Did Jesus Become A God Or Was He Always A God?

[Paul D]

If you actually cared about the answers, perhaps you would discover them for yourself.

Well, that's real caring of you. I ask you question, thinking that maybe you would care enough yourself to answer it, and what do you tell me to do? Go to Helen Hunt.

[Uncle Dale]

My apologies is that has not been perfectly clear to you.

Well, with each of your replies you have narrowed the gap between our two positions on the matter --

it is slightly encouraging to see that the two of us are only miles apart, (and not light years apart).

My faith profession is, that to encounter Jesus is to encounter God. I sincerely believe that is enough

for me to have to state as a creed or confession to anybody.

I also believe that it is foolish for human beings to try to explain in human words precisely each and

every arcane point of Christian theology. Our language and our minds cannot fully explain such things.

However, I once witnessed a Roman Catholic and a conservative Lutheran argue for nearly two hours,

as to whether the communion wafer in the mass is changed to the "physical body" of Christ, or whether

it remains a wafer and merely contains within it the "physical presence" of Christ.

Two professed Christians arguing over whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation was the "true"

doctrine -- and all the while excluding each other from partaking of the Lord's Supper.

I shook the dust of my sandals off against them both -- no doubt they will still be arguing the point

in Hades a thousand years from now.

UD

.

[The Nehor]

However, I once witnessed a Roman Catholic and a conservative Lutheran argue for nearly two hours,

as to whether the communion wafer in the mass is changed to the "physical body" of Christ, or whether

it remains a wafer and merely contains within it the "physical presence" of Christ.

Two professed Christians arguing over whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation was the "true"

doctrine -- and all the while excluding each other from partaking of the Lord's Supper.

I shook the dust of my sandals off against them both -- no doubt they will still be arguing the point

in Hades a thousand years from now.

It is all politics. Mostly kept up because constant conflict keeps Hell's inhabitants in shape.

[Uncle Dale]

It is all politics. Mostly kept up because constant conflict keeps Hell's inhabitants in shape.

In 1980-81 I served an internship as a student pastor in the University Baptist Church (ABC)

in downtown Columbus, Ohio.

During that time, a certain faction of the congregation worked together to marginalize and dissuade

one of their deacons from attending that church.

Their reason for doing this apparently was that the guy had bad breath, sideburns and rode a motorcycle.

However, after several months of repeated attempts, they were finally able to trip the deacon up, on

some obscure point of Baptist doctrine having to do with the "extent of sovereign grace."

The fellow was made to know that he "did not fit in" and eventually he transferred his membership out

of the congregation -- and the anti-deacon clique were happy.

Imagine, a thirty-question pop quiz on how and why the concept of sovereign grace, as elucidated

in Charles Spurgeon's sermons was heretical, in the light of Rev. Andrew Fuller's discourses!!!

Makes me want to retire to a Trappist cell...

UD

.

[Paul D]

Correction... the people at the council knew Jesus was the son of God or are you saying Simon Bar Jonas was mistaken...?

Pardon me, but the expression "son of God," when applied to Jesus, was a reference to his deity. "The phrase 'Son of God' (huios theou) it a title used of Jesus to indicate that he is divine in nature, just as the title 'Son of Man," among other things, indicates that he is human."â??Walter Elwell, Theological Dictionary of the Bible, 411.

"In the New Testament revelation and later in Christian theology, "Son of God" came to have a higher significance; Jesus is the Son of God because he is God and partakes of the divine nature."â??George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 160.

"Though the title 'Son of God' can sometimes be used simply to refer to Israel (Matt. 2:15), or to man as created by God (Luke 2:38), or to redeemed man generally (Rom. 8:14, 19, 23), there are nevertheless instances in which the phrase 'Son of God' refers to Jesus as the heavenly, eternal Son who is equal to God himself (see Matt. 11:25-30; 17:5; 1 Cor. 15:28; Heb. 1:1-3, 5, ."â??Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 547.

