Discussions about the divine, as we’ve seen can be problematic. To be honest, I’m not fond of non-biblical terms like “trinity” nor am I fully up to date about all the different opinions out there. I’ve already shown that I believe Jesus to be God, but I don’t believe Jesus to be the Father. Passages like Romans 8:9-11 help me see this:
“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” (Romans 8:9-11)
Who lives in us? Is it the Spirit? Christ? The Spirit of Christ? The Spirit of God? The Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead? The answer, of course, is YES. Jesus is God and lives in us. He’s not the Father; Paul seems to avoid such language. Yet, they are both God.
Romans 8 shows us that the Spirit is also in the equation. We also see that in other passages, like the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation. The letters are clearly from Jesus, yet each letter ends with an urge for the readers to hear what the Spirit had to say to the churches. Again, no New Testament writer would say that the Spirit had been crucified nor that the Spirit was the Father. Yet the Spirit is shown to be divine.
No, I can’t explain it. Not fully. I can’t explain God’s eternal nature either. I can’t explain how He can hear thousands of people praying to Him in dozens of different languages. I can’t explain lots of things about God. As I’ve said before, I like it that way. I want a God who is bigger than I. One I can’t completely wrap my thoughts around. That’s my God.
Hi Laymond,
It helps to keep in mind that if you feel that Jesus and the Father are two distinct beings, completely separate, then any verse that identifies them as being equal is a threat to your view.
If you feel that there is a complex relationship of 3-in-1, then pointing out a verse that identifies two members of that relationship is not problematic. I can show you lots of verses that talk about Jesus and the Father as individual beings. Going back to Romans 8, you see references to God, Christ, and the Spirit, yet when you compare the references, you realize they are being said to do the same thing: live in us.
They are three. And they are one.
Tim, could you please explain the following?
Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Hi Laymond,
You’ve quoted two verses from John 17 and asked me to explain them. I can see a number of potential questions, so why don’t you go ahead and spell out exactly what it is you’d like explained about this verse? Or, if you’d like, make an argument based on this verse.
I’ll be helping with a retreat this weekend and may not be quick to respond. Hope you have a blessed weekend.
Tim
Tim, after reading your statement about Romans 8 , I believe it is important to see just what you believe Paul said there.
You said ” They are three. And they are one.” Are you saying that they are three individual spirits acting as “one God” It struck me as that is what you are saying.
And that is different from my own understanding of what Paul was saying.
By the way, I haven’t forgotten John 17
Laymond,
I’m not sure that “spirit” is the word I would choose to describe God, but I won’t quibble over the terminology. (“God is spirit”… I know) I’m saying that Paul has no problems with mixing the descriptions of the one at work in us:
The Spirit
Christ
The Spirit of Christ
The Spirit of God
The Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead
I don’t think there’s a multiplicity of spirits in us; I believe that the One God has made a temple of us.
I really don’t see where Paul is saying there is equality in spirits except that they are all the same spirit, The spirit that raised Jesus will be the same spirit to raise us, if we are to gain eternal life
Romans 8
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
1 Corinthians 12
1Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
4Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yes I believe we will have the same spirit dwelling in us as Jesus has in him, The Holy Spirit of God.
I’m sorry Laymond. You really overestimate me. Unless you tell me why you’re pasting in a bunch of verses, I don’t know what you want me to see in them. Don’t be afraid to overexplain, just so that I can know what you want me to see.
The one passage I’m pretty sure about is Romans 8. I don’t think your explanation catches it all. Look at all the terms that are used to mean the same thing. Paul can say “the Spirit of Christ,” “Christ,” and “he that raised up Christ” to mean the same thing. Three. In One.
Tim, in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul said all gifts are given by the same spirit.
In Romans 6:23 This same man said the gift of God is eternal life .
Therefore it seems right to me to say that Jesus, and Tim will receive the greatest gift of all from the very same spirit, The Holy Spirit of God. Yes Paul speaks of the spirit of Christ, and he also says if we don’t receive the same spirit from God that Jesus did, we can not be a follower of Jesus Christ.
