Jesus denied being God

[Peterlag]

cc: @Runningman
Jesus embodies the full Godhead, Father, Word, Spirit. "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" They are One God - "He." Just as humans are one person. 1 Thes. 5:23 (spirit, soul and body) but three distinct parts. We are made in Their likeness. Elohim is a plural word. I cannot live without my mind. I cannot live without my breath. I cannot live without my body. "His name shall be called Emmanuel, "God with us." My body is still part of my person, just as Jesus is part of One God. He was called the Word in heaven.

John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

25 Then they said to Him, “Who are You?”

And Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been saying to you from the beginning. 26 I have many things to say and to judge concerning you, but He who sent Me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I heard from Him.”

27 They did not understand that He spoke to them of the Father.

28 Then Jesus said to them, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. 29 And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.”

John 8:23 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Something was said to have come from God or come from heaven if God was its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. The phrase “he who came down from heaven” in John 3:13 is to be understood in the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan and then God directly fathered Jesus.

There are also other verses that say Jesus was “sent from God” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Malachi 3:10). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven. They knew that the phrase meant that God was the origin of the blessings they received. Still another example is when Christ was speaking and said “Where was the baptism of John from? From heaven or of human origin?” (Matthew 21:25). Of course, the way that John’s baptism would have been “from heaven” was if God was the source of the revelation. John did not get the idea on his own, it came “from heaven.” The verse makes the idiom clear: things could be “from heaven” i.e., from God, or they could be “from men.” The idiom is the same when used of Jesus. We can say Jesus is “from God” or “from heaven” or “from above” in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin.

The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is also clarified by Jesus’ words in John 17. He said “Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.” (John 17:18). We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said “I sent them into the world.” He meant that he commissioned us, or appointed us. The statement does not imply that we were in heaven with Christ and then incarnated into the flesh. Christ said “As you sent me… I sent them.” So, in the same way that Christ sent us is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

 

[Peterlag]

Maybe that is your understanding, or misunderstanding. But Trinitarians believe Jesus is 100% God AND 100% human. I've heard it preached saying, "how anything can be 200% I don't know, but Jesus is."

and 1 John 4:1-3 is still wrong...

cc: @Peterlag

@Runningman wrote it well when he penned...

"You don't believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh. You believe God came in the flesh"

And yes, nothing can be 100 percent of two different things.

 

[charismaticlady]

John 8:23 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. Something was said to have come from God or come from heaven if God was its source. For example, James 1:17 says that every good gift is “from above” and “comes down” from God. What James means is clear. God is the Author and source of the good things in our lives. God works behind the scenes to provide what we need. The verse does not mean that the good things in our lives come directly down from heaven. The phrase “he who came down from heaven” in John 3:13 is to be understood in the same way we understand James’ words—that God is the source of Jesus Christ, which He was. Christ was God’s plan and then God directly fathered Jesus.

There are also other verses that say Jesus was “sent from God” a phrase that shows God as the ultimate source of what is sent. John the Baptist was a man “sent from God” (John 1:6), and it was he who said that Jesus “comes from above” and “comes from heaven” (John 3:31). When God wanted to tell the people that He would bless them if they gave their tithes, He told them that He would open the windows of “heaven” and pour out a blessing (Malachi 3:10). Of course, everyone understood the idiom being used, and no one believed that God would literally pour things out of heaven. They knew that the phrase meant that God was the origin of the blessings they received. Still another example is when Christ was speaking and said “Where was the baptism of John from? From heaven or of human origin?” (Matthew 21:25). Of course, the way that John’s baptism would have been “from heaven” was if God was the source of the revelation. John did not get the idea on his own, it came “from heaven.” The verse makes the idiom clear: things could be “from heaven” i.e., from God, or they could be “from men.” The idiom is the same when used of Jesus. We can say Jesus is “from God” or “from heaven” or “from above” in the sense that God is his Father and thus his origin.

The idea of coming from God or being sent by God is also clarified by Jesus’ words in John 17. He said “Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world.” (John 17:18). We understand perfectly what Christ meant when he said “I sent them into the world.” He meant that he commissioned us, or appointed us. The statement does not imply that we were in heaven with Christ and then incarnated into the flesh. Christ said “As you sent me… I sent them.” So, in the same way that Christ sent us is how we should understand the phrase that God sent Christ.

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from...

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

And basically that's all trinitarians have. And I mean 100 percent of what they have. They have nothing else.

You used one part of one verse out of context and think it only means all blessings are from God. I used from 23-29 - the context. What I see this saying is that before He was Jesus, He was with the Father in heaven from eternity past. He was the Word, and He was God. He was not a god, for there is only one God, and He is plural.

