The Deity of Christ

[CrowCross]

My brief answer is that Jesus was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation. My understanding of the Atonement is that Jesus is our representative not our substitute. Jesus was raised from the dead because he had done no sin and because of God's love for His Son and their fellowship. As such Jesus opened the way to life in himself, reversing the condemnation that had been placed upon Adam and his descendants. If we believe and identify in his death and resurrection by water baptism, Jesus is willing to forgive us our sins and grant us the promise of eternal life in His future Kingdom upon the earth.

You're right...it's a brief answer.

How was Jesus not a substitute?

 

[Arial]

The reason why I did not answer your question this morning when I answered Arial on a few aspects of his Post, was because of time restraints. For the same reason I will be brief again. Jesus was not a mere finite man, he was the Son of God by birth and character Luke 1:34-35, John 1:14. He was a special vessel prepared by God His Father for the immense task that was laid upon his shoulders, that was and is to save his people from their sins.
Matthew 1:20–21 (KJV): 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

The special vessel was his mother. Mere man simply means he was only a man, a created being. And in the Unitarian definition of Jesus that is exactly what he is. A creature. So I ask this in connection with the original question. How can a creature give eternal life to other creatures, when eternal life is something only God can give? God would have to first give eternal life to that creature---Jesus would have to have been born with eternal life and Adam's descendants (which in your theory would also be Jesus)were neither created with eternal life or are born with eternal life. The very reason Jesus came in the likeness of humans, (with our flesh and blood) was so that that flesh and blood could die. Which makes it "in our place" as a substitute, not as a representative, which I will get to later in the post.

My brief answer is that Jesus was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation. My understanding of the Atonement is that Jesus is our representative not our substitute.

That is the view of the Christadelphians but it is not biblical. In a theological way it removes an attribute of God entirely from the equation---that being his perfect justice. God is his attributes and one never overrides any of the others. Mercy and grace do not nullify justice and remove it from the picture. Sin has a penalty. The one who sins shall die and face the wrath of God, forever lost from his dwelling with them. Justice demands the penalty be met in full. The atonement does not simply provide a way for God to overlook sin. That is what the OT sacrifices did and it was temporary for God's purposes until the final sacrifice came and died and rose again. And it had to be repeated year by year. They did not accomplish the purpose for which Jesus came, which was not just to forgive sins and sin, but to destroy sin and its consequence of death and his wrath, forever.

Christ is our representative only in the sense of headship, just as Adam was. The atonement was not representative but substitutionary.

Jesus was raised from the dead because he had done no sin and because of God's love for His Son and their fellowship. As such Jesus opened the way to life in himself, reversing the condemnation that had been placed upon Adam and his descendants. If we believe and identify in his death and resurrection by water baptism, Jesus is willing to forgive us our sins and grant us the promise of eternal life in His future Kingdom upon the earth.

Jesus was raised from the dead because he had not sinned, yes, but also because the resurrection was the Father accepting the substitutionary ransom (a ransom is always a substitute)--- for the sins of all who God gives him. Jesus took the penalty himself, laying down his life for the sheep just as he was sent to do and did do. It was so another imputation could take place that got us into this mess in the first place. That of Adam to all his posterity, Adam's sin and ours imputed to Jesus on the cross, and therefore his righteousness imputed to all who are in him through faith. Out of Adam and into Christ in a right now/not yet way. Sin has lost its power and its sentence over the believer.

You said "Jesus is willing to forgive is---" He came to do the very thing, with or without water baptism, for his sheep, the ones God draws and grants and gives to the Son (John 6; John 10) This happens through the new birth by the Holy Spirit (John 3; John 1) And only God can forgive the sin committed against him so who does that make Jesus in your scenario above?

 

[makesends]

TrevorL said:
My brief answer is that Jesus was specially prepared to accomplish the work of salvation. My understanding of the Atonement is that Jesus is our representative not our substitute.

That is the view of the Christadelphians but it is not biblical. In a theological way it removes an attribute of God entirely from the equation---that being his perfect justice. God is his attributes and one never overrides any of the others. Mercy and grace do not nullify justice and remove it from the picture. Sin has a penalty. The one who sins shall die and face the wrath of God, forever lost from his dwelling with them. Justice demands the penalty be met in full. The atonement does not simply provide a way for God to overlook sin. That is what the OT sacrifices did and it was temporary for God's purposes until the final sacrifice came and died and rose again. And it had to be repeated year by year. They did not accomplish the purpose for which Jesus came, which was not just to forgive sins and sin, but to destroy sin and its consequence of death and his wrath, forever.

Thanks for the brief answer, @TrevorL . It was better than expected —actually engaging, to some degree— unusual in the experience of those propagating very 'alternative' views here.

If you don't mind me adding to the caucophany of voices, here, saying basicly the same thing: How is it even possible for "Jesus [to be] our representative", in the grace and mercy of God, taking our sins upon himself in our place, and NOT be our substitute? Are you saying he did NOT take our sins upon himself? Are you saying he did NOT pay a penalty?

As @Arial said, you are neglecting the whole JUSTICE of God. Endemic to the doctrine of grace, it is not just God shrugging his shoulders and graciously saying that our sin doesn't really matter. Redemption is God AFFLICTING HIMSELF as part of his gracious and wise plan-from-the-beginning. You are subtracting from every other attribute of God in this way, and every part of the Gospel! Everything we can study —Hamartiology, for example — from the very meaning and horror of sin— has been neutered by your removal of substitution. Grace is no longer gracious, but only NICE.

As I am beginning to see, every cult and heretical splinter, teaches or assumes, in one way or another, that WE operate on God's level. Here you assume grace to be something like what we consider gracious. I can be gracious to a cripple beggar on a street corner in Calcutta —it takes little of my money, I might even give him a little of my time to engage in conversation, but I will soon take a shower and be on the plane back home. Not so, God; our grace is only a very poor representation of his Grace. His Grace is the whole story of creation—not a notation at the end, or a parenthesis in the middle.

 

[Arial]

I am not sure why you state this, especially when the Scripture you are referring to is Psalm 110:1.
Psalm 110:1 (KJV): The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Here in the KJV we have two different persons, both called "Lord", but the KJV prints the first as "The LORD" and the second is David's "Lord". Are you trying to merge the two? For a start, they are two different Hebrew words. Secondly Jesus expounds this verse to highlight the distinction between the Father and Jesus in the following:

The sad thing about this is that Unitarians use this verse to prove that Jesus is not God, when Jesus quoted it to show that he is God. To do so they give their own translation of the Greek words LORD and Lord.Going even father to point out that lord can apply to a human. But is that valid?

3068 [e]
Yah·weh
יְהוָ֨ה ׀
Yahweh
Strong's Lexicon
Yhvh: LORD (often rendered in all capital letters in English translations to distinguish it from other titles)
Original Word: יְהוָֹה
Part of Speech: Proper Name
Transliteration: Yhovah
Pronunciation: yah-VEH or yah-WEH
Phonetic Spelling: (yeh-ho-vaw')
Definition: LORD (often rendered in all capital letters in English translations to distinguish it from other titles)
Meaning: Jehovah

Word Origin: Derived from the Hebrew verb הָיָה (hayah), meaning "to be" or "to exist."

LORD is the proper name (I AM) of the God of Israel.

Lord in Ps 110


113 [e]
la·ḏō·nî,
לַֽאדֹנִ֗י
to my Lord

Strong's Lexicon
adon: Lord, master, owner
Original Word: אָדוֹן
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: adown
Pronunciation: ah-DOHN
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-done')
Definition: Lord, master, owner
Meaning: sovereign, controller

Word Origin: Derived from an unused root meaning to rule

The fact that lord was sometimes in Bible times as an address to an slave owner, or superior, does not mean we can automatically say that is what it means when Jesus is called Lord. If Lord is capitalized it refers to God, but it is not his name. It is not I AM. Now you can go to the go to and say Bible translators imposed their beliefs on the translation, but that too would be a speculation unless you were able to prove it.

What does Jesus mean when he quotes Ps 110 in Matt 22:44? In verse 45 he asks, "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" 45 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Obviously that had a strong impact on the Pharisees ----the teachers of the law and prophets.

The Messiah was said in the Prophets to be the son of David. And David here called him Lord (greater than his son.) David would be his son's lord. Jesus is saying he is greater than a son of David. So the Lord in that Psalm is God----it just isn't his name Yahweh.

Secondly Jesus expounds this verse to highlight the distinction between the Father and Jesus in the following:
Revelation 3:20–22 (KJV): 20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

The Trinity teaches a distinction in the Father and Son--- not a distinction between them. The Father did not come as the Son, the Word came as the Son. The Holy Spirit did not come as the Son. Jesus came as the Son. His flesh was glorified after death in the resurrection but did not disappear. He is with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Sitting down is a figure of speech meaning a mission complete. Throne is a symbol of absolute sovereignty over all.

So----when you read the above scripture, are you again visualizing it and then saying two beings are sitting on one throne, literally? Would that not be two Gods even in your view?

What it is really like cannot be visualized by human beings. We have never seen anything remotely like it and have nothing to compare it with, which is how we describe things. God is the author of the Bible by the work of the Holy Spirit. But those who actually pen the scriptures are men, and they have only the tools of men. And that which is transcendent to us must be expressed as closely as possible with expressions, figures of speech, symbols, inaccurate descriptions that still express the meaning.

So stop visualizing and missing the true Christ by doing so. The Trinity is a revealed truth, just as it was revealed to Peter in Matt 16:16:17 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven

 

[Arial]

The child born was a human, not a God-man with two natures. The question is not whether an alternative is possible or impossible. The very phrase comes from the revelation concerning the conception and birth of Jesus:
Luke 1:36–37 (KJV): 36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
There is no hint of Jesus becoming a God-man, but it speaks of Jesus being a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother. This is the reason why Jesus is called the Son of God.

No one said he wasn't a human. But I have presented this many times, once to you in these exchanges, and never has a Unitarian ever addressed it or been able to find a way around it.


Everything, as commanded at creation, produces after its own kind. The father and mother together produce another of the same kind as they are. If we are speaking of humans, they produce a human, but it takes a mother and a father to produce another human.

Now we have a human virgin who conceives and a baby forms in her womb---a human baby for she contributed humanity to the child. But even though she was a virgin, she did not conceive all by herself. The baby had a father, and that father was God. What does the father---any father contribute? His essence. A human father contributes human essence, just as the mother does, but it takes both. Human with human both have the same essence. What happens if the Father is God? The child also has the essence of God, his Father. It is impossible for these two essences to mix together because it is an incompatible mix. Instead, they both exist in equal and full measure. That is the best I can do in human terms.

However, if the child was to be only human as you claim, there would be no need for the Holy Spirit to overshadow Mary and cause her to conceive. God could have just created a brand new man baby inside her womb, but according to Scripture, that is not what he did. He could have created another out of the dust. You have this overshadowing of the Holy Spirit to be merely for the purpose of him being called the Son of God. I say it is so that baby had the essence of God, therefore is deity. And that would only be done if it was necessary to accomplish the purpose for which Jesus was sent. If it was the only value, the value of God, great enough to lay down his life for the sheep, and destroy all evil and the evil one, through the redemption of his people. A man of the dust cannot do that, for he is a creature, something God created, and is far less than the Creator.

 

[makesends]

The sad thing about this is that Unitarians use this verse to prove that Jesus is not God, when Jesus quoted it to show that he is God. To do so they give their own translation of the Greek words LORD and Lord.Going even father to point out that lord can apply to a human. But is that valid?

Brings to mind one my favorite "plays on words" (that even that characterization misses) where Jesus gets on them for objecting to him claiming to be God; since they themselves use the Psalms ("I have said you are gods"), why should they have a problem with him doing it? To me, that discussion is rather plainly showing that indeed he IS God, and not just any 'god', while he yanks them around by their own words —something he does over and over, in the Gospels.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings Mr GLee and Greetings again CrowCross, Arial and makesends,

Psalms 110;1 AMP A Psalm of David. The Lord (Father) says to my Lord (the Messiah, His Son), “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet [subjugating them into complete submission].”

The Amplified Bible gives a similar translation to the KJV, and the extra commentary given in brackets is reasonable.

How was Jesus not a substitute?

Perhaps you should expand what you understand by Jesus as a substitute. Perhaps I have a wrong assessment of what you hold here and what is the general teaching concerning Jesus as a substitute. Perhaps I should build up this teaching from the other Posts:

The very reason Jesus came in the likeness of humans, (with our flesh and blood) was so that that flesh and blood could die. Which makes it "in our place" as a substitute, not as a representative, which I will get to later in the post.

My understanding of the Atonement is that Jesus is our representative not our substitute.

That is the view of the Christadelphians but it is not biblical. In a theological way it removes an attribute of God entirely from the equation---that being his perfect justice. God is his attributes and one never overrides any of the others. Mercy and grace do not nullify justice and remove it from the picture. Sin has a penalty. The one who sins shall die and face the wrath of God, forever lost from his dwelling with them. Justice demands the penalty be met in full.

I would like to pause here with the comment that the concept of substitution here seems to demand that "Justice demands the penalty be met in full". Exactly what this requires needs explanation. But first note in the other posts there is a repetition of this concept of the need of God's "Justice". The other phrase here also is "the wrath of God".

How is it even possible for "Jesus [to be] our representative", in the grace and mercy of God, taking our sins upon himself in our place, and NOT be our substitute? Are you saying he did NOT take our sins upon himself? Are you saying he did NOT pay a penalty?

As @Arial said, you are neglecting the whole JUSTICE of God.

My questions are: Is God revealed to be JUST by punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? Did God actually expend His wrath upon Jesus by making Jesus suffer in His trials, crucifixion and death? Is God being realistic here, or pretending? In contrast I understand Jesus as a representative, suffering the effects of Adam's transgression. God was JUST in allowing Adam and his descendants to suffer the consequences of sin, and Jesus in thus voluntarily suffering and enduring this suffering, declares God as being JUST and Righteous. In thus enduring this suffering, God through Jesus laid the foundation of the resurrection. Jesus reversed in Himself the Law imposed upon Adam, that Adam and his descendants would return to the dust. Much more could be said concerning the Atonement and the Righteousness of God, but the above should be sufficient for starters.

The sad thing about this is that Unitarians use this verse to prove that Jesus is not God, when Jesus quoted it to show that he is God. To do so they give their own translation of the Greek words LORD and Lord.

Unless you are trying to say something else, I think you will agree that Psalm 110:1 was in Hebrew not Greek.

LORD is the proper name (I AM) of the God of Israel.

I agree with most of your Post on Yahweh except I believe the correct translation of the Name of God "Ehyeh" in Exodus 3:14 is "I will be".

The Messiah was said in the Prophets to be the son of David. And David here called him Lord (greater than his son.) David would be his son's lord. Jesus is saying he is greater than a son of David. So the Lord in that Psalm is God----it just isn't his name Yahweh.

I consider that Jesus is David's Lord because Jesus had a superior parentage, Jesus was a descendant of David through Mary, but God the Father was Jesus' father by conception and birth.

So----when you read the above scripture, are you again visualizing it and then saying two beings are sitting on one throne, literally? Would that not be two Gods even in your view?

No, Jesus as a human and the Son of God has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in God the Father's Throne.

it was revealed to Peter in Matt 16:16:17 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Yes, Jesus is the Son of the living God, the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus is NOT God the Son.

What happens if the Father is God? The child also has the essence of God, his Father. It is impossible for these two essences to mix together because it is an incompatible mix. Instead, they both exist in equal and full measure. That is the best I can do in human terms.

I do not accept that God the Father created another God in the conception / birth process. Jesus was a human from both his mother and father.

God could have just created a brand new man baby inside her womb, but according to Scripture, that is not what he did. He could have created another out of the dust.

But God in His wisdom chose conception and this also fulfills Genesis 3:15 and many other prophecies, such as 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

Brings to mind one my favorite "plays on words" (that even that characterization misses) where Jesus gets on them for objecting to him claiming to be God; since they themselves use the Psalms ("I have said you are gods"), why should they have a problem with him doing it?

Jesus concludes John 10:30-36 by stating that He is The Son of God, not God the Son, or God with which they were falsely accusing Him.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again makesends,

Brings to mind one my favorite "plays on words" (that even that characterization misses) where Jesus gets on them for objecting to him claiming to be God; since they themselves use the Psalms ("I have said you are gods"), why should they have a problem with him doing it? To me, that discussion is rather plainly showing that indeed he IS God, and not just any 'god', while he yanks them around by their own words —something he does over and over, in the Gospels.

Jesus concludes John 10:30-36 by stating that He is The Son of God, not God the Son, or God with which they were falsely accusing Him.

You may disagree but I would like to see your full exposition of John 10:30-36 and Psalm 82:6 and its context. John 10:30 is a favourite passage with Trinitarians, but rarely do they consider properly the reply of Jesus to their false accusation. I have discussed this with various members on different forums over the years and I repeat, this teaches that Jesus is The Son of God. I consider that Psalm 82:6 is speaking concerning the unjust Judges in Israel. How do you read this?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

Greetings again makesends,


You may disagree but I would like to see your full exposition of John 10:30-36 and Psalm 82:6 and its context. John 10:30 is a favourite passage with Trinitarians, but rarely do they consider properly the reply of Jesus to their false accusation. I have discussed this with various members on different forums over the years and I repeat, this teaches that Jesus is The Son of God. I consider that Psalm 82:6 is speaking concerning the unjust Judges in Israel. How do you read this?

Kind regards
Trevor

I would suggest God calls us gods clothed with flesh and bones

We look to things not seen the eternal (faith). . not looking by sight after the temporal dying

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

It was applied when they called Jesus blasphemous. Looking to the dying flesh. . their hope

John 10:34-36Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?

Psalm 82: 6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Again, in Genesis we are accredited as gods. No credit goes to dying flesh

Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil

In Acts natural uncovered mankind.

When the unbelievers saw the invisible faithful work of Christ through the preaching of the gospel, they accredited the power to flesh and blood and called the Apostle Greek gods names.. . gods in the likeness of dying men

A copy of the true priesthood. Barnabas as the Father the faithful Creator and Mercury, Jesus the Son the mediator

Acts 14:10-12 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked.And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker.

 

[CrowCross]

Perhaps you should expand what you understand by Jesus as a substitute.

OK, Jesus took my place. Jesus became my sin. Jesus died in my place.

How could a mere finite man do that?

Psalm 49:7
7 No man can possibly redeem his brother or pay his ransom to God...........So, I ask again, how did your mere man save people without being God?

 

[Arial]

I would like to pause here with the comment that the concept of substitution here seems to demand that "Justice demands the penalty be met in full". Exactly what this requires needs explanation.

God's justice demands that all sinners die and forever be denied a place in his kingdom. We see that kingdom fully come to earth and men in Is. 11 and Rev 21. So we know it will happen. It is God dwelling with us and a removal of evil, period, because Jesus has defeated and destroyed it. And he is doing this through the redemption of men, undoing the curse brought about by man.

Since we know that this will happen (and from God's perspective as the eternal (no boundaries of time), the only way that is possible is if sin and personal sins are dealt with by someone giving himself as a ransom in the place of those who are helpless to change what they are----sinners. Jesus bears that burden as a ransom----which means he pays the debt. The debt is sin's penalty.

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Propitiation means satisfaction. There must be a satisfactory payment for sin. If sin is punished all men will go to hell. If sin is not punished his justice will never be satisfied. IOW he would make a liar of himself when he pronounced the penalty for sin.

Isaiah 53:5-6 But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon hi was the chastisement that brought peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned---every one---to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Romans 3:22-26 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe For there is no distinction" for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the the one who has faith in Jesus.

 

[Arial]

My questions are: Is God revealed to be JUST by punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free? Did God actually expend His wrath upon Jesus by making Jesus suffer in His trials, crucifixion and death? Is God being realistic here, or pretending? In contrast I understand Jesus as a representative, suffering the effects of Adam's transgression.

Either way, you have God punishing the innocent. One has Jesus actually accomplishing something in his death and resurrection; the other is the one that has a pretense. And it is the reverse of what you claim. With the first, sin actually meets justice in th vicarious sacrifice of Christ, and is destroyed.

Christ is suffering the effects of Adam's transgression and not only that, the actual transgressions of all his people. Their sins must also meet justice. They are the ones that committed those sins and who will die and face the wrath of God, if someone does not satisfy that just decree of God. Jesus was not just suffering, he was "paying".

I hate it when someone all of a sudden conflates two things, removing a distinction, and then presents a question that is akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (A loaded question fallacy.) You do this when you ask the question: "Did God actually expend his wrath upon Jesus by making Jesus suffer in his trials, crucifixion and death?" God's wrath was expended on Jesus on the cross---his death and crucifixion--- only. Not in his trials. And that wrath was not against Jesus himself, but against the sins of those whose ransom he paid. On the sinner, vicariously.

Vicarious:

: performed or suffered by one person as a substitute for another or to the benefit or advantage of another : SUBSTITUTIONARY
a vicarious sacrifice

Unless you are trying to say something else, I think you will agree that Psalm 110:1 was in Hebrew not Greek.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT. How do you think the Hebrew would change anything?

 

[Arial]

I consider that Jesus is David's Lord because Jesus had a superior parentage, Jesus was a descendant of David through Mary, but God the Father was Jesus' father by conception and birth.

Maybe what you consider is wrong. When you are able to explain how a creature has enough value in the economy of God the Eternal and Sovereign to purchase forgiveness for billions of people; to provide a means of justification through faith; reconciliation with God; by not doing anything but dying on the cross, then we can move on to doctrinal positions.

No, Jesus as a human and the Son of God has been exalted to sit at the right hand of the One God, Yahweh, God the Father in God the Father's Throne.

So even you say Jesus is two things? A human and the Son of God?

To be exalted in this case, and consistent with the rest of Scripture on the same subject, is to have completed his earthly mission and returned to the Father where he was before as he himself declares in John 17. It is not another god or a creature who shares the Father's throne. That is an expression of Jesus' coronation as King of kings and Lord of lords. A creature, no matter how grand, cannot share the throne of God as that would make him another god.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of the living God, the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. Jesus is NOT God the Son.

That sidesteps the scripture by leaving out the main point I was making with Jesus' words that what Peter said was something that was revealed to him. Peter already knew that Jesus was called the Son of God, so what exactly was revealed. The deity of Christ is what is revealed, not ascertained from our finite minds. That is why those who believe in the Trinity do believe it. It is the very rock that his church is built upon---he the chief cornerstone.

You ignored that and simply stated your belief. And neither I nor anyone else can reveal that to you. Only God can.

I do not accept that God the Father created another God in the conception / birth process.

I don't accept that either. No Trinitarian does.

Jesus was a human from both his mother and father.

How can he be a human from his Father if his Father is not a human?

But God in His wisdom chose conception and this also fulfills Genesis 3:15 and many other prophecies, such as 2 Samuel 7:12-16.

It does fulfill Gen 3:15 and it is God's wisdom. But that does not remove from the equation the deity of Christ. He still does not have an earthly father, he has a divine Father. Non human. And 2 Sam 7:12-16 is God speaking with David specifically about Solomon.

 

[Mr GLee]

OK, Jesus took my place. Jesus became my sin. Jesus died in my place.

How could a mere finite man do that?

Psalm 49:7
7 No man can possibly redeem his brother or pay his ransom to God...........So, I ask again, how did your mere man save people without being God?

The Father did not die in your place he is poured out his Holy Spirit life on the dying flesh of mankind in jeopardy of his own Spirit life

A living sacrifice.

The literal lifeless spiritless blood must be poured out to show spirit life. It returns to dust while the temporal spirit given under the letter of the law (death) returns to the father of all spirit life.

God is Spirit. He is not man "flesh and blood"

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again CrowCross,

Jesus took my place. Jesus became my sin. Jesus died in my place.

I have a few problems with this. My understanding of Genesis 3:19 is that Adam was sentenced to suffer as a result of his sin and the end result was also to return to the dust. In what sense did "Jesus took my (and our) place". We still suffer and die. Did God really consider Jesus to be a sinner? Did God expend the wrath, that He has against sin, upon Jesus? The death of Jesus is not equivalent to the sentence of death upon Adam, as after three days Jesus was raised from the dead.

Perhaps the following may not fit, but an example of substitution is if we had a school class of say 30 students. A particular rebel in the class threw something at the teacher when the teacher turned his back to write something on the blackboard. The teacher turned and picked on the nicest child in the class, and demands he come forward, and gives him six stokes of the cane. The teacher then proclaims: "Justice has been done".

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[makesends]

The Father did not die in your place he is poured out his Holy Spirit life on the dying flesh of mankind in jeopardy of his own Spirit life

A living sacrifice.

The literal lifeless spiritless blood must be poured out to show spirit life. It returns to dust while the temporal spirit given under the letter of the law (death) returns to the father of all spirit life.

God is Spirit. He is not man "flesh and blood"

@Mr GLee I wish you would try to understand, these many months, I have tried endlessly to make sense of your statements. Please understand, I don't know if it is your presentation, or if is is what you believe, that is not making its way across to us. Adding words to concept does not add meaning to your concepts. Please try to make your points. Add the flowers later.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Arial,

God's justice demands that all sinners die and forever be denied a place in his kingdom.

This Post is similar to CrowCross' and my answer to him could be appropriate.

Either way, you have God punishing the innocent.

I do not consider the crucifixion to be teaching that God is punishing the innocent. God is not punishing Jesus.

God's wrath was expended on Jesus on the cross---his death and crucifixion--- only.

The crucifixion was NOT God expending His wrath.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the OT. How do you think the Hebrew would change anything?

The LXX was a translation into Greek many centuries after David wrote Psalm 110:1, and the LXX is very helpful in some instances but a poor and sometimes incorrect translation in other instances. The Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 gives better clarity of meaning and the distinction of the two words originally used by David. Some Trinitarians seek to merge the two words and some take a first step towards this by quoting the LXX.

Maybe what you consider is wrong. When you are able to explain how a creature has enough value in the economy of God the Eternal and Sovereign to purchase forgiveness for billions of people; to provide a means of justification through faith; reconciliation with God; by not doing anything but dying on the cross, then we can move on to doctrinal positions.

Perhaps you do not see what was actually accomplished in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. The whole process was fine tuned and relevant. A carpenter does not need a sledge hammer to drive in a small nail into a piece of wood.

So even you say Jesus is two things? A human and the Son of God?

Yes, Jesus was a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, not God the Son.

A creature, no matter how grand, cannot share the throne of God as that would make him another god.

The faithful are going to share Jesus' Throne of David in the future Kingdom of God upon the earth during the 1000 years Revelation 3:20-21.

Peter already knew that Jesus was called the Son of God, so what exactly was revealed. The deity of Christ is what is revealed

I consider being called "a Son of God" is different to being called "The Son of the Living God". A Son of God can be limited to having a godly character. "The Son of the Living God" is unique to Jesus as He alone is The Son of God by birth, character and now resurrection.

I do not accept that God the Father created another God in the conception / birth process.

I don't accept that either. No Trinitarian does.

I am very confused as to what Trinitarians actually believe concerning Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and John 1:14. How does God the Son attach himself to Jesus. How does Jesus acquire His "God" portion of the supposed "God-man". Why is God the Father called "Father", and when did the relationship between Father and Son occur in the first place and is the father/son relationship also relevant in this conception/birth process?

Jesus was a human from both his mother and father.

How can he be a human from his Father if his Father is not a human?

You are using the concept of reproduction from a father to a son, and you have already denied that God the Father was not begetting another God, God the Son. Jesus was a New Creation in the conception/birth process. God was creating His Son by the conception through His Power, the Holy Spirit.

It does fulfill Gen 3:15 and it is God's wisdom. But that does not remove from the equation the deity of Christ. He still does not have an earthly father, he has a divine Father. Non human.

Yes, Jesus was a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother.

2 Sam 7:12-16 is God speaking with David specifically about Solomon.

The circumstances of Solomon only partially fulfill 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and form the framework for the greater fulfillment in Christ, the greater Son of David.
2 Samuel 7:12–16 (KJV): 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

2 Samuel 23:1–5 (KJV): 1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, 2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. 3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 4 And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. 5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.

Isaiah 55:1–3 (KJV): 1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. 3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

Acts 2:29–36 (KJV): 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Mr GLee]

@Mr GLee I wish you would try to understand, these many months, I have tried endlessly to make sense of your statements. Please understand, I don't know if it is your presentation, or if is is what you believe, that is not making its way across to us. Adding words to concept does not add meaning to your concepts. Please try to make your points. Add the flowers later.

Thanks

The emphasize of power of faith Christ's not seen is after the Father not seen. No power unto salvation from the Son of man Jesus.

Many turn that parable (without he spoke not) upside down and make it after the temporal dying Son of man Jesus our brother in the Lord

The emphasize again is on the invisible.

Without parables the flowering language He spoke not.

 

[Arial]

Greetings again Arial,

This Post is similar to CrowCross' and my answer to him could be appropriate.

I do not consider the crucifixion to be teaching that God is punishing the innocent. God is not punishing Jesus.

The crucifixion was NOT God expending His wrath.

The LXX was a translation into Greek many centuries after David wrote Psalm 110:1, and the LXX is very helpful in some instances but a poor and sometimes incorrect translation in other instances. The Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 gives better clarity of meaning and the distinction of the two words originally used by David. Some Trinitarians seek to merge the two words and some take a first step towards this by quoting the LXX.

Perhaps you do not see what was actually accomplished in the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. The whole process was fine tuned and relevant. A carpenter does not need a sledge hammer to drive in a small nail into a piece of wood.

Yes, Jesus was a human, the Son of God by birth, character and resurrection, not God the Son.

The faithful are going to share Jesus' Throne of David in the future Kingdom of God upon the earth during the 1000 years Revelation 3:20-21.

I consider being called "a Son of God" is different to being called "The Son of the Living God". A Son of God can be limited to having a godly character. "The Son of the Living God" is unique to Jesus as He alone is The Son of God by birth, character and now resurrection.


I am very confused as to what Trinitarians actually believe concerning Matthew 1:20-21, Luke 1:34-35 and John 1:14. How does God the Son attach himself to Jesus. How does Jesus acquire His "God" portion of the supposed "God-man". Why is God the Father called "Father", and when did the relationship between Father and Son occur in the first place and is the father/son relationship also relevant in this conception/birth process?


You are using the concept of reproduction from a father to a son, and you have already denied that God the Father was not begetting another God, God the Son. Jesus was a New Creation in the conception/birth process. God was creating His Son by the conception through His Power, the Holy Spirit.

Yes, Jesus was a human with God the Father as his father and Mary his mother.

The circumstances of Solomon only partially fulfill 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and form the framework for the greater fulfillment in Christ, the greater Son of David.
2 Samuel 7:12–16 (KJV): 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: 15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. 16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

2 Samuel 23:1–5 (KJV): 1 Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, 2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue. 3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. 4 And he shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, even a morning without clouds; as the tender grass springing out of the earth by clear shining after rain. 5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.

Isaiah 55:1–3 (KJV): 1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. 3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.

Acts 2:29–36 (KJV): 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

Well, like I said, I can't reveal anything to you. That is in the realm of God, not humans. I have said enough.

 

[CrowCross]

Greetings again CrowCross,

I have a few problems with this. My understanding of Genesis 3:19 is that Adam was sentenced to suffer as a result of his sin and the end result was also to return to the dust. In what sense did "Jesus took my (and our) place". We still suffer and die.

Your church has told you about the second death? The place Christ died for you...in your place...on the cross so you don't have to go there when you die?

Did God really consider Jesus to be a sinner?

Absolutely. Finish the verse, My God, My God why have you___________________. Do you think Jesus was pretending when He died for you?

Did God expend the wrath, that He has against sin, upon Jesus? The death of Jesus is not equivalent to the sentence of death upon Adam, as after three days Jesus was raised from the dead.

Perhaps the following may not fit, but an example of substitution is if we had a school class of say 30 students. A particular rebel in the class threw something at the teacher when the teacher turned his back to write something on the blackboard. The teacher turned and picked on the nicest child in the class, and demands he come forward, and gives him six stokes of the cane. The teacher then proclaims: "Justice has been done".

Jesus didn't suffer for the elect? His sheep?

.....what church did you say you went to?

Kind regards
Trevor