This is a written rebuttal to a David curtis video claiming Jesus is Yahweh, shown below
Timestamp 8:30 "Some people want to set aside doctrinal differences....they just wanna sit around and sing kum-bay-ya and everybody be happy....don't worry about doctrine."
My respectful response to this statement from David would be that this would appear to be misrepresentation. The actual position that I believe his opponent/s are taking is the position that Paul takes in Galatians 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Is it OK for some Christians to wish for a day when the thousands of denominations could refrain from judging other people by the multitude of differences that they clearly have on any number of doctrines, many of which some hold to be "non-negotiable" which come from a very very difficult ancient near east book that we call the bible?
Did Jesus and his apostles not make this amazingly difficult book easy for us by distilling the complex system of old covenant religion into one word, love they neighbour as self?
So wouldn't a more accurate charge from David be...."Some people want to set aside doctrinal differences as critical....they just wanna love their neighbour as self, without judging and condemning people based on their doctrinal beliefs"
If this is the actual charge, then I'm guilty as charged. Does truth matter? Sure. Am I going to call someone a fool, not worthy to teach, a heretic.....and in like manner call them damned? No sir. That is not working in the spirit.
Timestamp 8:50 "We don't know what love is apart from biblical doctrine"
This doesn't really jive with Rom 2:14-15 (ESV) For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
Does all mankind not know what love is because we were created in the image of God? Do we need written ordinances and "doctrines" to understand the spirit of the law of Christ which is one word, love your neighbour as yourself?
Does a preterist doctrine allow one to understand what love is better than the premillennialist?
How about the final victor of the Arminian vs Calvinist debate?
Does the trinitarian understand love better than the unitarian or subordinationist?
I would say.....specific doctrines, or even specific religions do not impact the understanding of treating others how you wish to be treated yourself, it's a universal simple understanding. I would put it to you David that a tribesperson who had never heard of Jesus can know how to treat people with respect and decency, the same like they would have others treat himself.
Timestamp 10:55 "There are some major doctrines you need to stand on, or I don't believe you are in the faith"
David my brother, how do we know if someone is in the faith? We know them by their fruits. What fruits? Gal 5:22-23 (ESV) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. A person walking in the spirit "knows" God, because God is love.
So if someone lives their life by the above, Paul says there is no law. There is nothing you can bring against them sir. No doctrine you can cite which would separate them from the faithfulness they have to the spirit of Christ.
You may think this is "kum-bay-ya" sir but I say to you this is the mark of a true Christian. If standing on doctrines is critical to faithfulness then you are doing nothing but creating enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions....which you will also see listed in the same passage. Why? Because we have thousands of denominations that can't agree on doctrines.
Timestamp 12:19 "We cannot associate with people based strictly on eschatology"
Agreed David my brother. Apparently, what we can associate with people based strictly on.....is regarding in the fruits of the spirit. Because we are told that against such fruit there is no law. Which means if someone's conduct fulfils the law, but they have a doctrinal difference with you, you are not warranted to bring a charge against them that creates division, wranglings, rivalry, dissention , heresies etc. (which is the fruit of the flesh).
I think we can keep the theology, soteriology, Christology and all the other ology's in a different drawer sir, because they are not critical to the faithfulness one has in Christ. One's simple righteous conduct towards their fellow man is critical, not their studious intellectual understanding of various religious doctrinal matters, in my opinion.
Prov 12:12 (ESV) Whoever is wicked covets the spoil of evildoers, but the root of the righteous bears fruit.
Timestamp 13:40 "But who do you say that I am? That's the question for this morning”
It look like the identity of Jesus is the topic for your video today David. It's an interesting subject with many different views. Some muslims believe he was a great prophet. Some Buddhists, like my wife, and liberal Jews like my dad believe he was a significant teacher. If they believe in his teaching to love others as self, and live their life by that rule......is that OK David? Or must we make divisions and dissentions with them according to exclusivity of religion?
As you are aware, even the thousands of denominations of Christians cannot agree with the identity of Jesus, and this obviously has prompted your broaching of the subject. I'm sorry the dealings you have had to be involved with on social media regards the subject. I would humbly put it to you the dissentions and divisions raised could well have been the product of some of your own words those of differing views?