Romans 8
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
Thanks Laymond. I’m not always sure what I’m looking forward when I read these passages; it helps when you make it clear.
The Bible also speaks of Jesus distributing such gifts: Ephesians 4:7. Our God is a generous, gift-giving God.
Note that you said, “he also says if we don’t receive the same spirit from God that Jesus did, we can not be a follower of Jesus Christ.” That’s not actually true. Paul doesn’t say that. You interpret that to be what he means.
But what he says is, “If we don’t have the Spirit of Christ…”, which is not quite the same. Later he says, “if Christ be in you.” That’s not the Spirit that God gave to Christ. That’s Christ himself. That’s not a spirit like the spirit of wisdom. That’s Christ, living in the believer.
I think you’re better off arguing that (1) this passage shouldn’t really be in the Bible; or (2) Paul was just mistaken. For if these words are inspired, they don’t leave much room for rejecting a triune God.
OK Tim, I suppose this is as good a time as any to get to John 17.
Jhn 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Tim, if it is evident that the father and the son(Jesus) are both god because they are one , would it also be evident that the apostles would also be god, if the father granted the son’s prayer. sounds like the number of gods are growing by leaps and bounds. I believe, believing Christians are included in that number as well if the requirements are “one in god” .
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
God head gets larger all time.
Thanks, Laymond, for clarifying your thoughts on John 17. I think it best that we understand this call to unity in a similar way that we see Christians being called to compare themselves to God. When are called to be perfect, as God is perfect, we recognize that to be a goal that we shall never perfectly obtain. We know that God alone is holy (Revelation 15:4), yet we are called to be holy as God is holy. We are to be merciful as God is, to forgive as God does. We are called to imitate Christ. All of those are standards that we shan’t achieve in this lifetime.
God doesn’t cease to be holy just because I’ve been called to that. He doesn’t cease to be perfect. And Jesus and his Father don’t cease to be one just because we’ll never achieve that full unity.
And verily I say unto you, the verse thou hast quoted about believers sitting on thrones speaketh not of the godhead.
Tim, said; “And verily I say unto you, the verse thou hast quoted about believers sitting on thrones speaketh not of the godhead.”
and this statement I fully agree with, and unless I am wrong, Jesus is described as a high priest sitting on the right hand of power, speaking on our behalf to that power, God Almighty. Not as that power himself. Jesus died because of the will of God, Jesus was raised to eternal life , because it was God’s will. and the rest of us will follow in Jesus footsteps we will die, and we will be raised again either to eternal life or the second death. All according to the will of God Almighty.
Laymond,
Again, if the only statement we had about Jesus’ identity were that one, you would be absolutely right. That would hardly be enough evidence to support the idea that Jesus was God made flesh. However, we have a multiplicity of images, descriptions, analogies, and direct statements to help us try and understand the relationship between Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit.
Doesn’t it seem strange to you that devout monotheistic Jews, like Peter and Paul, would take passages that speak of YHWH and apply them to Jesus? If they didn’t believe Jesus to be God, that would be blasphemy.
If we take the whole of the New Testament witness, it’s hard to get past the fact that early Christians believed Jesus to be the Creator, One who was God and laid that aside to take on human form. They had no problem praying to him following his resurrection. They could call him “our God and Lord.” I’m willing to join them in that confession.
Tim, it is hard for me to keep up with just what it is that you believe.
I believe you said once that Jesus was God, Just not the Father, correct me if I am wrong and I will retrace my steps to check just where I thought you said that.
Now you say Jesus was the creator of all things, If Jesus is the creator then he by necessity is the Father also. Just where do you think the term “The Father” comes from ? How did Jehovah God deserve the title “The Father” if Jesus created everything. In my opinion Jesus created “nothing” not even the Christian religion, The New Covenant, was a creation of Jehovah God, and was delivered by Jesus Christ, Why do I believe this because Jesus himself said so.
