Jesus denied being God

[mikesw]

No I got it right. Jesus didn't make up any of his own doctrines, he didn't create the gospel, he didn't make any of his own teachings. He's not the good teacher. The Good Teacher is God alone. Therefore Jesus denied being God. Let's see if more Scripture helps you connect the dots.

John 8​

28...as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.​

​

John 7​

16...My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.​

​

John 12​

49For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 50And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.​

Jesus, the man who did not create his own doctrines, did not teach himself, and got his commands from God denied being God when he was called "Good Teacher" because Jesus is not the good teacher.

Matthew 19​

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.​

​

Mark 10​

18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.​

​

Luke 18​

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.​

you pretend that Jesus denied being God. I can't blame you too much since scholars also misinterpret questions and convert them as if they are assertions. However, we cannot convert the text to "how dare you call me good." But your error of interpretation just proves your over extension of your estimation of your ability to understand scripture. You also do a stupid extension by making "teacher" as issue here when indeed Jesus is also a teacher. You go blank and forget also that Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Mistake upon mistake on your part.
Although it sometimes helps to look at passages in case they have a different meaning than expected, the alternatives tend to prove to be errors. You have proven that rule.

 

[mikesw]

While it's true that Jesus is good, being good is not the criteria for being God. This is an unpopular Biblical truth, but nevertheless it is a Biblical truth none the less. I assume you and I will both agree that Jesus is the prophesied Immanuel since most people I have chatted with or spoke to also agree.

Did you know that Immanuel needed time to learn the difference between good and evil? How can someone who is inherently good not already know the difference between good an evil? Having inherent goodness and not knowing what goodness is can't coexist. You will see that Immanuel in the below verse needed to know to refuse evil and choose good.

Isaiah 7​

14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.​

Another thing is that the Bible says that Jesus grew in stature and favor with both God and men. The way this reads is that Jesus developed repertoire with numerous parties who are exterior to himself. Other people are a different party to Jesus, God is a different party to people, then since Jesus is a man then God is a different party to Jesus.

So how can someone who is already inherently good increase in stature and favor with God is they are already on equal footing with God, so to speak?

Luke 2​

52And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.​

And for the record, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I do not believe Jesus is a sinner. Jesus is sinless. Now please answer my questions if you will. Thanks.

Evil upon evil in misinterpretation. You might as well call Jesus a sinner since you deny all the divinity and and essence of Christ. You have not even shared what you think Jesus is because you keep denying the passages about him. I think you know it will expose your disregard for Christ's essence. You refer to Luk 2:52 which does not deny the divinity of Christ. That just shows Jesus maturing in his incarnation. So you use passages that do not contribute to your view but you try to use them anyhow, in desperation.
Then Isa 7:14 reflects a type of Christ. It does not have to be read as a prophetic passage about Christ. So you use the name Immanuel to deny Immanuel. I have no idea how that makes logical sense to even your own thought process. You are drowning. You need to come up for air once in awhile.

 

[mikesw]

I believe the verses in Isaiah have a double fulfillment. In other words, Isaiah is speaking here to Ahaz, the king of Judah, telling him that he will give him a sign that He will protect him from his enemies. And that sign is a child born of a maiden, and she will call him Immanuel. Before he is old enough to refuse evil and choose good, God will defeat your enemies. The 2nd fulfillment is when Jesus was born. Matthew 1:23
Jesus was called "holy" at birth, and He did have to learn to refuse evil and choose good, just like every other child. He did have to increase in wisdom, just like every young boy, because He was a human, as we are. But He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not like we were or any other man. So He was also God in the flesh. Yet, He "emptied Himself" to become a man, laid aside His privileges, even though He existed in the form of God. Philippians 2:5-8
I believe He could have sinned (if not, then it wouldn't really be a true test) , but He chose not too, giving us that same choice.
Being (inherently) good is not the criteria for being God? It most certainly is one of His main attributes. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty ...

The Isaiah passage speaks primarily of Ahaz and the trouble coming upon the land. But the verse is typologically applied to Christ Jesus with focus also of Christ's appearance as the sign of the destruction of Jerusalem. More importantly we see that Jesus is named Jesus, not Immanuel. From this, it can be seen that the name Immanuel is reflecting the deity of Christ so it is applied to describe Christ's origin and nature.

 

[Runningman]

you pretend that Jesus denied being God. I can't blame you too much since scholars also misinterpret questions and convert them as if they are assertions. However, we cannot convert the text to "how dare you call me good." But your error of interpretation just proves your over extension of your estimation of your ability to understand scripture. You also do a stupid extension by making "teacher" as issue here when indeed Jesus is also a teacher. You go blank and forget also that Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Mistake upon mistake on your part.
Although it sometimes helps to look at passages in case they have a different meaning than expected, the alternatives tend to prove to be errors. You have proven that rule.

Seems you don't have a point. Whatever your opinions are about me I, very honestly, do not care completely. You have no rebuttal to what I presented then no need to reply.

 

[Runningman]

Evil upon evil in misinterpretation. You might as well call Jesus a sinner since you deny all the divinity and and essence of Christ. You have not even shared what you think Jesus is because you keep denying the passages about him. I think you know it will expose your disregard for Christ's essence. You refer to Luk 2:52 which does not deny the divinity of Christ. That just shows Jesus maturing in his incarnation. So you use passages that do not contribute to your view but you try to use them anyhow, in desperation.
Then Isa 7:14 reflects a type of Christ. It does not have to be read as a prophetic passage about Christ. So you use the name Immanuel to deny Immanuel. I have no idea how that makes logical sense to even your own thought process. You are drowning. You need to come up for air once in awhile.

Luke 2:52 and Isaiah 7:14 demonstrate that Jesus is a human just like anyone else who needs to develop, mature, and learn. He is not an omniscient God. Next.

 

[Runningman]

I believe the verses in Isaiah have a double fulfillment. In other words, Isaiah is speaking here to Ahaz, the king of Judah, telling him that he will give him a sign that He will protect him from his enemies. And that sign is a child born of a maiden, and she will call him Immanuel. Before he is old enough to refuse evil and choose good, God will defeat your enemies. The 2nd fulfillment is when Jesus was born. Matthew 1:23
Jesus was called "holy" at birth, and He did have to learn to refuse evil and choose good, just like every other child. He did have to increase in wisdom, just like every young boy, because He was a human, as we are. But He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, not like we were or any other man.

So Jesus is just like everyone else.

So He was also God in the flesh. Yet, He "emptied Himself" to become a man, laid aside His privileges, even though He existed in the form of God. Philippians 2:5-8
I believe He could have sinned (if not, then it wouldn't really be a true test) , but He chose not too, giving us that same choice.
Being (inherently) good is not the criteria for being God? It most certainly is one of His main attributes. Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty ...

While I disagree that those passages mean Jesus is God in the flesh, I do agree that Jesus made choices to not sin and that is why he did not sin. The Father is Jesus' Lord, his God, and his Father in a practical sense. Jesus learned his way, truth, and got his life from the Father, but he is not the same person. Yes, God is holy, and are we not supposed to be holy as He is holy? Be perfect as He is perfect? At what point does Jesus become God for doing the same things that are asked of us?

 

[Complete]

...

 

[Complete]

Ref: Replies:- #2,428 & #2,432

'Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called;
.. I am He;
.... I am the first,
...... I also am the last.
........ Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth,
.......... and My right hand hath spanned the heavens:
............ when I call unto them, they stand up together.
All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear;
which among them hath declared these things?
The LORD hath loved Him:
He will do His pleasure on Babylon,
and His arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken;
yea, I have called Him:
I have brought Him,
and He shall make His way prosperous.
.. Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this;
.... I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
...... from the time that it was, there am I:
........ and now The Lord GOD, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.
.......... Thus saith the LORD,
............ thy Redeemer,
.............. The Holy One of Israel;
I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit,
which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.'
(Isa 48:16-17)
--------------------------
Hello @Runningman,

You are quite correct, that form of words ( God The Son ) is not found in Scripture, I agree: For that I stand corrected. Yet you make no comment on the Scripture quoted (Isaiah 48:16-17), which is awesome (above). The following is equally awesome:-

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made Himself of no reputation,
and took upon Him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man,
He humbled Himself,
and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him,
and given Him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.'
(Php 2:5-11)

Praise His Holy Name!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Complete]

'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens;
God himself that formed the earth and made it;
He hath established it, He created it not in vain, He formed it to be inhabited:
I am the LORD; and there is none else.
I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth:
I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain:
I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations:
they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image,
and pray unto a god that cannot save.
Tell ye, and bring them near;
yea, let them take counsel together:
who hath declared this from ancient time?
who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD?
and there is no God else beside me;
a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth:
for I am God, and there is none else.
I have sworn by Myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness,
and shall not return,
That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength:
even to Him shall men come; and all that are incensed against Him shall be ashamed.
In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.'
(Isa 45:18-25)

Praise His Name! 'A Just God and a Saviour, there is none beside Me.'

* Christ Jesus our risen and glorified Saviour and Lord is the subject of all Scripture.

 

[mikesw]

Seems you don't have a point. Whatever your opinions are about me I, very honestly, do not care completely. You have no rebuttal to what I presented then no need to reply.

The rebuttal is there and you cannot see it for some reason. Just recognize my comments as feedback -- of identifying where your thinking process misses key aspects of the text.

 

[mikesw]

Luke 2:52 and Isaiah 7:14 demonstrate that Jesus is a human just like anyone else who needs to develop, mature, and learn. He is not an omniscient God. Next.

weird answer. So you have a philosophical bent against how a person of the Trinity would act and be described concerning his incarnation. Obviously you use your philosophical preference as the interpretive framework to deny the scriptures. I could possibly accept if you said the way of describing his incarnation caused some difficulties for the Trinitarian doctrine, such that there is room for improvement of the doctrine, but not a complete denial of his divinity in the Godhead. Your points here were debunked but you continue with them.

One thing that has become apparent is that you align your arguments merely in refutation of a heresy. You are arguing against the Docetism doctrine. Docetists believed that Jesus was a divine being who merely seemed to be human, like a spirit taking on a human form temporarily. Reasonable theologians also reject that idea such that the creeds and confessions have rejected that view. It is helpful for us Christians to know that your arguments are against Docetism rather than Trinitarianism. One misconstrual of Christ's essence, when directed against another misconstrual of Christ's essence reveals the double error of your interpretation.

This is not a doctrinal dispute of interpretation among Christians. You are denying the very testimony of scripture. It would seem also you think that Jesus is just some high intellectual who is an example that we too must be highly intelligent to follow his example to be right with God.
Maybe you can share how Isaiah 7:14 speaks against Christ's divinity.

 

[jeremiah1five]

Let me straighten these verses out for you...

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, (in the past means before they were in Christ as Christians) who are called Uncircumcision (the Jews called them uncircumcision which means not Jews) by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (Because you were Gentiles and not yet Christian)

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:11–13.

There's noting in Ephesians that says Jesus is God.

"Christ" (Messiah) refers to Deity and it is used in conjunction with "Jesus" throughout the NT.

 

[Peterlag]

"Christ" (Messiah) refers to Deity and it is used in conjunction with "Jesus" throughout the NT.

Prophets, Priests, and Kings were anointed before they assumed office that signified royal competence. Anointing was a means of investing someone with power, such as the anointment of King Solomon to signify divine sanctification and approval. Aaron was the first to be anointed for the priesthood, and the High Priest was often called the anointed Priest. The prophet Elijah was anointed and received the command to anoint Elisha. The character of the anointment gave the King the privilege of becoming the Lord’s anointed, that signified he was to serve God and reign in God’s stead over the people. The right to anoint the King was executed by the Prophet, and then later in time, only the High Priest had the right to anoint the King.

The title “the Lord’s anointed” was later shortened to “anointed.” The Hebrew, in the Aramaic form uses the word “messiah.” The Greeks translated “messiah” into the Greek as “Christ.” Jesus was anointed as Prophet, Priest, and King to signify the fulfillment of the promised messiah. Jesus was also anointed by God with the holy spirit and with power (Acts 10:38).

 

[101G]

Sorry, but this is unintelligible from a Biblical perspective. Plainly, do you believe no one has ever seen Jesus?

GINOLJC, to all,
Listen careful, last time, John 14:8 "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us." John 14:9 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

if you cannot understand, just go to God in prayer about it ... ok. In much GL.

101G

 

[Runningman]

Ref: Replies:- #2,428 & #2,432

'Hearken unto Me, O Jacob and Israel, My called;
.. I am He;
.... I am the first,
...... I also am the last.
........ Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth,
.......... and My right hand hath spanned the heavens:
............ when I call unto them, they stand up together.
All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear;
which among them hath declared these things?
The LORD hath loved Him:
He will do His pleasure on Babylon,
and His arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken;
yea, I have called Him:
I have brought Him,
and He shall make His way prosperous.
.. Come ye near unto Me, hear ye this;
.... I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;
...... from the time that it was, there am I:
........ and now The Lord GOD, and His Spirit, hath sent Me.
.......... Thus saith the LORD,
............ thy Redeemer,
.............. The Holy One of Israel;
I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit,
which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.'
(Isa 48:16-17)
--------------------------
Hello @Runningman,

You are quite correct, that form of words ( God The Son ) is not found in Scripture, I agree: For that I stand corrected. Yet you make no comment on the Scripture quoted (Isaiah 48:16-17), which is awesome (above). The following is equally awesome:-

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
But made Himself of no reputation,
and took upon Him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man,
He humbled Himself,
and became obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him,
and given Him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.'
(Php 2:5-11)

Praise His Holy Name!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Great Scripture. I love that.

Question, did you observe in Philippians 2:11 that when everyone is bowing "at the name of Jesus" that no one is getting glory except the Father?

 

[Runningman]

weird answer. So you have a philosophical bent against how a person of the Trinity would act and be described concerning his incarnation. Obviously you use your philosophical preference as the interpretive framework to deny the scriptures. I could possibly accept if you said the way of describing his incarnation caused some difficulties for the Trinitarian doctrine, such that there is room for improvement of the doctrine, but not a complete denial of his divinity in the Godhead. Your points here were debunked but you continue with them.

Jesus and everyone else needing to learn and develop isn't a philosophy. Deity and divinity don't mean the same things. Nothing was debunked.

One thing that has become apparent is that you align your arguments merely in refutation of a heresy. You are arguing against the Docetism doctrine. Docetists believed that Jesus was a divine being who merely seemed to be human, like a spirit taking on a human form temporarily. Reasonable theologians also reject that idea such that the creeds and confessions have rejected that view. It is helpful for us Christians to know that your arguments are against Docetism rather than Trinitarianism. One misconstrual of Christ's essence, when directed against another misconstrual of Christ's essence reveals the double error of your interpretation.

I'm arguing against Trinitarianism; God isn't the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Jesus is divine, but not God Almighty.

This is not a doctrinal dispute of interpretation among Christians. You are denying the very testimony of scripture. It would seem also you think that Jesus is just some high intellectual who is an example that we too must be highly intelligent to follow his example to be right with God.
Maybe you can share how Isaiah 7:14 speaks against Christ's divinity.

The Trinity is never described or explained in the Bible. Almost laughable you call what I am saying a philosophy.

 

[Runningman]

GINOLJC, to all,
Listen careful, last time, John 14:8 "Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us." John 14:9 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"

They hadn't seen the Father up until John 14:7 despite having already been with Jesus that whole time because Jesus is not the Father. They had suddenly seen the Father because they had come to know the Father because Jesus explained who God is. Jesus wasn't talking about visually looking at the Father with their eyes. Sometimes, seeing versus being blind are used in a way to mean they understand or don't understand.

John 14
7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

if you cannot understand, just go to God in prayer about it ... ok. In much GL.

Ditto.

 

[mikesw]

Jesus and everyone else needing to learn and develop isn't a philosophy. Deity and divinity don't mean the same things. Nothing was debunked.


I'm arguing against Trinitarianism; God isn't the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Jesus is divine, but not God Almighty.

The Trinity is never described or explained in the Bible. Almost laughable you call what I am saying a philosophy.

It would be laughable about your philosophy if you were not sharing heresy. Your philosophical element is that you are presuming that God cannot be incarnate among humanity. You use the humanity of Christ Jesus to deny his divinity in the Godhead. Now when I say divinity in the Godhead, that pretty much limits the concept to Christ being God, not some gifted divinity. I think you for being a bit more explicit about your specific heresy of Adoptionism.

 

[Runningman]

It would be laughable about your philosophy if you were not sharing heresy. Your philosophical element is that you are presuming that God cannot be incarnate among humanity. You use the humanity of Christ Jesus to deny his divinity in the Godhead. Now when I say divinity in the Godhead, that pretty much limits the concept to Christ being God, not some gifted divinity. I think you for being a bit more explicit about your specific heresy of Adoptionism.

The Bible doesn't say God became incarnate among humanity. Wouldn't it be a philosophy that you hold that since the Bible never even uses the word for incarnation that you have made a philosophy about it?

The Bible says "the Son of Man" descended from heaven (John 3:13, John 6:62.) Human beings, including Jesus, are called ‘son of man’ specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not the ‘son of man’ (Number 23:19, Hosea 11:9) yet the Bible describes the son of man as a human (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3; Psalms 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.)

Bottom line is that humans didn't literally pre-exist in heaven then they can't be incarnated. The point is Jesus pre-existed in God's foreknowledge. He was born as a human on earth just like everyone else.

 

[mikesw]

The Bible doesn't say God became incarnate among humanity. Wouldn't it be a philosophy that you hold that since the Bible never even uses the word for incarnation that you have made a philosophy about it?

The Bible says "the Son of Man" descended from heaven (John 3:13, John 6:62.) Human beings, including Jesus, are called ‘son of man’ specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not the ‘son of man’ (Number 23:19, Hosea 11:9) yet the Bible describes the son of man as a human (Job 25:6; Psalms 8:4; Psalms 144:3; Psalms 146:3; Isaiah 51:12, etc.)

Bottom line is that humans didn't literally pre-exist in heaven then they can't be incarnated. The point is Jesus pre-existed in God's foreknowledge. He was born as a human on earth just like everyone else.

Nah. I would never guess your doctrine from the scriptures. You seem to use half of scripture and reject the rest.
You say humans don't pre-exist. That is obvious. If the humanity of Jesus pre-existed... well that would be stupid to think since he was born of Mary. That does not mean, for lack of other terms, his spirit of Son of God did not pre-exist. God is eternal in existence. That is the way scripture is read consistently. Jesus is both the Son of Man and Son of God. In Dan 7:13 (as we again bring this forth), the verse mentions Jesus as being like a son of man. Uh the first point is that this reflects his humanity but also differentiates him from that since he is only "like a son of man." Then as we see attested by the High Priest, Jesus claim to Dan 7:13 was appearing as blasphemy in the broader context of Dan 7. You lose every time you post here.

If does not even help to post responses to you since you are unwilling to learn from them. I doubt you even have anything to collaborate your interpretation. Does Peterlag even hold to an adoptionist view?

As to your grand argument of "incarnate" not being in the Bible, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible either. Words do not have to be in scripture for us to summarize doctrines. The philosophy issue is not about words used but is about your presupposition that God cannot intervene in the world through being born among humanity. Inasmuch as I recall, you have not explained why God would lack this ability.