If Jesus is God, why didn't he teach..

[Elijah John]

If Jesus is God, why didn't he teach anyone to pray to Jesus? If he had, do you think his apostles would have been able to take him seriously?

If the notion of praying to Jesus was ridiculous in his own day, then isn't the notion that Jesus is God also ridiculous?

[For_The_Kingdom]

The angel didn't just accept worship because he isn't God. He also didn't accept worship because he isn't the icon of God. He's also an obedient angel rather than a fallen one which would have had no problem accepting worship. There are all sorts of reasons why a fallen angel would accept worship, and none of them are because they are God. The only reason Jesus accepts worship is because he's the icon of God. He's the "Fullness of the godhead in bodily form". He's "the image of the invisible God". There is nothing else possible to worship objectively other than the image.

I just can't rock with you there, sir. I am under the Biblical impression that there can be no one in heaven/earth that can be "equal" to God. No one. You seem to think otherwise, so we just disagree..and I will leave it there.

You are begging the question. You are attempting to prove that Jesus is God, but you just presented that as a given, e.g. "BECAUSE he is God" therefore Jesus accepted worship. To say that Jesus accepted worship because he is God is to "beg the question".

I also pointed out that Jesus was called God by one of his followers (John 20:28) and Scripture explicitly states that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3).

Don't know what more you need. Can we for once just let the Scriptures speak for itself?

It isn't nonsense, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would comport yourself in a more civil manner than to brush off my argument as "Nonsense".

I recall you stating that something I said "Made/makes no sense", essentially calling what I said "nonsense". Don't dish it if you can't take it.

Right, which is exactly what I just pointed out. If you look into a mirror to brush your hair, you have to look at the mirror to see the image relfected back at you. You would look at "It" in the same exact way Christ's disciples looked at "Him". Again, there is no one else to worship. They can't worship the Father unless they look at the Father's image which is Christ. Christ is God's image. The Father has no other image other than Christ. The Father cannot exist outside of Christ. The author of John's gospel points this out to the reader with Christ's prayer that just as the father is in him may he be in his disciples.

Again, that is where I disagree. I don't believe that anything, specifically, any PERSON (whether in heaven or earth) can be said to be God's physical "image". You can't mimic perfection, perfectly, unless you yourself are perfect.

This, in my opinion, is a philosophical problem that is impossible to reconcile...that problem, followed by the totality of Scriptures of Jesus explicitly being called "God"..that is enough for me (and Trinitarians) to conclude that Jesus is God.

Nope. Lucifer is worshipped, and it doesn't make him God. It's a blatant non sequitur.

No it isn't a non sequitur. Obviously, I don't hold the view that "anyone/anything that is worshiped must be God", considering the fact that we had previously discussed when John began to worship the angel and the angel told him to "knock it off", that obviously the angel wasn't worthy of the worship that he was receiving.

Remember, that was my point; the angel, by his own admission, wasn't worthy of worship..and rightfully told John to "worship God".

So obviously I know the difference between "good" worship, and "bad" worship. So the fact that you are using my syllogism as if I am applying that anyone that is worshiped is God is disingenuous.

So about about this..

1. We are commanded to worship God and serve him only (Luke 4:8).
2. Jesus was rightfully worshiped (Matt 28:8-9)
3. Therefore, Jesus is God

There is just no way out of this...this syllogism only harmonizes with John 1:1-3, John 20:28, at which Jesus is explicitly called God.

Jesus could be God but it can't be because he is worshipped. Worshipping something or someone doesn't make them God. This is a blatant fallacy.

The point was/is, there was no objection from either the Father nor the Son regarding Jesus' followers worshiping him...yet we are told to only worship God.

Again, you know full well that I don't hold to the view that "just because X is worship, X is God."

To think that I believe otherwise is disingenuous, especially given my argumentation during our discourse.

You have a point there. However, this doesn't negate that Christ is the Son, and a Son doesn't tell their Father what to do regardless of the chronology of events. There is no place where the father serves the son in scripture.

No arguments from me. It doesn't negate the Deity of Christ one bit.

You are claiming that what I am suggesting is that God is a name.

That is what you implied. You used the line of reasoning of; if Jesus is God, who was he praying to on the cross? (Jehovah's Witness reasoning).

That is implying that the Father (of whom Jesus was praying to) name is "God", because if Jesus also carries the "God" title and/or name, then question wouldn't make any sense.

Once again, you are begging the question by presenting what you are attempting to prove as a given, e.g. "SINCE the Father and Son are two different beings"

Aren't they?

Again I would refer you to the Introduction to John's gospel where we read: "in the beginning WAS the Word". The word existed prior to the beginning which was itself created along with space. The texts do not state "in the beginning was God". Why? Because existence is eternal, and yet the texts indicate that the son is the only begotten which can't mean that he was begotten in eternity as he would then not be eternal. This is where a number of denominations get the idea that he is "eternally begotten of the father". The father could not be eternally the father if he begat the son at some time in eternity.

Philosophical problems there, dealing with time/causation..which we need not address here.