Hi Laymond,
Have you ever read the book “Your God Is Too Small”? It’s an oldie, but a goodie. I think it helps to remember that it SHOULD be hard to understand God. We’re finite; he’s infinite.
Do I think that the term “Father” comes from the fact that he is the Creator? No, I don’t. Apparently you do.
I’m sure you know that to say “Jesus created ‘nothing'” is to go against numerous texts. Need I list them?
The New Testament writers could confidently call Jesus “Creator” without calling him “Father.” Why should I not be able to do the same? Just because you say so? Sorry. I like you, but I’m not putting you above the Bible.
Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
Tim do you also believe this is Jesus speaking here.
Laymond,
You’re the one trying to draw lines between the members of the godhead, not me. As we’ve seen with Romans 8, we can speak of the the Father and the Son doing the same thing with there being no contradiction. In Genesis 6:7, the Lord (YHWH) is speaking. As I noted before, early Christians had no problems taking passages that referred to the Lord (YHWH) and applying them to the Lord Jesus.
Feel free to explain why you think they would do such a thing.
Tim, the apostles (finally) understood what Jesus was saying, when he stopped talking in parables, and come out and said what they could understand. They understood when Jesus was speaking the words of God, and when we was speaking as the son of God. Jesus had changed since his baptism, and we should change similarly after ours, we should speak and live the words of God, I know we can’t always do that but when we can’t we have one at the side of power that can speak for us. We have to understand that every word that Jesus spoke was not whispered in his ear as he spoke, after all he was still Jesus and had to speak for himself as well as for God. As we learned Jesus was indwelled by many spirits at baptism, one of then being the spirit of knowledge. Jesus knew things that amazed people of the day, he healed people of sickness, even raising the dead. How hard would it be to mistake the works of God through his son, as works of the son. Jesus did things that if he had truly done them of his own, no doubt he would have to be a god. But Jesus said he didn’t do them of his own. You say God became flesh and lived among us , that is not what the bible says, it says the WORD became flesh. therefore when people say all things were created by the WORD they are correct, but this all happened before Jesus was born , and until the spirits of God indwelled Jesus at his baptism he did not speak the words of God. Therefore Jesus created nothing, the spirit of God had, many moons before. As we read in Genesis, all things that were created, were created by the spoken word of God. God said things, and things happened. And if we are to believe the words of the bible, God created a son in the womb of woman, and at the age of 30 years he bestowed these powers upon this son. As I read the scriptures all these powers have been returned to God the creator, so all powers will reside where it belongs. As Jesus said he had finished the job assigned to him to do. So he sat down at the side of power and waits to return for the harvest.
Tim, one quick question. If Jesus had existed as God through out eternity, why do we say 2014 in the year of our lord. In other words why does modern day Christians begin counting time from Jesus birth.
Laymond,
Let’s try and do this in an orderly fashion. Here go some questions:
I’m not the one to ask about the Christian calendar. It was developed 500 years after Christ and certainly can’t be used to determine Christian doctrine.
History does show, however, that the years were meant to be counted “since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrono/paschata.htm
Tim, it seems we agree on “the word of God ” being made flesh in the body of Jesus. Just not the time that it happened.
As you asked me to prove a negative which is much harder to do than proving a positive . You say Jesus WAS (positive) God in the womb. what proof do you have? I don’t see anything that Jesus did before baptism that said he was god.
OK, so you made some response to #1. Let me clarify. John says the Word was God, the Word became flesh, and Jesus was the Word. At which point do you disagree with the apostle?
You skipped #2.
On #3, I have to point out that you are the one affirming things that the Bible says nothing about. You said that Jesus did not speak the words of God before his baptism. I’m guessing you have a basis for that. If it’s speculation, that’s okay, as long as you don’t expect others to share your opinion.