If division is the outcome of our words, and we use words like "crazy", "heretical" etc. then can we say the spirit of Christ is foremost in our heart my brother? I will never judge you on your view on the identity of Christ, only on your conduct towards your fellow man sir.
Having said that, to the subject at hand, if we wanted the simplest and most relevant answer to the question "But who do you say that I am?" we could look no further than Peter's answer in the very next verse as a starting point, would you not agree?
Matt 16:16 (ESV) Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
As I continue to watch your video I look forward to when you point this out brother.
Timestamp 14:05 "Your eternal destiny hangs on.....who is Christ"
I agree it was critical for the Jews of the 1st century because their end was coming very soon and they had a choice to make that would dictate their immediate conduct towards their messiah and his disciples, and therefore their standing at the impending throne of judgement. To know God and Jesus is to know love. Love can work no ill. But the Jews of the time were mainly hardened against God and his Christ.
Was the destiny of Japanese or Australian aborigines who were living at the time also hanging on this? I don't think it's a blanket statement for all people everywhere throughout time sir. We know Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel so we should be cautious about audience relevance and maybe accept that some things he said maybe have been relevant only to his people and generation.
Now Christ is a life giving spirit in the new heaven and earth. His influence is unmatched, especially regards world religions. He continues to operate in the spirit of his father. He came to bring social change in my humble opinion and he has succeeded and continues to sanctify the world.
We may also note that Jesus said about the father....John 17:3 (ESV) And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
I'm just going to leave that there David sir.
In summary....I'd say your eternal destiny hangs on....if you operating in faithfulness to Christ's ways. Or by the spirit of the flesh. The identity of Jesus is secondary to this because against the fruits of the spirit one can bring no charge. I will not damn you or anyone on your views of who you think Christ is exactly. But I will observe your fruit towards people my brother.
Timestamp 14:05 "to deny the deity of Christ is to have no saviour"
I don't think anyone on any side of the discussion denies the deity of Christ because the definition of the word deity can be "one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful" (Merriam-Webster) or "a representation of a god" (Oxford).
Even your most hardened unitarian will enthusiastically wax Jesus divinity. They just don't think Jesus is the most high God. They think he's the high priest of the most high.
Heb 5:9-10 (KJV) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
Deity does not mean, the almighty God. It can mean Godlike. The word is only used once in the entire bible as far as I know and Strong's simply gives it:
G2320 θεότης theotes (the-o'-tees) n.
divinity (abstractly).
With respect David, given the sparsity of biblical usage of the word and the ambiguity, I wouldn't be throwing down dogmatic statements with deity included.
Timestamp 17:08 "Yeshua is God from above" ref John 8:23
Knowing that you insist Jesus is Yahweh sir, I will tailor my response based on you using the word "God" in that sense, if you will allow that assumptive license sir.
David my friend, I would have thought being a preterist you might take into account your expertise in deciphering phrases like "from above", "coming down from heaven" etc.
Do we not constantly need to explain to futurists that "heaven" is not talking about a literal place, and is most likely speaking of a certain authority, power or principality?
We know that Jesus is from above, not in the sense of locus (like he flew down to earth from heaven and entered Mary's womb) but in the sense of who he came from. The authority by which he came.
John 20:21 (ESV) Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.”
Notice also, in like manner the disciples were sent. So they were also "from above". But none would claim they are God right?
This would be a good place to interject the below...
James 3:17-18 (ESV) But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
Are we not all to show the wisdom from above? It is the spirit of God that gives this wisdom. This does not mean because we possess this wisdom, we are God.....we simply show the wisdom that comes from above. The followers of Jesus are born again, from above...right David?
John 3:3 (ESV) Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [literally from above!] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
I'm sorry if you may become frustrated with me harping on about the fruit of the spirit David, but that truly is what defines a heart that is in Christ in my humble opinion sir.
Timestamp 18:30 "by saying ego eimi he is asserting equality with Yahweh" ref John 8:24
John 8:58 (KJV) Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Here Jesus is simply saying before Abraham was, I am he. Who? Everything I ever claimed to be. He never claimed to be God almighty Yahweh, or equal with God. In fact he said the father is greater than I. what he actually actually unambiguously claimed was to be messiah, son of God, son of man.
It's not an I AM capital letters allusion to a verse in Exodus like some claim. Is the blind man also claiming to be God in John 9:9? Same Greek common personal identifier, ego eimi.
John 9:9 (KJV) Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. (Ego eimi)
Here's other examples of Jesus saying ego eimi, I am he, I am the one, it's me etc.
Mark 13:6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am (ego eimi); and shall deceive many.
John 4:25-26 (KJV) The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. (ego eimi)
John 10:36 (KJV) 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? (ego eimi)
John 13:19 (KJV) Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he. (ego eimi)
No one claims those verses are Jesus claiming to be God.
God the Father is the original Light (Glory), and that Light existed long before Abraham. The flesh human named Jesus declared the Father. The Father dwelling in His son did the works, and in this way that body of flesh was the Light of the world, the Light from the Father shining, similar to the rays from the sun, from God (the originator of the light) through a human being. Because the Father abiding in him did the works, and the body of flesh declared the Father to the world in terms of all the things Jesus was doing, this flesh was shining that Light of God the Father who is that Light. This flesh, Jesus, was that Light of the Father to the world, that Light which existed long before Abraham.
"I am the Light of the world."
Not the original light, but the radiance of that Light to the world, "the light of men" (John 1:4). The brightness of glory, not that original glory itself, which is God's. The image of God, not God himself (Heb 1:3). The light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus (2Cor 4:6). It is the radiance of God seen in Jesus, because God made his dwelling in him (Col 2:9).
"Abraham was glad to see my Day; He saw it and was glad."
Galatians 3:8 (KJV) And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Hebrews 11:10 (KJV) For he [Abraham] looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
"Before Abraham was, I am he."
I am the blessing.
I am the promised light to men.
I am the lamb slaughtered from the foundations of the world.
I am the messiah, the son of God, planned from the beginning.
Notice the clear and simple stated purpose of John's writings....
John 20:31 (KJV) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
As a side note, the claim Jesus was using a special codeword for Yahweh (I AM) to identify himself is incorrect.
If we look at the referenced verse in Exodus it reads...
Exodus 3:14 (KJV) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
In the Greek translation of the OT, the septuagint, this gets translated to "I am (ego eimi) the being (ho on). Tell them the being (ho on) sent you." See below.
Brenton Septuagint Translation
And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you.
So the new testament writer John, writing in Greek would surely have referenced the septuagint if Jesus really did mean to call himself Yahweh in this way, and would have wrote in John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, the being [ho on]".
Or "Before Abraham was, I am the being [ego eimi ho on]".
Timestamp 22:25 "Besides me there is no saviour (Isa 43:11)" So how can Jesus say he's the savious? (Paraphrase)
What God is communicating here is that he is the one ultimately who saves.
Why? Because he is the one who raises up saviours. The OT is replete with examples of God raising up saviours.
Then the Lord raised up judges who saved them from the hands of those who plundered them....When the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. Judges 2:16,18
When the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a Savior for the sons of Israel to save them, Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother. Judges 3:9
But when the sons of Israel cried to the LORD, the LORD raised up a Savior for them, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjaminite. Judges 3:15
After him came Shamgar the son of Anath, who struck down six hundred Philistines with an oxgoad; and he also saved Israel. Judges 3:31
The Lord looked at him and said, “Go in this your strength and save Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?" Judges 6:14
Then Gideon said to God, “If You will save Israel through me, as You have spoken, behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. f there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that You will save Israel through me, as You have spoken.” Judges 6:36-37
The Israelites said to Gideon, “Rule over us—you, your son and your grandson—because you have saved us from the hand of Midian." Judges 8:22
For behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall come upon his head, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to save Israel from the hands of the Philistines.” Judges 13:5
Then Jehoahaz besought the Lord, and the Lord hearkened to him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, how the king of Syria oppressed them. Therefore the Lord gave Israel a Savior, so that they escaped from the hand of the Syrians. 2 Kings 13:4-5
Therefore You delivered them into the hand of their oppressors who oppressed them, But when they cried to You in the time of their distress, You heard from heaven, and according to Your great compassion You gave them Saviors who saved them from the hand of their oppressors. Nehemiah 9:27
The Saviors will ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom will be the LORD'S. Obadiah 1:21
In the NT Jesus is clearly another saviour that God has raised. Jesus (Yahoshua) literally means YAHWEH"S SALVATION.
He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.Acts 5:31
From the seed of David, according to promise, God has raised up to Israel a Savior, Jesus. Acts 13:23
The Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. 1 John 4:14
Blessed be the Lord God of Israel for He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people and He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David His servant. Luke 1:68-69.
He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Acts 5:31.
Without God... besides him, there is no saviour.
Timestamp 26:15 John 1:1
David sir, with due respect, the prologue of John 1 is INCREDIBLY poetic and is subject to many interpretations. There seems to be a double entendre going on which alludes to Genesis but is more concerned with the inauguration of the kingdom with Jesus in my opinion. Can we not choose to take "the word" as simply God's word? When English bibles translate as "HE was in the beginning with God" you can just as easily translate as "IT was in the begining with God" or "THIS was in the begining with God". Examples:
Douay-Rheims Bible
The same was in the beginning with God.
Contemporary English Version
From the very beginning the Word was with God.
In this particular interpretation, verses 1 to 13 are primarily about God and his word, which represents his plans, promises and purposes which are expressed by the gospel, the good news . All these words of God were embodied by that flesh Jesus who spoke the words, taught the teachings, and did the works of his God and Father, who dwelt in him by his spirit without measure. In this way God's word became flesh.
I don't think this text is as cut and dry as you are asserting David. Jesus is not even mentioned until verse 14 where everyone agrees he is the flesh that God's word became. Is John 1:1 or the I AM argument which are both very ambiguous and difficult enough reason to divide Christians into saved / unsaved camps David?
You started out with Matt 16:15 (ESV) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Wouldn't the easiest way to answer this be to post the straightforward and unambiguous reply from Peter in the next verse? I notice you still have not got to that. However we have an hour left in the video so I trust you will sir.
Timestamp 26:15 "If you don't understand the hypostatic union then you're gonna get confused about some things you read in scripture.
David sir, you are mentioning very complex things. Some would even say the notion of hypostatic union, which is not mentioned in the bible anywhere, is simply an ad hoc argument to explain why the bible makes it clear that Jesus is a man, exalted by God, who suffered death.....and yet try to hang on to the belief that he is the eternal, invisible, immortal most high God at the same time.
This is what God the Father (through Peter) reveals about Christ...
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" - Matt 16:15-17
This is what flesh and blood reveals about Christ....
"If the eternal person who is the Son took to himself a perfect and complete human nature, what is the status of that human nature? Normally, any instance of human nature that we come into contact with is also a human person. Is the human nature of Christ, therefore, also a human person? The christology we are considering gives a twofold answer. On the one hand, the human nature of Jesus Christ is in fact a nature joined to a person, and it is therefore personal. To use the Greek term, it is en-hypostatic. But the person who personalizes the human nature of Christ is not a created human person (like all the other persons personalizing the other human natures we encounter); rather it —that is, he— is the eternal second person of the Trinity. So the human nature of Christ is personal, but with a personhood from above. Considered in itself, on the other hand, and abstracted from its personalizing by the eternal person of the Son, the human nature of Jesus Christ is simply human nature, and is not personal. The human nature of Christ, therefore, is an-hypostatic (not personal in itself) and en-hypostatic (personalized by union with the eternal person of the Son)."
- Fred Sanders "The Second Person, in Person" 2007
Is this the kind of revelation that will give the simplistic understanding of God and Christ that can bring even a child to the faith? About as clear as mud right? Are you going to damn JW's and unitarians etc. because they may not be intelligent enough to understand the above statement, which trinitarians regularly tell me are not meant to be understood, along with the broader trinity doctrine! "Some things we are just not meant to understand" I'm often told. How then to not be confused by something that is not understandable?
Can we agree that to cause strife and division amongst the church on such an extraordinarily complex concept is not profitable? Indeed it has caused threats, murdering, and untold hatred throughout the dismal history of the Christian establishment. That's what flesh and blood has caused.
"For flesh and blood (Man) has NOT revealed it to you, but my Father in heaven" - Jesus
Timestamp 34:08 Talking of the hyspostatic union "it transcends human reason......it's an incomprehensable mystery"
But David sir.....previously in this video you said twice that people who don't understand the hyspostatic union get tripped up and confused.
So with all due respect this is a terrible conundrum. If it's an incomprehensable mystery then all Christians (including yourself) must be confused, so who is qualified and able to actually teach or preach this subject?
Who is justified in bringing a charge of heresy to those who would rather not engage on such a subject, that is apparently the key to unlocking the understanding of Jesus identity as "God-Man"?
According to you, comprehension is impossible, so can we all agree that those who don't understand Jesus to be 100% man and 100% God may be left to reference the simpler testimony of scripture in oderer to identify our Lord, like the below examples?
John 20:31 (KJV) But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Philippians 2:11 (KJV) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Acts 2:36 (KJV) Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Summary of the testimony of who Jesus is, by the characters in scripture:
Gabriel - “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High” (Lk 1.32).
Gabriel - “the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God” (Lk 1.35).
God - “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased” (Mt 3.17 par.).
John the Baptist - “I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God” (Jn 1.34 NIV).
Nathaniel - “You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel” (Jn 1.49).
The Devil - “If You are the Son of God” (Mt 4.3, 6 par.).
Demon - “I know who You are—the Holy One of God” (Mk 1.24/Lk 4.34).
Demons - “You are the Son of God” (Lk 4.41, and “they knew Him to be the Christ”).
Unclean spirits - “You are the Son of God” (Mk 3.11).
Demoniac - “You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God” (Mk 5.7/Lk 8.28).
Disciples in the boat - “You are certainly God’s Son” (Mt 14.33).
Peter - “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16.16 par.).
Peter - “You are the Holy One of God” (Jn 6.69).
Martha - “I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn 11.27).
Centurion guard - “Truly this was the Son of God” (Mt 27.54).
Timestamp 37:53 "Yeshua exists in the form of God" ref Phil 2:5-6
David, you claim that these verses say that Jesus had equality with God.....but he didn't grasp it. Can we not also read the text as, Jesus did not have equality with God (he was the image of the invisible God, an image is not the original), and never tried to assert equality? Would that not be reasonable? If not, why not sir?
Phil 2:5-6 (ESV) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Also, any translations leave out the "form of God" and make it read "who, being God"
Now you need to ask yourself, why would they do that? The Greek word is morphe (form) and its clearly there in the text.
It's the same idea as image of God. An image cannot, by definition, be the original.
Morphe means outward appearance. Look at the below...
Mark 16:12 (KJV) After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
Here Jesus appears in "another form" [morphe] to the two travellers. No trinitarian would assert Jesus changed his essential nature. He changed his outward appearance so they wouldn't recognizer him.
Morphe is also used several times in the Septuagint where it clearly means outward appearance. (Job 4:15-16, Isa 44:13, Dan 3:19)
Also note the compound words in the NT made from morphe that clearly refer to outward appearance or countenance. Morphosis (2 Tim 3:5), metamorphoomai (Matt 17:2, Mark 9:2, 2 Cor 3:18)
μορφῇ
morphē
Strong's Concordance
morphé: form, shape
Original Word: μορφή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: morphé
Phonetic Spelling: (mor-fay')
Definition: form, shape
Usage: form, shape, outward appearance.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 3444: μορφή
μορφή, μορφῆς, ἡ (from root signifying 'to lay hold of', 'seize' (cf. German Fassung); Fick, Part i., p. 174; Vanicek, p. 719), from Homer down, the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance: children are said to reflect ψυχῆς τέ καί μορφῆς ὁμοιότητα (of their parents),
Philippians 2:7-8 (KJV) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Trinitarians argue this means Jesus somehow gave up his God nature, or hid from it, or some other variation of the dual nature philosophy. This is a classic example of reading into the text from your biased viewpoint. A plain reading of the verse simply shows is that Jesus did not come to the world in his own name. He did not blow his own horn, which he could have being the king of Israel and God's anointed Messiah.
Instead he acted with all humility. To serve, not to be served.
Paul is teaching the church that we should be like Christ. See the previous verses.
Philippians 2:5 (KJV) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
This would not be much of a teaching if the following verses referred to giving up or hiding a divine nature. The whole passage is about humility and obedience.
Timestamp 42:30 "his glory was put aside and veiled when he became a man" ref John 17:5
John 17:5 (KJV) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
David my brother, let's not forget this verse comes right on the heels of Jesus declaring in totally unambiguous language that the Father is the ONLY true God.
How can Jesus have glory with the father before the world was? Simple really, it's the same as the lamb being slain from the foundations of the world (Rev 13:8). That was the sacrifice in prospect, and John 17:5 is glory in prospect.
Yahweh God the Father has decreed all things from the beginning. He has predestined the death of his son, his glorious resurrection and glorified body, the church etc. All a reality in God's mind.
Jesus also gives glory in prospect to future believers in John 17:20-22 and Paul says each Christian was given grace before the world began in 2 Tim 1:9. Of course, no one believes these people preexisted their own birth, which is absurd.
Trinity doctrine says Jesus has always been fully God. How can he then be asking God to give him back glory that he has lost? If he's always fully God, even when he walked the earth, then he should never need to ask for any glory. It makes zero sense.
The glory, is a glory in prospect. Look at the below verses and it all makes sense...
Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see my glory which You have given me, for You loved me before the foundation of the world.
He (the Lamb) was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was manifested in these last times for your sake. 1 Peter 1:0.
The Lamb who had been slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8.
Timestamp 42:30 "he is fully and forever God" ref Col 2:9
Col 2:9 (NIV) For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form
Trinitarians sometimes bring up this verse as evidence that Jesus is God, but what does the verse actually teach?
It seems quite clear that the fullness of deity, God almighty, is dwelling in the man Jesus. Which is a fundamental truth unitarians proudly uphold.
Jesus is the temple, and God dwells in him by his spirit.
The church, all true believers, are also the temple.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (KJV) Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Indeed, as partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) we are filled with the fulness of God.
Ephesians 3:19 (KJV) And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
So if Col 2:9 means Christ is God then so are we Christians. Of course..... it doesn't. Its talking about God's spirit taking up residence in believers so that we are one in spirit, as Jesus described in detail in John 17:21.
"Is that verse clear enough for every body?" ref 1 John 5:20
1 John 5:20 (KJV) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
In this verse, Jesus is identified as the son of God who reveals "him that is true".
So there is quite obviously two persons in this verse, Jesus and God. No one would argue with that.
Now, given that Jesus says quite explicitly that the Father is the only true God (John 17.3) Then there is no reason to think that "This is the true God" in this verse is not the same person, the Father.
If it wasn't the Father, then it would be a total contradiction.
The last sentence could refer to either Christ....or "him that is true". It's not a case of closest noun wins. It's context that matters. Jesus told us eternal life is knowing his father, the only true God. The above verse is simply reinforcing that.
Timestamp 49:20 "Jesus doesn't correct him!" ref John 20:28
John 20:28 (KJV) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
On the surface this verse may be a convincing trinitarian text. But there can be a different interpretation. Thomas clearly exclaims "my Lord and my God" to Jesus. Understandable as seeing Jesus is seeing God the Father. He's the image of the invisible God.
Look back a few chapters where Thomas and Peter are asking Jesus about which way to go, and how to see the Father.
John 14:5-9 (KJV) Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Thomas didn't necessarily call Jesus God, he simply declared "seeing" both Jesus and God the Father when in Jesus' presence.
Trying to claim Thomas thought Jesus was Yahweh God almighty is untenable in my opinion. Jews read the shema everyday. Hear O Israel Yahweh is ONE. They new that the most high God is invisible, and not a man.
You could take the verse as saying Thomas called Jesus "god" with a little g because the term was far more malleable than how we deem it today. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it.There were many "gods" in the bible like the Judges for example which Jesus explains elsewhere in the NT and clarifies that he was only claiming to be the son of God.
Lastly, we need to be careful with someones amazed expression. If you said to me something amazing, and I said to you "Jesus! God almighty!" that's simply a common expression to say in response to something amazing or dramatic. It doesn't mean I think you are Jesus, or God almighty, or both. Also please note the very next verse....why were these things written? To identify Jesus as....who?
John 20:30-31 (ESV) Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
"holy one of God speaks of his deity" ref Mark 1:24
Mark 1:24 (ESV) “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are-the Holy One of God.”
David, if you mean by this that the demons are proclaiming Jesus is Yahweh God almighty just because they say he's the holy one of God.....then what of the church who are the holy priesthood? Are we not also holy ones of God?
1Pet 2:5 (ESV) you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
Why did the demons not simply state....we know you are God almighty?
I'm quite honestly stunned you would bring this verse forward brother. It says he is OF God.....not that he IS God. It actually mitigates strongly against Jesus being God almighty. Like the below.
The Devil - “If You are the Son of God” (Mt 4.3, 6 par.).
Demons - “You are the Son of God” (Lk 4.41, and “they knew Him to be the Christ”).
Unclean spirits - “You are the Son of God” (Mk 3.11).
Demoniac - “You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God” (Mk 5.7/Lk 8.28).
Timestamp 55:15 "these are all theophonies [in the tanach] of the son of God"
Yes but David, subordinationists could also claim this, but it doesn't mean they need to hold that Jesus is Yahweh. Pre-existence does not equal God almighty. It's tenuous in my opinion to say that Melchizedek and various angels of the Lord etc. are Jesus in the old testament, you would need to prove that.....but again, it doesn't mean Jesus actually is Yahweh.
Just because Jesus rode on clouds in judgement also doesn't mean he is Yahweh...because Yahweh his father clearly placed judgement in Jesus hands, and Jesus stated he would come in the glory of his father.
John 5:22 (ESV) The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,
Matt 16:27 (ESV) For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father
Just because my father gives me authority to take care of his financial affairs, and I act and speak just like my father when I go talk to the banking clerk.....that does not make my father and I the same "essence" or "being".
"so if this is true, that Yeshua is Yahweh..." ref John 20:31
John 20:31 (ESV) but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
David brother, you've just referenced a verse that says Jesus is the Christ, the son of God....and then you've followed up immediately with "so if this is true, that Yeshua is Yahweh..." and then gone on to create divisions between those who would not claim this verse proves Jesus is Yahweh...and those who do.
Can you see a problem here David sir? Yahweh is not mentioned in this verse. Even the most high God is not mentioned, only Christ and son of God.
And again, you say "those who deny the deity of Christ" ambiguously and relating it to "Jesus is Yahweh". The two are not synonymous. Aryans and JW's believe Jesus is divine. Even unitarians do in a broader sense. There is no need for the divisions sir. Can we not all just be brothers in the fruits of the spirit without all this very difficult doctrinal philosophy please?
Timestamp 57:40 "you can't just pick everything [any doctrine] and be OK" ref 2 John 1:9-10
2John 1:9 (ESV) Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
What is the teaching of Christ David my brother?
Gal 5:14 (ESV) For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
So why can't we have differences in opinion on very difficult topics that has spawned thousands of denominations, as long as we all hold to the virtue that defines the entire law of Christ?
Do you want to be ostracized because others don't believe what you do about doctrine? Neither do I....so let's not go there OK?
Timestamp 59:40 "the question we started out with....who do you say I am?"
My brother David...we have got to the end of your talk and sadly you have not posted the simple answer Peter gave to this exact question. This is slightly dissapointing sir.
Allow me to post it below, and I wish you glad tidings and peace my friend, and I urge you to be respectful, merciful, and gracious towards those who don't hold to your own theological beliefs because we need the whole world walking in the fruits of the spirit....not in the thorny, hurtful spirit of divisions and strife.
Matt 16:15-17 (ESV) He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment