The Big, Thick Black Line - Who is Jesus?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Don Guenther on October 2, 2008 at 2:26pm

I'm out of pocket for a few days on vacation.
I have Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. You guys all him as God and not dying for our sins. Gods don't die. I have many many scriptures on the subject. He had to die. He also could have sinned. God is not tempted to sin. To hang on to old beliefs is like never leaving the ICs.
Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Queen on October 4, 2008 at 8:31pm

Chaplain Nik: your contribution is very helpful. The story/narrative of God's loving interaction with humanity is the meta-story that all others fit into. It is easy in these instructions to get so micro that we forget the macro... the big picture of history, and of Jesus in particular. I can't think of who Jesus is without thinking about his OVERARCHING MISSION while on earth. ... I think that is a closely related discussion with his identity.

Chaplain Nik said:

Let me humbly offer my viewpoint through narrative theology, to add to the discussion we have been having through systematic theology (tenets) and biblical theology (verses) about the nature of Jesus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Guenther on October 4, 2008 at 8:32pm

Claudi,
Jesus was tempted and that’s why He can relate to us. To have a Jesus that was not tempted is to have a Jesus that can’t relate to us.
Hbr 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.

God cannot be tempted.
Jam 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Jesus had a free will and chose to do the will of the Father.
Jesus was obedient even to having suffered death on the cross. This is so important for us to internally if we’re to trust God with our lives in everyday living.

Steve,

I don’t see scripture support for saying things like Jesus' flesh died but His spirit lived.
Can you give me scriptural support for this thought? When I say into your hands God I commit my life I give up all hold I have on my life. God resurrected Jesus. Jesus went out of existence when He died. Fortunately for Him God brought Him back to life.
Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don Guenther on October 5, 2008 at 8:27pm

Claudia,
No angle intended. Just straight forward. Crooked men work with very few scriptures and prey on us. They promise us everything even eternal life. Only God can save. We have a debt to pay for our sins and Jesus paid it for us by dying on the cross.
I continue to hear made up stories how he died physically and not spiritually on the cross. This is all nonsense.
I could give lots of scripture showing that God is our Father and that Jesus is our Lord not our God. Look up the doctrine of the trinity and you will find that it was developed over time. It might interest you to know that at the same time Mary was made queen of heaven. Do some research. Paul commended those who checked out what he taught. Have you thoroughly checked out what you’ve been taught?
1Cr 1:1
Paul, called {as} an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
1Cr 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours:
1Cr 1:3
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Cr 1:4
I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,
1Cr 1:5
that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge,
1Cr 1:6
even as the testimony concerning Christ was confirmed in you,
1Cr 1:7
so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Cr 1:8
who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Cr 1:9
God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

My Black line----Straight line to God the Father through Jesus Christ our sin sacrifice.

Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Miguel on October 5, 2008 at 9:09pm

Using False Dilemmas in an argument is an old trick. It is however not an intelligent way to dialog about issues, and certainly not about the issue of Jesus’ Deity.
To use the following false dilemma:
1. God Cannot be tempted, sin or lie: Jas 1:13; Heb 6:17-18
2. Jesus was tempted: Heb 2
3. Jesus isn't divine

Or anything like it can only lead to more deception and untruth. A couple of examples;
1) God cannot be tempted.
2) Father was tempted (Mal 3:15).
3) Father isn't God.

1. God cannot be tempted.
2. Man will not be tempted in heaven
3. Man will become God.

In each case the premises are true but the conclusions are false. This is what occurs when the logical fallacy (informal) of false dilemma is used.

All of your arguments smack of Arianism, which by the way was birthed in the institutional church as well.

Don Guenther said:

Claudi,
Jesus was tempted and that’s why He can relate to us. To have a Jesus that was not tempted is to have a Jesus that can’t relate to us.
Hbr 4:15
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as {we are, yet} without sin.

God cannot be tempted.
Jam 1:13
Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Jesus had a free will and chose to do the will of the Father.
Jesus was obedient even to having suffered death on the cross. This is so important for us to internally if we’re to trust God with our lives in everyday living.

Steve,

I don’t see scripture support for saying things like Jesus' flesh died but His spirit lived.
Can you give me scriptural support for this thought? When I say into your hands God I commit my life I give up all hold I have on my life. God resurrected Jesus. Jesus went out of existence when He died. Fortunately for Him God brought Him back to life.
Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Queen on October 9, 2008 at 8:17pm

Hi Don,

This is what I have at hand on Jesus' nature (divine/human). I maintain the understanding of Jesus' NATURE is something that theologians have wrestles for 2,000 years and will contirnue to wrestle with. I do believe Jesus was - in nature - divine.

He was with God in the beginning and active in creation (John 1.1   In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. )

Also, Jesus and Paul said things that point to Jesus divine nature.. and his human nature:




Matt. 22.41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”

“The son of David,” they replied.

Matt. 22.43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,

Matt. 22.44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.



John 5.18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

John 8.42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me.

Phil. 2.6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Phil. 2.6 who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,


With all due respect to Don and others, I am now moving on to the FUNCTION or WORK of Jesus and away from such a "behind the curtain" discussion.

God bless your quest to follow Jesus here and now!

Don Guenther said:

Michael,
Mal 3:13 “You have criticized me sharply,” 23 says the LORD, “but you ask, ‘How have we criticized you?’ 3:14 You have said, ‘It is useless to serve God. How have we been helped 24 by keeping his requirements and going about like mourners before the LORD who rules over all? 25 3:15 So now we consider the arrogant to be happy; indeed, those who practice evil are successful. 26 In fact, those who challenge 27 God escape!’” Did you even read the context of the passage you misrepresented.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean Steckbeck on October 12, 2008 at 6:23am

As someone who lives in Israel, and this is a heated discussion here among believers and rightfully so, can I suggest something?

We have agreed that:

1.) Yeshua is Messiah.
2.) Yeshua has a divine nature and a physical nature.
3.) Yeshua is the Son of God.
4.) He was born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit.
5.) God is One. (Shema Yisrael)

Within this there are those who believe in the trinity and those who believe Yeshua is not part of "God" , but is divine as God's son.

There are some here who believe the Holy Spirit is a person (third of the trinity) and those who believe it is just God's shekina (dwelling) or the breath of God (ruach).

Since the word trinity is not in the Bible and there is no chapter with intense systematic theology concerning this issue, it is probably something that God gives much grace with.

There are only verses here and there that can be puzzle pieces for both sides to use.
If it was important, God would have made sure there was a chapter with systematic theology concerning the issue.

Only Nicea did this, and of course the Alexandrians disagreed.... so its a discussed debated issue for a long time.

One thing is for sure.... both sides need to embrace each other as brothers in our journey for truth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Interactive on October 12, 2008 at 11:20pm

Hi...this is the admin here.

I've removed a couple of comments (and their related replies...in order to try and keep the discussion clear) from this thread that in my opinion contained extremely unhelpful or derogatory language. Some useful discussion may have been removed when I deleted certain posts. If that was the case then I apologize. I'm only able to delete a whole post...not edit it.

I'm fine with folks disagreeing with each other in a friendly way in keeping with the spirit of the forums...I'm not OK with what I perceive to be personal attacks.

In the future if there are issues in this thread please use the "Report an issue" link at the bottom of the page to let me know about it.

Thanks,

Jon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom LeCompte on October 13, 2008 at 8:02am

Touche

Claudia Labrador said:

And there we have it folks! It is our own depraved behavior/sin nature that forces us into the necessity of exercising rules and/or a hierarchy structure of bringing down the law... how ironic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean Steckbeck on October 13, 2008 at 1:29pm

Claudia,

Even house churches have elders who step in when problems arise.

In Luccerne, elders where in the house church somewhere in the background and not noticeable, when problems arised every couple times a year...then you know who the elders are because they have to "step up to bat."