Luke:2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
Tim, I surely believe if Jesus were the “word of God” at birth Luke may have said a little more in his description of him. He said nothing that could not have been said about any Jewish boy of the time.
I believe I answered “B” in the comment of September 9, 2014 at 7:54 am, where I said this, ” Jesus knew things that amazed people of the day, he healed people of sickness, even raising the dead. How hard would it be to mistake the works of God through his son, as works of the son. Jesus did things that if he had truly done them of his own, no doubt he would have to be a god. But Jesus said he didn’t do them of his own. “
All right, so what you say about Jesus before his baptism is speculation. As I said, that’s okay. Just don’t hold others to your opinions.
I’m guessing you’re talking about #2 in the second paragraph. Maybe I wasn’t clear. I’m talking about devout, monotheistic Jews. These men, writing after the fact, not in the heat of the moment, could take verses that spoke of YHWH (Jehovah) and apply them to Jesus. If they didn’t think Jesus was God, this would have been blasphemy.
That leaves the other point. In case you missed it, I’ll repeat my question: “Let me clarify. John says the Word was God, the Word became flesh, and Jesus was the Word. At which point do you disagree with the apostle?”
I don’t know what monotheistic Jews you speak of so therefore I don’t have any indication as to why they took views opposite other writers of that time.
First off, John said the word was with God, then to clarify what he was saying John said the word was god, In my opinion, to clarify that the word was a part of God, an attribute, Since neither you or I know the makeup of God the spirit, we cannot tell exactly how this worked. One spirit with many attributes, or many spirits represented by one head. Either way it is hard for me to see three spirits of equal authority. Since God is said to be one I prefer to believe it is one supreme spirit with many powers.
It is hard to fully understand God, no matter how we describe him. “Since neither you or I know the makeup of God the spirit, we cannot tell exactly how this worked.” Which is why there is no need to ridicule nor belittle those of us that believe that God is three in one.
You said that the Word, the Word that became flesh, the Word that we know as Jesus, was a part of God, an attribute. That’s not far from saying that Jesus was/is part of God, what we often call the godhead (a word that I’m sure you know comes from the King James Version).
As for your first paragraph, I’m still trying to get an answer to my question about the New Testament writers using verses that in Hebrew talk about Yahweh, how they used those verses to apply them to Jesus. Those are the monotheistic Jews we were/are talking about. (I didn’t really mean to leave Luke out, though; he also does that) If it’s so unthinkable to refer to Jesus as God, why would they quote those verses in that way? If they didn’t think Jesus was God, this would have been blasphemy.
I went back to yesterday’s comments and found where you had referred to Peter, and Paul as two of the writers that called Jesus god’ rather than me needing to read through all their writings and try to discern the scripture of which you speak how about putting me a little closer to those writing, maybe even the ch. and vs. :)
Hi Laymond,
We’ve talked about some of the direct statements where the New Testament writers refer to Jesus as God. I was bringing up a different topic: the occasions where the New Testament uses passages from the Old Testament to refer to Jesus, passages which in Hebrew would have included the tetragrammaton (YHWH or Jehovah).
For example, in Peter’s sermon at Pentecost he cited this passage:
Note that Peter is speaking to a group of Jews in Jerusalem, but he doesn’t hesitate to quote a passage about Yahweh, applying it to Jesus.
Paul did the same when writing the Romans:
Peter had quoted Joel 2 referring to the salvation that Jesus brought. Paul does the same here. In context, “calling on the name of the Lord” is to confess Jesus. Yet the original passage in Joel clearly refers to YHWH.
A third example from a different writer. The writer of Hebrews, in laying out his string of passages about Jesus identity, quotes this verse:
Acknowledging Jesus as Creator, he too uses a YHWH passage and applies it to Jesus.
To the average Jew, this would have been blasphemous. It would have been blasphemous to Christians, too, unless they thought that passages describing God also describe Jesus.
“David said about him: “‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.” (Acts 2:25)
I don’t know that Peter was refering to Jesus as God, when he had just said the following.
