read a bible, what can it teach, that is proven to be true?
When I read a book of science, I can go and try these things for myself and proove that they are real, can this be said of the bible?

The point was that if you comment on the Bible without properly reading it then you are just as much an ignoramous as if you comment on science without properly understanding that subject. Sure there are plenty of religious ignoramouses who think they can comment on scientific theories like evolution without any understanding of science. They confuse science with philosophy and and its methods with rhetoric. But this is not a type of behavior that ought to be imitated even though the methods of religion are a lot closer to rhetoric than those of science.

[Chesso 0]

Err the point was, nothing in the bible has proof existing of truth, so reading it is useless.Whether these people existed or not, the question of the topic doesn't ask if what is in any form of the bible is right.Not sure if I commented on the bible, but I have read portions of it, I'm not much for reading books so I haven't exactly memorized every page and it is kinda boring lol.

[Quatrux 4]

Well, if commenting about the book, Bible, then I can add that most of the things in the bible are true and proved to be real things/accidents/actions and of course most, doesn't mean all, because a lot of what is proved to be false and a lot of what cannot be proved at all at this time, but those things are written in a way, well you know, metaphor and other things we learned in school.. The book itself took lots of information and stuff from the Mesopotamia stuff and stuff. I don't really remember and don't really care, because as I said, it is a Man written book, even the fact that they rewrote it with some translating mistakes from the old Sumerian language, because the same word meant several things and even to Today we still use that word, but I don't really remember which one, in Sumerian it is "tik" or something from the letter t.. proves that it is a Man written book.. So Bible or Koran and any other book is written by Man to "make" some contact with God or that it is the God words, laws which we all should fallow.. I can write my own book and fallow it, because I will believe that I am the right one and you all are wrong.. I don't believe in God which is in the Church where everyone donates to the church 2,5,10 Euro and priests buy new Audi or any other car from part of those donations, everything what I don't know for me is God and when I will get the knowledge, I will know it and it won't be God for me anymore.

[Lewisthemusician 0]

Quote:

There is no doubt that questions about the nature of Jesus has been a source of trouble in the understanding of Christian doctrine and scripture from the earliest days of the church. The question of whether Jesus is God belongs to the branch of theology known as Christology. Christology has been an unholy mess and numerous attempts to solve the mysteries involved have been declared heresies by the eccumenical councils. Ten of the seventeen major heresies have to do with Christology.

 

Arianism: Jesus was originally created by God the Father.

Apollinarianism: Divine will overshadowed and replaced the human in Jesus.

Docetism: Jesus only seemed to be human, but was really divine.

Monophysitism: Jesus had only divine nature not human nature.

Nestorianism: Jesus' divinity and humanity were separate in two distinct persons.

Tritheism: Jesus is a separate god from God the Father.

Socinianism (Unitarianism): The Holy Spirit is God's power and Jesus is a deified man.

Modalism (Modal Monarchianism): Jeus is a mode of God the Father.

Kenosis: Jesus gave up divine attributes while on earth.

Adoptionism (Dynamic Monarchianism): God gave Jesus his powers and adopted him as a son.

 

In rejection of these ideas the eccumenical councils affirmed "hypostatic union" that Jesus is fully man and fully God, and His two natures of human and divine are neither mixed nor separate but united in one person. This is part of the doctine of the Trinity, that there is one God but three persons.

But back to the question of whether Jesus is God, when we look up the question we will find these references to scripture used to establish that Jesus is God: John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16 and John 12:40-41.

 

However....

 

Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64 only says the Son of God.

 

But...

 

Hebrews 1:10 and Colossians 1:16 say that Jesus is the creator of heaven and earth, which is certainly something we associate with God.

 

Furthermore Hebrews 1:8 gives him the title of God and Colossians 1:19-20 explains that in Jesus all the fulness of God dwells so that in Jesus all things of Heaven and Earth are reconciled to Him. Then of course there is the gospel of John chapter 1 where it says that the "Word" was God and in the beginning with God, that through the "Word" all things were made, and then in verse 14 that the "Word" became flesh (a man) and dwelt among us, and finally John the Baptist bore witness that Jesus was that man.

 

In John 10:30-38, Jesus says "I and My Father are one", in John 12:45, He says, "And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me", and finally in John 14:7-10, He says, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him. Phillip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.' Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Phillip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, Show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.'"

 

The closest thing to this in the first three gospels is Matthew 11:27 "All things have been delievered unto Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him", which does not say quite the same thing, or at the very least, is no where near as clear.

 

My conclusion therefore is that although there is no clear declaration that Jesus is God in the first three gospels, it is the clear position of the gospel of John that Jesus is God, and likewise it is clear that the apostle Paul acknowledges and embraces this teaching of John's gospel in His letters. So whether you argue or not that this idea that Jesus is God was added by those who came later, you cannot hold the gospel of John and the letters of Paul to be authoritative and also repudiate this doctrine that Jesus is God.

 

So even though in my own case, the affirmation of the divinity of Jesus is not central to my own faith, I cannot deny it and I even defend the doctrine, for I see sufficient support for it in scripture and I see no contradiction in it. Perhaps I should explain. In the concept of "hypostatic union" (fully man and fully God), it is apparent that the categories of man and God are not mutually exclusive. This does not mean that finite man (though he may have infinite potential) could ever be God who is infinite in actuality. However, it is not beyond the ability of God to become a man. In fact it is clear that God did not simply assume the form of a man, but became as all men begin in their mother's womb, a single cell growing until that time they are born a helpless infant.

 

But now here is the confusing part. Was Jesus a helpless infant? If the infant was God then it seems obvious that the infant could do anything, and was therefore anything but helpless. This seems troublesome to me because if Jesus was not a helpless infant then in what way was He a man since all men are born as such. Yet it is clear that God did nothing that an infant could not do. So I cannot help but conclude that God decided that He would not do anything that a helpless infant could not do. But we are inclined to say, He could have changed His mind! Perhaps He could. But God does not do that. God's decisions are the laws of the universe. It was His decision that gravity would hold us in a certain way to the earth and that decision is the law of gravity. His decisions make everthing in this universe what it is. Therefore if God decided that He would not do anything that an infant could not do, then that is the law of its nature and we can say that God was in truth an infant in every sense.

 

Thus by His own decision, for a time on earth, He was by His own choice emptied of infinite knowledge and power to become the helpless infant Jesus, to learn and grow in wisdom and strength as all men do.

 

Phillipians 2:5-8 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,"

 

Luke 2:52 "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men."

 

But if God bound himself to the limitations of a human being during His time on earth, then there was nothing that Jesus did that we also could not do. This idea would cause some consternation among Christians who like to point to the miracles that Jesus did and say that no human being could do such things. Well they would be right that only God could do such things. But it also clear that Jesus sent out His disciples to do everything that He himself had done, and they could do it because God would answer their prayers. Jesus said in Matt 17:20 that if they had but the faith the size of a mustard seed, they could command a mountain to move. The point is that power of God is available to all human beings for the asking, so Jesus did not in fact do anything that human beings could not do with a little faith. Thus Jesus was fully man.

 

But without infinite power and knowledge in His own person, how was it that Jesus was God? Well God is not just a human definition of power and knowledge, but a real person. That helpless infant was still the person who created the heavens and the earth. We could say that just because God decided not to use His infinite power and knowledge, why would this mean that He was not God? Ok yes God decided before hand that He would not and this decision is the same as a law of nature, so even though we can say that He merely did not use His power, we can also say that laid it aside and subjected Himself to this limitation.

 

But now this sounds a great deal like the heresy listed above as Kenosis. This was declared a heresy because it was thought that if Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. They were aware that, declaring that Jesus retained all the infinite power and knowledge of God, was in clear contradiction of scripture (for example Mark 13:32, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.") But, I deny that the infinite power and knowledge of God is necessary to His divinity. God is not our human definition of omniscience and omnipotence. Our definitions do not bind Him, such that He cannot do anything which seems to contradict them. God is just as capable of risk, self limitation and sacrifice as any of us. It is not this power and knowlege which makes God what He is, no more than it defines who we are. If we were to lose power or knowledge in any form or by whatever means, it does not change who we are! Nor does it change who God is because God is also a person not just some theological definition.

 

If God is defined by anything it is goodness and love. This is not a human definition, for goodness and love is not defined by men but by God. All understanding of goodness and love by human beings are a shadow and distortion of what is truly good and loving. Pure goodness and love is found only in God. I think that there are some things that are worth any sacrifice and which justify defying even a god of knowledge and power. I think that such a circumstances would "strip God of His divinity" (so to speak) more surely than any lack of power and knowledge. Therefore it seems to me that God cannot be opposed to any cause that is truly founded in compassion and justice. Any opposition to God must ultimately derive from some fault of our own that calls some selfish conceit of ours, love or justice merely for own convenience and self-justification.

 

So I believe that I uphold "hypostatic union" (fully God and fully man) when I say that "in becoming a human being inside of time and space God shed all of his infinite power and knowledge (humbled himself) to become an innocent and helpless infant". For I say nevertheless, this infant remained fully God and fully man because being helpless does not preclude divinity, no more than losing an arm or a leg deprives a man of his humanity. Not only does this make the idea of Jesus being fully man make a lot more sense but it is much more fully compatable with scripures such as Luke 2:52 and Mark 13:32. Even though I deny that infinite power and knowledge is necessary to God's divinity, I do think that our finitude is very much a definitive part of the circumstance of being human. For God to take the form of human being without sharing in our finitude, would be nothing more than play acting.

 

Thus I believe that I can say that this is not the heresy of Kenosis, for I do not claim that in becoming a man, God emptied himself of His divinity, but according to scripture (Colossians 1:19-20) reconcilled in Himself all things of heaven and earth to become fully God and fully man.

 

However, I will say that this interpretation explained above is only my opinion and my interpretation, and I would not dream of saying that anyone must agee with me. I take no authority upon myself in regards to the truth or in regards to the interpretation of scripture. The Bible is the word of God and in my view it is the only authoritative statement of truth for everyone to understand as best they can.

