The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Jesus God or What?

Theology Christology
#141

Aaron, I looked at a bit of nacho man’s message and and might read more. I really liked this paragraph (below) from his introduction. This guy get’s it.

“The Jesus who said “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6, NIV), who is “the First and the Last” (Rev. 1:17), who sustains “all things by his powerful word” (Heb. 1:3), cannot ultimately be reduced to a formula or a creed. He is more real than a theology. Whoever wishes to know Jesus must finally meet him at the foot of the cross, where Jesus can be recognized as the righteous Son of God who gives his life for many (Mark 15:39; 10:45). This is all that God requires we understand (cf. 1 Cor. 2:2; 15:1-3).”

John

#142

Ran.

I know what Aaron believes the question is will he humble himself to the truth. Titus 3:10-11" A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; knowing that he is such is subverted, and sinning, being condemned of himself."

The bible says to reject a man who resists the truth after the second warning, not to continue to try to understand his error.

#143

To claim that God would demand worship of something other than Himself is NOT logical.

There’s only one God.

I’ve never really gotten into it with a Unitarian, but so far, I’m finding it as convoluted and crazy as Calvinism. Because the next thing you are going to do is re-define ‘worship’ or ‘one’ or ‘God’ in the way they re-define ‘world.’ I’m expecting Jimmy the Greek to show up soon wit da secret meanings.

Speaking of Greeks, Plato wouldn’t like where you’re going with this any more than scripture does. “I’m not the highest good - but the enabler of it.” You won’t admit to that being your argument - but ‘functionally understood’ it is your argument when one considers the express image of God - Christ, as now the ‘greater good’ to be worshiped.

#144

Ah, the ol’ hairy tick admonition. When will you ever realize we all got a bit of that hairy tick in us. Can a man reject himself and his hairy tick?

Oh my! on your next visit bring something better than the futility and folly of the hairy tick admonition! You bring that one again and i’ll lay the “woman be silent” treatment on you. :laughing:

#145

Today the best friend I have ever known in my 62 years, was given the message she has stage 3c colon cancer. She asks, "why God? and in the “why?” she is very much asking the “who?” … “who are you, God?”

I thought to share an appropriate message for the situation on our blog. Incidentally this same friend shares the blog with me. Feeling pained, I felt less than creative, so I went back through some old blogs and found one that seemed perfect for this difficult time. This borrowed and anointed message tackles the “why?” and ends up answering by giving the “Who”.

I took only a few lines(below) from this blog to share the “Who”, since this is the subject we wrestle with here in this discussion. This is for me, the “Who”

"God died on the cross for us. Christ is the image of God, the heart of God, not the victim of God.

As J.B. Philips put it, ‘the man on the cross was no demigod, no puppet-godling. no fragmented piece of Godhead, but God himself. Once people begin to realize that, there is bound to be an explosion in their thinking.’"

Please pray for my friend as she wrestles today with her “why”, that quickly she will come to the “Who”. In the realization of the “Who” she will know the healing of His love and the peace of His mind. God works that way doesn’t He. After a while the “why’'s” are no more, having been replaced by the greatness of the “Who.”

Thanks,
John

#146

Not so, Ran: May I have feedback on my CU drafts?

You’re limiting the word “worship” to that which belongs to Deity only, when Scripture puts no such limitation on it. What would be illogical is if God demanded that we worship AS GOD a being who is NOT GOD. But he doesn’t. The Father demands that we worship him alone as “the only true God,” and that we worship his Son (not as the only true God but) as the one to whom he has given all authority in heaven and on earth, and made Lord over all. Again, in 1 Chron 29:20 we are told that the people of Israel worshipped Yahweh and the king of Israel. Did God strike them down for this? Nope; later on we find them rejoicing. What they did was completely appropriate. Worship is only wrong when it’s misplaced; however, in this case it wasn’t misplaced. Now, had they worshipped the king AS Yahweh, it would have been idolatry, and God would have undoubtedly made sure that his people learned not to do that ever again. But what they were doing was not idolatry. But according to your reasoning, someone should have interrupted them and yelled out in protest, “Stop worshipping and serving the creature instead of the Creator you irreverent pagans!”

In Rev 3:9, Jesus tells the people in the church in Philadelphia, “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of satan who say they are Jews and are not, but lie - behold, I will make them come and bow down (proskuneō) before your feet…” This is the same exact word rendered “worship” or “worshiped” in Matt 2:2, 8, 11; 14:33; 15:25; 18:26; 28:9, 17 (etc). So does this mean that Jesus is saying these believers are all part of the “Godhead?” Or is he saying he was going to make these “false Jews” mistakenly worship the Philadelphian believers as God, when they really weren’t? No; neither is the case. Jesus simply had a better handle on the word “worship” than many Christians do today.