 

[charismaticlady]

@Runningman wrote it well when he penned...

"You don't believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh. You believe God came in the flesh"

And yes, nothing can be 100 percent of two different things.

God did come in the flesh, because God could not die as was needed. Part of God emptied Himself of his glories to be implanted in Mary who was flesh and made Jesus, God with us, but who could die, but never see corruption like a normal human being. Because He was still God.

It is a lot to wrap your head around, but I think 1 Thes. 5:23 explains it best. They are together, but separate. For instance, what in us becomes born again? All three? No. Just the spirit and soul which is within - our nature. We were born with a sin nature. When it is born again it is a clean nature John 15:3. The body part of us will still die because of sin, but sin has been taken away from our inner nature to be able to partake of the divine nature of God. 2 Peter 1:2-4 Because Adam's sin was willful lawlessness, it was a sin unto death. That is what our bodies have incurred. Also our spirit and soul, but they have been redeemed now; the body will be changed when Jesus comes again.

 

[Peterlag]

You used one part of one verse out of context and think it only means all blessings are from God. I used from 23-29 - the context. What I see this saying is that before He was Jesus, He was with the Father in heaven from eternity past. He was the Word, and He was God. He was not a god, for there is only one God, and He is plural.

I never take Scripture out of context.

 

[Peterlag]

“God appeared in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16...​

1 Timothy 3:16 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. There are some Greek manuscripts that read, “God appeared in the flesh.” This reading of some Greek manuscripts has passed into some English versions, and the King James Version is one of them. Trinitarian scholars admit, however, that these Greek texts were altered by scribes in favor of the Trinitarian position. The reading of the earliest and best manuscripts is not “God” but rather “he who.” Almost all the modern versions have the verse as “the mystery of godliness is great, which was manifest in the flesh,” or some close equivalent.

Here's 29 Translations that handle 1 Timothy 3:16...

New International Version:
Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,

New Living Translation:
Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ was revealed in a human body and vindicated by the Spirit.

English Standard Version:
Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels,

Berean Standard Bible:
By common confession, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,

Berean Literal Bible:
And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: Who was revealed in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, was seen by angels,

New American Standard Bible:
Beyond question, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels,

NASB 1995:
By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels,

NASB 1977:
And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Beheld by angels,

Legacy Standard Bible:
And by common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was manifested in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels,

Amplified Bible:
And great, we confess, is the mystery [the hidden truth] of godliness: He (Jesus Christ) who was revealed in human flesh, Was justified and vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels,

Christian Standard Bible:
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels,

Holman Christian Standard Bible:
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels,

American Standard Version:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the spirit,

Contemporary English Version:
Here is the great mystery of our religion: Christ came as a human.

English Revised Version:
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels,

GOD'S WORD® Translation:
The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels,

Good News Translation:
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels.

NET Bible:
And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation: He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit,

New Heart English Bible:
Without controversy, the mystery of godliness is great: He was revealed in the flesh, justified by the Spirit, seen by angels,

Weymouth New Testament:
And, beyond controversy, great is the mystery of our religion-- that Christ appeared in human form, and His claims justified by the Spirit, was seen by angels.

Berean Literal Bible:
And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: Who was revealed in the flesh, was justified in the Spirit, was seen by angels,

Douay-Rheims Bible:
And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared unto angels,

Catholic Public Domain Version:
And it is clearly great, this mystery of piety, which was manifested in the flesh, which was justified in the Spirit, which has appeared to Angels,

New American Bible:
Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion, Who was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit, seen by angels,

New Revised Standard Version:
Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels,

Lamsa Bible:
Truly great is this divine mystery of righteousness: it is revealed in the flesh, justi- fied in the Spirit, seen by angels,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English:
And this Mystery of Righteousness is truly great, which was revealed in the flesh and was justified in The Spirit; He appeared to Angels.

Godbey New Testament:
And assuredly great is the mystery of godliness; Who is manifested in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, was seen of angels,

Weymouth New Testament:
And, beyond controversy, great is the mystery of our religion-- that Christ appeared in human form, and His claims justified by the Spirit, was seen by angels.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe that is your understanding, or misunderstanding. But Trinitarians believe Jesus is 100% God AND 100% human. I've heard it preached saying, "how anything can be 200% I don't know, but Jesus is."

and 1 John 4:1-3 is still wrong...

cc: @Peterlag

Whoever said "how anything can be 200% I don't know, but Jesus is" is deceived and I respectfully request they come to this board and chat with us if, possible. We want to avoid thought-terminating phrases. God didn't give us a brain to stop thinking just because we want to believe something. Jesus being 100% man and 100% God would require the category to be one and the same. The Jesus who was tempted to sin, the Jesus who died, the Jesus who you say is God must be a God and Man, God must be a creation, and this cannot contradict each other. It can't work this way in Christian theology, it's too problematic.

 

[mikesw]

The point is that Hebrews 1:8 has no reference to deity for Jesus. Going back to Psalm 45:6,7 where king Solomon is referred to as elohim, it doesn't mean someone is Lord God Almighty, especially when a human is called this in the Bible. It also shouldn't be capitalized because king Solomon isn't God, but rather is a god among men. Elohim can also be translated as a judge or magistrate in the kingly sense, bother which describe Solomon and Jesus precisely, but to say Solomon and Jesus are both Lord God Almighty is way out of line and cannot be accurate.

So, no, you have not provided anything conclusive or convincing with your Hebrews 1:8 interpretation, especially since your premise is undone by Hebrews 1:9 where the "God" being referenced in Hebrews 1:8 has a God and isn't already anointed and exalted above his companions. This runs entirely contrary to trinitarian theology and can't be band-aided. The only sensible conclusion that works well with Scripture is that Jesus isn't actually God. You're misunderstanding Scripture and context.

that is ignorant of the passage. this is not Solomon. If it were, he would be a unique man-god over against Jesus being God incarnate. It is not only being referred to as God but also the attributes and roles were ones that only God can have. So you have misunderstanding of the Psalm from start tto end.

 

[Runningman]

that is ignorant of the passage. this is not Solomon. If it were, he would be a unique man-god over against Jesus being God incarnate. It is not only being referred to as God but also the attributes and roles were ones that only God can have. So you have misunderstanding of the Psalm from start tto end.

So you have decided to go against the world of trinitarian commentators who say Psalm 45 is a song about Solomon's royal wedding? You should not run further into delusional interpretations just because the Bible doesn't suggest what you say it does.

 

[mikesw]

So you have decided to go against the world of trinitarian commentators who say Psalm 45 is a song about Solomon's royal wedding? You should not run further into delusional interpretations just because the Bible doesn't suggest what you say it does.

I'm sorry. I could not find any specific trinitarian commentaries for the point you proffer.

We have this mentioned by Keil and Delitzsch after sharing a point about having to reassign a person to fill the apostleship after Judas killed himself {nevermind for further clarification}

All the glorious things declared in the Psalm depend upon this as the primary assumption, as essential to their being a blessing and being realized, viz., that the king whom it celebrates should carry out the idea of the theocratic kingship. To the Old Testament prophecy and hope, more especially since the days of Isaiah, the Messiah, and to the New Testament conception of the fulfilment of prophecy Jesus Christ, is the perfected realization of this idea.
Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 5 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 326–327.

Furthermore, you have left it unclear how you find Solomon to be such a righteous king to as to fit the Psalm of the Messiah that you so despise.

 

[charismaticlady]

I never take Scripture out of context.

You did this time. I'm the one that didn't take it out of context, and try to spill it to your personal belief against the deity of Christ.

 

[mikesw]

Whoever said "how anything can be 200% I don't know, but Jesus is" is deceived and I respectfully request they come to this board and chat with us if, possible. We want to avoid thought-terminating phrases. God didn't give us a brain to stop thinking just because we want to believe something. Jesus being 100% man and 100% God would require the category to be one and the same. The Jesus who was tempted to sin, the Jesus who died, the Jesus who you say is God must be a God and Man, God must be a creation, and this cannot contradict each other. It can't work this way in Christian theology, it's too problematic.

You would do horrible in physics. Light is as a particle and a wave.

It may not be the most human way of noting Jesus as 100% man and 100% God, but anything less, for the sake of discussion, is to short what scripture shows about Jesus and makes him less than who he is.

 

[Runningman]

I'm sorry. I could not find any specific trinitarian commentaries for the point you proffer.

We have this mentioned by Keil and Delitzsch after sharing a point about having to reassign a person to fill the apostleship after Judas killed himself {nevermind for further clarification}

I found them on Bible Hub. Literally no one agrees with you that Psalm 45 is about Jesus except the Psalm 45:6,7 part, but many commentators equally agree it's about king Solomon. You can't have it both ways. You can't have Hebrews 1:8 refer to deity without it referring to Solomon as God, which is the pickle you're stuck in. Your theology isn't flexible enough to explain hard things without confessing to just being flat out wrong about your beliefs, which is something you will not publicly do I am sure.