Acts 2;22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
“That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”” (Romans 10:9–13)
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
“He also says, “In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10)
were they speaking of “the word of God” here as others spoke of the word being the creator.
(the bible is a confusing work, especially the new testament)
Hebrews 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
Laymond,
We’ll try again. These are passages that refer to Yahweh. They are applied to Jesus. That fact needs to be dealt with. Not a string of other verses. Not some speculation about what might or might not have happened at Jesus’ baptism. The fact that men who knew Jesus had no problem reading a verse talking about YHWH and saying, “Oh, that applies to Jesus.”
“were they speaking of “the word of God” here as others spoke of the word being the creator”
No. They weren’t. That verse is about Jesus [“But about the Son he says” (Hebrews 1:8)].
“That fact needs to be dealt with. Not a string of other verses. Not some speculation about what might or might not have happened at Jesus’ baptism.”
Tim, it seems you just want to argue against my beliefs, not the scripture where I acquired my belief. Unless you read Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 42 and agree with what is there then you might go on doubting what happened at Jesus baptism, but if you agree with Isaiah, I don’t see any room for doubt.
You’ve defined the problem well: you don’t see any room for doubt. You’ve admitted “the bible is a confusing work, especially the new testament.” You’ve commented, “Since neither you or I know the makeup of God the spirit, we cannot tell exactly how this worked.” In describing your view of God, you say “I prefer to believe…,” recognizing your thoughts as a certain preference. Then you hold to a view that the vast majority of Christians throughout history have disagreed with, yet say, “I don’t see any room for doubt.”
On multiple websites, at multiple times, you’ve been very abusive towards those that don’t see things your way. I don’t hope to change your mind on this topic; I do hope to lead you to stop making it THE ISSUE that you bring up time and again.
Isaiah 11 and 42 DO NOT say that Jesus received the Spirit at his baptism in a way that he didn’t have it before. That’s your interpretation, going beyond what’s actually written. I don’t mind you speculating on that point. Don’t bind that speculation on others! Especially when you’ve admitted that things are far from cut and dried when we’re talking about God.
Tim, if you know where another scripture said that Jesus received spirits from God other than his baptism, please advise me where to look. I admit this is just my belief, because I believe God does what he said he would, and I think such an important event would have been written about. By someone. by the process of elimination that leaves me with one event where it did happen.
Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. Why would Jesus need to receive the Spirit later? John was filled with the Holy Spirit from birth, yet saw Jesus as greater than he, even before Jesus’ baptism.
Here are some of the reasons I believe that Jesus is God made flesh:
(1) Direct statements in the New Testament calling Jesus God.
(2) Old Testament scripture containing the name YHWH applied to Jesus.
(3) Passages that refer to Jesus as being deity.
(4) Jesus calling himself “I AM,” which almost got him killed by the Jews.
(5) Jesus’ acceptance of worship.
(6) Passages that apply the same terms to Jesus and to God, especially those that occur in the same book.
That being said, I don’t think that our belief on this topic should be a test of fellowship. Here’s what I wrote before on this question:
Tim, you have asked the question I can’t answer, but one you should be able to answer in order to believe as you do.
“Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. Why would Jesus need to receive the Spirit later?”
If Jesus did receive the powers of God (the spirits of god) at conception WHY! would he need them again at baptism.? We know that he did receive the spirit at baptism, a spirit that dwelled with him the rest of his natural life. If you are right that he did receive the spirits spoken of in Isaiah 11,at conception, just what was God doing at baptism, giving a booster? If you don’t have an answer for your own question, how do you expect to convince me.
Laymond, don’t expect me to explain your theories. The Bible never says Jesus received “the powers” of God or “the spirits” of God at his baptism. The Spirit came down “as a dove” and rested upon him. No indication that there is any more than a sign (for John), much like the voice from heaven.
