Jesus' deity was divinely limited

gtparts

Senior Member
The Judgement seat of Christ-Jesus is the judge.
The Great White Throne Judgement-God is the judge.

This shows a seperation of God & Jesus in Heaven. It also shows some kind of diety of Jesus as a mere man would not have the ability to judge all the Christians.

Your second paragraph is just a highly implausible conclusion that disregards that Jesus stated that "the Father and I are one". It ignores the unity that is attested to in many Scriptures. The fact that you or anyone else cannot reason through the spiritual truth of Jesus and God being one spiritual entity only serves to show that your conclusion is built on human logic rather than spiritual reality and faith.

It should be obvious that if Jesus and the Father are not one, as you seem to think, then Jesus would be a liar and completely unsuitable as a sacrifice for the redemption of the world. Why would you think it impossible for God to be 100% in heaven, as the Father, and be 100% in the flesh, as Jesus, concurrently? Is that too difficult for God?
 
Last edited:

Israel

BANNED
A scripture text to ponder.

John 6:“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
That Jesus spoke of complete dependence upon his Father while "in the days of his flesh" is spoken clearly in many places. Of his power> "Of myself, I can do nothing"...of his own virtue and righteousness>"why callest thou me good?"...of omniscience>"...the Father will show me greater things..." and "of that day an hour no man knoweth...not even the son..."...of being a man under authority> "I only do what I see the Father doing".
But we just as surely see the testimony of the Lord's eternal estate ..."...glorify thou me with the glory I had with thee..."..."in the beginning was the word..." ..."All authority in heaven and earth"...and every word we see spoken by him in the book of Revelation.
The incarnation is a work totally for our sakes. Jesus regained nothing needed for "himself" in his obedience and humility...he might also have forgone the cross if he cared to "know ye not that even now I could ask the Father for 12 legions of angels..." The point being, he didn't care to.

There was something he was regaining for his Father...as he spoke and worked ONLY what the Father gave him, and that was a restoration of a people once lost. We are now given to see such humility and grace, such obedience and its profit.

It is here we are to abide, not counting insults as personal to us, not counting contradiction as our own precious "victimization".

"The reproaches of those who reproached thee, fell upon me".

As Jesus came in his Father's name to do and speak only for the purpose of upholding that name, so we are now given a name to uphold. And by that abiding we discover, also, that the Father's name is upheld through Christ in us.

And so an order is restored "1Co_11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Ultimately all is restored and in order "in God". There is no separation, and our lives are "hidden with Christ in God". We can "come out of hiding", if you will, when we testify of ourselves, instead of the one in whose name we have been sent. And I have often done this to my own shame.
But grace remains for repentance.

Just as Jesus' humility is demonstrated in his obedience...but also in these words "any word spoken against the son of man will be forgiven..." We learn there is also one, given in the name of Jesus, whose refusal and contradiction will not be forgiven if blasphemed, because he has further humbled himself to serve the humble one.."for he shall not speak of himself..."
The complete and utter humility of God himself is demonstrated through Jesus, and testified of the Holy Ghost. God has gone as "far under man" as possible to lift him up...putting all aside that pleased his own soul to reach us.

Jesus became sin.
Do we see this?
When someone has truly turned themselves "inside out" in love for another, they can do no more.
 

hummerpoo

Gone but not forgotten
That Jesus spoke of complete dependence upon his Father while "in the days of his flesh" is spoken clearly in many places. Of his power> "Of myself, I can do nothing"...of his own virtue and righteousness>"why callest thou me good?"...of omniscience>"...the Father will show me greater things..." and "of that day an hour no man knoweth...not even the son..."...of being a man under authority> "I only do what I see the Father doing".
But we just as surely see the testimony of the Lord's eternal estate ..."...glorify thou me with the glory I had with thee..."..."in the beginning was the word..." ..."All authority in heaven and earth"...and every word we see spoken by him in the book of Revelation.
The incarnation is a work totally for our sakes. Jesus regained nothing needed for "himself" in his obedience and humility...he might also have forgone the cross if he cared to "know ye not that even now I could ask the Father for 12 legions of angels..." The point being, he didn't care to.

There was something he was regaining for his Father...as he spoke and worked ONLY what the Father gave him, and that was a restoration of a people once lost. We are now given to see such humility and grace, such obedience and its profit.

It is here we are to abide, not counting insults as personal to us, not counting contradiction as our own precious "victimization".

"The reproaches of those who reproached thee, fell upon me".

As Jesus came in his Father's name to do and speak only for the purpose of upholding that name, so we are now given a name to uphold. And by that abiding we discover, also, that the Father's name is upheld through Christ in us.

And so an order is restored "1Co_11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Ultimately all is restored and in order "in God". There is no separation, and our lives are "hidden with Christ in God". We can "come out of hiding", if you will, when we testify of ourselves, instead of the one in whose name we have been sent. And I have often done this to my own shame.
But grace remains for repentance.

Just as Jesus' humility is demonstrated in his obedience...but also in these words "any word spoken against the son of man will be forgiven..." We learn there is also one, given in the name of Jesus, whose refusal and contradiction will not be forgiven if blasphemed, because he has further humbled himself to serve the humble one.."for he shall not speak of himself..."
The complete and utter humility of God himself is demonstrated through Jesus, and testified of the Holy Ghost. God has gone as "far under man" as possible to lift him up...putting all aside that pleased his own soul to reach us.

Jesus became sin.
Do we see this?
When someone has truly turned themselves "inside out" in love for another, they can do no more.

I often cringe at the use of the word “doctrine”, but am thinking that it should be applied to your statement.
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


John 8:58

Jesus said unto them,Verily,verily, I say unto you,Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was Jesus even before Abraham. No doubt Jesus is God in my heart and mind.
 

Artfuldodger

Senior Member
gtparts;6904358 Why would you think it impossible for God to be 100% in heaven said:
I don't think that would be impossible for God to do. I just don't think that is what God did. I'm basing my beliefs on who Jesus said he was in the Bible. I've already posted enough verses that prove Jesus isn't God.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.


John 8:58

Jesus said unto them,Verily,verily, I say unto you,Before Abraham was, I am.

Jesus was Jesus even before Abraham. No doubt Jesus is God in my heart and mind.
He saw it through eyes of faith, he rejoiced that one day God would send the Messiah.--- Before Abraham was, I am [sent]. Notice previously in the same chapter that he said the same thing 2x. Most translations have "the one I claim to be" in brackets. If they took this liberty there, why not here also. Same greek grammar. This was part of their lingo. The blind man in the next chapter said the exact same thing. Your translation probably does not show it this way but when you look at the greek it is exact, I am. John's gospel uses the word sent about 40 times. More than the remainder of the NT combined if I recall correctly. That is John's context. Before Abraham was born, I am [sent]. This would be a better than "the one I claim to be" but either way it should have been applied. Also, Jesus was declaring that he was more important than their Abraham who they elevated much farther than he should have been. John said "he was before me", this Jesus said he was before Abraham. They understood this. Think about how Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know that it was Ishmael. Why, because God promised Issac before Ishmael was born. God's promises were considered as if they already were by men of faith. Jesus was "before" Abraham and John. Also, No Jew ever considered the use of "I am" to mean anything. That is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers writing volumes trying to defend and tear down the diety of Jesus, never used this argument. Also, The "I am" is actually the result of a "blended translation" Our OT is full of double accounts. I can give lots of examples. What happened is that the writing we have actually came from two writings that were combined. We will say "tradition A and tradition B". Tradition A records that God said that his name was YHWH. Tradition B comes from those who would never say the word YHWH out of reverence. These two traditions were copied to make "Tradition C" which we now have. The original, which would have to be "A" should be the correct words of God. Therefore, there was never an "I am who I am" from God. The proof of this is all over with lots of examples of proof. You can eaisly see it in this case but it jumps out in other examples
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
He saw it through eyes of faith, he rejoiced that one day God would send the Messiah.--- Before Abraham was, I am [sent]. Notice previously in the same chapter that he said the same thing 2x. Most translations have "the one I claim to be" in brackets. If they took this liberty there, why not here also. Same greek grammar. This was part of their lingo. The blind man in the next chapter said the exact same thing. Your translation probably does not show it this way but when you look at the greek it is exact, I am. John's gospel uses the word sent about 40 times. More than the remainder of the NT combined if I recall correctly. That is John's context. Before Abraham was born, I am [sent]. This would be a better than "the one I claim to be" but either way it should have been applied. Also, Jesus was declaring that he was more important than their Abraham who they elevated much farther than he should have been. John said "he was before me", this Jesus said he was before Abraham. They understood this. Think about how Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know that it was Ishmael. Why, because God promised Issac before Ishmael was born. God's promises were considered as if they already were by men of faith. Jesus was "before" Abraham and John. Also, No Jew ever considered the use of "I am" to mean anything. That is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers writing volumes trying to defend and tear down the diety of Jesus, never used this argument. Also, The "I am" is actually the result of a "blended translation" Our OT is full of double accounts. I can give lots of examples. What happened is that the writing we have actually came from two writings that were combined. We will say "tradition A and tradition B". Tradition A records that God said that his name was YHWH. Tradition B comes from those who would never say the word YHWH out of reverence. These two traditions were copied to make "Tradition C" which we now have. The original, which would have to be "A" should be the correct words of God. Therefore, there was never an "I am who I am" from God. The proof of this is all over with lots of examples of proof. You can eaisly see it in this case but it jumps out in other examples

Oh no...a doubting Thomas. You can tear apart the language and try to say that he didn't mean to say this or that...but the Jews he was speaking to knew what he was saying.

I like this from Matthew Henry, on verse 58
Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself, "Verily,verily I say unto you; I say it to your faces, take it how you will; Before Abraham was, I am, Before Abraham was made born, I am" The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator. Before Abraham he was, as God. I am, is the name of God.He does not say I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last. .

The word God (Jesus) used here was so convicting that all they could do was pick up stones to stone him. It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, and although in those days blasphemy was to be determined by trial, they went straightforth to stone him...to no avail.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Oh no...a doubting Thomas. You can tear apart the language and try to say that he didn't mean to say this or that...but the Jews he was speaking to knew what he was saying.

I like this from Matthew Henry, on verse 58
Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself, "Verily,verily I say unto you; I say it to your faces, take it how you will; Before Abraham was, I am, Before Abraham was made born, I am" The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator. Before Abraham he was, as God. I am, is the name of God.He does not say I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last. .

The word God (Jesus) used here was so convicting that all they could do was pick up stones to stone him. It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, and although in those days blasphemy was to be determined by trial, they went straightforth to stone him...to no avail.
Luke 4:29 had them trying to kill Jesus with no claim of diety. They stoned people at the drop of a hat. Paul, Steven and many more. We should seriously start a new thread about his trial, what he was accused of.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Oh no...a doubting Thomas. You can tear apart the language and try to say that he didn't mean to say this or that...but the Jews he was speaking to knew what he was saying.

I like this from Matthew Henry, on verse 58
Our Saviour gives an effectual answer to this cavil, by a solemn assertion of his own seniority even to Abraham himself, "Verily,verily I say unto you; I say it to your faces, take it how you will; Before Abraham was, I am, Before Abraham was made born, I am" The change of the word is observable, and bespeaks Abraham a creature, and himself the Creator. Before Abraham he was, as God. I am, is the name of God.He does not say I was, but I am, for he is the first and the last. .

The word God (Jesus) used here was so convicting that all they could do was pick up stones to stone him. It was blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, and although in those days blasphemy was to be determined by trial, they went straightforth to stone him...to no avail.
Search Jewish history. There is no expectation of God as "I Am". They are the ones who hold tightly to their expectations and are not effected by change of time or tradition. Yet, then and now, they, the Jews do not consider the use of "I Am" as meaning God. This is an English invention of reverse engineering only after it was converted from Hebrew to English
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
He implied he was greater than Abraham. At this, and many other things recorded, they wanted to kill him
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
Search Jewish history. There is no expectation of God as "I Am".

Ex.3:13-14
And Moses said unto God,Behold,when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses,I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,I AM hath sent me unto you.




