Thomas... My Lord and my God

[TibiasDad]

You could someday become President or pastor and rule over the person who is now President or pastor. This is because, as you have pointed out, your nature is the same. You and them are adult humans.
In contrast, God and Christ could never swap roles. His relationship is not one that they agreed by convenience, but that could have been otherwise,
God cannot subject to anyone else, cannot receive authority from anyone, cannot be sent by anyone, cannot sit on the right hand of anyone, cannot speak or do what is ordered to speak and do, cannot mediate between man and anyone… and this is all because He is God.

Phil2:5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness…

Doug

 

[Peterlag]

Is it true the Apostles baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and never "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

[Peterlag]

I'm not convinced in reinterpreting scripture in your misconceptions. I think you shared posted this before. Again you apply the word "God" directly to Jesus, in your own interpretation, to make the verse seem to speak against the divinity of Christ in the Godhead. As long as you continue to conflate ideas improperly. I cannot say what way The Son of God involves his divinity and humanity. Just that the evidence of scripture is Christ's divinity in the Godhead in whatever way God did it. Your issues only try to eat at the edges of the passages of Christ's divinity in the Godhead.

I have no idea what the following statement means. Does anyone else know...

"You apply the word "God" directly to Jesus, in your own interpretation, to make the verse seem to speak against the divinity of Christ in the Godhead."

The following is the post...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

 

[mikesw]

I have no idea what the following statement means. Does anyone else know...

"You apply the word "God" directly to Jesus, in your own interpretation, to make the verse seem to speak against the divinity of Christ in the Godhead."

Okay. Maybe that is a bit encoded. Mostly "God" is used to identify the Father n the the NT writings or probably a general perspective of who God is. Your interpretation of James 1:13 subsumes Jesus into the verse when the writing just reflects a general perspective of God. This verse is not talking about the incarnation where temptations, such as being hungry, could lead to misbehavior. We also see the temptations of Satan, as we discussed before. Satan can only appeal to Jesus externally -- Jesus does not internalize it to make it his desire for taking an improper response to what Satan offers. But you still try to push this verse as speaking against Christ Jesus as being the incarnation of the Son of God.

The following is the post...

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God. The book of Hebrews is wrong when it says Jesus was “made like his brothers in every respect” if Jesus knew he was God (Hebrews 2:17). Jesus was not made like other humans in every way if Jesus was 100% God and 100% human at the same time. In fact, he would have been very different from other humans in many respects.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

This does not argue against the Son of God being incarnated. You just cannot comprehend the details of how Jesus can be 100% divine in the Godhead while also being 100% humanity. These are not well-explained in scripture but the lack of explanation in scripture is not a valid reason to reject what scripture reveals about this incarnation.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.

In a sense, the idea of being filled with the Spirit consequently points to sort of the void within humanity. It can be seen then that the incarnation actually involves the situation of a person (Jesus) in a more complete state than those not filled with the Holy Spirit. I do not see why God could not interact in unexpected ways with creation, especially in fulfilling the promise to the Son of God when making the promise to Abraham.

 

[Peterlag]

I posted this on another site and a few responded right away saying it was added to the text in the 4th century...

Is it true the Apostles baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and never "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?

 

[dwight92070]

In our natural world, one cannot be 100% of two different things, but who says that the Trinity is part of our natural world?

"Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given Me ... " John 17:11
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; John 17:12
"For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil.2:9-11

According to Jesus in John 17:11 and 12, the Father's name is the name that He gave His Son - Jesus. So the Father could be called "Jesus".

"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." Col.3:17 Would this include baptizing? Of course.

So the apostles knew that when they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, they WERE baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Notice it's ONE name here.

They were not legalistic like you and hardened in their hearts. They knew that Jesus was God.

Matthew 15:31 "So the crowd marveled as they saw the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel."

Who was the crowd glorifying? Obviously Jesus, who Matthew calls The God of Israel.

 

[mikesw]

I posted this on another site and a few responded right away saying it was added to the text in the 4th century...

Is it true the Apostles baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" and never "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?

Another red herring.
There is not much said about the words said during baptisms. It can even be considered that the words are not what is in view but rather that the context is. They are baptizing people into a relationship with God. Dwight92070 answers this well.

In our natural world, one cannot be 100% of two different things, but who says that the Trinity is part of our natural world?

"Holy Father, keep them in Your name, which You have given Me ... " John 17:11
"While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; John 17:12
"For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil.2:9-11

According to Jesus in John 17:11 and 12, the Father's name is the name that He gave His Son - Jesus. So the Father could be called "Jesus".

"Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." Col.3:17

So the apostles knew that when they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, they WERE baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Notice it's ONE name here.

They were not legalistic like you and hardened in their hearts. They knew that Jesus was God.

Matthew 15:31 "So the crowd marveled as they saw the mute speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel."

Who was the crowd glorifying? Obviously Jesus, who Matthew calls The God of Israel.

You beat me to the response with great details.

Matthew 28:18-20 are well-attested in early writings. To speak against that evidence requires one to reject the earliest commonly shared testimony, which would be an awfully difficulty argument to make.

 

[Peterlag]

Another red herring.
There is not much said about the words said during baptisms. It can even be considered that the words are not what is in view but rather that the context is. They are baptizing people into a relationship with God. Dwight92070 answers this well.


You beat me to the response with great details.

Matthew 28:18-20 are well-attested in early writings. To speak against that evidence requires one to reject the earliest commonly shared testimony, which would be an awfully difficulty argument to make.

If Matthew 28:19 is indeed a real verse. Then how come the Apostles did not ever follow it? They only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Peterlag]

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Water Baptism STUDY -- ;

BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366
The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.
________________________________________
BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 3, Pg 82
Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.
________________________________________
CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Pg 53
The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 2, Pg 263
Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377
Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.
Vol 2, Pg 378
The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.
Vol 2, Pg 389
Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.
________________________________________
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
Vol 8
Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.
________________________________________
HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION
Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38
NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.”

cc: @mikesw @Runningman @dwight92070

 

[mikesw]

so much of these items shared revolve around this odd reflection on the "Catholic Church." Also, much of this shows recognition of the trinity concepts in the second century. That is hardly reflecting a new trend away from the first century concepts. And there are only a handful of mentions in Acts of the names used. As Dwight pointed out, the use of Christ is still the name found in Matt 28 -- one is all and all is one.

Overall then the arguments of any significant change in baptism appears to be a stretch if not ignorant. I would be surprised if anyone fell for an argument based on those references.