Ran, did you know that the angels of God were not commanded to worship the “firstborn Son” until he was “brought into the world?” Did you know that Jesus BECAME “superior to the angels,” and that he “INHERITED a more excellent name than theirs?” That’s what Hebrews 1:4-6 says. But how could this be if the Son had pre-existed from all eternity? How do you account for this? But that’s not all; Christ didn’t even sit down “at the right hand of the Majesty on high” until “AFTER” he had made purification for sins. But this shouldn’t surprise us; we read of only one divine person sitting on one throne in Heaven in Isaiah 6. Where was the Son of God? According to Scripture, there was no Son of God yet (except in God’s foreknowledge and predestined plan); Jesus didn’t exist yet when Isaiah received this vision. He hadn’t been “begotten” (fathered) yet (Heb 1:5). The “today” in which this was prophesied to take place hadn’t yet arrived. But when Stephen was given a glimpse of the throne room of Heaven right before he died, did he see only one person as Isaiah did? Nope; he saw both God (i.e., the “Ancient of Days” from Daniel’s vision) and the “Son of Man standing at his right hand” (Acts 7:56).

Yeah, that’s what Paul believed, too: “There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

Or would it have been more accurate for Paul to have written: “There is one God: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”?

As much as I’d like to go on, I need to get some dinner.
:mrgreen:

#147

Great quote!

Yes it does work that way. We’re all just a heartbeat away from the Great Hope of mankind being realized.

#148

Thanks Ran, you are good brother.

#149

Your friend is in good hands, you know that. I lost my buddy, Rusty (my dog) a few weeks ago. I had the most wonderful dream about seeing him again at the resurrection - everyone you loved will be there. Rusty was the first to greet me, then Goober, another dog I loved, and we were walking together in this beautiful forest with trees 300 feet high with soft red-orange pine needles covering the path, I saw my parents and they met my sons, and I met new people and no one was in a rush, and everywhere - you could feel it in the sweet air, there was talk that the King was coming to dinner. He was on everyone’s mind.

#150

That’s really beautiful Ran. I wish there were more accounts like that interspersed here and there. I’m going to save that and read it to my friend sometime. She will love that.

By the way, I looked up the prognosis for some one with stage 3c colon cancer, like my friend. Statistics say she has a 44% chance to live five years more. My friend knows the sovereignty of God, so I don’t believe there will be any “what ifs” with her. She will find rest because she knows God is good and His plan and purpose are orchestrated in perfect love.

Should she ever have a doubt, Ran, I can remind her, “I live today with a 20% five year survival rate. My condition is such that I could go any day, yet I am having the time of my life with nary a mark on any kind of bucket list. This is a wonderful period where we get to just rest in His goodness while anticipating the wonders of the next world.”

Yes, God is good, my friend as you well know,

John

#151

John: Today the best friend I have ever known in my 62 years, was given the message she has stage 3c colon cancer.

Tom: Sorry to hear that John. God bless your friendship with her and bless her with his presence.

Tom

#152

Thank you for your blessing, Tom. I felt led to add to my previous post while you were posting. Everything is going to be good.

I don’t want to cast a road block to further discussion of the subject at hand. However, I believe it was good to enjoy a little refreshment around the oasis of life’s experience, where the thoughts we trade come down and pool on earth. Please excuse me as you carry on. It seems I feel led to take a break from the enjoyment of this forum. I smell the fresh breeze of a new season of joy where He shall make old things once enjoyed into new things I will enjoy. He is so good to me like that.

John

#153

Dondi,

I had a bit of trouble following your description of the Trinity, but I’ll try to look at it again.

The Rev. 20.6-7 verse you gave is actually 21.6-7.

Couple of comments.

I know Arianism is an extremely important issue, but I have a really hard time getting interested in the arguments FOR it. I don’t know why. I just can’t see what motivates people theologically or exegetically on this issue. So it’s difficult for me to debate it much. I love the Trinity and love discussing it, but I just don’t find the arguments for Arianism that interesting or convincing to begin with. But that’s just be me.

You talked about the “blood” as if the efficacy were located in the blood literally, i.e., materially. I’d suggest seeing "the blood of Christ” as a reference to Christ’s “death.” It’s not that he “shed blood” per se that saves. It’s the EVENT of his “having died” that’s the point and issue (not “blood” per se).

And the “three witnesses” in 1Jo 5.7-8 are certainly a textual interpolation (not a part of John’s original letter), so (I think) useless for establishing John’s view of things.

I’d like to go to the other thread, download your doc and read it though!

Blessings,
Tom

#154

John.

Jesus already paid for and took your cancer upon his body 2000 yrs ago so you would not have to bear it. Divine health is part of your inheritance in Jesus. It’s part of the redemption package. What you don’t know the devil will steal from you what is yours by inheritance. Read Psalm 107:20 ; 103:3-5; Isaiah 53:4-6; Matthew 8:17; 1Peter 2:24… These promises are yours… healing is yours if you believe and receive what Jesus has already done for you. Curse that Cancer and command it to go in Jesus name. Meditate and confess those healing scriptures over your self and believe your healing is already done. God bless.

#155

It’s a tactical move. To bring the Trinity down (which they resent as illogical), they first have to bring Christ down. That’s the motivation that drives them to diminish the very thing they say they love and worship. That’s a high cost to pay and appears to me to be an illogical form of ‘worship’ where lifting up means bringing down the Lord of the Universe.

It’s a strange pickle, that’s for sure.

#156

I think I do! :wink: It’s because you “can’t but believe inter-personal relationality is a greater form of personal existence than solitary individualism” when it comes to both creatures and the Creator. To you, “an inter-personally related God is greater (more beautiful, more praiseworthy, having a greater [richer and fuller] loving experience) than one not so related.” So it makes perfect sense that you would “have a really hard time getting interested in the arguments” for a unitarian understanding of God and Jesus. And that’s fine. :slight_smile: My study of Scripture has just taken me down a different path than you, and my own intuitions happen to be consistent with the conclusions to which I’ve come.

Like I said, I simply don’t see a need to understand “person” to mean anything more than “a being with rational self-awareness.” I see the experience of inter-personal relationships to be but a capacity that is inherent to personhood, and I think that God can be a maximally personal (rationally self-aware) and loving (benevolent) being without every capacity involved with his personhood being eternally realized. For example, even though God has the capacity for experiencing simultaneous inter-personal relationships with every possible personal being, I think God is perfectly happy with or without this capacity being realized. And I think this is just one more thing that makes God a one-of-a-kind Being.

Now, insofar as humans go, it is certainly true that it is “not good” for us to be alone (as you said in another post, “Does not human experience universally confirm…”). We were created for inter-personal relationships. God created us with relational needs (e.g., the need for human relationships, and the need for a relationship with God himself). But was this to reveal to us that God himself would be in need if he didn’t consist of two more persons? Maybe you do, but I don’t think so. I think God created us with the need for personal relationships so that he could meet those needs and thereby manifest his goodness. I think it’s an unwarranted assumption to think that our need for personal relationships reflects a need that God would have were he not a “multi-person” being. In making this assumption I think we’re projecting our own need onto God, and solving a “problem” that, for God, never existed. I think everything you said about the aesthetic beauty of interpersonal relationships applies to finite beings who were created with a need for interpersonal relationships, and does not apply to a self-existent being. Does believing this fill me with warm fuzzies? Not really; it’s just one more thing that i think distinguishes him, the Creator, from me, the creature. It’s one more thing that contributes to the impossibility of our completely identifying with God. But again, we’re talking about God! There will always be a certain transcendence about him that will always seem a bit “alien” to us.

It’s the same thing that hopefully motivates people theologically and exegetically on the issue of Trinitarianism and every other any other -ism: a desire to know what is true.

#157

Ran, I gave up believing in the doctrine of the Trinity for the same reason I gave up believing in the doctrine of eternal torment, the immortality of the soul, the penal substitution theory of the atonement (etc.): I found the Scriptural evidence against it to be far more compelling than what I thought was the best evidence for it.

#158

Aaron: It’s because you “can’t but believe inter-personal relationality is a greater form of personal existence than solitary individualism”…

Tom: You got me there, Aaron. I do indeed believe that being interpersonally related (forgetting for the moment what we each think a ‘person’ is) is a greater, more beautiful form of existence per se than solitary existence. At the very least that’s universally confirmed, I believe, by human experience. You grant this much but want to limit the conclusion to human being and exclude divine being. So you admit that interpersonal human being is a greater and more beautiful form of existence than that of a solitary human individual (again, granting for the sake of argument that such a solitary individual is a ‘person’, as you define person). It’s still the case then that there’s a form of personal existence (interpersonal human existence) that’s greater and more beautiful than another form of personal existence (that of a solitary human individual). Now, I’d reserve ‘person’ to describe maximally fulfilled human existence in this case (maximally beautiful given human nature), and you apply ‘person’ to both, but let’s forget that for now so long as you agree that interpersonal human existence is a superior more beautiful form of existence than that experienced by a solitary human individual. Given this about universal human experience, what intuitions/experiences lead you to believe that maximally beautiful divine existence isn’t necessarily interpersonal (as is the case with us)? I mean, you just admitted that you can’t have any concrete experience as a human being of maximally beauitful personal existence that is not interpersonal. So what experience tells you that such a thing is possible (in God’s case)?

