The Deity of Christ

[Carbon]

Present three examples from the NT.

I'd like to see him present one.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

What you’ve done with that kind of word framing is reduce Jesus Christ to a mere demi-god

I don't think God would appreciate your calling His one and only paternal
descendant a demigod.

The thing is: in his status as the Father's paternal descendant, Jesus is entitled to
be known by the Father's status. In other words: Jesus is entitled to be known as
Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh. Now in my estimation, that doesn't depict two Gods,
rather, it depicts a father and a son identifying themselves by the same name.
_

 

[makesends]

What you’ve done with that kind of word framing is reduce Jesus Christ to a mere demi-god—and that’s both theologically and Scripturally indefensible.

First of all, God is in a class by Himself. There’s no scientific or philosophical category broad enough to contain Him. If we had to call it something, it would simply be the God class—utterly unique, without equal, without peer.

He alone occupies that space, and the best we can do is use the language He has given us to describe what He has revealed of Himself. Even then, we speak as finite creatures trying to grasp the Infinite.

Jesus Christ is never, not once, presented in Scripture as the product of God procreating, or as some lesser divine being. He is not framed as a demi-god. Instead, Scripture declares:




Not a demi-god. Not half-God, half-man. But fully God and fully man—God in the flesh, in a form we can behold, draw near to, and be redeemed by.

This is not a lesser expression of deity, but the fullness of God dwelling bodily (cf. Colossians 2:9)—the personal God who relates to us and redeems us. He is not otherworldly in the sense of being unknowable, but He is transcendent in power and near in grace.

For @Odë:hgöd

Look to the nature or person or being, that God is. This is something we can talk about and try to describe, but we cannot begin to encompass with meaning. He exists in and of himself separate even from what anyone can consider, "the Omni". He is not encompassed by anything, does not fit to anything, is not a result of anything. He exists because he is the definition and cause of existence-- self-existent. All this describes Jesus Christ, who took on flesh, and lived as flesh.

Jesus Christ is no more a product of God than the Spirit of God is. They are one. All the same being.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don't think God would appreciate your calling His one and only paternal
descendant a demigod.

I must ask for an apology for the misrepresentation of my words. I never once called Jesus a demi-god; rather, I pointed out that your wording could imply such a thing to unsuspecting readers.

I do not retract that concern—because once again, your language diminishes the glory and majesty of my Lord and Savior. How we speak about Christ matters, and when words obscure rather than honor His full deity, they must be addressed.

The thing is: in his status as the Father's paternal descendant, Jesus is entitled to
be known by the Father's status. In other words: Jesus is entitled to be known as
Jehovah, a.k.a. Yahweh. Now in my estimation, that doesn't depict two Gods,
rather, it depicts a father and a son identifying themselves by the same name.
_

@Odë:hgöd, respectfully, I’m not sure you realize the implications of what you’re proposing.

You're suggesting that Jesus is the “paternal descendant” of God and is therefore “entitled” to use the divine name. But this assumes that Christ’s divinity is derived, not essential. That He is “Jehovah” by inheritance or title—not by nature.

That’s simply not what Scripture teaches.

Jesus doesn’t become Yahweh. He is Yahweh. From eternity.

John doesn’t say “the Word became divine”—he says “the Word was God” (John 1:1), and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The Son didn’t ascend into deity by virtue of being born—He eternally existed “in the beginning with God” and was Himself God. This isn’t honorary status—it’s eternal essence.

Colossians 2:9 does not say that Jesus bears divinity; it says “in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Hebrews 1:3 is even stronger: Jesus is “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of His nature.”

Not a similar imprint. Not a delegated one. The exact one.

We are not dealing with two beings identifying by the same name like father and son on a mailbox. We're talking about one eternal Being—uncreated, self-existent, and indivisible—who eternally exists as Father, Son, and Spirit.

The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t some philosophical flourish.

To speak of Jesus as God’s “descendant” in any ontological sense is to create something other than monotheism. And it risks turning the Son into what the early Church universally condemned: an exalted creature, not the Creator.

Jesus is not Yahweh by permission. He is Yahweh because He has never been anything less.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

You're suggesting that Jesus is the “paternal descendant” of God and is therefore “entitled” to
use the divine name. But this assumes that Christ’s divinity is derived, not essential. That He is
“Jehovah” by inheritance or title—not by nature. That’s simply not what Scripture teaches.

It doesn't take long for most Bible readers to realize that much of the information
we're given relevant to the Word's incarnation doesn't harmonize; and I suspect
that's because we're looking at an incarnation that is both human and divine, viz:
an incarnation who is temporal and eternal simultaneously; which can be very
confusing. In point of fact, Jesus often antagonized his opponents by sometimes
speaking of himself as deity and at other times speaking of himself as human.
_

 

[Arial]

It doesn't take long for most Bible readers to realize that much of the information
we're given relevant to the Word's incarnation doesn't harmonize; and I suspect
that's because we're looking at an incarnation that is both human and divine, viz:
an incarnation who is temporal and eternal simultaneously; which can be very
confusing. In point of fact, Jesus often antagonized his opponents by sometimes
speaking of himself as deity and at other times speaking of himself as human.
_

Christianity does not look at the divine nature of Christ as an incarnation. The baby Jesus is the incarnation. An addition for the purpose of redemption. Not a subtraction from the divine.

I don't know that he ever referred to himself other than as Son of Man---which identifies him as Son of God incarnate and also identifies him as the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14. Those who knew who he was (and us because it has been fully revealed)know that Son of God is God and Son of Man is his human incarnation. From Dan 7:13-14 we learn the purpose of the incarnation.

 

[Fred]

I don't know that he ever referred to himself other than as Son of Man---which identifies him as Son of God incarnate and also identifies him as the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14.

Thanks. This motivated me to search and look these up.


The Lord Jesus explicitly referred to Himself as the Son of God:
John 10:36
Say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Revelation 2:18
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatire; These things saith the Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire and His feet are like burnished bronze


Others said it and the Lord Jesus agreed:
John 11:26-27
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto Him, Yes, Lord. I believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world.

 

[Arial]

Thanks. This motivated me to search and look these up.


The Lord Jesus explicitly referred to Himself as the Son of God:
John 10:36
Say ye of Him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 11:4
When Jesus heard that, He said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
Revelation 2:18
And unto the angel of the church in Thyatire; These things saith the Son of God, who hath His eyes like unto a flame of fire and His feet are like burnished bronze


Others said it and the Lord Jesus agreed:
John 11:26-27
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?
27 She saith unto Him, Yes, Lord. I believe that Thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should come into the world.

Thanks for the correction. He certainly knew he was the Son of God and had full deity.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

He certainly knew he was the Son of God and had full deity.

I think it safe to say that the Word's incarnation also certainly knew he was
the Son of Man and had full humanness. Well, the thing is: in order for
someone to have full humanness their human origin would have to begin
with Adam's creation or otherwise they wouldn't be an authentic human,
rather, they'd be an artificial human.
_