Furthermore, you have left it unclear how you find Solomon to be such a righteous king to as to fit the Psalm of the Messiah that you so despise.

David said he is in Psalm 45:6,7. Your translators made a mistake by calling Solomon God with a capitol G in Psalm 45 and the error has perpetuated to Jesus. You're saying David and the writer of Hebrews 1 despite Jesus because they didn't say Jesus is God? How about you, do you despise God because you insist He is a man?

 

[Runningman]

You would do horrible in physics. Light is as a particle and a wave.

It may not be the most human way of noting Jesus as 100% man and 100% God, but anything less, for the sake of discussion, is to short what scripture shows about Jesus and makes him less than who he is.

So you're trying to say God can die and be tempted to sin?

 

[mikesw]

So you're trying to say God can die and be tempted to sin?

you hear one bit of scripture and your forget the rest.
The preexistent Word become incarnate as Jesus. You might hear that incarnation or "becoming flesh" refers to his humanity. I suppose then that human flesh never exists in a world that has temptations.

 

[mikesw]

I found them on Bible Hub. Literally no one agrees with you that Psalm 45 is about Jesus except the Psalm 45:6,7 part, but many commentators equally agree it's about king Solomon. You can't have it both ways. You can't have Hebrews 1:8 refer to deity without it referring to Solomon as God, which is the pickle you're stuck in. Your theology isn't flexible enough to explain hard things without confessing to just being flat out wrong about your beliefs, which is something you will not publicly do I am sure.

I suppose you like calling Solomon God even though you deny it to Christ. Worse. The prophecy says nothing of Solomon. You add that without it being said or suggested in the context. You just say that because you think it will justify your view and that it matters not that the use of Psa 45 no longer makes sense in Hebrews 1. But nothing has to make sense for it to be acceptable to a unitarian.

David said he is in Psalm 45:6,7. Your translators made a mistake by calling Solomon God with a capitol G in Psalm 45 and the error has perpetuated to Jesus. You're saying David and the writer of Hebrews 1 despite Jesus because they didn't say Jesus is God? How about you, do you despise God because you insist He is a man?

Too many errors. David did not say anything in Psalm 45. You undo the implications of too many prophecies because you do not understand that God creates prophecies and he fulfills them. The problem for prophetic fulfillment to the unitarians is it violates their hyperliteralist reading of passages.

 

[Runningman]

I suppose you like calling Solomon God even though you deny it to Christ. Worse. The prophecy says nothing of Solomon. You add that without it being said or suggested in the context. You just say that because you think it will justify your view and that it matters not that the use of Psa 45 no longer makes sense in Hebrews 1. But nothing has to make sense for it to be acceptable to a unitarian.

Too many errors. David did not say anything in Psalm 45. You undo the implications of too many prophecies because you do not understand that God creates prophecies and he fulfills them. The problem for prophetic fulfillment to the unitarians is it violates their hyperliteralist reading of passages.

The issue is that none of you ever had the authority to privately interpret the Bible and dictate to others what is literal and what isn't. Don't you want to be able to just read the Bible without having to explain it all away until your conclusions don't match anything about what is written? Why do you suppose the post-Biblical creeds exist in your church if the Bible was adequate? The creeds plainly state what the beliefs of your organization are because the Bible wasn't enough. We don't have creeds, we just point to to Sola Scriptura.

 

[Runningman]

you hear one bit of scripture and your forget the rest.
The preexistent Word become incarnate as Jesus. You might hear that incarnation or "becoming flesh" refers to his humanity. I suppose then that human flesh never exists in a world that has temptations.

Never read that in any Bible. Wasn't revealed by God, Jesus, or any of the prophets.

 

[charismaticlady]

@Runningman

What do you think Jesus meant by John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”

It sounds like a warning.

cc: @Peterlag

 

[mikesw]

The issue is that none of you ever had the authority to privately interpret the Bible and dictate to others what is literal and what isn't. Don't you want to be able to just read the Bible without having to explain it all away until your conclusions don't match anything about what is written? Why do you suppose the post-Biblical creeds exist in your church if the Bible was adequate? The creeds plainly state what the beliefs of your organization are because the Bible wasn't enough. We don't have creeds, we just point to to Sola Scriptura.

The creeds exist to counter heretical opinions that are raised against the scripture. the unitarians do not need creeds because they just make stuff up. Ironically you call the understanding of scripture as private when it is held by a majority of Christians. That is your effort to reverse the meaning of terms like "private."