Thomas... My Lord and my God

[TibiasDad]

I cannot find one single biblical verse that clearly teaches that we should believe or confess that Jesus is God. I don't see it in Hebrews either. Look for yourself...

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

8But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.” <a href="https://biblehub.com/niv/hebrews/1.htm#footnotes" title="Psalm 45:6,7">e</a>
10He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.” <a href="https://biblehub.com/niv/hebrews/1.htm#footnotes" title="Psalm 102:25-27">f</a>

The Father is speaking to and about the Son: The Father says to the Son “Your throne O God will last forever”! πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος…

ὁ Θεὸς = God

What more proof do you need?

Doug

 

[DavidTree]

I cleaned up the offensive posts.

You may want to give him a 'time-OUT' as he is spiraling down in a bad way.

 

[Peterlag]

Hebrews 2:10-11 teaches that we are “brothers” of Jesus and “sons of God” and Jesus is never ashamed to call us such. Hebrews is making a distinction between God and Jesus that is very important and that we lose if we think Jesus is God. We would be “brothers of God” if that were the case, but we clearly are not that. A Trinitarian explanation is that we are brothers of the man part of Jesus, but that is adding to the text. The Bible nowhere says or implies anything like that. In John 14:12, Jesus told his disciples that “whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do.” If Jesus was God, then his statement would be a commission for us to do greater works than God—which is not possible.

 

[Peterlag]

8But about the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.” <a href="https://biblehub.com/niv/hebrews/1.htm#footnotes" title="Psalm 45:6,7">e</a>
10He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.” <a href="https://biblehub.com/niv/hebrews/1.htm#footnotes" title="Psalm 102:25-27">f</a>

The Father is speaking to and about the Son: The Father says to the Son “Your throne O God will last forever”! πρὸς δὲ τὸν Υἱόν Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ Θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος…

ὁ Θεὸς = God

What more proof do you need?

Doug

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for a verse that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

 

[Peterlag]

He emptied himself “and became obedient to death”. Knowing that when his temple was destroyed, he “would raise it again in three days”!

He voluntarily denied himself the use of his deity and conformed himself to the limitations of human capacities. He placed himself in the same circumstances that every human being has to bear and function within.

Doug

There's no verse that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood.

 

[mikesw]

There's no verse that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood.

I see the hyperliteralism expressed in this post. If anyone uses a word to express the divinity of Christ that is not in scripture, the hyperlisteralist goes crazy -- "but that word is not in the bible. you cannot use that to describe qualities of God."

 

[TibiasDad]

I'm not asking for proof. I'm asking for a verse that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

I gave it to you! Heb 1:8-ff You should believe what God the Father has said about his Son! He called him “ὁ Θεὸς”!

Doug

 

[Dizerner]

There's no verse that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood.

Yeah, you would need something like, Jesus who being in the very form of God emptied himself to take on the likeness of a man.

Or something crazy like that.

I have no problem at all calling God a b-a- for the record.

But I think a God who humbles himself, suffers and sacrifices, for someone evil and unworthy like me, is even more amazing.

 

[TibiasDad]

There's no verse that says Jesus emptied himself of his Godhood.

Phil 2:5In 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.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Phil2:7 uses the verb κενόω, which means “to make empty”, so it means the one who “was in very nature God” emptied himself of the means of being God! You cannot stop being what you are by nature, but you can forsake the use of the power of that nature.


Doug

 

[Peterlag]

Phil 2:5In 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.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Phil2:7 uses the verb κενόω, which means “to make empty”, so it means the one who “was in very nature God” emptied himself of the means of being God! You cannot stop being what you are by nature, but you can forsake the use of the power of that nature.


Doug

Where's the verse that says Jesus empty himself of his Godhood?

 

[Peterlag]

Yeah, you would need something like, Jesus who being in the very form of God emptied himself to take on the likeness of a man.

Or something crazy like that.

I have no problem at all calling God a b-a- for the record.

But I think a God who humbles himself, suffers and sacrifices, for someone evil and unworthy like me, is even more amazing.

Philippians 2:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should confess or believe that Jesus is God. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

The Greek word morphē does not refer to the essential nature o fChrist in that context. If the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say “Jesus being God” but rather “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphēoutside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. The word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

 

[Peterlag]

I gave it to you! Heb 10:8-ff You should believe what God the Father has said about his Son! He called him “ὁ Θεὸς”!

Doug

There's nothing in Hebrews 10:8 that says we should believe or confess that Jesus is God.

Hebrews 10:8
Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

 

[mikesw]

Philippians 2:6 is not a teaching on the trinity or that we should confess or believe that Jesus is God

I'm not sure how often this useless, meaningless refrain is repeated. None of these points is the focus of the passage. No one says the three persons of the Godhead are listed here. No one says that we have to confess the divinity of God. The belief is a little hazy but people may not understand the divinity of Christ and thus may not believe it. Ignorance of that is not an interruption of the relationship with Christ. Defiance of it is a red flag. This defiance is all the worse when a person cannot even make a convincing argument against the divinity of Christ revealed in scripture.
I think some people just want to deny the divinity of Christ until someone else falls for that deception. There is no real debate here.

 

[Dizerner]

no one grasps at equality with himself.

That would be logically false if Jesus were in reality giving something up, which is clearly the whole point of the passage to someone who approaches it without a bias. Jesus not trying to be equal with God is nonsensical in the context of him giving something up—there is no nobility simply refraining from self idolatry. Jesus was not "using it to his own advantage" is the proper way to understand that word. It is by no means saying Christ merely refrained from attempting to take God's place.

Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point?

Because the whole context and point of the passage is to emphasize what Jesus actually gave up. If Jesus was already born a servant and creature, he is not giving anything at all up, he is just being created for a purpose. There is no point in saying that a created man being born is "being found in the appearance of a man." Talk about redundancy. The very objection you tried to use invalidly actually applies now—this literally would be unnecessarily redundant. A man found in the appearance of a man?

Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance.

It doesn't matter. Nothing looks like God in outward appearance—literally nothing. There is nothing that compares as Scripture says in dozens of places. There is no form or glory of a creation that can even begin to rival that of Creator. It is like a fading candle in the light of the sun. I would argue here that you are excluding some of morphe's semantic range—but even if I grant you that your point is still completely invalid. Outward appearance is not just representation—it's the actual form of a thing.

 

[Peterlag]

That would be logically false if Jesus were in reality giving something up, which is clearly the whole point of the passage to someone who approaches it without a bias. Jesus not trying to be equal with God is nonsensical in the context of him giving something up—there is no nobility simply refraining from self idolatry. Jesus was not "using it to his own advantage" is the proper way to understand that word. It is by no means saying Christ merely refrained from attempting to take God's place.

Because the whole context and point of the passage is to emphasize what Jesus actually gave up. If Jesus was already born a servant and creature, he is not giving anything at all up, he is just being created for a purpose. There is no point in saying that a created man being born is "being found in the appearance of a man." Talk about redundancy. The very objection you tried to use invalidly actually applies now—this literally would be unnecessarily redundant. A man found in the appearance of a man?

It doesn't matter. Nothing looks like God in outward appearance—literally nothing. There is nothing that compares as Scripture says in dozens of places. There is no form or glory of a creation that can even begin to rival that of Creator. It is like a fading candle in the light of the sun. I would argue here that you are excluding some of morphe's semantic range—but even if I grant you that your point is still completely invalid. Outward appearance is not just representation—it's the actual form of a thing.

In order to clarify our thoughts; let us study a few occurrences of the word “image” in the Scriptures. He Who is God’s Image, and Who spoke as no man ever spoke, used it in contending with the Jews. Taking a minted piece of money, He asked, “Whose is this image and the inscription?” Their reply was, “Caesar’s.” He responded, “Be paying, then, Caesar’s to Caesar, and God’s to God” (Matthew 22:21). The image was probably like that on modern coins, possibly a head or bust delineated on the metal by indentations or embossing, which suggested the emperor to the mind. The whole point of the passage lies in the word image. The fact that they were using money minted by Rome indicated their subjection to Rome. They were under obligations to the one whose image appeared on their coins. This image was only a partial likeness. It was made of metal, not flesh and blood. It was only, a miniature of the original. It probably depicted only a part of his body, and that in hardly more than two dimensions. Yet it symbolized all that he was, especially what he was to those who used the coin.

 

[mikesw]

In order to clarify our thoughts; let us study a few occurrences of the word “image” in the Scriptures. He Who is God’s Image, and Who spoke as no man ever spoke, used it in contending with the Jews. Taking a minted piece of money, He asked, “Whose is this image and the inscription?” Their reply was, “Caesar’s.” He responded, “Be paying, then, Caesar’s to Caesar, and God’s to God” (Matthew 22:21). The image was probably like that on modern coins, possibly a head or bust delineated on the metal by indentations or embossing, which suggested the emperor to the mind. The whole point of the passage lies in the word image. The fact that they were using money minted by Rome indicated their subjection to Rome. They were under obligations to the one whose image appeared on their coins. This image was only a partial likeness. It was made of metal, not flesh and blood. It was only, a miniature of the original. It probably depicted only a part of his body, and that in hardly more than two dimensions. Yet it symbolized all that he was, especially what he was to those who used the coin.

So Peterlag is trying to say that Jesus is a mini-God and Jesus had no arms or legs.

 

[Peterlag]

Some biblical data from one of my teachers...​

All comes through Christ, from the beginning to the end. He is the Channel, not the Source or the Object of all things. When entering into the world, He said, “Lo! I am arriving... to do Thy will, O God!” (Hebrews 10:7). This is one of his most gracious glories. Let us not rob Christ of it by making him identical with God in this regard. He will vanish if we do. The Christ cannot be conceived with a will of equal force with the Father. “Not My will, but Thine” is the illuminating flash which reveals the relation existing between the will of Christ and His God.

A.E. Knoch - Christ and Deity (Edition 2.0)

 

[DavidTree]

Some biblical data from one of my teachers...​

All comes through Christ, from the beginning to the end. He is the Channel, not the Source or the Object of all things. When entering into the world, He said, “Lo! I am arriving... to do Thy will, O God!” (Hebrews 10:7). This is one of his most gracious glories. Let us not rob Christ of it by making him identical with God in this regard. He will vanish if we do. The Christ cannot be conceived with a will of equal force with the Father. “Not My will, but Thine” is the illuminating flash which reveals the relation existing between the will of Christ and His God.

A.E. Knoch - Christ and Deity (Edition 2.0)

Your teacher lacks the Holy Spirit

 

[mikesw]

Some biblical data from one of my teachers...​

All comes through Christ, from the beginning to the end. He is the Channel, not the Source or the Object of all things. When entering into the world, He said, “Lo! I am arriving... to do Thy will, O God!” (Hebrews 10:7). This is one of his most gracious glories. Let us not rob Christ of it by making him identical with God in this regard. He will vanish if we do. The Christ cannot be conceived with a will of equal force with the Father. “Not My will, but Thine” is the illuminating flash which reveals the relation existing between the will of Christ and His God.

A.E. Knoch - Christ and Deity (Edition 2.0)

If you were smart, you would have ditched class. It is telling that the writing is through the Concordant Publishing. i have a copy of the Concordant translation from the 1930s that was my grandfather's. Not surprising that he was a freemason having a copy of this translation. As a younger Christian, the translation was interesting. It was a Greek-English interlinear with commentary alongside the text. The premise was to map a single English word to each Greek word when translating. I think also that it was said the guy behind the translation was not qualified to do translation -- and maybe was a sole person doing it. I knew nothing of the translation from outsiders to it until I found a book in the library about it. After browsing that book, I was no longer interested in reading the Concordant version anymore -- not that I saw any specific problematic translation or commentary within it.
I have to check this book as the possible source of what I have just said: The Concordant version of the sacred scriptures : how should we regard it? / by Henry C. Thiessen.

Finally we are getting to some of the sources of this present heretical push.

 

[Peterlag]

Your teacher lacks the Holy Spirit

Interesting that you should say that about a guy who wrote a Bible. He devoted his life to the literal translation known as The Concordant Version. You should stop reading the Bible since you don't have any need for men like A.E. Knoch that do not have the spirit of Christ who provides you with English translations.