 

This could all be made up and no one will be able to prove it apart from the real god or until like the future if they have super technology.

 

-Lewis

[yuhuu 0]

Again,The question is if Jesus was God ??and my argument is that if you want to share an opinion, then share with us if you read the bible completely. Why ?? because if you did not read the bible completely. How could we give your opinion some credibility.If you dont want to read the bible completely...thats fine. is your problem. But, then your opinions will be regarded as that,,opinions,,not more,,not less..and we have to tolerate it..That is love...Why do I have to read the bible to make an well founded opinion about Jesus deity ? Well, because the bible is the only book upon which the christians base their faith...And, Jesus is the main character in the whole bible.Like someone said before...is the same with electronics..if you want to make an opinion about a new sorround system...Well,,it will be your opinion..not more and not less...But if you undestand the electronic schematics of that surround system...and then you make your opinion,,Just then, you have a well founded opinion...if that opinion is true or false...is irrelevant...the main thing is that you did that opinion after understanding the whole electronics schematic...I hope, I made me clear...I apologize if I can make myself understand...

[Chesso 0]

But when you talk about an eletronic system, if I was a hardware engineer, i'd simply open the system up and look for myself, not read a book.I can't do that with jesus now can I .Or if I wanted to know about the land at that time, i'd dig up the earth and find out, not read a book.So.... what can ya do eh.

[mitchellmckain 0]

It is true that my OP was kinda couched in the assumptions of the Christian perspective and thus in a more open environment like this forum it would probably fit better with a title like "Why Christians think Jesus is God." That at least would not quite open itself up so readily to the kind of non-Christian criticism that yuhuu is finding so irritating. Truth be told the question "Is Jesus God?" posed outside the assumptions of a Christian perspective, presuming to depend on objective evidence would frankly be laughable. God is not objectively observable and is therefore difficult to see as a meaningful concept in such objective terms.Even if we accept the basic premises of the existence of the type of God which is capable of taking human form, in the manner that Jesus was supposedly an example of, an historical claim that a particular person was such a manifestation would be impossible to establish.As a result the question I asked is practically meaningless outside the assumptions of my OP.Yet the absurdity of this question from the non-Christian perspective is not irrelevant, because it suggest the rather important question of how it is that Christians come to believe such a thing. Let us put aside such inane suggestions about being indocrinated by ones family, because there are plenty of converts who come to accept this belief without such indoctrination. No, we must consider the process of thought that puts aside the natural predjudice on this question, for in the process of becoming Christian, people must struggle with this sense of the absurdity of this idea of Jesus being God.

Edited January 30, 2007 by mitchellmckain (see edit history)

[yuhuu 0]

You are kind of right guys,,As soon as I have little money,,I will go to Jerusalem with my bible, and I will dig up some holes there...But,,as I stated before..No matter what you think, feel or believe, Jesus loves you...and is there,,because he is God, and He does not depend on you...In simple words....HE IS.

[Chesso 0]

Well personally the difference between jesus being a god or a cockroach is none to me. But that's because I don't believe in any form of what is currently believed to be a god so yeah .If it did however, I suppose Jesus was your man. I guess there is nothing to say that he wasn't, or perhaps it was all made up with good intent.

[demolaynyc 0]

Well personally the difference between jesus being a god or a cockroach is none to me. But that's because I don't believe in any form of what is currently believed to be a god so yeah .
If it did however, I suppose Jesus was your man. I guess there is nothing to say that he wasn't, or perhaps it was all made up with good intent.

First, Jesus did exist. If you are to read this: https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html It explains the credibility of the Bible by basing it on the Romans' records.

Moreover, the Bible is not just a book. It's a book rich in history. If you are to read passages from the New Testaments, you are to find yourself reading about the Romans and its great empire. If you've seen the movie "The Exodus" produced by The History Channel, it proves that the writings in the Bible described what happened during the time. Even the land features' history backs it up. It explains how all the plagues came to be.

Now if we are to take these accounts to be factual. Why not the existence of Jesus?

----

Now to get to my point, is Jesus really God?

My answer is yes, because even the Jews witnessed to seeing the Cave, where Jesus was buried, to be empty. Unbelievably, the GREAT Boulder that blocked the doorway was Easily MOVED.

Now you may ask, how would it be possible to even place a large heavy Boulder in front of the entrance? Well the people did not move this boulder instead they broke off the rock right above the entrance so it would just drop and block the entrance entirely, making it Impossible to move it.

The Jews and the other people saw that same boulder moved aside so easily and Jesus wasn't there. After this event, the Holy Spirit of the trinity revealed himself to people and that's when a number of Jews converted to Christianity.

So with this said, I'd say that Jesus is God.

[Chesso 0]

Eh heh heh, claiming that jesus existed and is god should be enough for you to remember wisely to avoid the word "impossible" eh?If it's possible for him to exist AND be god, why is not possible that someone, some people or he himself as a normal man found a way to move it. If it indeed get moved, or was even put in place to begin with.