Maybe you should recognize this is closer to rocket science that you realized. Correct reading of scripture on a doctrinal level is more involved than people normally realize. You have not reinvented the meaning of scripture enough of a degree to be convincing. Your interpretation essentially implies Jesus should have died and been left dead for the crime of blasphemy.
Thomas... My Lord and my God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
Peterlag
Well-known member
I have posted the following many many times mostly just to you and yet you can't see it. I wonder why...
Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian... who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Dear TibiasDad
For centuries, no Jew ever understood that passage as meaning that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was going to be the Anointed [The Messiah]. Jesus presented Himself as a the Anointed. The apostles presented Him as The Anointed.
The Anointed is he who is anointed by God. Not God.
Paul explains the verse you are quoting, and makes clear that God is the one putting the enemies a footstool of Jesus feet, and subjects everyone to Christ. EXCEPT BY GOD HIMSELF. Paul then makes it clear that Christ will subject Himself to God.
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every sovereignty and authority and power. For he is destined to reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet. But when it says “all things are put under,” it is obvious that this excludes the one who subjected everything to him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who made all things subject to him, so that God may be all in all.
(1 Cor 15:24-28).
Last edited:
It is not surprising that Pancho Frijoles gets his theory wrong here. Jews did encounter and discuss the sense that God and the Angel of the Lord were both attributed the same attributes and worship. God would talk to the Angel of the Lord. Both would be addressed as God. That is found in the verses TibiasDad shared.
The attempt to find an exception to Christ Jesus' divinity does not undo the broader testimony of scripture. But those who promote the unitarian heresy for the destruction of Christianity just jump for joy at finding some verses they think denies the divinity of Christ Jesus.
TibiasDad
Well-known member
Point of clarification: That one is subjected to another does not mean the one subjected is less than the other.
I am the oldest person on our staff at church, and have been married, and in ministry almost as long as our lead Pastor has been alive. He has a positional standing of greater authority in our church, and I subject myself to his authority but we are equal in nature of both our being human, and our value as people. We are both equally credentialed, and our only difference is in role not in equity of character. It is a situational difference of role, not a difference of essence of being.
For divine purposes in relation to humanity there is a hierarchy of power and authority. It is not a natural hierarchy, but a relational one in view of the Godheads plan for humanity.
Doug
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Hi Tibias
Thanks for the post and the open exchange of views.
The authority of God over anyone else does not stem from a role, like one of a president of a country, or a pastor of a church.
The authority of God over anyone else derives from what He is.
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.
You have Jesus as lord of your life, because you let his Message, his Example, guide your thoughts, words, and actions.
But for you, as well as for Paul, there is only One God, The Father. (1 Corinthians 8:6 ).
Last edited:
The divine Son of God sits at the right hand of the Father with both in the Godhead. Christ Jesus mediates because that was the task he was given. It is not a problem for God to be a Triune form even if this is not how humans normally conceive of God. This is because God does not have to exist in the form than humanity expects. Jesus is Lord in the divine sense. He hardly could be an example to follow since few people actually walk on water or heal a man born blind. All the passages about the divinity have to be overlooked to come to the error Pancho Frijoles promotes.
Yes, what kind of being can send the Holy Spirit?
Obviously running man and Pancho etc... believe a mortal being is capable of divine traits.
Like a New Ager
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
I may not understand what you mean, my friend.
God is the Giver of his Holy Spirit, but mortal men like the apostles can be his agents.
Mortal men laid hands over people, and people were filled by the Holy Spirit started speaking in tongues or were healed from diseases.
Mortal men could forgive sins, and did wonders that at that time were described as discerning spirits, casting demons, resuscitating the dead. Are these divine traits?
Well, due to these wonders, Paul and Barnabas were considered gods by the Greeks in Listra: Greeks were used to think in gods that took human form.
You and I don’t believe that God takes human form, except figuratively. Don’t we?
What I mean is.. Jesus had more power than the disciples, more than the apostles.
Sending the Holy Spirit is waaaay beyond the disciples and apostles.
Another point of the power He had.. He saw Phillip when He was no where near Phillip physically.
He 'passed through' a crowd of people without them getting out of the way.
These are not the kind of abilities the disciples and apostles were given as spiritual gifts.
Jesus goes above and beyond them.
He forgave sin of someone who hadn't directly sinned against Him personally.
like if I offended you, and then Mikesw says 'I forgive you'
What kind of cheek is that?
Only God can forgive sin in that way, having power over sin itself.
But anyway. .this has been already covered. Also not just in this thread but hundreds of years of biblical scholarship .
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
How did Jesus send the Holy Spirit? Could you please clarify?
Hundreds of year of biblical scholarship have also been covered by Unitarians of anll kind, and in more modern times by non-religious scholars, with other conclusions.
So, different views arise from reading the same verses from different perspectives.
I personally would not consider God any man who performs miracles, however great these miracles are. Jesus Himself promised the disciples that they would do wonders even greater than His.
So, comparing persons to see who is more miraculous to find out who is a god is not the way to go. At least not for me.
To me, God is One, invisible, inaccessible, eternal and source of all authority and gifts,
I can, however, identify God as manifested in a man. I see Jesus that way.
That is interesting. Pancho Frijoles has equated unitarians with non-religious scholars. Good find.
Pancho is pushing the idea that the skeptics of God are as rational in their reading of scripture as Christians. However, the problem is that skeptics and those of other religions are more readily interested in denying Christ and the nature of God. People deny that God can be more complex than man can understand, so they reduce God and his ability to those who were created.
A blatant error also is shown in Pancho speaking of "find[ing] out who is a god." He assumes a strawman perception of who Christ Jesus is. Christ Jesus is not "a god." He is of the single Godhead. so Pancho wants God to conform to individualistic views -- of the true nature of God not being something he will believe, as if his belief controls who God is.
Peterlag
Well-known member
We don't use the language you do. We don't say a "mere man" or a "common man" or a "mortal being." We use language more like... Jesus is the son of God, the Messiah to Israel, and the now resurrected Lord Christ to the Christian... who sits at the right hand of God as second in command and is the head of the Church that is called the body of Christ.
cc: @Runningman
Okay..well..that isn't something anyone less than God can be. And so we come back to my thinking you guys are more like polytheists or New Agers.
To be Messiah..is putting yourself on level terms with the Father.
Being 'at the right hand' of God.. is equality with the Father.
Being Head of the church.. is being on level with the Father.
It's not just power given Jesus by the Father.
He is the very image of the Father. The bodily expression of the Father.
What Jesus is, no mortal man can become or attain.
You aren't calling Him God...yet give Him God's abilities. .and these abilities were beyond the disciples and apostles. He was head of the disciples..not one of them. He said there is none greater than John the Baptist, then put Himself above John the Baptist.
END.
Peterlag
Well-known member
Saying you are the son of God does not make you God. It does put you in the same family to whatever the Father has. If you're a king then the son would be a prince and therefore share in the kingdom on equal ground pertaining to the kingdom. If your dad is a business owner then it would put you on equal ground in the family business to share in the wealth and even run the business later on. The Jews understood that custom and even we do today in our country.
You are partly right. Jesus being the Son of God does not make him the sole identity of who God is. However, being the Son of God makes him divinity in such a way that we best understand as being of the Trinity. Seed bears fruit of the kind of the tree it came from. The similar principle works with the animal kingdom. Jesus as born the Son of God is no less of the divine essence than his Father's. This principle stands unless someone can make a sufficient argument against Jesus' divine nature in the Godhead.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I am not my father. And so it's the same with Jesus. He's not his father. And I think if Jesus came to you personally and said I am not God. You would say that's not a sufficient argument against the divine nature in the Godhead unless you can prove it.
No one says Jesus is his Father. He is called his Father's Son, as is common in English. You are purposely neglecting the concepts here. I am amazed that you could not recognize the unity of their divine essence and then reject their diversity. All you do is just deny the facts and the elements of discussion without any real argument. To be clear, you are simply playing with words instead of providing substance.
Peterlag
Well-known member
I have provide more substance to you than I have to most and you ignore it all and then later say I did not post anything. Like the time I posted this...
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.
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.
Similar threads