Right and has already been proven, the texts indicate that the Father is God. There are no texts that state "the son is God". This is solely according to what you infer from your own interpretation.

So, no text states that "the son is God".

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Is not the Son, as identified in verse 14, also the same person identified as "God" in verse 1? Yes or no.

No, he isn't. There is not one sentence in the entire bible that states "Jesus is God". Here's what it actually states:

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:... that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;

The text explicitly articulates that the Lord, Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Adam was "the son of God"(Luke 3:38). The angels are described as "sons of God" too in the book of Job. Are we then to conclude that they are God as well? Of course not.

Red herring fallacy. You've failed to address the particulars of John 20:28, and why it states that Thomas "said to Jesus, My Lord and my God".

Instead of addressing that, you skipped to something about Jesus being called the "Son of God", as if that is supposed to somehow negate or take away from the explicitness of Jesus being called "God" by one of his followers.

And I already answered the "Son of God" stuff, anyway. Jesus became the "Son of God" after the events of Phil 2:5-9.

Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4)

No, here's what the texts state:

Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
The first thing to note here is where is this lie taking place? It is in his heart. Again, going with your interpretation thath God dwells within the son thus proving that Jesus is God would also work here, wouldn't it? This is post resurrection as well after they were filled with the Spirit in their hearts on Pentacost, but this guy has pushed the spirit out and been filled with Satan instead. Is he now Satan? No, his heart has been filled with Satan's spirit which is to lie to God's spirit within as well as to lie to God objectively because once one has pushed God's spirit out of them, they have separated themselves from God, thus making God objectively separate from them.

Did you not see the part where the Holy Spirit is called God? Did you not see? Or do I need to highlight it for you? Can you address that, please?

False dichotomy. It's impossible to worship God. You can only worship the Icon of God. The Father is synonymous with transcendence and cannot be revealed except the son reveal him neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Matt.11:27.

I simply disagree for previously mentioned reasons.

How does the son reveal the father? He says plainly:

he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;John 14:9

Yeah, that was kinda my point, remember?

He can't be claiming that he is the father as there is nowhere in any of the texts where he says: "I am one with the father" or "I am the father". No, the fact is that Christ is the image of the invisible God. One should never forget that an invisible God cannot be seen in the first place, therefore it can only be the Icon, image, symbol, metaphor,etc. of God that can be seen at all. This is Christ.

So, if God appeared to you manifested as a physical rabbit, are you seeing God in his full form..or is his full form shielded by the flesh of the rabbit?

And yet nowhere in that sentence does it state that the son is God. It plainly points out that the Father has handed over all judgment to the son, it says nothing about handing himself over to the son. It is the judgement that is to be honored because it is the judement of God. Just as one honors the judgment of a judge in a court of law because they have been given authority to hand down judgments so too the son has been given all judgment.

Cool, but that doesn't mean you are to "honor" the delegated judge in the same way you "honor" the real judge, namely, worship.

Subject to God? How does that work? How does God subject himself to himself?

See, that is just a gross misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine. That is why I said you are equivocating the word "God"...and if you aint equivocating title/name, you are equivocating "God" as it directly relates to the persons involved.

On one hand, you are making the distinction between the Father/Son, as distinct persons...then on the other hand, you are equated them both together, as if they are the same person/being...thus "How does God subject himself to Himself"...which is the same line of reasoning that I mentioned earlier "If Jesus is God, who did he pray on on the cross."

Same reasoning.

The authors always seem able to clear up any confusion by distinguishing the son from the father, and the son is always subject to the father. The father never subjects himself to the son.

Point?

Except that they're not. The Father hands over judgment. It doesn't say that the Father hands over anything else. Are you suggesting that the Father consists entirely of judgment and nothing else? The text indicates that God is transcendent as well, and there is nothing to indicate that God handed that over to the son.

Just judgement? Jesus said, "all". Matt 28:18-20.

And yet we have Paul pointing out that even in the end the son is subject to the father.

After the events of Phil 2:5-9.

It's Paul's theology:
1 Corinthians 8:6 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one LORD Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

So, if we only have one Lord, why does Jesus call the Father Lord?

Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Also, Mark 11:9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna!� “Blessed is he (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord (the Father)!�

Right because God cannot exist apart from existence. Even the word can't be what exists as it is what causes everything to exist, and if it were what exists it would be something which was created. Why? Because "all things are created"

?

Not irrelevant in that Paul points out that the origin of all that exists is God, e.g. "OF WHOM". The origin cannot be existence if it is the origin of existence. It's the same argument you made earlier which I admitted was valid, e.g. that one cannot be a servant prior to becoming a servant. It is the difference between being and becoming. The word is, i.e. the word is synonymous with existence. Existence cannot originate within itself. If this were the case then God would necessarily have a beginning. The temptation here is to conflate origin with beginnning. The Father is the origin of existence. The father therefore cannot be what is the origin of becoming. The origin has no beginning either.

Bro, first of all, lets set the record straight; did Jesus have a beginning? Yes or no?

He didn't accept the title, and Paul points out why as i just posted again. Christ is the means of seeing the father. It is "by whom" one sees the father because he's "the image of the invisible God". You cannot see what is invisible.

Right, and if God became visible and physically dwelled on earth in human form, would he not exist in the form of Jesus? Yes or no?

Again, you're simply begging the question. This is your pattern throughout this thread with me.

I am just going by what the Bible clearly says. If that is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Again, notice that Paul is clearly distinguishing between who is God and who is the lord, and he links Christ as the lord.

The problem with that is, as I pointed out; the Father is also called "Lord"..so if there is only one "Lord" (Jesus), then why is there scripture after scripture of the Father also being called Lord?

It is important to note this conjunction distinguishing what has already been articulated from what follows. I would also point out that I am using capitals not to emphasize by way of what some would interpret as shouting, but just for regular emphasis. My technological ineptitude prevents me from emboldening the words the customary way.

Understood.

It is exactly what is in dispute. You are redefining the meaning of the word.

What I am saying is, scripture is clear that Jesus is the physical representation of the invisible spiritual person, of whom is the "Father".

Degree of pregnancy is still pregnant. A representation is still a representation. regardless of your obsession with its degree.

But there is a degree. Christians, we are called "representatives" of Christ..yet, we obviously don't represent him perfectly..because we don't have the ability to live up to such a high standard.

Jesus, on the other hand, was a representative of the "Father", who is a perfect being..and he (Jesus) lived up to this standard perfectly. And my point is you can't live up to perfection unless you are perfect.

Only God is able to live up to any "perfective" standard...and if there is an argument against that, I haven't seen it yet.

So yeah, there are degrees..

1. Christian's levels of representation of Christ
2. Jesus level of representation of the Father

Yeah, degrees. There are levels to this stuff.

Yep, you cannot duplicate transcendence either. You can't worship or even talk about transcendence because it is beyond anything that can be articulated.

Every time you use the word "transcendence" in this context, I fail to see the context.

You're going to have to do better than that. You have to somehow get rid of the word "representation" because a representation is not nor can it ever be what it represents.

I agree, if Jesus is the "representation" of the Father, he can't be the Father. No problems there. But since that is not what I am claiming, such a point is irrelevant.

When one th ing represents another thing. The thing represented is represented by the thing that is representing it. It makes no difference whatsoever how perfect that representation may be It could be infinitely perfect. As long as it is a representation, it cannot be what it represents.

The premise is "Jesus represented the Father, perfectly". And you cannot logically represent a perfect "thing", perfectly, without yourself being perfect..and if you think otherwise, I'd like you to explain to me how one can accomplish this.

And the father doesn't have it.

I will just leave it at that. You can have the last word. If you don't believe that the Father is perfect, then there is nothing to discuss.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to For_The_Kingdom]

I am under the Biblical impression that there can be no one in heaven/earth that can be "equal" to God. No one.

How is that possible when you've been saying Jesus is equal to God? No one can be equal to transcendence and God is synonymous with transcendence. However, even if there could be someone equal to God, that's still not God. The only way it makes sense is as a counterbalance which still isn't to say that equal weight suggests identity.

shnarkle wrote:

You are begging the question. You are attempting to prove that Jesus is God, but you just presented that as a given, e.g. "BECAUSE he is God" therefore Jesus accepted worship. To say that Jesus accepted worship because he is God is to "beg the question".

I also pointed out that Jesus was called God by one of his followers (John 20:28) and Scripture explicitly states that Jesus is God (John 1:1-3).

At least you can admit that you're begging the question. Now if you can just stop repeating baseless assertions which I have repeatedly refuted we might be able to advance the discussion.

I don't believe that anything, specifically, any PERSON (whether in heaven or earth) can be said to be God's physical "image". You can't mimic perfection, perfectly, unless you yourself are perfect.

I wasn't arguing against your beliefs. I was arguing against your baseless assertions. You're entitled to your own beliefs, you're not entitled to your own facts. Christ isn't God's physical image. He's "the image of the invisible God". God is spiritual e.g. "Spirit is spiritual". Christ expresses the spiritual in a physical world this doesn't make the spiritual physical, it makes the spiritual manifest in the world.

totality of Scriptures of Jesus explicitly being called "God"..

False. There is not one single verse in scripture that explicitly articulates that Jesus is God. Not a single one. The texts all agree with each other in stating him as (notice the quotation marks!) "the image of the invisible God". You can't put quotation marks around anything from the texts that say "Jesus is God" that isn't explicitly or implicitly articulated anywhere. Your interpretation contradicts scripture which should tell you something.

I don't hold the view that "anyone/anything that is worshiped must be God",

And yet this fact hasn't stopped you from positing it as a reason why Jesus must be God.

John began to worship the angel and the angel told him to "knock it off", that obviously the angel wasn't worthy of the worship that he was receiving.

The fact that others aren't worthy of worship doesn't establish God's identity, especially when God can't be identified except through his image. Again, you need to understand the difference between identity and identification. Identity isn't identification.

you are using my syllogism as if I am applying that anyone that is worshiped is God is disingenuous.