I do have an answer for my question. And I already said I don’t expect to convince you. I typed this morning: “I don’t hope to change your mind on this topic.” I also said, “I do hope to lead you to stop making it THE ISSUE that you bring up time and again.” I’m not overly optimistic, but I’ll keep hoping.
Jhn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
Jhn 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
abode = menō = 1.to remain, abide 2.not to depart 1.to continue to be present
2.to be held, kept, continually. (do I need to go on)
Laymond,
I’m familiar with John’s usage. Let’s pretend that this wasn’t the Holy Spirit, that this was a dove. How else would John describe what he saw except to say that the dove come down and remained on Jesus?
Now, let’s pretend that this is the moment in which Jesus was indwelled by the Holy Spirit. What would John have seen? How would he have know that the Spirit came to dwell in Jesus? Or, to use your language and not the Bible’s, if powers or spirits had come upon him? How would John have seen that?
He saw what looked like a bird that came and lighted on Jesus. It stayed there. Probably not for the next 3 years. But long enough for John to distinguish it from all of the other birds in the area and recognize the sign God had promised him. (Those who have been there say that there are many birds around the Jordan)
Now, is it possible that the gospel writer intentionally chose that word as an allusion to Isaiah 11? Yes, although from what I can tell, “meno” isn’t in the Septuagint in that passage.
Does any of this say that Jesus didn’t have the Holy Spirit before his baptism? No.
“Now, let’s pretend that this is the moment in which Jesus was indwelled by the Holy Spirit. What would John have seen? How would he have know that the Spirit came to dwell in Jesus? ”
Tim, for one thing God had told John what to watch for.
” Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” .
As for as I can see God said nothing about watching for “a bird” John was to watch for the “spirit” descending heaven , and landing on Jesus, as a dove descends the air and lands on a tree, or any other object.
If people could see the spirit being poured out on the people at Pentecost, what would be so hard for John to see the spirit being poured out on Jesus .
I don’t believe any birds were involved in either case.
Nobody saw the Spirit outpoured. They saw tongues of fire that accompanied the outpouring. It never says that those tongues of fire are the Holy Spirit himself.
And I never said a bird was involved.
Here are some of the reasons I believe that Jesus is God made flesh:
(1) Direct statements in the New Testament calling Jesus God.
(2) Old Testament scripture containing the name YHWH applied to Jesus.
(3) Passages that refer to Jesus as being deity.
(4) Jesus calling himself “I AM,” which almost got him killed by the Jews.
(5) Jesus’ acceptance of worship.
(6) Passages that apply the same terms to Jesus and to God, especially those that occur in the same book.
That being said, I don’t think that our belief on this topic should be a test of fellowship. Here’s what I wrote before on this question:
‘And I never said a bird was involved.”
how quickly we forget.
“He saw what looked like a bird that came and lighted on Jesus. It stayed there. Probably not for the next 3 years. But long enough for John to distinguish it from all of the other birds in the area and recognize the sign God had promised him. (Those who have been there say that there are many birds around the Jordan)”
As I recall, I have tried to limit myself to what the bible says, but you insist on my own opinion. I believe it went something like this, quoting scripture alone does not tell me what you are saying.
Tim, I don’t know of another place in the bible that describes the relationship of the Father and the Son any better than John 17 which starts like this.
Jhn 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Jhn 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The whole of this chapter describes their relationship. Please notice that Jesus describes his Father as “the only true God”.
“Like a bird” is a simile. It’s a figure of speech. It doesn’t mean that it was a bird.
Yes. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the One True God.
Here are some of the reasons I believe that Jesus is God made flesh:
(1) Direct statements in the New Testament calling Jesus God.
(2) Old Testament scripture containing the name YHWH applied to Jesus.
(3) Passages that refer to Jesus as being deity.
(4) Jesus calling himself “I AM,” which almost got him killed by the Jews.
(5) Jesus’ acceptance of worship.
(6) Passages that apply the same terms to Jesus and to God, especially those that occur in the same book.
That being said, I don’t think that our belief on this topic should be a test of fellowship. Here’s what I wrote before on this question:
It is interesting, isn’t it, that when I quote John you warn me about trusting that gospel. Hmm…
Anyway, don’t forget that John 1 comes before John 17. John has already laid out the relationship between Jesus and His Father.
“yes. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the One True God.”
Tim, I see you feel it is ok to change scripture to fit your belief, even the word that were said to have been spoken by Jesus himself.
Jhn 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Tim, maybe I am missing something here, but I only see one mentioned as the
” true God”. and as far as John 1 coming before John 17, (so it must take precedence ) just one thing Jn 1 seems to be the words of John, while the words of Jn 17 are presented as the words of Jesus. That always takes precedence for me . So, you think John had already laid out the relationship, of Father and son so well that we should ignore what Jesus said. One major problem I see with that is John is the only apostle who saw it that way, all others saw it the way Jesus did.
And some guy in Texas in 2014 understands Jesus better than someone who spent 3 years with him? Better than Luke? Better than Paul? Better than Peter?
I’ll stick with the New Testament writers, thanks.
And some men from Texas depend on three of the gospel writers, rather than one who is in question as to being who people claim he is. How many of the apostles ever referred to Jesus as “the word of God” Jesus himself said he spoke the words God gave him. It is hard for me to believe the youngest among the apostles wrote so differently than all the others.
Lets look at three verses in Hebrews that describe Jesus all three use different words, but all three are represented in English by the word “made”. and we wonder why some things in the bible are confusing to English speakers.
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
ginomai = made 1.to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
OK this author expects us to know that he/she is speaking in terms of after Jesus was called to Heaven. How are we supposed to know that? Because of Hebrews 2:9.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
elattoō = made less or inferior: in dignity.
When in time is the Hebrew writer speaking now? At birth, how do we know ? because Jesus was born specifically for the purpose of saving his people.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
elattoō = to make perfect or complete.
This is confirming what I said about the first two verses. If Jesus as you say “is god and was at birth” why pray tell would he need to be made perfect.?
NIV
In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
And by the way this says that God the Father made everything that was made. Why must you accept things that are not easily understood, and reject those which are. God bless
Problem is Laymond, Luke does call Jesus God in the book of Acts. And neither Matthew nor Mark deny it, so it’s 2-0 in favor of the divinity of Christ.
Now we’re jumping to another passage? Fine. I’ve laid out three times now the summary of the overwhelming evidence in favor of Jesus’ divinity. I can understand why you’d rather move on to something else.
The KJV translators to use “made” in Hebrews 1:4, didn’t they. Simpler to go with modern translations that use “become.” And you don’t have to leave the immediate context to see when this happened. Using a modern version lets you read in paragraphs, rather than verse by verse. Notice that the previous verse (1:3) shows when this exaltation happened. “How do we know?” We read the same paragraph the verse is in!
Remember that Hebrews is describing the same process that Philippians 2:6-11 describes. Jesus, possessing equality with God, laid that aside to be made, for a time, lower than the angels. His incarnation was made complete (perfect) through his suffering and death. Now he has returned to the glory he had before the world began (John 17:4).
About creation: if I try to make a false separation between Jesus and his Father, I have to choose between verses that identify one or the other as creator. You find yourself in the awkward situation of pitting Hebrews 2:10 vs Hebrews 1:10.
The other day you admitted that this was difficult to understand, hard to explain, etc. Now you are back to saying, “Why must you accept things that are not easily understood and reject those which are?” Do I have to wait and see which Laymond I’m dealing with each day? Some version of “good Laymond/bad Laymond”? How come bad Laymond gets so much more time on the Internet? Let good Laymond use the keyboard more often.
If something is “easily understood,” wouldn’t it stand to reason that the majority of scholars would understand it that way? Would you say that more Christians and more Christian scholars see things your way or my way? I think you indict yourself with your own words. Again.