It’s interesting (not judging, just noting how interesting it is) how we employ the similarity vs the difference between us and God at various points. You’ve tended to emphasize rather strongly the continuity between divine and human being all along (no ex nihilo creation, us as extensions of God himself! [can’t recall your wording on that, but that was the idea], etc.). And I don’t mind that. I’m a panentheist myself! And I tend to agree with Whitehead that God is the chief exemplificaton of our rational principles, not their exeption. But to exempt God from conclusions you admit regarding maximally realized/beautiful personal existence in the case of humans, you posit DIScontinuity. But what IN YOUR EXPERIENCE informs this move?

In other words, you don’t mind concluding that God as a personal being must be a rational, self-perceiving sentient sort of being LIKE YOU. So when it comes to defining what a “person” is, you don’t mind moving from yourself to God and concluding what God must be. Human experience universally tells you what a ‘personal’ being is (rationally self-perceiving), hence if we’re going to call God a personal being we must conclude God is at least this. But we may not make this same move FROM what constitutes “maximally beautiful personal existence” in our case (as universally accredited by human experience as is the fact that persons are rational self-conscious beings) TO God and similarly conclude that God’s maximally beautifully personal existence (assuming such existence is a perfection a perfect God would actually possess, which I do) is likewise interpersonal and relational (just as ours is).

I’m wondering what mechanism or logic is informing you that there must be continuity between us and God in the first respect (in order for us to call God a ‘personal’ being) but discontinuity between us and God in the second respect (viz., maximally beautiful personal existence must be interpersonal in our case but solitary individualism in God’s case). The universal givens of human experience ground positing continuity when you define personal existence but discontinuity when you define maximally beautiful personal experience. Personal experience is continuous (and similar) between divine and human being but beautiful experience is discontinous (and dissimilar)? You see my confusion I trust. Apart from what you believe are the exegetical arguments against trinitarianism, how do you know to posit continuity in one case and discontinuity in the other?

But lastly, Aaron, in the end you posit God as a maximally beautiful personal existent who doesn’t need the world to be personal or maximally loving and beautiful or as a means of actualizing any of the perfections definitive of divine being per se! Apart from thinking these personal perfections aren’t inherently relational, you sound positively orthodox, i.e., with respect to positing the ontological independence of God from non-divine being per se. And that’s what’s really at stake with ex nihilo anyhow. I do value divine freedom in this respect though I don’t think the phrase “ex nihilo” is the best way to go about expressing it. My panentheism’s showing.

Tom

#159

I have not seen one Scriptural proof against it. There is no case against it. There is only one ‘man’ whom is God manifest in the flesh. Most people try to say that it could be any one of us, and we can also be God manifest in the flesh, but I digress on the lack of support in this supposition, and the attitude behind it. There is no doubt that Jesus is God in human form, the visible image of the invisible God.

The only case a person has against the Trinity is to prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person of God, since almost everyone I have seen always fails when they try to disprove that Jesus is not God, but would have had a better chance in disproving the Holy Spirit as a person of God. That is how it is though. :mrgreen:.

#160

The one and only true God is Jesus Christ.

It’s Unitarianism and the JWs and the Mormans and the Muslims who break the first commandment, not Trinitarian Christians.

And let’s not forget the rest - the ubiquitous worshipers of Mammon.

They all say that they worship no God before God and that their worship of the lesser - be it Money or Power or Christ the NOTGOD - does not break the first commandment. Where their real love is - that’s where their real god can be found.

Name your idol then to see where the lip service is really being paid. The first commandment is about where homage is given, day to day and minute to minute. We worship what we love - be it Money or Logic or Christ. Perhaps that’s the new trinity - because worshiping the lesser allows for anything to be worshiped, all the while paying lip service to the only true God - Christ. Who, you say, with the others above, cannot be jealous of the divided attention since He is not God himself.

I would argue that the actual, functional faith the Holy Spirit instills in us is the well-spring that constantly (minute by minute) justifies the Trinity. “Worship Him and HIM ALONE.”