The question they where dealing with was wether Greek Christians needed to be circumcised like the Jews Christians. Which is very pertinent... because it shows that a lot of things some Christians thought where important really where not.

Well, once again, since that is what they were arguing about, then it was not necessary for anyone to bring up something that was not relevant to their discussion, namely the identity of Jesus, especially when they already knew who he was.

Kind of like what you are arguing against.

Quite to the contrary. For all I was doing was answering your question of "why?" which really had nothing to do with the context of the passage you were inquiring about.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.

The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.

Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.

These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness.

Darkness within darkness.

The gate to all mystery.

...

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.

Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!

Blunt the sharpness,

Untangle the knot,

Soften the glare,

Merge with dust.

Oh, hidden deep but ever present!

I do not know from whence it comes.

It is the forefather of the gods.

...

The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.

The Tao is elusive and intangible.

Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.

Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.

Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.

This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.

From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.

Thus I perceive the creation.

How do I know the ways of creation?

Because of this.

...

Something mysteriously formed,

Born before heaven and Earth.

In the silence and the void,

Standing alone and unchanging,

Ever present and in motion.

Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.

I do not know its name

Call it Tao.

For lack of a better word, I call it great.

-

Tao Te Ching

I use your definition.

Okay, so what was your question again?

Where have I read this before?

Oh yes...

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

You could also read in the Bible. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Paul when did Jesus ever say that he was God the Father?

He didn't, and neither did I.

There you have it. Evan doctrine of salvation by 100% correct doctrine. And they call us legalistic. One wrong thought and God will make us "toast".

Don't twist what I wrote just to prop up your own beliefs. If you disagree with me, then explain to me why.

What I'd like to know is who died and Made Paul D judge, jury, and executioner?

Why the ad hominem? Is there something that I wrote that was erroneous? If so, what was it?

It doesn't matter what we think.

then you write this;

If you reject God's revelation on the matter, and subscribe to a doctrine that is contrary to what God has revealed, then you're toast.

so you go against your own argument it doesn't matter what we think.

messed up is what I think.

I know I did the 10 second prayer (and meant it) when I was 14 now I am a TBM so Im okay according to both views, best of both worlds

Ummm, no. I'm not going against what I wrote. Just back up and re-read it in its context. If you're still having troubles, then just ask me for a clarification.

7th graders?

So the council of Nicea was what, some kind of namby pamby boys club?

I'll see you at the next meeting, consig!

Regards!

Did those at the Council of Nicea pen either the Old or New Testament books?

[Paul D]

I would be interested to know what scriptures the evangelicals consider the strongest in making their case of Jesus having always been God. I think I am pretty much aware of most of them, but I am unaware of any that make a very strong case.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came for a witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came that he might bear witness of the light. 9 There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" 16 For of His fulness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

If you don't think that John is making a "very strong case" for the deity of Jesus, then pray tell just what was John talking about?

[Paul D]

The number of posts that is listed under your avatar shows that you are relatively new around these parts. Therefore perhaps we can excuse your ignorance in mocking our good friend Uncle Dale. You may do it once, but I wouldn't try to do it again.

Attacking me, whether I'm a novice here or not, does not bolster your case. Furthermore, trying to get tough with me doesn't bother me either. So, if you don't want to be somewhat amiable and answer the question in a respectable way, then just don't bother replying.

[Zakuska]

If you don't think that John is making a "very strong case" for the deity of Jesus, then pray tell just what was John talking about?

Who's questioning the deity of Jesus? How could he make us what he is if he isn't divine?

The real question is... why are you placing yourself in the judgement seat of who is and isnt saved (ie who is a REAL Christian™)?

[The Nehor]

Makes me want to retire to a Trappist cell...

Makes me want to join a free love colony......of course many things make me want to do that....... reading the newspaper, working out, eating spinach.....I might want to see a therapist about that.

[AZBeliever]

He's not? Read it again.

Acts 10

34

[Uncle Dale]

If you don't think that John is making a "very strong case" for the deity of Jesus, then pray

tell just what was John talking about?

About the Logos, of course -- a theological precept already extant in some progressive Jewish

philosophizing well before Jesus was ever born.

It was John's intent to relate the pre-existant Logos to Jesus the son of Mary. Considering the slender

range of language and ideas then available for the task, I think that John did a rather good job of it.

Which is not to say that his words entirely sum up the matter, or in any way exhaust the then contemporary

thinking about exactly what the Logos entailed.

As I've already said, some things pertaining to Divinity can never be fully expressed in human language.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Makes me want to join a free love colony......of course many things make me want to do that.......

reading the newspaper, working out, eating spinach.....I might want to see a therapist about that.

I'm envisioning a future for you in which you are stranded on a desert island with 100 elderly, fat and

ugly women, all of whom wish to initiate you as the first male member into their free love colony....

Uncle "don't forget to brush your teeth first..." Dale

[The Nehor]

I'm envisioning a future for you in which you are stranded on a desert island with 100 elderly, fat and

ugly women, all of whom wish to initiate you as the first male member into their free love colony....

Uncle "don't forget to brush your teeth first..." Dale

I will commit suicide and no man or God would have any right to judge me.

The "preferring 7 virgins in heaven to 100 hags on Earth" Nehor

[Uncle Dale]

I will commit suicide and no man or God would have any right to judge me.

The "preferring 7 virgins in heaven to 100 hags on Earth" Nehor

You and the Baghdad car crash-operatives, eh?

Old hags need love too.....

Yer Unk

[LifeOnaPlate]

Geez, Unk, way to make me have to go and like you.

[consiglieri]

7th graders?

So the council of Nicea was what, some kind of namby pamby boys club?

I'll see you at the next meeting, consig!

Regards!

Take note, Dr. Steuss!

It looks like we have another applicant for the SSCE. Please prepare a suitable initiation ritual.

All the Best!

Captain P. P.

[consiglieri]

It matters if one places their faith, allegiance, trust, and love in the wrong Jesus, yes. Otherwise, why would Jesus warn about a time to come when many would come in his name (Matt. 24:5), and "mislead many"? It is because not all Jesus' are the real thing. There are many false ones. And the person who gets ahold of the wrong Jesus is destined to be deceived, perhaps all the way to the abyss. So yes, it does matter a whole lot.

So the bottom line question I end up thinking is, "Why is PaulD so sure that his carefully wrought Jesus is the right one, and the world full of believers in different versions of Jesus are wrong?"

I read an essay last night in the latest FARMS Review by Faulconer about such attempts at theology; suggesting that these attempts in defining God through theology end up being about ourselves and our own thoughts rather than about God and his reality; and hence end up being a form of verbal idolatry. Food for thought.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Well, that's real caring of you. I ask you question, thinking that maybe you would care enough yourself to answer it, and what do you tell me to do? Go to Helen Hunt.

What does caring have to do with anything?

All we must do is believe in Jesus in the PaulD-approved manner.

All else is futile.

All the Borg!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

That's funny, Isaiah seems to say that our righteous deeds are like dirty rags (in other words not worthy a hill of beans)...

Isaiah 64:6

For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

We are to do works as a RESULT of salvation, not TOWARDS our salvation- big difference.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

Just another Bible contradiction, I suppose.

But thanks for pointing it out, just the same!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

We are to do works as a RESULT of salvation, not TOWARDS our salvation- big difference.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

Actually, there is no difference at all between the two, except in your mind.

Philosphically yours,

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

"In the New Testament revelation and later in Christian theology, "Son of God" came to have a higher significance; Jesus is the Son of God because he is God and partakes of the divine nature."â??George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 160.

Dear PaulD,

I highlighted the section of your quote posted above in hopes that you will see what the author knows but can't quite bring himself to say outright.

Can you guess?

Please answer in the form of a question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

I also read the Falcouner [sp?] piece, and man, it was a nice reminder.

[consiglieri]

I also read the Falcouner [sp?] piece, and man, it was a nice reminder.