On the contrary, I know full well that you are aware worship doesn't establish whoever is being worshipped as God. However, given that you keep using it as an argument, I have no other option than to point out that it is fallacious. You keep saying that an angel didn't allow worship as if that proves Jesus is God, then you claim that just because Jesus accepts worship, he's God. He may very well be God, but the fact that people worship him and that he accepts it doesn't prove anything other than that he accepts their worship. What you are ignoring is the fact that the texts indicate Christ is the icon of God, and the icon is thie only thing that can be worshipped because you can't objectively worship God in the first place. God is transcendent. You can't worship transcendence.

yet we are told to only worship God.

Yep, and you can't even find God unless he is revealed to you through the Son/Word/Christ/Icon/Symbol. You can't look upon the face of God without being completely annhilated. Hence the necessity for an Icon instead.

a Son doesn't tell their Father what to do regardless of the chronology of events. There is no place where the father serves the son in scripture.

No arguments from me. It doesn't negate the Deity of Christ one bit.

The fact that you aren't presenting arguments hasn't gone unnoticed. The fact that it doesn't prove the deity of Christ is what is pertinent here. The burden of proof is upon you for that task.

You are claiming that what I am suggesting is that God is a name.

That is what you implied. You used the line of reasoning of; if Jesus is God, who was he praying to on the cross? (Jehovah's Witness reasoning).

I'm not implying anything here. You're once again presenting a straw man argument. A JW wouldn't make this claim either because it doesn't matter if he used the name of God or just cried out to God; either way God isn't the one on the cross. It makes no difference to the argument. It's a pointless argument.

That is implying that the Father (of whom Jesus was praying to) name is "God", because if Jesus also carries the "God" title and/or name, then question wouldn't make any sense.

Perhaps, but that's beside the point. Your argument doesn't make any sense anyways because Jesus could just as easly used God's name "Jehovah", and it still wouldn't make Jesus God. Here, I'll spell it out for you. The Father's name isn't God. This doesn't prevent Jesus from praying to whatever title he chooses,e.g. "Father";"God"; etc. He can choose to use his Father's name as well, but again this makes no difference to the argument. Either way it's a non starter. He's still praying to whatever title or name you choose to fill in the blanks with, he's praying to God, the Father who's name is Jehovah, right? Titles or names make no difference to me as they're all labels of one sort or another, and labels are not what are being referred to here, but what they represent regardless of whether they be titles or names; makes no effective difference. It's a straw man argument.

Once again, you are begging the question by presenting what you are attempting to prove as a given, e.g. "SINCE the Father and Son are two different beings"

Aren't they?

Sure, but then that's not what you're attempting to prove. You're attempting to prove that they're both God, and showing that they're different beings doesn't do that. It's also not part of the Trinitarian doctrine which states that Christ is "one in being with the Father" so you're actally taking a step away from what you're attempting to prove, which incidentally I wouldn't even do. You've unwittingly placed yourself into the camp of Jehovah's Witnesses in claiming Jesus as a separate being from the Father. You only have one foot in that camp though because of your claim that he's God which puts your other foot into the camp of polytheists, albeit polytheists who haven't established that Jesus is God yet.

Again I would refer you to the Introduction to John's gospel where we read: "in the beginning WAS the Word". The word existed prior to the beginning which was itself created along with space. The texts do not state "in the beginning was God". Why? Because existence is eternal, and yet the texts indicate that the son is the only begotten which can't mean that he was begotten in eternity as he would then not be eternal. This is where a number of denominations get the idea that he is "eternally begotten of the father". The father could not be eternally the father if he begat the son at some time in eternity.

Philosophical problems there, dealing with time/causation..which we need not address here.

It isn't a philosophical problem. It's simply pointing out what the texts state, i.e. God the Father is the origin of the Word/Son and can only exist in the Word/Son. Existence isn't synoymous with God though, it's just what allows God to exist. The fact that the texts point this out is pertinent to this discussion because whatever exists can only exist in the created world, and for God to exist in the created world necessarily requires that God be created. We both know that God can't be created, therefore...

So, no text states that "the son is God".

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Is not the Son, as identified in verse 14, also the same person identified as "God" in verse 1? Yes or no.

No. There is no person identified in verse 1. A person is defined as "a man, woman, or child...etc' One cannot be a person before they become "flesh". It isn't even clear that the word is an entity or a being. It really can't be an entity or a being as that would make it something, and anything that exists is created in verse 3. If the Word represents existence rather than being, then it is effectively the grammatical equivalent of an intransitive verb.

shnarkle wrote:

No, he isn't. There is not one sentence in the entire bible that states "Jesus is God". Here's what it actually states:

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:... that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;

The text explicitly articulates that the Lord, Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. Adam was "the son of God"(Luke 3:38). The angels are described as "sons of God" too in the book of Job. Are we then to conclude that they are God as well? Of course not.

Red herring fallacy.

It's not a case or Red Herring because it's the only places where these terms occur in the texts, and in none of these cases does it imply that they are God.

You've failed to address the particulars of John 20:28, and why it states that Thomas "said to Jesus, My Lord and my God".

I've not only addressed them, but patiently addressed them repeatedly by presenting texts from Paul, including his expansion of the Shema; which clearly point out who is the lord and who is God. In each case God is always associated with the Father while the term "Lord" is always associated with Christ. There is nothing that says these terms cannot be placed together as in "Lord God", and this doesn't negate the fact that when separated it is the Father that is still God and the Son who is still the Lord. The father can even be referred to as Lord, but this has to do with who is refering to him as well as whether it is the revealed God of the bible, or just simply pointing out ownership, origin etc.

the explicitness of Jesus being called "God" by one of his followers.

False. Here's the definition of explicit for your edification.

stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.

When you look at a mirror do you see: A. you; B. your reflection; C. a mirror. ?

Christ is Thomas' Lord and savior. Thomas address Christ as such explicitly by saying ,"My lord". This is consistent with the biblical texts which repeatedly state that Jesus is Lord. The texts also point out that if you have seen the son, you've seen the father so there's nothing preventing Thomas from also saying that he see's God as well. Given that Christ is the image or Icon of God, he necessarily can't be God. God's image isn't God; it's God's image. God cannot be objectively worshipped without becomeing part of the created world. That my friend is idolatry.

Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Did you not see the part where the Holy Spirit is called God? Did you not see? Or do I need to highlight it for you? Can you address that, please?

I am addressing it. Here's what I posted which you're free to addresss and preferably refute if possible:

The first thing to note here is where is this lie taking place? It is in his heart. Again, going with your interpretation that God dwells within the son thus proving that Jesus is God would also work here, wouldn't it? This is post resurrection as well after they were filled with the Spirit in their hearts on Pentacost, but this guy has pushed the spirit out and been filled with Satan instead. Is he now Satan? No, his heart has been filled with Satan's spirit which is to lie to God's spirit within as well as to lie to God objectively because once one has pushed God's spirit out of them, they have separated themselves from God, thus making God objectively separate from them.

False dichotomy. It's impossible to worship God. You can only worship the Icon of God. The Father is synonymous with transcendence and cannot be revealed "except the son reveal him neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Matt.11:27.

I simply disagree for previously mentioned reasons.

No one is disputing that you have a difference of opinion here. Given that you're now disagreeing with the texts themselves is a new development though, and one which effectively admits your position is based solely upon your own personal beliefs. Fair enough. You're welcome to your own beliefs.

if God appeared to you manifested as a physical rabbit, are you seeing God in his full form..or is his full form shielded by the flesh of the rabbit?

The texts do not say "God in his full form". The texts say "the fullness of God" in dwelling in Christ's bodily form. So if we go with your assumption as a legitimate one, i.e. "the fullness of God" in the form of a rabbit, then that would be the image/Icon of God. This isn't a proof, it's a given. This is effectively what we have with pillars of fire by night, pillars of smoke during the day, burning bushes, etc.

that doesn't mean you are to "honor" the delegated judge in the same way you "honor" the real judge, namely, worship.

Sure it does, especially when it has been delegated to them as God's representative. You cannot objectively worship God due to the very salient reason that God cannot objectively exist in the first place without becoming part of the created world. God can only be worshipped subjectively by means of Christ and the indwelling Spirit.

Subject to God? How does that work? How does God subject himself to himself?

See, that is just a gross misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine. That is why I said you are equivocating the word "God"...and if you aint equivocating title/name, you are equivocating "God" as it directly relates to the persons involved.

You'll have to unpack that. Simply asserting that I misunderstand doesn't cut it. Whatever it is that you're trying to convey, isn't being conveyed in what little you've presented so far. You'll have to elaborate on how these two different scenarios you're suggesting support your point. I can't do that for you.

On one hand, you are making the distinction between the Father/Son, as distinct persons...

Not quite. The Father and Son are distinct terms, and are definitely distinct from each other. Each term represents something different in scripture. The Father represents the origin of all that exists while the Son represents the means by which everything comes into existence. However, neither one is necessarily a person at all. The origin of existence cannot exist without ceasing to be the origin of existence. However, the origin of existence cannot be synoymous with the beginning of existence because the texts inform us that the word "was" already "in the beginning". There can be no more than one beginning to all that exists.

I am not necessarily making distinctions between the father and son "as distinct persons" because neither of them are persons in the first place. Only Christ is a person when he "became flesh". To say that they are entities doesn't work either as existence doesn't necessarily require an entity. In other words, being is also a verb e.g. "Be-ing" or "existence" which is an intransitive verb.

then on the other hand, you are equated them both together, as if they are the same person/being...

Sorry, let me be clear in what I see the text saying when it says: "the word was God". After establishing existence prior to the beginning, and distinguishing between the origin of existence and the means of existence e.g. "with", John shows that the origin necessarily must be the origin of the means, and can only exist in the means of existence. This is the natural progression of these statements in the first verse of his introduction.

Existence has no beginning, but it does have an origin which cannot exist except with and by means of existence. At that point the origin exists, but it is only within the context of the Word.

thus "How does God subject himself to Himself"...which is the same line of reasoning that I mentioned earlier "If Jesus is God, who did he pray on on the cross."

