How can so many Christians continute to claim

[Elijah John]

How can so many Christians continue to claim that "Jesus is God" when he made at least one failed prediction?

Or if Jesus didn't actually make the prediction in Matthew 16, then don't we need evidence outside of the NT that "Jesus is God"?

And even the NT is not clear and unambiguous in the claim, as it never states that "Jesus is God" in a simple, three word declaration.

So then, what evidence outside of the Bible is there that can support the claim that "Jesus is God"?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 97 by Elijah John]

Given that you accept he biblical witness that Christ is God (Jn. 1:1), the question then becomes how is this metaphysically possible. By the metaphysics and logic of perfection of classical theism, it is utterly impossible, as God is assumed to be wholly immutable, immaterial, passionless, etc. And that was the argument Arius advanced, early n, that Christ could not be God. Christ suffered and Christ changed. But God cannot change or suffer. Therefore, Christ cannot be God. However of you go by the metaphysics of panentheism or process, then yes, the Incarnation is definitely metaphysically feasible. The universe is understood as part of the being of God, God's body. God is understood to be incarnate throughout creation. Also, dynamic, contingent elements can be attributed to God. God is the eminently sensitive one, the one who enjoys a direct, immediate empathic to and and all creaturely feeling. Hence, the Incarnation stands as a revelation of God's general MO with creation.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 97 by Elijah John]

Given that you accept he biblical witness that Christ is God (Jn. 1:1), the question then becomes how is this metaphysically possible. By the metaphysics and logic of perfection of classical theism, it is utterly impossible, as God is assumed to be wholly immutable, immaterial, passionless, etc. And that was the argument Arius advanced, early n, that Christ could not be God. Christ suffered and Christ changed. But God cannot change or suffer. Therefore, Christ cannot be God. However of you go by the metaphysics of panentheism or process, then yes, the Incarnation is definitely metaphysically feasible. The universe is understood as part of the being of God, God's body. God is understood to be incarnate throughout creation. Also, dynamic, contingent elements can be attributed to God. God is the eminently sensitive one, the one who enjoys a direct, immediate empathic to and and all creaturely feeling. Hence, the Incarnation stands as a revelation of God's general MO with creation.

That's the point, we are attempting to go beyond the Bible in search of evidence that "Jesus is God". And I don't believe the Bible uniformly teaches that "Jesus is God". (John 17.3, 1 Timothy 2.5 etc, etc.)

Also, with panentheism "incarnation" is not limited to Jesus of Nazareth. We all, are in effect, "God incarnate".

Or as Paul teaches, "Temples of the Holy Spirit".

Aside from immutability, perhaps Arius should have argued that God Himself is immortal. (did he?) And Christ died, and was dead for three days. If God Hiimself were dead (even for three days, and since the universe is contingent upon Him), the universe would have ceased to exist and would also have been in need of "resurrection" God Himself would have been in need of resurrection.

So in effect, the best evidence we have that "Jesus is God" is from the New Testament. And even that is contradictory on the matter, weighted more in favor of the argument that Jesus is not God. (Even Muslims effectively argue from the NT that Jesus is not God). But that is another topic.

Since the NT is contradictory on the matter, (at best) wasn't it really the Church which declared that "Jesus is God" and bestowed upon him a status which was not intrinsic to him?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 102 by Elijah John]

Yes, that is very true about panentheism. In pantheism, all creatures, from "atoms" to ourselves, are examples of God incarnate. And that's why process Christians see Christ as a major revelation of God's general MO with creation. Indeed if the Incarnation is not revelatory of God's general MO, it is utterly meaningless. It is also true that panentheism recognizes that not all creatures are equally as revelatory of God as are others. A good example is that our bodies do not always represent or express us, our intentions, as we would like them to, as when we are sick or out of sorts, etc. So if, if you hold with the Deity of Christ, then it can be said Christ represents more of an incarnation, more of an actualization of God, than have many other creatures.

As to the Cross meaning that God is dead, no, that doesn't necessarily follow. Cells in my body or even my body parts can die, though I do not die. For God, then, to undergo, share and experience, death does not mean all of God died. Actually, moment to moment, we die and yet live. The self you were five minutes ago has died, vanished into the past, yet you have lived on. The "self" is a name for a society of perishing occasions.

Is the Bible contradictory about the Deity of Christ? That is a good question to be raised, as the Bible provides only snap shots of God that often do conflict. On my end of it, and without going into details, I would say certain models of the Trinity may overcome such contradictions. And I believe we had that conversation in earlier posts. If you want to address these again, we can, but I think that would require an OP on the Trinity.