They are the ones who hold tightly to their expectations and are not effected by change of time or tradition.

Really? What ever happened to blood sacrifices?


Yet, then and now, they, the Jews do not consider the use of "I Am" as meaning God. This is an English invention of reverse engineering only after it was converted from Hebrew to English

Look you have a very strong spirit of doubt and untrust on you. I will pray for you, but you really need to regain your faith, and only you can do this. God the Father is waiting on you at home where you left, I know the swines feed has to be getting old by now, there's a feast awaiting for you when you get back home.
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
Luke 4:29 had them trying to kill Jesus with no claim of diety. They stoned people at the drop of a hat. Paul, Steven and many more. We should seriously start a new thread about his trial, what he was accused of.

Luke 4:17
Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah ...a prophecy of the coming Lord,v18,and v19.
Then in v21 he explainsThis day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So again, he claims to be the son of God....or God depending on your view...This again is why they grew angry at him...He was claiming to be God.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Luke 4:17
Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah ...a prophecy of the coming Lord,v18,and v19.
Then in v21 he explainsThis day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So again, he claims to be the son of God....or God depending on your view...This again is why they grew angry at him...He was claiming to be God.
Nope, reading the book of Isiah, he was claiming "being annointed". And as far as them getting mad, this was over them thinking that only Jews were worth anything to God. See vs 28 "all the people were furious when they heard this [vs 27].
 

hobbs27

Senior Member
as far as them getting mad, this was over them thinking that only Jews were worth anything to God. See vs 28 "all the people were furious when they heard this [vs 27].
Yes, I can see that too. The Jew being a very bigoted race of people. This is evident in the book of Jonah.
 

gtparts

Senior Member
He saw it through eyes of faith, he rejoiced that one day God would send the Messiah.--- Before Abraham was, I am [sent]. Notice previously in the same chapter that he said the same thing 2x. Most translations have "the one I claim to be" in brackets. If they took this liberty there, why not here also. Same greek grammar. This was part of their lingo. The blind man in the next chapter said the exact same thing. Your translation probably does not show it this way but when you look at the greek it is exact, I am. John's gospel uses the word sent about 40 times. More than the remainder of the NT combined if I recall correctly. That is John's context. Before Abraham was born, I am [sent]. This would be a better than "the one I claim to be" but either way it should have been applied. Also, Jesus was declaring that he was more important than their Abraham who they elevated much farther than he should have been. John said "he was before me", this Jesus said he was before Abraham. They understood this. Think about how Issac was called Abraham's firstborn son yet we know that it was Ishmael. Why, because God promised Issac before Ishmael was born. God's promises were considered as if they already were by men of faith. Jesus was "before" Abraham and John. Also, No Jew ever considered the use of "I am" to mean anything. That is a modern invention. The Early Church Fathers writing volumes trying to defend and tear down the diety of Jesus, never used this argument. Also, The "I am" is actually the result of a "blended translation" Our OT is full of double accounts. I can give lots of examples. What happened is that the writing we have actually came from two writings that were combined. We will say "tradition A and tradition B". Tradition A records that God said that his name was YHWH. Tradition B comes from those who would never say the word YHWH out of reverence. These two traditions were copied to make "Tradition C" which we now have. The original, which would have to be "A" should be the correct words of God. Therefore, there was never an "I am who I am" from God. The proof of this is all over with lots of examples of proof. You can eaisly see it in this case but it jumps out in other examples

Your point might be well taken.....

if Jesus had been speaking ancient Greek. He most assuredly was speaking Aramaic. It was recorded in Greek. The two are vastly different, making an adequate or precise rendering in the Greek very difficult, particularly where the word used by Jesus was derived directly from 'elohim', the only acceptable reference to God without speaking His name. The people within hearing knew exactly what Jesus was saying.

Don't know where you got that stuff you tried to pass off, but you really have missed a lot of truth, while trying to explain why the Jewish officials got so hot that they wanted to kill Him. You seem to seek out the least credible, most unusual, and downright bizarre sources for your theological positions. You may be a top-ranked contrarian, but the stuff you're peddling doesn't have a market with my house.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
Your point might be well taken.....

if Jesus had been speaking ancient Greek. He most assuredly was speaking Aramaic. It was recorded in Greek. The two are vastly different, making an adequate or precise rendering in the Greek very difficult, particularly where the word used by Jesus was derived directly from 'elohim', the only acceptable reference to God without speaking His name. The people within hearing knew exactly what Jesus was saying.

Don't know where you got that stuff you tried to pass off, but you really have missed a lot of truth, while trying to explain why the Jewish officials got so hot that they wanted to kill Him. You seem to seek out the least credible, most unusual, and downright bizarre sources for your theological positions. You may be a top-ranked contrarian, but the stuff you're peddling doesn't have a market with my house.
Traditional assumptions are powerful
 

gtparts

Senior Member
Traditional assumptions are powerful

And more often a better explanation than the off-the-wall suggestions or way-out, radical speculations. After all, 1900 years after the NT was written (give or take a few) it is only reasonable that much of the traditional understanding today is the result of valid research and scholarly examination in many specialties.
 

Israel

BANNED
Luke 4:17
Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah ...a prophecy of the coming Lord,v18,and v19.
Then in v21 he explainsThis day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.
So again, he claims to be the son of God....or God depending on your view...This again is why they grew angry at him...He was claiming to be God.

A wiser man than myself once said there are only two reasons for anyone doing anything...the one they give you, and the real reason. Cynical you may say. But I wouldn't.

Heresy has always been the accusation of last resort (or maybe, actually the first) of religious people whose unrighteousness is exposed by the presence of God.

That does not mean there are not "real" heretics, or that heresy is to be indulged. The difference always comes in the matter of handling them.

Gamiliel showed a wisdom born of something other than the flesh when confronted with something he did not yet understand...and with what he may well have disagreed.

But the natural man will rarely admit to the murder in his heart, and he dare not even consider it may well be the spirit exposing it...no...the "fault" is always in the other.
It would have been actually commendable had the Pharisees motives been a true zeal for the name of God, even though they may have mistaken Jesus' words as blasphemy.

But no, the chicken came well before the egg in this case...every reason they gave was manufactured, every display of "righteous outrage" a sham, every word uttered as witness against Jesus...a lie. Not because they were zealous for their God...but simply because well...they didn't like him. They hated him. They despised him. His words, work, and mere presence among them (in Jesus) exposed them daily to shame in the spirit.

But being completely devoid of spiritual understanding, all they could sense was a loathing, and since they could never accept what they were sensing was actually the true God's esteem of religious hypocrisy...and their own hatred of God being manifest...the "fault" must have been in Jesus, cause he was the cause of it. Or so they thought.

Simply get rid of Jesus...and once again...all would be right in their world...they could go on telling themselves they loved God, and enjoy the position and power and parade of their own righteousness before others.

The devil never wants us to look at ourselves, cause that's where he's most easily at home.

Another Pharisee was intent on stamping out the name of Jesus...so inflamed (can you see a dragon?) the scripture testifies of him this way:
Act_9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

He also wonderfully...failed.

He later testified to something he discovered, the carnal man is absolutely at enmity with God.
But when need be...he can sure find many religious reasons to supply in his attempts to dethrone Him.
 
Last edited:

Ronnie T

Ol' Retired Mod
And more often a better explanation than the off-the-wall suggestions or way-out, radical speculations. After all, 1900 years after the NT was written (give or take a few) it is only reasonable that much of the traditional understanding today is the result of valid research and scholarly examination in many specialties.


Maybe.

But I'm inclined to be assured of earlier beliefs than I am some of the 'new-age' thinking in Christianity.
I'll take the 90 year old church over the 20th century church. Scholarly examination today often involves the over-educated.
Modern research too often involves modern thinking.
 

1gr8bldr

Senior Member
And more often a better explanation than the off-the-wall suggestions or way-out, radical speculations. After all, 1900 years after the NT was written (give or take a few) it is only reasonable that much of the traditional understanding today is the result of valid research and scholarly examination in many specialties.
Orthodoxy was not the result of understanding. It was through power, power of Constantine
 
Top