Still not following. Although I do think I see part of the problem, but not sure why you're bringing up the name thing when I hadn't mentioned anything about God's name.

Let's look at what we can both agree upon.

The title "Father" applies to God.
The title "God" is also a title.
The titles "Son","Word","Christ" and "Lord" are all applied to Jesus, and the fact that Lord is also applied to "God" and "Father" doesn't negate that fact.

Some apply the title or name "Jehovah" to God, and this is usually translated as "Lord" which is where some of the confusion may be coming from. I'm not sure this is the reason for your confusion though because I didn't bring it up in the first place. So I'm not sure why you did.

It isn't confusing to me because Jesus states that no one comes to the father except through him and no one can even know about the father unless the son reveal the father to them. Regardless of what Christ manifests God's image or presence in the world, it can only be through Christ. When the high priest goes into the Holy of Holies to present himself before the presence of the Lord, he's presenting himself to a Christophany. He's presenting himself to an Icon of God. Moses takes his sandels off his feet and worships the burning bush because God's presence is there, but this is still a Christophany, and can never be God because one cannot worship a transcendent God. Transcendence transcends anything and everything. Transcendence is synonymous with "incomparible". One cannot objectify God without simultaneously becoming an idolater. This is why Jesus says one must worship "in Spirit and truth". To say "in" is to point out that one is not worshipping spirit and truth. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, but the truth isn't objectively worshipped, nor is the way worshipped. One must be in the way to worship.

The authors always seem able to clear up any confusion by distinguishing the son from the father, and the son is always subject to the father. The father never subjects himself to the son.

Point?

The Father is "greater" than the son. The son receives his authority from the father. The father is the origin of the son. It's a one way street, not a two way street, and not a one way street going the other way. Therefore there can be no conflating, confusing, or equivocating of the two.

Just judgement? Jesus said, "all". Matt 28:18-20.

Look again. It doesn't just say "all". It says, "all power" which leaves out everything else, especially God's transcendence, and omniscience.

shnarkle wrote:

And yet we have Paul pointing out that even in the end the son is subject to the father.

After the events of Phil 2:5-9.

No, those events refer to him "being in the form of God" prior to his incarnation. That isn't saying anything different than what I've already presented. The Word is the means by which the father may take form, but nonetheless it doesn't make him God. The simple fact is that the meaning of God cannot be exhausted in Christ. For all practical purposes Christ is the equal sign itself in this whole equation. Even then, Christ can't be what is being equated. He's the equation itself. This is the existential problem. Christ is the mediator, the equal sign, the Icon, the Symbol, the Metaphor, the copula. Christ IS. The most accurate way to say it would be simply as "AM".

So, if we only have one Lord, why does Jesus call the Father Lord?

Good question. The word that is translated as "Lord" (not to be confused with "LORD" i.e. Jehovah) is derived from the words "Kurios", and "despotes". So much depends upon the presence or absence of the Greek article for understanding just what or who is being referred to, especially in relation to the divine relationship.

Matt 11:25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Obviously he's referring to the Father, but as I've already pointed out Paul explicitly articulates the distinction. The fact that God owns everything requires the term be used to refer to him as well. Throughout the Old Testament these terms all refer to some aspect of God. This doesn't negate Paul's expansion of the Shema which indicates that Christ is the Lord referred to in Deuteronomy.

Mark 11:9 Those who went ahead and those who followed shouted, “Hosanna!� “Blessed is he (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord (the Father)!�

This is different. This is quoted from the Psalms and refers to Jehovah, the revealed God of the Old Testament which is really Christ because God cannot be revealed except through Christ.

Again one need only refer to the Shema which is "Hear O Israel the Jehovah our Elohim is One" as Paul expands upon it by pointing out that Elohim refers to the Father "of whom are all things" and Jehovah refers to Christ "by whom are all things". Paul is clear in distinguishing who is who. The father is the origin of everything while Christ is the means by which everything is created. The father is equated with God while Christ is equated with Jehovah

Right because God cannot exist apart from existence. Even the word can't be what exists as it is what causes everything to exist, and if it were what exists it would be something which was created. Why? Because "all things are created"

?

The Word cannot be a "what" or a "thing". It is the ground of existence or being "by" which everything that exists is created.

lets set the record straight; did Jesus have a beginning? Yes or no?

Yes. Jesus is the name given to the human being eight days after he was born. However, Jesus should not be conflated with the Word prior to its incarnation. The Word is existence, and while things exist, these things are not existence. They are not the ground of being. Christ is "the word made flesh". The word which "became flesh". When the Word became incarnate as a human being it was no longer the ground of existence as it had become part of the created world. God cannot be part of creation. He would then be a created god, and to worship a created god is to engage in idolatry.

if God became visible

He didn't.

and physically dwelled on earth in human form,

He can't because God is spirit. "That which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit"

would he not exist in the form of Jesus? Yes or no?

No. For Paul to say that Christ is the image of the invisible God doesn't mean that God is visible. The word Paul uses in Colossians 1:15 is "εἰκὼν" or "eikon" which is where we get the word Icon. Iconagraphy is a hot topic between Catholics and Protestant denominations, or at least it was at one time, yet one still isn't likely to find statuary in the churches of Protestant denominations. It is considered idolatry, and it basically is except when the Icon is Christ. When it's a statue, it's an idol, when it's the word made flesh, it's an Icon. However, when one then assumes that Christ is God, then they've crossed the line into idolatry. Christianity has done exactly that in most cases.

I am just going by what the Bible clearly says.

No, you're not. I've repeatedly shown that you're interpreting or injecting ideas into the texts that simply aren't there. Protesting this fact isn't advancing an argument.

If that is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Famous last words of many heretics, and all atheists.

What I am saying is, scripture is clear that Jesus is the physical representation of the invisible spiritual person, of whom is the "Father".

That's not exactly what you've been saying up to this point. If you modified it to: "Jesus is the representation of the invisible spiritual father" I would agree. What is flesh is flesh, and Jesus isn't representing the flesh. He's representing the spiritual eternal truths of God Who dwells in him. Christ is the vessel in which God dwells. He's just like the Temple. When one is in the temple of the lord, they will worship in spirit and truth. When one's body becomes the temple of the lord God dwells in them and they worship from within that temple.

But there is a degree. Christians, we are called "representatives" of Christ..yet, we obviously don't represent him perfectly..because we don't have the ability to live up to such a high standard.

Speak for yourself. Whomsoever God chooses to redeem is a new creature in Christ, and there can be no sin in Christ my friend. With God all things are possible, and God explicitly states that those to whom he gives a new heart are given that heart for one reason and one reason alone; to keep his commandments.

And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. Ezekiel 36:27

So yeah, it may not have happened to you "yet"; each in their own time.

Jesus, on the other hand, was a representative of the "Father"

Yep and you are not granted your own private definition of the term "representative". A representative represents someone else. As soon as you feel the need to assert that they are who they represent they are 'by definition' no longer a representative. You are contradicting yourself. You are saying he's a representative then you're essentially and effectively saying he's not.

who is a perfect being..

Not according to Paul who clearly points out that the father is the origin of being, e.g. "of whom". The origin cannot be what it is the origin of. Again, you're contrdicting yourself.

and he (Jesus) lived up to this standard perfectly.

As a representative;despite your protestations to the contrary, a perfect representative is still a representative. I don't have to accept your redefined terms.

And my point is you can't live up to perfection unless you are perfect.

And yet this doesn't require the redefinition of the term "representative" to be true.

Every time you use the word "transcendence" in this context, I fail to see the context.

That's a good thing. Transcendence has no context.

"Jesus represented the Father, perfectly". And you cannot logically represent a perfect "thing"

God is not a thing. All things are created John 1:3

, perfectly, without yourself being perfect..

No problem. I quite agree. None of this negates that Jesus is representing God.

And the father doesn't have it.

I will just leave it at that. You can have the last word. If you don't believe that the Father is perfect,

You're not comprhending what I'm saying. There is all the difference in the world between "being" perfect and "having" perfection. Christ regardless of where or when he exists expresses perfection; the perfection "of" the Father. Christ is the means of expressing God's perfection. Christ is "by whom" God's perfection is expressed. The texts clearly point out that the Father cannot "be" anywhere other than "in", "with", and "by" the Son/Word/Icon/Symbol etc. The Father doesn't have attributes to begin with other than as the origin of existence. Even that isn't really an attribute. Transcendence can't be an attribute either because attributes have to be attributed to something, and God isn't a thing.

[Jack]

[Replying to shnarkle]

Jesus is not a icon or symbol the bible never calls him a symbol or a icon. It does call Jesus God a mentioned in previous posts. The passages in the gospel of John are affirming that Jesus was indeed being worshipped in the synoptic gospels. No one was rebuked for worshipping him in fact they received blessings for doing so. The Scribes and Pharisees wanted him executed because he told them he was equal to God. Jesus is referred to in the bible as the only Son of God, making him different than others called son of God in the Bible, making him a true Son of the Father. He shares the personification of God the Father and the personification of the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ true God true Man.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to shnarkle]

Jesus is not a icon or symbol the bible never calls him a symbol or a icon.

Hi Jack, actually the bible does in fact refer to God as an icon. I already covered this in an earlier post, but I'll repeat it again for your benefit. Here's what I posted:

For Paul to say that Christ is the image of the invisible God doesn't mean that God is visible. The word Paul uses in Colossians 1:15 is "εἰκὼν" or "eikon" which is where we get the word Icon.

The gospel writers also point out that when you have seen the Son you have seen the father. That's essentially saying the exact same thing. There is only the Symbol. If you want to see God you must look at the image or Symbol. There's simply nowhere else to look. Because of this fact, there is nothing wrong with worshipping the Icon of God. There is nothing else to worship. Nonetheless, an Icon isn't God; it's an Icon.

Personification is something that is attributed, or presented. It comes from the word persona which is "a mask". A mask is essentially and effectively no different than a symbol. The only person is Christ. He's the image, the symbol, the mask of God.

[Jack]

[Replying to shnarkle]

We totally agree that Jesus is the perfect image of God the Father personified. God is perfect and Jesus Is also perfect, and only God is perfect.
The Gospel of John calls Jesus the Word tying Jesus to the act of creation. Everything that was created is created by Gods Word. By God the Father and God the Son. The easiest way to understand John Chapter 1 is to replace "the Word" with"Jesus".
1:1 In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God.
1:14 And Jesus was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the only Son of God he is begotten not created. He is called Immanuel Which means God with us, not an icon with us, he's also called Jesus which means God Saves not God saves through an icons suffering.

John Chapter 20:29 Thomas points out Jesus is Lord and Jesus Is God.linking Kingship and Divinity to the person of Jesus retaking the Kingship of Israel from when Israel rejected God the Father as King in Samuel 1:7.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to shnarkle]

Everything that was created is created by Gods Word. By God the Father and God the Son.

I don't think so. You're conflating the role of God who is the origin of creation with Christ who is the means by which everything is created. Origin and means are completely different.

The easiest way to understand John Chapter 1 is to replace "the Word" with"Jesus".

The easiest way to become thoroughly confused is to start changing what the texts actually say. Jesus wasn't given his name until eight days after he was born and he wasn't born for quite some time after "the beginning" of John's introduction.

Jesus is the only Son of God he is begotten not created. He is called Immanuel Which means God with us, not an icon with us, he's also called Jesus which means God Saves not God saves through an icons suffering.

Your argument is with scripture, not me. Given that most people look at scripture as "the word of God" you're argument is with the word of God.

Paul plainly says that Christ is the "Icon of the invisible God" He also points out that the father and Christ are not the same in his expansion of the Shema.

But to us there is but ONE God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:6

Notice that it is "we" who are in God, while it is "by" Christ that we exist. For Paul, Christ isn't God, but the means by which everything comes into being. What you fail to understand is that God is not a thing. God isn't a what. To make God a thing is to objectify God which is a violation of God's commandment forbidding idolatry. You're probably confusing Idols with Icons. An idol is something one worships while the icon represents God. Christ represents God. Christ came to reveal the father. Christ is God's representative. Christ is God's image; the image of the invisible God.

John's introduction does not begin with "In the beginning was God" does it? Nope. Because God is the origin of being and the word is the means of being. Simple logic dictates that although existence is eternal, it has an origin and the origin of existence cannot exist as this would create an infinite regression. Christ exists eternally, yet for Paul this is not God. While we would both assume that God is eternal, this isn't the case for Paul. You can take your argument up with him, but regardless of whether you agree with him or not, it's plainly what he's saying.

John also distinguishes between God and the word when he states, "and the word was WITH God", and as has already been pointed out, if God is the origin of being, God cannot exist apart from being. in every case, John is pointing out that it is the word that exists, not God. e.g. "In the beginning WAS the word and the word WAS with God, and the word WAS God". In each and every articulation it is the word which is the subject.


The word being the means of creation also entered into this world, and to enter into this world is to become a created being. If Jesus was not a created being then he was nothing more than an avatar. This isn't the case according to your bible though. The texts stated that he came in "sinful flesh", that he was "MADE flesh" etc.

You're free to believe whatever you please. I have no argument with your beliefs, but you're not free to make up your own facts from the biblical texts.

Thomas says, My lord AND my God showing that he recognizes the exact same thing Paul and John see. You can never see the father except through the son because the father can't exist apart from the son. Apart from the son, the father doesn't exist.

[Jack]

[Replying to shnarkle]

You are very confused the Bible clearly states Jesus is God . Jesus was given the name Immanuel before his incarnation. And personification means attribution of a nature or characteristic not human, to a human. We believe Jesus is a perfect representation of God the Father because he was begotten of God not created and is God. He is said to be the first born of creation because he supplanted Adam, being a new Adam , paying our debt, clearing us of our sin and making it possible for us to be united with God . Thomas calls Jesus God because he seen him and believed him to be Lord God. Jesus calls us that believe him to be Lord God Jesus "Blessed".

[Jack]

[Replying to post 66 by shnarkle]

If you believe Jesus is sinful flesh your representation is fallen, cannot represent God the Father but it can represent the means by which sin and death entered the world.

[marco]

[Replying to shnarkle]

You are very confused

Moderator Comment


This might be seen as offensive though I suspect you simply meant that the poster's arguments are flawed. Avoid such direct negative comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 66 by shnarkle]

If you believe Jesus is sinful flesh your representation is fallen, cannot represent God the Father but it can represent the means by which sin and death entered the world.

Here's what Paul has to say on the subject:

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

So Paul points out that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and yet when you see a text that suggests Jesus came in the likeness of God, you immediately assume that he is God. Why wouldn't you then assume the same logic with this passage from Paul?

It creates a problem in that one must be inconsistent in their approach to the texts. My interpretation doesn't have that problem because I am rightly dividing the word by showing that the texts do point out that Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and condemned sin in the flesh. Flesh that objectively existed in the created world.

Christ is not the mean by which sin and death entered the world. Christ is the means by which everything exists, not the means by which sin enters the world. Sin enters the world by means of transgressing God' will, and Christ kept God's will.