That being said, I think Jon Dale's moderation is very good. Just like an elder in the house church movement, he stays in the background and only steps in when serious problems arise.

That being said, I think both sides of this argument can afford each other some grace.
Like I said before, as someone who lives in Israel among messianic believers, this argument comes up much more often than a typical denominational Christianity setting in America with both sides of the issue affording each other as brothers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Queen on October 13, 2008 at 4:15pm

Well said, the role of elders (or human leadership by any other name) is a hot topic among the HCSC community.


Sean Steckbeck said:

Claudia,

Even house churches have elders who step in when problems arise.

In Luccerne, elders where in the house church somewhere in the background and not noticeable, when problems arised every couple times a year...then you know who the elders are because they have to "step up to bat."

That being said, I think Jon Dale's moderation is very good. Just like an elder in the house church movement, he stays in the background and only steps in when serious problems arise.

That being said, I think both sides of this argument can afford each other some grace.
Like I said before, as someone who lives in Israel among messianic believers, this argument comes up much more often than a typical denominational Christianity setting in America with both sides of the issue affording each other as brothers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Interactive on October 14, 2008 at 11:38am

Hey Claudia,

If its ok, I'd like to throw my 2 cents in here. Your observation of the variety of leadership structures (from a clear leader to what looks like no leadership at all) within the Simple Church movement is a good one. I've been part of groups that had obvious leaders and also part of groups that from the outside appear to have no leadership at all...and I've seen both work really well...and really poorly.

What I've seen work best in small group setting is something that works more like a healthy family than a corporation.

When our extended family gathers at times like Christmas and Thanksgiving there's not necessarily a clear leader. We all tend to defer to my parents when and if they chose to exert their "Elder" status...but as we've matured they've transitioned their parenting style from being "in charge" (as I still am with my young kids) to exerting the influence they've earned in our lives.

They don't tend to intervene in friendly arguments between the kids. And they don't expect us all to agree (with them or each other) on every issue. That being said, if someone came into our thanksgiving dinner and started being rude and disrespectful of other members of the family, and one of us didn't put a stop to it...I promise you my dad would ask them to behave or leave.

In a Simple Church setting it helps to understand that God is doings things in each of us and we get together to see what he wants to do in our midst. If there is a leader or facilitator, then that persons role is to make sure that everyone takes part (1 Cor 14:26) and that no one person dominates the conversation (including the leader).

So back to the situation here...I outlined the ground rules for conversation in the Introduction to the Forums post called The Spirit of the Forums. We already have over a thousand people participating on SimpleChurch.com (and its growing exponentially), so it's probably not fair to compare a conversation where thousands of people can take part to what happens when a small group gathers. Our desire here is to help people connect with others who are on the same journey. Inevitably there are going to be differences of opinion and a lot of people are already saying things that I probably don't agree with theologically...and I'm fine with that.

What I'm not ok with is people insulting others here or doing what's called flaming. If they can't play nice, I'm going to exert the authority I have here (because I created the site) and ask them to change the way they're acting (not change what they believe) or leave. Exactly the same way you would if someone came into your house and was rude to your family.

As an interesting side note...I've been part of creating several sites like this...with thousands of users...and this is the first time I've ever stepped in and deleted content. In my opinion what was happening here is what we call flaming. Here's a link to the wikipedia definition of flaming.

I'm sorry to have diverted the topic of this thread from its original intent...but these are all good conversations to have...thanks so much for taking part in the discussion here.



Claudia Labrador said:

Also, if the objection to moderation was one of solely pertaining to moderation of doctrine, then I clearly misunderstood. I felt as if the "moderator" initially hoped this could be a self-governing board where all moderation was concerned--thus following a no-need-to-lead format, but he merely introduced a suggestive format for web board etiquette. Once a formal moderation had to be exercised, even in this one instance, I saw also that the self-governing model has the potential to not work so wel

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page