Why Christ's Deity is important

[Peter]

This is a translation issue. "By whom also he made the worlds" is "through whom he has given form to the ages". The word translated "worlds" in some versions is "aionion" and it means "ages", not worlds. I'm not going into more specifics, but you can research it if you want.

I know what "aionion" means. I have devoted many hours of study to that particular word. That is not that word I am interested in. God made the ages by or through Jesus. How is that possible if Jesus was created by God?

This is too much to explain here, but if you want to read a commentary on it: https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/Hebrews/1/8

This commentary makes a faulty claim. It says that if Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, then Hebrews 1 must not either. This is not true. To prove this, look at Eph. 4:8 and compare it to Ps. 68:18. They say opposite things, even though one is quoting the other.

This is a translation issue. Newer translations have "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped" (ESV) or similar. Adam grasped at equality with God. Jesus didn't.

You are missing the point here. My main focus was on the phrase "in the form of God".

The things Jesus created, and is still creating, are right there in the verse: "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers". They are positions of leadership within his church. Jesus did not create the heaven and earth, God did (Gen 1:1; Isa 44:24).

"By him ALL THINGS were created," Not some things, not most things, but ALL THINGS. Obviously, Jesus was not created.

Jesus is before all things in preeminence, not time.

Again, missed the point. "By him ALL THINGS (sound familiar?) consist." This makes Jesus either a created, self-sustaining being (he isn't), or God.

A simple question: God alone is worthy of worship and adoration, correct?

 

[Arial]

'Agency' still is important as 'God' uses different vessels, anoints them for a special service. - by recognizing God anoints other souls, does not diminish Jesus role or place as 'Savior', but there are many ways to view Jesus and what role/office he has played or plays.

Of course agency is important. That is one way in which God reveals Himself to us. But Jesus was not an agent, and He did more than reveal God, He brought salvation. If the Bible had not made it clear that God is triune, and that the Son, who was with God, and is God, and that He came as one of us because only someone like us could mediate between God and man (reconcile the sinner to God), then I would not believe it. But it is clear, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

.since Jesus role as 'Savior' and 'Lord' is still honored just as well in Unitarianism.

It is only the real Jesus that brings salvation. Not one you make up. There are various ways and reasons for someone not believing or understanding the deity of Christ, and not being God, I cannot be dogmatic on what is acceptable to God and what is not. But there are also ways of not believing it that makes Jesus to be something that He is not. And it is faith in the person of Jesus (therefore must be the real Jesus) and the work that He did (therefore it must be understood and believed precisely what that work was and what it did) that saves a person from the wrath of God and eternal separation from the life that He gives. I get the feeling you don't think we actually need to be saved from anything---all we need is more knowledge.

I speak from the view as a son of God, a member of Christs body.....a tabernacle where 'God' dwells,...so I can speak from that spiritual point of view, as what is 'spiritual' is spiritually discerned. My 'inclusion' of souls who make up Christ's body is not limited to Paul's terms or parameters, but his language suffices because he spoke from the more spiritual gnostic perspective of a mystery school, his 'gospel' being a syncretic blend of various elements/traditions.

How did this come to be? That you can make this claim of yourself? How does one get to be a son of God?

I of course speak more from the enlightened or regenerated point of view, as 'us' being those recognzing the 'Christ' and the spirit of 'God' being awakened to that degree on the spiritual path where 'sonship' is recognized. All are the 'offspring' of 'God' originally, and may receive further 'rebirth' and 'regeneration' in the process of a souls progress and evolution, so we have variation in such perspectives.

I am probably to unenlightened!!!!! to be able to do this.

 

[freelight]

What if this subject is not simple? Are you misrepresenting Christology by seeking to make it what it is not? Besides, I hold the view that Trinitarianism makes Christology and Theology Proper much simpler.

From a human point of view I see the Unitarian View as most simple, rational and easier to understand as relational terms go for those less metaphysically inclined anyways. I dont necessarily claim one is superior to the other as both are just 2 viewpoints within the larger spectrum of how one can interpret their 'Christology' while Jesus still remains the 'Christ', his role as 'Savior' and 'Lord' remaining undiminished. Different nuances exist with each view, and such are allowed. I can explore and expound the full potentials and actuals of Jesus presumed human and divine natures, and still maintain the fundamentals of truth and wisdom, whether I limit these to the context of 'Christian' theology or within a more liberal venue of syncretism or theosophical perspective.

So back to my original statements.....the importance of Jesus 'Godhood' as we relate it depends on the one assuming it thru his own viewpoint. As far as proving Jesus is 'God' or 'Deity'....that can be endlessly debated of course, - while its fun to a degree, after so many centuries there comes a point of 'burn out', - the debate will likely continue on for centuries after. For the sake of dialogue most already know I affirm both the 'humanity' and 'divinity' of Jesus but may variously describe or articulate such. It remains for the claimant of Christ's deity to support and prove his assumption, as to why its 'important'. - but whether anything 'new' will come up to support that claim is unlikely


-----------------o

 

[Bladerunner]

From a human point of view I see the Unitarian View as most simple, rational and easier to understand as relational terms go for those less metaphysically inclined anyways. I dont necessarily claim one is superior to the other as both are just 2 viewpoints within the larger spectrum of how one can interpret their 'Christology' while Jesus still remains the 'Christ', his role as 'Savior' and 'Lord' remaining undiminished. Different nuances exist with each view, and such are allowed. I can explore and expound the full potentials and actuals of Jesus presumed human and divine natures, and still maintain the fundamentals of truth and wisdom, whether I limit these to the context of 'Christian' theology or within a more liberal venue of syncretism or theosophical perspective.

So back to my original statements.....the importance of Jesus 'Godhood' as we relate it depends on the one assuming it thru his own viewpoint. As far as proving Jesus is 'God' or 'Deity'....that can be endlessly debated of course, - while its fun to a degree, after so many centuries there comes a point of 'burn out', - the debate will likely continue on for centuries after. For the sake of dialogue most already know I affirm both the 'humanity' and 'divinity' of Jesus but may variously describe or articulate such. It remains for the claimant of Christ's deity to support and prove his assumption, as to why its 'important'. - but whether anything 'new' will come up to support that claim is unlikely


-----------------o

I am afraid not! When the Rapture happens, those left behind will know they have screwed themselves.....

Only then will they get a peak at what is coming.

Blade

 

[freelight]

Of course agency is important. That is one way in which God reveals Himself to us. But Jesus was not an agent, and He did more than reveal God, He brought salvation. If the Bible had not made it clear that God is triune, and that the Son, who was with God, and is God, and that He came as one of us because only someone like us could mediate between God and man (reconcile the sinner to God), then I would not believe it. But it is clear, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

It is only the real Jesus that brings salvation. Not one you make up. There are various ways and reasons for someone not believing or understanding the deity of Christ, and not being God, I cannot be dogmatic on what is acceptable to God and what is not. But there are also ways of not believing it that makes Jesus to be something that He is not. And it is faith in the person of Jesus (therefore must be the real Jesus) and the work that He did (therefore it must be understood and believed precisely what that work was and what it did) that saves a person from the wrath of God and eternal separation from the life that He gives. I get the feeling you don't think we actually need to be saved from anything---all we need is more knowledge.

Thats the big question eh? How does one determine they have the 'Real Jesus'? - one can only assume, theorize, believe or hypothesize that their 'version' of 'Jesus' is the 'real' one. See how subjective that can be? - there are many different versions of Jesus and 'Christology' one can choose to accept, and different 'criteria' presented to qualify such. - that may vary.

How did this come to be? That you can make this claim of yourself? How does one get to be a son of God?

One is already a child of God by natural birth or formation as a 'soul'....and one may also enter into a new kind of 'sonship' thru spiritual rebirth and regeneration.......I see both views existing simultaneously, depending on how we qualify or define such, and in what context.

I am probably to unenlightened!!!!! to be able to do this.

- now now. Just saying that when we consider the Spirit of God......there are also many ministrations of that 'Spirit' and many individual 'spirits' that serve 'God'.....so there are different spiritual ministries and spirits in the multi-verse if you will



-------------o

 

[The_drake_]

I am sorry if this thread offends some people, but I believe it is extremely important to discuss it. Please be civil while doing so.
For salvation, one must believe in Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God, which I intend to prove at some later date, then people who do not believe this are believing in the wrong Jesus. The Jesus that is merely a great God-appointed spiritual teacher.
That is why this subject matters greatly.

I used to think it wasn't that important compared to some other matters theologically, but apparently there's a relatively unknown rule across most of the Churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) that holds that baptisms are valid regardless of denomination unless they have been performed by Unitarians or other non-Trins.

RCC won't rebaptise you if you were formerly Methodist, and vice versa, both hold the others as valid.

This really did surprise me, for a number of reasons.

You almost never hear or talk about the Trinity in your run of the mill moderate liberal protestant church other than in the creed. It's interesting that the Roman Catholic Church is so moderate on such a big issues such as baptisms to hold that Protestant and Orthodox ones are valid and don't need to be done (and in fact cannot be re-done by rule), while they make a huge issue of smaller things.

And in general it's just very interesting to see such unity on any issue so important as baptism.

Two men from two churches (let say a Serbian Orthodox hermitic monk in Mount Athos who spends all day kissing Icons of Saints in a golden cathedral and some Protestant guy from Kentucky who watches football at the bar after a bible study at his small church) can be as ideologically, philosophically, culturally, and all the "-allys" - different from each other as possible, but still hold each others baptisms as valid (while Joe Unitarian who lives down the street from the Kentrucky guy and has far more theologically in common in other respects/worship style is out).

Really blows the mind.

I suppose it comes back to the infallibility of the creed, but you wouldn't guess it by the typical Protestant emphasis.

 

[freelight]

I used to think it wasn't that important compared to some other matters theologically, but apparently there's a relatively unknown rule across most of the Churches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) that holds that baptisms are valid regardless of denomination unless they have been performed by Unitarians or other non-Trins.

RCC won't rebaptise you if you were formerly Methodist, and vice versa, both hold the others as valid.

This really did surprise me, for a number of reasons.

You almost never hear or talk about the Trinity in your run of the mill moderate liberal protestant church other than in the creed. It's interesting that the Roman Catholic Church is so moderate on such a big issues such as baptisms to hold that Protestant and Orthodox ones are valid and don't need to be done (and in fact cannot be re-done by rule), while they make a huge issue of smaller things.

And in general it's just very interesting to see such unity on any issue so important as baptism.

Two men from two churches (let say a Serbian Orthodox hermitic monk in Mount Athos who spends all day kissing Icons of Saints in a golden cathedral and some Protestant guy from Kentucky who watches football at the bar after a bible study at his small church) can be as ideologically, philosophically, culturally, and all the "-allys" - different from each other as possible, but still hold each others baptisms as valid (while Joe Unitarian who lives down the street from the Kentrucky guy and has far more theologically in common in other respects/worship style is out).

Really blows the mind.

I suppose it comes back to the infallibility of the creed, but you wouldn't guess it by the typical Protestant emphasis.

Sounds like a strong 'trinitarian' bias there


---------------o

 

[The_drake_]

Sounds like a strong 'trinitarian' bias there


---------------o

Just surprise. I don't see anything in the text from Paul or the Synoptics that suggests it's the most important thing.

 

[Grace Accepted]

I am sorry if this thread offends some people, but I believe it is extremely important to discuss it. Please be civil while doing so.
For salvation, one must believe in Jesus Christ. If Jesus is God, which I intend to prove at some later date, then people who do not believe this are believing in the wrong Jesus. The Jesus that is merely a great God-appointed spiritual teacher.
That is why this subject matters greatly.

It is a simple proposition for me. The wages of sin was death eternal. Jesus either bore that punishment for us or he did not. If he did not, we are all damned, if He did, those who receive it and Him, receive eternal life.

If he did not bear our eternal death then the whole of Christianity is a fraud. If He did bear our eternal death, then He has to be God. No man can survive eternal death only an omnipotent God could bear it and not only live but still have enough eternal life to give to any that call upon His name.

If Jesus is only human, no matter how sinless, then He has not born our eternal punishment because He is alive.

Psalms 49:7-8 6 No man can possibly redeem his brother or pay his ransom to God. For the redemption of his soul is costly, and never can payment suffice,…

 

[freelight]

Just surprise. I don't see anything in the text from Paul or the Synoptics that suggests it's the most important thing.

Also important to note is that the 'trinitarian' like baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 is considered an interpolation to some, while the NT records most instances of baptism being done only in the name of the Lord 'Jesus', so any reference to the Trinity in the practice of baptism may or may not be significant, but coincidental perhaps. In any case, the 'belief' that only a 'baptism' performed by a Trinitarian based minister or 'chuch' is 'official' or 'valid' while all others are not 'valid', is clear 'doctrinal bias' and 'discrimination'. I see more support and logic for baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus (singular/alone) as a proper/appropriate way to baptize people into the 'faith'. - there is only one 'name' that is efficacious in a NT context. - this goes for both unitarians and trinitarians.


------------o

 

[Sissy]

Sounds like a strong 'trinitarian' bias there

YAY!

 

[shroom]

I know what "aionion" means. I have devoted many hours of study to that particular word. That is not that word I am interested in. God made the ages by or through Jesus. How is that possible if Jesus was created by God?

God has "given form" to the ages through Christ, He did not "make" them through Christ. It is through the work of Christ that things will play out as God intended.

This commentary makes a faulty claim. It says that if Psalm 45 does not support the Trinity, then Hebrews 1 must not either. This is not true. To prove this, look at Eph. 4:8 and compare it to Ps. 68:18. They say opposite things, even though one is quoting the other.

I think you missed the point. The verse is not saying "Thy throne O God...", it's saying "Your throne is God...". IOW, It's not calling Jesus Christ God. And there are many more points made in the commentary, as well as the commentary on Ps 45:6.

You are missing the point here. My main focus was on the phrase "in the form of God".

Jesus was in the form of God. It does not say he was God. Jesus represented God, perfectly. If you want to know what God is like, look to Jesus Christ, who made God known (John 1:18; 14:9)

"By him ALL THINGS were created," Not some things, not most things, but ALL THINGS. Obviously, Jesus was not created.

The word "all" is not always all-inclusive. The things Jesus creates are right there in the verse. More here.

Jesus was created.

Again, missed the point. "By him ALL THINGS (sound familiar?) consist." This makes Jesus either a created, self-sustaining being (he isn't), or God.

By Jesus all things are held together. It's because of the work of Christ that God's plan will come to fruition.

A simple question: God alone is worthy of worship and adoration, correct?

We are to worship God as God, and Jesus Christ as our Lord, God's messiah.

Jesus knew he was a man (John 8:40), Peter knew Jesus was a man (Acts 2:22), Paul knew Jesus was a man (Rom 5:15; 1 Tim 2:5). There is no place in the Bible that says God is a Trinity, or three persons of one essence, and no place in the Bible that says Jesus Christ is "fully man, fully God", or "100% man and 100% God" (which is impossible.). Paul says that for us [Christians] there is one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6). Jesus Christ died, God cannot die. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. If He hadn't, Jesus would still be dead. Jesus HAS a God, he ascended TO his God, he sat down at the right hand OF his God, he set aside his own will and determined to do God's will (Luke 22:42).