Why Christ's Deity is important

[The_drake_]

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

Truth be told "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", which is the language required, isn't necessarily Trin. I think that word choice is easily supported by the text. If you were to change that to somehow imply all 3 were equally divine, then you need doctrine/history to support that. But just saying the names doesn't come with all the doctrinal baggage, and obviously those 3 are important. It isn't immediately obvious, doesn't jump out from the text at you.

 

[freelight]

Truth be told "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", which is the language required, isn't necessarily Trin. I think that word choice is easily supported by the text. If you were to change that to somehow imply all 3 were equally divine, then you need doctrine/history to support that. But just saying the names doesn't come with all the doctrinal baggage, and obviously those 3 are important. It isn't immediately obvious, doesn't jump out from the text at you.

I've no problems with recognizing 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' as special titles or aspects of 'God' even in a modal sense...., since they all fuse into one 'name' anyways....somewhat conveniently - since there is only one 'God' anyways,....so its all good, since 'God' and 'Jesus' are one, no matter what 'aspects' or 'titles' of 'God' are called to attention; - back to semantics, terms, meaning and contexts. 'God' is One, his unity of Being is absolute. - more evidence exists for the practice of being baptized in the name of 'Jesus' than being baptized in the name composed of 3 'titles' in the NT record. Apples, oranges? or maybe a bowl of fruit? cherry pick as you please

Some unitarians critique this passage while some have no problems with it properly interepreted, as it doesn't prove a 'Trinity' exists anyways as far as orthodox Christology defines it. Other factors lend to doubt its usefulness as well. So at best the passage is 'neutral' as far as any trinitarian proof-text is concerned. - I just brought it up since its directly related to the subject at hand and what you brought up about baptism; acknowledging the RCC is biased against unitarian authority to baptize, which is 'pious' since they are assuming a 'trinity' belief is required/needed to administer a valid baptism.....probably NOT something the first few centuries of Jesus followers would adopt as some 'policy' ....since a good many were Unitarians.

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

This Ministry is more critical of the passage - here

Brother Kel who is a Unitarian, does a fair treatment of the passage here. - his 'Trinity Delusion Blog' has been a fave stop in the past when doing rounds in this area, and his Youtube channel is interesting.

Biblical Unitarian Website affirms the authenticity of the passage here. - another cool site.



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

 

[Arial]

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.

It isn't subjective at all. The Bible is very clear. Just like a history book, or a math book, or even the characters in a novel. The Bible is a book, meant to be read and understood like any other book. The problem is people who come to the Bible looking for their truth. Those who do not think there is objective truth when it comes to spiritual things. There are many spiritual truths in it that can only be spiritually discerned, just as Jesus told those Jewish leaders around them----who incidentally often thought they were the most enlightened, and those self proclaimed very spiritual ones who tried to infiltrate the apostolic church with their enlightenment---. And a person cannot discern spiritual things without the Father of those things revealing them to a person. That does not make them subjective. They only seem subjective to one leaning on their own flawed and fallen and self seeking by nature, understanding. And when the Bible tells us who Jesus is and what He did and how that was accomplished, it is objective truth. Jesus is objective. He is not an idea conjured by a mind floating about with the clouds and fairies.

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.

The Bible, like it or not, is the one, true and real authority of the matter. Is that what it says? Or is that simply your subjective determination of what it means by regeneration and adoption as a child of God. In other words, are you borrowing the language of the Bible and giving it your own little enlightened twist. Which is to say, has not substance. It is "floaty". No goal and no landing place.

- 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

When we consider the Spirit of God perhaps we should know Who He is and exactly what it is that He does, and is doing, and in who, and for Whom He is doing it, and why. Rather than just guessing about all these things concerning the Holy Spirit, we can find out in an objective way---again from the Bible. It helps if we approach the Bible and this subject and all things in scripture, from the standpoint that God is the center of the universe, the objective, the One who made us, and out of dirt, rather than that we are the center of the universe. If we go to that book that He has given us that we might know who He is, looking for and to Him rather than that me, me, me we so love and desire to exalt, we might be able to more clearly see what is objectively there.

 

[Mr G Lee]

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 would offer the Son of God is the Holy Spirit of sonship spoken on in Hebrew 7 without mother and father without beginning of days or end of Spirit life as our high priest continually. The Son of God must be rightly divided from the Son of man, Jesus who lived in a earthy body of death (no power of his own. The first born of many brothers and sisters us the believers .The Son of man Jesus is not God he came as a prophet to do the will of the unseen father

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Not the spirit of the Son of man(powerless) but the Holy Spirit of the Father . The one Spirit by which the Son of man Jesus like us cries out Abba Father. In that way we call no man father on earth.

 

[Mr E]

That is what I meant.

But if he is not God, then he is either a man or an angel (I am excluding the option of him being a demon, which is not really an option). He is not an angel (Heb. 1). Therefore he is (hypothetically) a man. This means that he falls under the generalization in Romans 3 that no one is righteous. Thus, Jesus is not the spotless lamb required for the justification of our sins.

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.

Solid logic here Peter.... If "a" then "b" ----- If NOT "a" then NOT "b"

 

[The_drake_]

I've no problems with recognizing 'Father', 'Son' and 'Holy Spirit' as special titles or aspects of 'God' even in a modal sense...., since they all fuse into one 'name' anyways....somewhat conveniently - since there is only one 'God' anyways,....so its all good, since 'God' and 'Jesus' are one, no matter what 'aspects' or 'titles' of 'God' are called to attention; - back to semantics, terms, meaning and contexts. 'God' is One, his unity of Being is absolute. - more evidence exists for the practice of being baptized in the name of 'Jesus' than being baptized in the name composed of 3 'titles' in the NT record. Apples, oranges? or maybe a bowl of fruit? cherry pick as you please

Some unitarians critique this passage while some have no problems with it properly interepreted, as it doesn't prove a 'Trinity' exists anyways as far as orthodox Christology defines it. Other factors lend to doubt its usefulness as well. So at best the passage is 'neutral' as far as any trinitarian proof-text is concerned. - I just brought it up since its directly related to the subject at hand and what you brought up about baptism; acknowledging the RCC is biased against unitarian authority to baptize, which is 'pious' since they are assuming a 'trinity' belief is required/needed to administer a valid baptism.....probably NOT something the first few centuries of Jesus followers would adopt as some 'policy' ....since a good many were Unitarians.

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

This Ministry is more critical of the passage - here

Brother Kel who is a Unitarian, does a fair treatment of the passage here. - his 'Trinity Delusion Blog' has been a fave stop in the past when doing rounds in this area, and his Youtube channel is interesting.

Biblical Unitarian Website affirms the authenticity of the passage here. - another cool site.



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

I'm not as interested in the question itself as in the discrepancy in emphasis.

For example, having been a mainline protestant, I find it far more repugnant to my theological inclinations (low key protestant iconoclasm) to see Orthodox kneeling and praying before golden images of formerly mortal men than I do to hear someone say they're a Unitarian.

I wish I could extend sympathy to the Unitarians, but they are typically even more irrationally passionate about this issue than the aforementioned ones.

The point of my OG post was that something unknowable and which almost never has any implications on any issue except self referential ones, wouldn't seem to matter, but clearly does more than almost anything, and that that doesn't make much sense.

 

[freelight]

I'm not as interested in the question itself as in the discrepancy in emphasis.

For example, having been a mainline protestant, I find it far more repugnant to my theological inclinations (low key protestant iconoclasm) to see Orthodox kneeling and praying before golden images of formerly mortal men than I do to hear someone say they're a Unitarian.

I wish I could extend sympathy to the Unitarians, but they are typically even more irrationally passionate about this issue than the aforementioned ones.

The point of my OG post was that something unknowable and which almost never has any implications on any issue except self referential ones, wouldn't seem to matter, but clearly does more than almost anything, and that that doesn't make much sense.

Thats 'religion' for you eh? and its usual 'trappings', 'mannerisms'. Granted both a 'belief' in the Trinity or the physical act of 'baptism' may not necessarily initiate or affect one's salvation anyways

A Unitarian view can be debated as being the most prominent in the first few centuries among the orthodox Jewish followers of Jesus at the time (Ebionites, Nazarenes, followers of the Way, etc.) while a later romanized, gnosticized, paganized version of 'Christology' ( Trinitariamism) was later molded and crystallized into 'creeds' in the later 3rd - 5th centuries, supported by Paul's gospel innovations. - more peculiar doctrines all evolved into their own 'forms' anyways, some may be meaningful or valid than others.

Bart Ehrman wrote this book a few years back - How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galiliee - covering the historical and doctrinal evolution of how Jesus was made 'God', I have not read this yet, but trust it provides a good template to chart out the main development pattern in any case -

​

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

 

[Bladerunner]

The bottom line on the the deity of Jesus Christ the Jewish people of the first century, specifically the Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious leaders of the nation of Israel believed that the Son of GOD was GOD....Jesus told them He was the Son of GOD at least two time directly.

This was why they Killed Him....Because He had said He was the SON of GOD

Blade

 

[shroom]

The bottom line on the the deity of Jesus Christ the Jewish people of the first century, specifically the Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious leaders of the nation of Israel believed that the Son of GOD was GOD....

Do you have proof for that statement?

Jesus told them He was the Son of GOD at least two time directly.

Yes. John tells us that too (John 20:31).

This was why they Killed Him....Because He had said He was the SON of GOD

Blade

That's true. They killed him for claiming to be the Messiah, which he was. They did not believe Jesus was the Christ.

They did not kill him for claiming to be God. If that's what they thought he was claiming, they simply would have written him off as a lunatic.

 

[freelight]

The bottom line on the the deity of Jesus Christ the Jewish people of the first century, specifically the Pharisees and Sadducees, the religious leaders of the nation of Israel believed that the Son of GOD was GOD....Jesus told them He was the Son of GOD at least two time directly.

This was why they Killed Him....Because He had said He was the SON of GOD

Blade

Uh, Jesus was crucified for a variety of reasons, mainly for political upheaval and being a threat to Roman rule (insurrection, rebellion), which is why they mocked him on the sign on the cross as he claiming to be 'King of the Jews'....NOT for claiming to be the Son of God. - Romans crucified him as well, not Jews and their assorted reasons to despise Jesus.

As for Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, he shows that we are all 'gods' and the children of the Most High (Ps. 82) because the Psalm said so....so his being a son of God was not 'blasphemy' at all, since he showed them from their own scripture that 'God' called the leaders and judges he set up for his people 'elohim'. - Jesus rejects their claims of himself claiming to be 'God', but adds a twist metaphysically speaking to show that even if he claimed to be a 'son' of God,....the scripture already proclaims God called certain of his chosen ones (or anointed ones) 'gods' and children of the most high! - so a claim to be a son of God' is not 'blasphemy' at all. There is nothing in those passages that prove Jesus is 'God' (proper) in any way, since a 'son' of God is never 'God' himself, neither can be. - now if you want to assume a metaphysical oneness with 'God'.....all humans have that already (by virtue of being) or CAN have the experience of recognizing that they and the Father are One (thru returning to Source, mediation, prayer, contemplation, etc. )

The early Jewish followers of Jesus were mostly Unitarian IMO, only later Christologies honed in and made Jesus into 'God' per their dogmas and creedal formulas as it fitted into their conception of the 'Trinity'. 'Christology' can hold to any number of assumptions assigning Jesus so much 'humanity' and so much 'divinity'....mix those up as you like, or ratio them per your own preference,....so much about Jesus and his role as 'Messiah' and beliefs about that developed, evolved into so many viewpoints....which cover the whole gamut of extreme Unitarianism to extreme Trinitarianism, with various catagories within.

Jesus was emphatic in any case of confessing his clear subordinancy and submission to 'God' the Father,......so we share the same 'God' with Jesus as his sons, since 'God' the Universal Father has primacy over all, as 'God' proper. - Only the incorporeal infinite omnipresent Creator and Upholder/Controller of all that is,.....is 'God'.....to which Jesus willingly submitted his person and will to, so the humanity of Jesus is of course without question while he was incarnated, while questions of his 'divinity' status (pre-incarnate or post) is subject to debate.


----------o

 

[The_drake_]

Thats 'religion' for you eh? and its usual 'trappings', 'mannerisms'. Granted both a 'belief' in the Trinity or the physical act of 'baptism' may not necessarily initiate or affect one's salvation anyways

A Unitarian view can be debated as being the most prominent in the first few centuries among the orthodox Jewish followers of Jesus at the time (Ebionites, Nazarenes, followers of the Way, etc.) while a later romanized, gnosticized, paganized version of 'Christology' ( Trinitariamism) was later molded and crystallized into 'creeds' in the later 3rd - 5th centuries, supported by Paul's gospel innovations. - more peculiar doctrines all evolved into their own 'forms' anyways, some may be meaningful or valid than others.

Bart Ehrman wrote this book a few years back - How Jesus became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galiliee - covering the historical and doctrinal evolution of how Jesus was made 'God', I have not read this yet, but trust it provides a good template to chart out the main development pattern in any case -

View attachment 289

​

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

I know of Bart, was watching some of his talks the other day. I'm afraid he holds a bit too high a view of himself for him to be a serious intellectual in my view. He is often deliberately misleading for entertainment/engagement purposes. He strikes me as more of a journalist than an academic and I don't have much use for him. Maybe he puts out some actual hard stuff but I haven't yet come across it, but his "popular" stuff is just no good.

I would disagree though also with the idea that the tendencies you reject developed that late. I think John demonstrates an extant, well established tradition of viewing things in a more Greek/gentile lens. I wouldn't be surprised if the nucleus of both schools of thought was formed within the lifetimes of the apostles.

This sort of thing happens on a reliable basis, you have your Lenin, then your Trotsky and your Stalin who go totally separate directions with the initial message, based on who they're trying to appeal to (don't freak out other people that I used this example, you can just as easily use Washington followed by Adams vs Jefferson).

I am almost positive that the Jewish/Greek divide one how to interpret Jesus was there from the beginning, and isn't the place to go hunting for "I told you so" if you want to look good 50 years from now when more work has been done.

 

[The_drake_]

Uh, Jesus was crucified for a variety of reasons, mainly for political upheaval and being a threat to Roman rule (insurrection, rebellion), which is why they mocked him on the sign on the cross as he claiming to be 'King of the Jews'....NOT for claiming to be the Son of God. - Romans crucified him as well, not Jews and their assorted reasons to despise Jesus.

As for Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, he shows that we are all 'gods' and the children of the Most High (Ps. 82) because the Psalm said so....so his being a son of God was not 'blasphemy' at all, since he showed them from their own scripture that 'God' called the leaders and judges he set up for his people 'elohim'. - Jesus rejects their claims of himself claiming to be 'God', but adds a twist metaphysically speaking to show that even if he claimed to be a 'son' of God,....the scripture already proclaims God called certain of his chosen ones (or anointed ones) 'gods' and children of the most high! - so a claim to be a son of God' is not 'blasphemy' at all. There is nothing in those passages that prove Jesus is 'God' (proper) in any way, since a 'son' of God is never 'God' himself, neither can be. - now if you want to assume a metaphysical oneness with 'God'.....all humans have that already (by virtue of being) or CAN have the experience of recognizing that they and the Father are One (thru returning to Source, mediation, prayer, contemplation, etc. )

The early Jewish followers of Jesus were mostly Unitarian IMO, only later Christologies honed in and made Jesus into 'God' per their dogmas and creedal formulas as it fitted into their conception of the 'Trinity'. 'Christology' can hold to any number of assumptions assigning Jesus so much 'humanity' and so much 'divinity'....mix those up as you like, or ratio them per your own preference,....so much about Jesus and his role as 'Messiah' and beliefs about that developed, evolved into so many viewpoints....which cover the whole gamut of extreme Unitarianism to extreme Trinitarianism, with various catagories within.

Jesus was emphatic in any case of confessing his clear subordinancy and submission to 'God' the Father,......so we share the same 'God' with Jesus as his sons, since 'God' the Universal Father has primacy over all, as 'God' proper. - Only the incorporeal infinite omnipresent Creator and Upholder/Controller of all that is,.....is 'God'.....to which Jesus willingly submitted his person and will to, so the humanity of Jesus is of course without question while he was incarnated, while questions of his 'divinity' status (pre-incarnate or post) is subject to debate.


----------o

Also, let us remember the socioeconomic conditions of those holding the two divergent viewpoints. Those who might have been more interested in viewing Christ through a Greek lens with Greek language (logos, etc) were gentiles, and I don't know that the early gentiles were all that wealthy, might have had lower literacy. Perhaps this could explain the lack of writings/written impact compared with the Judaizes.

I don't think the volume of documents is a smoking gun for your case. If you could back it up with archaeology showing that the gentiles also viewed Christ that way with graffiti, other means of expression not requiring writing, etc, that I would find more convincing.

But also let me be clear I am admitting John is viewing him in a Greek way, unlike some who might argue with you. For me that isn't a problem, though there are many who refuse to admit that while also supporting it as 100% coherent Jewish doctrine.