I think the insight that systematic (or dogmatic) theology is not just an exercise in futility, but is actually "dangerous," is rendered poignant through the case-in-point of PaulD's posts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

QUOTE(Paul D @ Aug 21 2007, 02:33 PM)

No, what matters with God in becoming a Christian is what the person does with His Son. And if a person has not heard anything, that does not absolve him of his guilt as as sinner, since all have sinned, bar none. Hence, God is always fair and just, and not a respecter of persons, and will grant Chi the rice farmer exactly what he deserves, as He grants all unrepentant sinners what they deserve: a one-way ticket to hell. Now, some my bristle over such a notion, but God does not owe anyone anything, and for Him to do such is once again fair and just, and no one who knows what God has revealed on the matter will question it.

So if all have sinned, which is true enough, then does God have an obligation to his "creations" to lead them to His truth? I question your interpretation on what God has said. The God that I believe in is a God of love, not hate. He came to save not to destroy. He loves us so much that He sent His only begotton son in the flesh, the only perfect being to atone for the sins of the world unto all those who repent and follow Him. He calls Prophets and Apostles and brings forth scripture-the Bible and also modern day scriptures to teach the truth to His children. And no we are not just "defective creatures" that God created out of nothing and that Satan outsmarted God in being able to deceive those "creatures" into "rebelling" against God. But we are His spirit children, created in His image and likeness. So what think ye of this statement:

QUOTE

(Acts 17: 28-29) "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and manâ??s device."

We are His offspring you may interpret that statement anyway you want but it still stands and I say my interpretation is as good as yours anyway. As for Jesus Christ what do you think of this scripture?

QUOTE

(Hebrews 5:8-9) "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"

If Jesus was God from all eternity, how could He "learn obedience" and be "made perfect" if it was not by going from grace to grace?

What aboout the following:

QUOTE

(Philippians 2:5-12) "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 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. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."

This passage indicates that Christ was "exalted" by God and given a name above that is above every other name. The rest of the passage indicates how we also can "work out our salvation." Jesus Christ is the key to exaltation, He was the prototype, He marked out the path that we should follow. He wants us to be like Him and through the atonement of Christ and by repenance and keeping His commandments we can become like Him:

QUOTE

(1 John 3:1-3) "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure."

We are the children of God and if we are purified we shall be like Him.

So nobody here wanted to take a stab at lightbears post, huh. Nice his was propably the most thought out post and had been called upon at least one other time for the critics to respond to. Guess what, they still havent responded. Aaron and PaulD what think you of these passages? 3rd tims is a charm.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Truly. To label such as "idolotry" hadn't ocurred to me, though I should have known better, as per D&C 1:16-17.

They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments...

Calamity, indeed!

Mola Ram: I asked Mr. D about Lightbearer's excellent post, mentioning he hadn't responded to it. He said:

What specifically did you want me to see in that post?

[Lightbearer]

No, what matters with God in becoming a Christian is what the person does with His Son. And if a person has not heard anything, that does not absolve him of his guilt as as sinner, since all have sinned, bar none. Hence, God is always fair and just, and not a respecter of persons, and will grant Chi the rice farmer exactly what he deserves, as He grants all unrepentant sinners what they deserve: a one-way ticket to hell. Now, some my bristle over such a notion, but God does not owe anyone anything, and for Him to do such is once again fair and just, and no one who knows what God has revealed on the matter will question it.

So if all have sinned, which is true enough, then does God have an obligation to his "creations" to lead them to His truth? I question your interpretation on what God has said. The God that I believe in is a God of love, not hate. He came to save not to destroy. He loves us so much that He sent His only begotton son in the flesh, the only perfect being to atone for the sins of the world unto all those who repent and follow Him. He calls Prophets and Apostles and brings forth scripture-the Bible and also modern day scriptures to teach the truth to His children. And no we are not just "defective creatures" that God created out of nothing and that Satan outsmarted God in being able to deceive those "creatures" into "rebelling" against God. But we are His spirit children, created in His image and likeness. So what think ye of this statement:

(Acts 17: