An Article I Found Validating Christ's Deity

[James Is Back]

Came across this article while researching the deity of Christ. Really good article validating Christ's deity:

http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-as-god/#christian-books-3

 

[Kutte]

Came across this article while researching the deity of Christ. Really good article validating Christ's deity:

http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-as-god/#christian-books-3

James,

After reading the article you recommend clicking on I am asking myself how you came up with the comment, "Really good article validating Christ's deity"? I did not find anything validating Christ as God. Did I miss something?

My best, Kutte

 

[James Is Back]

Did you read the whole article as the article gives evidence via scriptures and supports those scriptures that validate and prove that the Bible does teach the deity of Christ?

 

[Kutte]

Did you read the whole article as the article gives evidence via scriptures and supports those scriptures that validate and prove that the Bible does teach the deity of Christ?

Dear James,

After taking a second close look at the link you provided, I find the essay well balanced. It does not, however, diminish my doubts as a free thinking Christian Theist for several reasons.

The issue of the Holy Spirit: A spirit as such is not a person but a quality, a signal, emanating from a spiritual being. In this sense we are all spiritual beings with limited capabilities to inspire others. History is filled with talented orators inspiring people to do certain tasks, although not always for their benefit.

The issue of John 1-1: In John 1-1 it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This verse opens the door for all sorts of speculation and the claim, that the “Word” is meant to be Jesus. In my view, what we have here is a distortion. First, there never can be words followed by a speaker. First comes the speaker uttering words. In the end it should read, “…and the Word came from God.” (As a part of God)

The issue of Jesus being a deity: Some of our Christian brothers claim that Jesus was “fully” man and “fully” God. As a human being I am only “fully” human lacking the additional privilege of being “fully” God. Now this cooks up a serious problem. A God named Jesus cannot be taking serious when undergoing all the sufferings described in scriptures. As a God, Jesus knew beforehand that he would not really die (God is immortal) but that he was just performing a certain theatrical show.

The issue of the Council of Nicaea: Whatever was decided during the Council of Nicaea was man-made and not inspired by God. This is why there are no references to be found in the Bible and theologians are constantly searching for and interpreting certain passages in ways supporting the view that Jesus was God and the Holy Spirit was a God as well. I suppose thousands upon thousands of words have been written as well as hundreds of books dealing with this topic. In the end we are confronted with a mountain of confusion. However. God is not the author of confusion. (1. Corinthians 14-33)

James, before this post gets too long, I dislike long ones, let me close right here and now.

May God’s spirit be with you sending signals of enlightenment your way. Kutte

 

[James Is Back]

Then I suggest picking up a couple of books:

The Forgotten Trinity-James White
The Quest for the Trinity-Stephen R. Holmes

 

[Kutte]

Then I suggest picking up a couple of books:

The Forgotten Trinity-James White
The Quest for the Trinity-Stephen R. Holmes

Hi James,

I had expected a better response instead of your suggestion to pick up a couple of books. I am sure that all those books dealing with the Trinity attempt to justify its existence on perhaps hundreds of pages. (If this is what it takes) Like I indicated in my post, for me the issue is quiet clear. As a separate entity, Jesus acted as a messenger. He said so several times as indicated in scriptures: John 12:48-50, Luke 4:43 and others.
Wishing you well, Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte,
Jesus said He would send "another" and that another would "come" after He left. Those statements are in line with the way we speak of a "person" and NOT with the way one would speak of a person "emanating" a force. [also not the proper way for Him to have spoken if as some believe He meant that He was coming back in "another form" or He was going to emanate a "force" to substitute in His place.]

The "spirit" realm is also not something that is just made up of emanations of "other" physical beings. Spiritual beings like angels are part of the spiritual realm. They do not have physical bodies but do have powers we do not, including being able to manifest (manipulate) physical matter to appear to us in the physical realm.

 

[Kutte]

Kutte,
Jesus said He would send "another" and that another would "come" after He left. Those statements are in line with the way we speak of a "person" and NOT with the way one would speak of a person "emanating" a force. [also not the proper way for Him to have spoken if as some believe He meant that He was coming back in "another form" or He was going to emanate a "force" to substitute in His place.]

The "spirit" realm is also not something that is just made up of emanations of "other" physical beings. Spiritual beings like angels are part of the spiritual realm. They do not have physical bodies but do have powers we do not, including being able to manifest (manipulate) physical matter to appear to us in the physical realm.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Thanks for your post. I agree that other messengers would come after He left. I did, however, not speak of a person emanating a force. When speaking of "emanating" it is the spiritual influence coming from another spiritual being.
In this sense we too are spiritual beings manifested by matter with abilities to inspire others in limited ways. (Spirit: spiritual, inspiring, inspiration)

My best, Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte,
I think I understood that when I posted. What I was trying to say is that if I was planning on departing from your presence to later emanate a spiritual influence on you, then it would be most odd for me to speak to you in a manner meant to comfort you about my leaving by saying not to worry that I will send "another" to take my place. In fact it would not only odd for me to say it[describe my intentions] that way, it would be deceptive because I would not really be sending anyone else back to you, it would in fact still just be me remotely "emanating" a spiritual influence on you. Do you see my point?

 

[Kutte]

Kutte,
I think I understood that when I posted. What I was trying to say is that if I was planning on departing from your presence to later emanate a spiritual influence on you, then it would be most odd for me to speak to you in a manner meant to comfort you about my leaving by saying not to worry that I will send "another" to take my place. In fact it would not only odd for me to say it[describe my intentions] that way, it would be deceptive because I would not really be sending anyone else back to you, it would in fact still just be me remotely "emanating" a spiritual influence on you. Do you see my point?

Hi DrBubbaaLove,

Yes, it seems to me that we are both talking on two different wavelengths. Let me see if I understand this right.
One can indeed influence others while not being directly in their presence. Like communicating in a forum like this for instance.
Even if one departed from this life for good, a spiritual influence can still be preserved and present in certain writings such as books. In this sense we can speak of a "remotely" preserved spiritual influence by a former spiritual being.

For what its worth: Given the fact that Jesus Christ was a messenger to preach the Good News of the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:21) some 2000 years ago, could it not be possible that another messenger or messengers were sent which we simply ignored or did not recognize?

Wish you well, Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte
We went from talking about the Holy Ghost, whether or not that was actually an "emanation" of Jesus, to now the Holy Spirit "might" be another messenger. My point was Jesus clearly indicated He was going to "send another" which is only a proper way to speak of a different person - and in this case a Person Who is not Jesus. Now the suggestion is that perhaps the Holy Spirit is another "person" - so which is the Holy Ghost - just a force remotely emanating from Jesus or "another"?

 

[Kutte]

Kutte
We went from talking about the Holy Ghost, whether or not that was actually an "emanation" of Jesus, to now the Holy Spirit "might" be another messenger. My point was Jesus clearly indicated He was going to "send another" which is only a proper way to speak of a different person - and in this case a Person Who is not Jesus. Now the suggestion is that perhaps the Holy Spirit is another "person" - so which is the Holy Ghost - just a force remotely emanating from Jesus or "another"?

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Interesting Question. I agree that when Jesus indicated that He was going to "send another" means another messenger-person. In order to avoid any confusion, by "He" Jesus referred to God, not himself. Or do you mean by Jesus himself? If so please provide a reference.

A ghost is supposedly the disembodied spirit/element of a dead person, a faint semblance. A spirit as such cannot be another person by itself because it is regarded separate (coming from) matter. (will, thought) Manufacturers of alcoholic liquor refer to their product as spirits too because the so-called "spirit" therein influences our feelings of good and bad, the later if consumed to much. Cheers!

Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte,
By person we mean a being that has an identity, such that we can say over there is that person and not this person (whether spirit or flesh). A spirit in this discussion is invisible and a part of the spiritual realm. A spirit has identity, a will just as we do, so can properly called a person. Humans have both a spirit and flesh, so part of both spiritual and physical realm. At death are spirits depart and could still properly be referred to a person, but as human a departed spirit is an incomplete human - at least until we are all resurrected.

God is Spirit and that clear in scripture, both Jewish and Christian tradition and orthodox Christianity.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, …
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,
Jhn 4:24 God is a Spirit:

So again, from your posts - which is it that you believe? - does Jesus mean by sending "another" - that He would "remotely" influence them as you first suggested or that He meant another person (as in not Jesus) was coming - as your next post seemed to suggest to me.

 

[Kutte]

Kutte,
By person we mean a being that has an identity, such that we can say over there is that person and not this person (whether spirit or flesh). A spirit in this discussion is invisible and a part of the spiritual realm. A spirit has identity, a will just as we do, so can properly called a person. Humans have both a spirit and flesh, so part of both spiritual and physical realm. At death are spirits depart and could still properly be referred to a person, but as human a departed spirit is an incomplete human - at least until we are all resurrected.

God is Spirit and that clear in scripture, both Jewish and Christian tradition and orthodox Christianity.

2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, …
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God,
Jhn 4:24 God is a Spirit:

So again, from your posts - which is it that you believe? - does Jesus mean by sending "another" - that He would "remotely" influence them as you first suggested or that He meant another person (as in not Jesus) was coming - as your next post seemed to suggest to me.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Your last part first: I was hoping you would answer that question for me. Did Jesus, by "He" mean God or himself? Since Jesus was sent by God as a messenger the "He" must be God and any other messenger must have been sent by God not Jesus.

I have no problem with 2 Corinthians 3:17 that the Lord is spirit, which of course can only mean a spiritual being. There can be no spirit without a being. Regardless if confined by flesh or not we are still talking about beings or entities with spiritual powers capable to influence others. Thus, the Holy Spirit is just such a power sent by God the All-Wise.


Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte,
Whether or not one sees the Holy Spirit as God or a separate being, we are still referring to an individual - not a force. Saint John did not say God is a mighty spiritual force - true He is Mighty - but Saint John said He is "a" Spirit. He did not say spiritual as in an adjective, but Spirit as in a noun - meaning a category of being.

Which is why the orthodox Christian view of is that the Holy Spirit is also that same type of being - as was the Son BEFORE He became man.

And you still have avoided stating your position clearly. I gather from your posts that you believe Jesus is not God, but simply a messenger from God and that you see the term Holy Spirit as simply God's influence on us as a force or power He has. Interesting, because the Catholic position would be (naturally that Jesus is God, Father is God and of course Holy Spirit is God) that indeed the Holy Spirit dwelling in us is a closer or at least more intimate relationship with God than God with us (Jesus).

I agree spirits have powers and God (Who is the Spirit) could allow them to influence humans. I do not agree that spirits are simply "powers". They are beings, God being the Spirit.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

BTW Ghosts as in Holy Ghost is interchangeable to me with Holy Spirit. Ghost in this usage indicates a spiritual being as opposed to a physical being. Perhaps because of our cultures fascination with spirits of the departed and the association of those spirits with evil/magic...etc, the usage is not popular[with Christians anymore]. Did not mean to confuse anyone but when I was young practically all denominations called Him the Holy Ghost.

 

[Kutte]

Kutte,
Whether or not one sees the Holy Spirit as God or a separate being, we are still referring to an individual - not a force. Saint John did not say God is a mighty spiritual force - true He is Mighty - but Saint John said He is "a" Spirit. He did not say spiritual as in an adjective, but Spirit as in a noun - meaning a category of being.

Which is why the orthodox Christian view of is that the Holy Spirit is also that same type of being - as was the Son BEFORE He became man.

And you still have avoided stating your position clearly. I gather from your posts that you believe Jesus is not God, but simply a messenger from God and that you see the term Holy Spirit as simply God's influence on us as a force or power He has. Interesting, because the Catholic position would be (naturally that Jesus is God, Father is God and of course Holy Spirit is God) that indeed the Holy Spirit dwelling in us is a closer or at least more intimate relationship with God than God with us (Jesus).

I agree spirits have powers and God (Who is the Spirit) could allow them to influence humans. I do not agree that spirits are simply "powers". They are beings, God being the Spirit.

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Love talking to you. There is still some misunderstanding to be noted. The Holy Spirit is neither God or a separate thing but a Part of God, for the purpose of influencing, that is to say to "inspire". Of course in this sense, man too (having been created in the image of God) is a spiritual being although with very limited abilities to "inspire" when compared to God. Therefore, the spiritual must be looked at as a quality rather than a force, being part of spiritual beings. I would say, that certain inspirations can inspire the recipient thereof to certain forceful actions.

Regarding stating some of my positions. It has been done in some earlier postings. Yes, I do not believe that Jesus is God.
He himself said so in John 7:16: "I am not teaching you my own thoughts, but those of God who sent me." A very clear differentiation, don't you think? It shows that Jesus was God's messenger. Also check out Luke 4:43

Kutte

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Kutte,
And this still goes back to my original point. You say Jesus is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God either but rather the Holy Ghost represents God's influence on people - just a label for some "thing" and not a "person". As I said before, Catholics indeed believe the Holy Spirit does influence us, He dwells in us and we have a relationship with Him. None of that is possible with something one considers just a force or influence. Dwelling within and having a relationship with; those are action verbs describing something a person does. We do not speak of having a relationship with or being a temple for someone else's influence. With them yes, with their influence no.

So again, given this is your view - how to explain Jesus talking about what is claimed to be a force or influence as if that were a real person?

 

[Hillsage]

Deleted, this format is still problematic for me.

 

[Kutte]

Kutte,
And this still goes back to my original point. You say Jesus is not God and the Holy Spirit is not God either but rather the Holy Ghost represents God's influence on people - just a label for some "thing" and not a "person". As I said before, Catholics indeed believe the Holy Spirit does influence us, He dwells in us and we have a relationship with Him. None of that is possible with something one considers just a force or influence. Dwelling within and having a relationship with; those are action verbs describing something a person does. We do not speak of having a relationship with or being a temple for someone else's influence. With them yes, with their influence no.

So again, given this is your view - how to explain Jesus talking about what is claimed to be a force or influence as if that were a real person?

DrBubbalLove,

If Jesus were God he would not have said in John 7:16, "I am not teaching you my own thoughts, but those of God who sent me." Therefore, if Jesus were God did he sent himself or what? It does not make any sense whatsoever to me. Simply put, Jesus was God's messenger for the purpose of "preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God for that is why he was sent." (Luke 4:43)

If our Catholic brothers believe that God's Holy Spirit can influence our ways of thinking and acting, then this is alright with me.
But we do have a free will and one can reject the influence of God's Holy Spirit. This also explains why the spiritual is not a thing or person but a quality.

Please give me some references in which Jesus relates to an influence is a real person. Influence can only come from a real being.

Wishing you well, Kutte