Is Jesus still subject to God

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE

1. First of all, Ithiel was not born of a virgin. Secondly, it does not tell us that His Name was "God with us." It says His Name shall be called "God with us." As applied to Jesus,"God with us" is not a name, but a title. The title denotes office. Jesus was God with man, on earth.

Being born of a virgin doesn't make Jesus literally God. And whether Immanuel is a title or a name doesn't really make any difference, as far as I can tell. I don't believe in the Trinity, yet I have no problems with believing that with Jesus' presence, God is with us, as Jesus perfectly represented the Father to us.

Yeah, it does make a difference. You cannot be a Christian and believe that Jesus is not God. There are simply somethings that cannot be compromised. Jesus Divinity is a core belief in Christianity, and is not a peripheral issue that we can all disagree agreeably about. Some things cannot be sacrificed or compromised. The Christian faith is built upon the truth that Jesus is God. "Emanuel" as a title denotes how we are to understand who Jesus is.

QUOTE

2. How it used elsewhere is irrelevant, really. It is how it is used in the verse in Isaiah, and what it is being conveyed THERE. Hebrew is really a small language. Many of the words in Hebrew play double, triple, even quadruple duty. It is not uncommon to find a word in Hebrew that can have 10 or more different meanings. It is the context of a particular passage that determines word usage/meaning. In Isaiah 9:6 "EL" is being used as a reference to God. There is no mistaking its usage in that verse. Taken with all the other titles ascribed there, it is clear that Isaiah is not talking about an ordinary human being, or even an extraordinary human being. He is talking about Jesus as God.

The crux of your argument was that " 'El is never used except to denote the God of Scripture. It is always God, and yet it is being applied to a human child. How can this be?" I've shown that el is not always used to denote the God of Scripture. On this, your argument falls.

I was correct Nothing I have said falls. "El" as opposed to "el" is always used to denote God. There are times when "elohim" is used to denote human judges. That is just the nature of Hebrew, and cannot be used to discredit the doctrine that Jesus is God.

QUOTE

3. However in the verses that follow which I provided, God Himself says that there is NO Savior besides Him. Therefore God could not make Jesus Savior beside Him if there is no other Savior but God alone. That means that if Jesus is Savior, then Jesus is God.

God provided Christ. Without God, there would be no salvation. God is our Saviour through Christ.

QUOTE

4. This is incorrect. God is saying that there is no savior beside Himself. He is talking about being Israel's ultimate Savior. Othniel was a judge he was not a "savior" in the absolute sense. God says that HE is THE absolute savior of Israel. It is in that sense that God says there is no Savior but Himself.

God provided Othniel, who is called a saviour. God provided Christ, who is called a Saviour. Ultimatly, God is our Saviour as he provided the means by which we are saved.

Othniel and Christ do not compare. Othniel was a judge. When we are talking about Christ as Savior, we are talking about Christ as a universal Savior. Othniel was a temporal "savior." Moses was a deliverer, but not on the scale of Christ. It is like the difference between shooting a bullet, and throwing it. The Bible says that there is other Name given under Heaven whereby we must be saved, other than the Name of Jesus. Jesus cannot be a universal Savior, if He is not God, since God says that only HE is the universal Savior. If Jesus is the one we turn to for forgiveness, then Jesus is God.

QUOTE

5. Yes, it is talking about the literal creation of the universe. Col. 1:16 says that all things were created by Jesus in both heaven and earth. It is not a reference to us as new creations. That is not Paul's point at all. And it says that Jesus is God. Jesus as God, pre-existed creation, and therefore Paul asserts Jesus role in creation as creator.

Jesus is the "image" (Gr. eikon) of the invisible God. The term image as used in Greek denotes a perfect copy which fully represents a thing, as opposed to a rough drawing. It means that the God is perfectly represented in Christ in every aspect. When we see Jesus, we see God. When we talk to Jesus, we are talking to God. It is AFTER he denotes Jesus as the perfect image of God, that he shows Jesus' deity as creator of the both the material universe, and the spiritual realm as well.

No, it's not talking about literal creation. Even trinitarian commentators will disagree with you on this. Do you believe that Jesus was literally "the firstborn of every creature"?

Jesus is in the image of God, thus he is not God. If we have seen Christ, we have seen the Father, as Christ perfectly portrayed Him. This doesn't mean that Jesus is the Father, in as much as to be in the image of God doesn't make Jesus God.

So it doesn't refer to the physical creation of the universe huh? Col. 1:16 just says: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

It is not a reference to us as new creations. You are just desperately reaching for anything that you can find that will deflect attention away from the plain wording of the verse.

As for Jesus being the firstborn of creation... Yes I do believe that. You know why, because "first born" is a reference to rank. It is not saying that Jesus born before the world was created. It is simply a way saying that Jesus has preeminence over all creation.

QUOTE

6. Again, context determines word usage. In verse three it says that all things were created by HIM. "Him" is a reference to Jesus, as the Word of God. You are trying to find a way to skirt around, and avoid the obvious. The first three verses are a clear reference to Jesus as the creator.

Jesus DID pre-exist creation as the Word of God. Jesus is the Word in the beginning according to John, and was later made flesh. He could not have been the Word made flesh, if he was not the Word prior to being made flesh.

"Him" is not a reference to Jesus. Logos" does not in itself denote personality. It's only translated as 'him" because logos is in the masculine gender. It could just as rightly be translated as "it", and in fact, it is such in versions prior to the KJV...

The Geneva Bible

[Guest shiloh357]

Part II

Just as the Apostles were given their authority from God, I suggest that Jesus' authority came from God to do such things. And Scripture affirms this.

In John 5 alone...

vs. 19 - "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do."

vs. 22 - "For the Father . . . hath committed all judgment unto the son."

vs. 27 - "And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

vs. 30 - "I can of mine own self do nothing . . . I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

vs. 36 - "For the works which the Father hath given me to finish."

The power and authority that Jesus had wasn't by virtue of him being "God the Son", but because this authority was given to him by his Father.

You said: "You fail to understand that Jesus gave up the privileges of Deity when He came to earth. He interacted with the world as a man. He, by His own admission only spoke what His Father told Him to say. He lived in complete dependance on His Father. He was tempted a man in all ways like we are, but yet was without sin. Jesus on earth, did not retain his omniscience, omnipotence or omnipresence. He emptied Himself of those privileges and became like us. He was still God, but He lived as a man and suffered the same physical frailties as we do. "

So, in short, you're saying that God could lie.

If anyone is making a God a liar, it you. Jesus voluntarily submitted to the Will of the Father for redemptive purposes. Jesus was living as our example. He demonstrated that one can overcome the enemy through the Word of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not lose His Divinity, but he temporarily relinquished the particular privileges of Divine Nature in order to live has a human being. He was still God, He still forgave sins, and still received the worship due to Him as God.

You said "It doesn't HAVE to say God was Christ in that verse. God was in Christ in that Christ was God in the flesh. It had to be God hanging up there, since there is no other Savior but God according to the Scriptures. It makes no sense to YOU, but it makes perfect sense. Only God could pay our sin debt for us. It was God who saved us. If God was not on the cross, then all of us are on our way to hell."

And in short, you're saying that God could die.

God can't die, God can't lie. I think your understanding of what was required to redeem us from death is misguided.

No, my understanding is rooted in the truth. God is the only Savior of man. Jesus Divine self did not die, but His humanity did die. Jesus was in complete control of the situation. Jesus died when he decided to die. No one took Jesus' life from Him. He was in control of the situation. He could have ended it at anytime. If Jesus had decided not to got to the cross, no force on earth could have made Him go. The Bible says that God was IN Christ on the cross. It was God hanging on the cross.

Read the entire verse in 2 Corinthians.

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

(2 Corinthians 5:19)

God was reconciling the world unto Himself, and he did IN Jesus. He was IN Jesus when Jesus was on the cross, and He was reconciling the world unto Himself. God was the offended party, and yet he took upon the role of the offender and payed for our sins Himself. He is both our Judge and Savior at the same time. He has judged us, and declared us righteous, and therefore saved us from our sin.

[apothanein kerdos]

I can't stand it any longer and will enter in. Shiloh already quoted me and my thoughts concerning John 1:3, and if need be more ammo can be added to i. It is a solid case and I challenge any one to try and prove it wrong. There are few things in life I am extremely confident about, the deity of Jesus is one that I am absolutely 100% sure about.

]What I find most absurd that, if it were true, we would expect to see a lot of discussion on it within the NT. How it works, ect. Instead, when we see the apostles expounding on the sacrifice of Christ, we find them insisting on Jesus being fully and completely like us with no mention of any supposed diety.

The argument from silence is one that is typically used by most nay sayers of Jesus' deity. That because the New Testament writers didn't spend a lot of time in addressing the dual nature of Christ they must have no believed it.

This falls apart quickly when reviewing why the gospels were written and that, quite frankly, some of the writers may have no understood it themselvse. Focusing solely on John, we know that his purpose in writing the gospel of John was to show the humanity and deity of Christ.

Are you aware of the gnostic crisis that began during the Apostle's times and "ended" in the fourth century? Do you realize one of the key components the early church, from the apostes to the fourth century, fought in the Gnostic movement was the denial of Jesus' deity. Explain that. Why would the writers and those close to the writers, if they did not believe Jesus to be God, condemn the gnostics as heretics because of the Gnostic denial of Jesus' deity. Explain it.

Scripture doesn't even say that Jesus had one nature, never mind two.

It's implied. YOu can't say "the term has to be in there" otherwise all doctrines of Christianity fall apart. The Doctrine of the dual nature is certainly implied, that or the Bible is one big heap of contradictions.

1. The Bible says that God cannot be tempted. Jesus was.

This is based on a faulty interpretation of James 1:13. We know God can be tempted because many verses, including Psalm 103:13-15 speak of God being tempted. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. James is stating that God cannot be enticed to do evil, that is, lead into it. The people temptin God were testing Him, putting Him to the test, much like Stan was doing with Jesus.

Therein lies the difference.

2. The Bible says that God cannot die. Jesus did.

This ignores the two natures of Jesus, that He flesh died but His spirit did not (and His flesh came back).

From carm.org

1) He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)

2) He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)

3) He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

4) He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

5) He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)

6) He knew all things (John 21:17)

7) He gives eternal life (John 20:28)

8) The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

1) He worshiped the Father (John 17)

2) He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)

3) He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).

4) He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

5) He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)

6) He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)

7) He died (Rom. 5:8)

8) He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

3. The Bible says that God cannot be seen by man. Jesus was.

It also says that Moses spoke to God face to face. The likelyhood is that this was Jesus he spoke to.

Also, the hypostatic union is supposed to explain how Jesus could be co-equal and also not equal at the same time. Equal "ontologically" (his nature), and "positionally" unequal. What kind of sense does that make? If he's got two natures, one that's flesh, then he couldn't be ontologically equal either.

*sigh* You're using terms you don't understand and creating a straw man argument.

Jesus, as He is now, is metaphysically the same as God. The Trinity is on a higher ontological level. It is God, and then that which is created. Thus, if something is not created but merely exist as is, it is ontologically the same as God and subsequently God. If something has been created, then it exist in the same ontological realm as all created things, which is below God and subserviant to Him. Jesus, coming down in flesh (actual flesh and not His pre-birth form or post-resurrection form) held both ontologies within Him. This, in a philosophical sense, can occur. Two ontologies can be brought together is the creator or originator of both ontological statuses chooses to bring them together. Being equal with God in form but in submission to Him in role does not expell the ontological argument.

In essence, to simplify this for you (because it isn't an easy concept by any means), an analogy for you. Keep in mind, the analogy isn't suppose to be 100% representation, but instead to give you a simplified of the submission within the same metaphysical state. A husband and wife, ontologically and metaphysically, are equal. Yet a wife can submit to her husband and obey what he wants, yet still remain ontologically equal with him. It is the same with the Trinity. Though Jesus existed in both ontological realities He did not sacrifice His equalness by being submissive.

The whole thing is a confusing mess. Don't let your minds be corrupted from the "simplicity that is in Christ".

Obviously the early fathers as well as apostles believed this was simple to accept, for all of them beleived it, taught it, and anyone that taught against it was labeled a heretic. John called a denier of Jesus' deity the "father of lies", and Polycarp, disciple of John, called another the first born of Satan. They took this issue very seriously.

1. I don't think Jesus did claim to be God.

Wow, I don't know of anyone that still makes this claim. It shall be addressed with what I post in a bit. Regardless, do not forget that Thomas called JEsus "God" and Jesus did not rebuke him for this (John 20:28-29). In fact, once Thomas acknowledes Jesus as God, Jesus then acknowledges Thomas' belief.

As for your handling of John 8:58...very poor. For one, you forget the response of the Jews after Jesus states "I Am", they attempted to kill Him. For him to assert living prior to Abraham and being greater than Abraham would have been nothing for the Pharisees. Josephus records at least 3 or 4 men who made such other claims (while claiming to be the Messiah) who suffered no consequence from the Pharisees. Jesus, however, adds "I Am" in there, and all of a sudden everone wants to kill him.

So let's look at your faulty Greek interpretation:

As for your faulty interpretation of ego eimi ho on being the only way to say "I AM", you base this off of Exodus 3:14 in the septuagint. However, you forget that the ho on are an addition to show repetion of the ego eimi before it. Exodus 3:14, those select words, are "I AM that I AM". This repetition is shown in the Greek. Thus, if we take out the ho on we take ou tthe repetition and end up with "I AM". In other words, a person could say "I am going..." and not end up in trouble. The problem with John 8:58, is you have a present indicative as a stand alone. It is in refrence to nothing, it is following nor proceding any actions, which a present indicative should do. Your interpretation makes no sense.

"BEforew Abraham, I exist"

That makes no sense and doesn't work with the present indicative. Either we have an error within the manuscripts, or Jesus is leaving the present indicative as a stand alone on purpose. If He is, then He is claiming the name of God. Notice how the Jews took up stones to kill Him, which is the punishment for claiming to be God AND for taking God's name in vain.

so the challenge for you is to find ego eimi used elsewhere as a stand alone.

Now, this was written conerning the Remnant fellowship, but is in defense of the Trinity:

The second big issue that the Remnant covers is that of the Trinity. On this they bring up verses and then one big question,