Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?

[JonC]

So you believe that deity "grew in wisdom and in knowledge"? You believe that omnipotent deity grew tired and wearied?

Yes. I believe that God grew in wisdom and in knowledge, grew tired and wearied. I believe this is a part of what it means that Jesus humbled Himself.

So how do you explain the human Jesus sitting down on the "right hand of the Father" if all the Godhead, the fullness is inseparable from the humanity of Christ? Should not he be the one sitting on the throne alone since the "fullness" dwells in that body?

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that all the fullness of God dwells bodily in Christ (Col. 2:9) and not in the Father and Spirit. There are distinct Persons of the Trinity. What I see as problematic is that you seem to affirm the Trinity in one direction (Father, Son, and Spirit are God) but not in the other (God is Father, God is Son, God is Spirit).

So, in essence you confine the Father and the Spirit within the incarnate body of Jesus from Nazareth for eternity as the "one true God"????

No. In essence I believe that when we look upon Christ we look upon God (not less-than God, not a sliver of God, not 1/3 God…but the One True God). And I believe we can only know the One True God through Christ - trying to sneak around the back door to gain knowledge of the Father’s work results in philosophy, not theology.

 

[The Biblicist]

And now God has a resurrected body.

I think that this is part of our disagreement where we will never really see eye to eye.

Since, you have God eternally confined to the body of Jesus Christ, please explain why this view is nothing more than a variant form of modalism? Does not this view require the incarnation of the Father as well as the Spirit to eternal union with flesh if the whole Godhead dwells bodily in Christ?

 

[JonC]

Since, you have God eternally confined to the body of Jesus Christ, please explain why this view is nothing more than a variant form of modalism? Does not this view require the incarnation of the Father as well as the Spirit to eternal union with flesh if the whole Godhead dwells bodily in Christ?

Sure.

First, I don't have God eternally confined to the body of Jesus Christ. Paul is the one who said that all the fullness of God dwells bodily in Christ. And this is post-Resurrection (as is Paul's context in Col. 2).

Second, God is not confined. This is not a variant of modalism because it is actually Scripture. There is One True God and this One True God is 100% present in the Son. This One True God is 100% present in the Father. This One True God is 100% present in the Spirit. This is God in three Persons.

I believe the problem is that you (from my understanding) may be looking at God in human terms. Jesus can't be God/man (100%God and 100% man) except that He is God with a body.

Can you please explain how this is not a form of neo-Docetism?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes. I believe that God grew in wisdom and in knowledge, grew tired and wearied. I believe this is a part of what it means that Jesus humbled Himself.

Please answer the following questions directly!

1. Was the preincarnate God omniscient? Or was he growing in wisdom and knowledge?
2. Was the preincarnate God omnipotent? Or did he grow weary and need sustance to survive drawn from outside his own being?
3. Does the incarnate God mutable? Or grow in wisdom and knowledge?
4. Does the incarnate God non-eternal? Or have a beginning point with regard to his nature (Jn. 1:14 "became" flesh)?

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that all the fullness of God dwells bodily in Christ (Col. 2:9) and not in the Father and Spirit. There are distinct Persons of the Trinity.

I certainly don't want to misunderstand or misrepresent you. But it seems you are contradicting your own logic? First you assert that the entire Godhead, which I assume include the Father and the Spirit dwell bodily in Christ unless they are not part of the Godhead? But I don't understand your distinction. You assert the fullness of God dwells bodily in Christ as the body is the container for this fullness to dwell, so before the incarnation what was the container for the fullness of God in the Son? What is the container for the fullness to dwell in the Father and Spirit that is different from the preincarnate Son? Does the container become God - "the word BECAME flesh" or remains flesh?

What I see as problematic is that you seem to affirm the Trinity in one direction (Father, Son, and Spirit are God) but not in the other (God is Father, God is Son, God is Spirit).

I realize you are simply trying to summarize differences but I would include the definite articles and conjunctions before each name (you probably would also). So, you think that God is changed by reversing the direction? If one accepts the distinction in seats of conscience, persons and manifestations then I see no difference at all. However, if the nature of God changes with the incarnation whereby "the flesh" is added then I see a completely different kind of God becoming than what existed previous to the incarnation, a god that is void of immutability, void of omniscience but was in a state of becoming immutable, becoming omniscient, becoming omnipotent.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure.

First, I don't have God eternally confined to the body of Jesus Christ. Paul is the one who said that all the fullness of God dwells bodily in Christ. And this is post-Resurrection (as is Paul's context in Col. 2).

It is interesting your choice of words that you do not use. You do not say "I don't have the fullness of the Godhead confined to the body of Christ" but rather "I don't have God eternally confined to the body of Christ." When previously defining "the fullness of the Godhead" you did include the Father and Spirit as inseparable union within that body.

And this is post-Resurrection (as is Paul's context in Col. 2).

I do not see what a pre- versus a post-resurrection has to do with the nature of God?

Second, God is not confined. This is not a variant of modalism because it is actually Scripture.

You cannot assert that because that is the topic of debate which you first must prove to be the case.

There is One True God and this One True God is 100% present in the Son. This One True God is 100% present in the Father. This One True God is 100% present in the Spirit. This is God in three Persons.

Your logic does not agree with this formula. You have a different God in nature in the preincarnate Son than in the post-incarnate Son! You have a preincarnate God in the person of the preincarnate Son that is immutable, omniscient, omnipotent but that is not the incarnate God in the person of the incarnate Son who is mutable in knowledge, power and eternity (as the flesh as a beginning point). They are not the one and same God in nature with regard to the Son and thus the nature of God cannot be changed with regard to one Person as they are inseparable with regard to what makes God to be God. Thus, your logic leads you to include the new incarnate nature of God as coequally shared by the Father and the Spirit or else the Son has a different God nature than the Father and the Spirit. Your logic necessarily leads to modualism as it demands that the nature of God the Father, nature of God the Spirit is coequal to the nature of God the Son which now includes humanity and so all three must coequally be human in nature UNLESS the humanity can be distinguished from God nature. Which is it?

 

[JonC]

Please answer the following questions directly!

1. Was the preincarnate God omniscient? Or was he growing in wisdom and knowledge?
2. Was the preincarnate God omnipotent? Or did he grow weary and need sustance to survive drawn from outside his own being?
3. Does the incarnate God mutable? Or grow in wisdom and knowledge?
4. Does the incarnate God non-eternal? Or have a beginning point with regard to his nature (Jn. 1:14 "became" flesh)?

1. The Logos is omniscient. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.
2. The Logos is omnipotent. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.
3. The Logos is immutable. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.
4. The Logos is eternal. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.

 

[JonC]

It is interesting your choice of words that you do not use. You do not say "I don't have the fullness of the Godhead confined to the body of Christ" but rather "I don't have God eternally confined to the body of Christ." When previously defining "the fullness of the Godhead" you did include the Father and Spirit as inseparable union within that body.

It isn't that interesting (you are inferring more from my statement than is really there). I just responded. If it helps - I do not have the fullness of the Godhead confined to the body of Christ. I believe that "God" implies the "Godhead".

I do not see what a pre- versus a post-resurrection has to do with the nature of God?

It has nothing to do with the nature of God. It has to do with the nature of man.

You cannot assert that because that is the topic of debate which you first must prove to be the case.

No. You need to prove that God IS confined - or at least make a very plain claim for me to work off of because Scripture does not present God as being confined. God is free.

Your logic does not agree with this formula. You have a different God in nature in the preincarnate Son than in the post-incarnate Son!

No, I don't. I believe that Jesus is God. But I also believe that God is the Son; God is the Father; and God is the Spirit. They are all fully God and God is fully revealed in their Persons. There is nothing missing from the Father, Son or Spirit.

You may not understand how I agree with that formula, but you are not justified in the claim that I don't (because I just stated to you that I did).

 

[The Biblicist]

1. The Logos is omniscient. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.
2. The Logos is omnipotent. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.
3. The Logos is immutable. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.
4. The Logos is eternal. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature.

Again, your wording is interesting but I believe misleading and irrational. For examle, let me reword your statement as follows that reflects the truth of your position as I see it:

1. The Logos is omniscient. Humbling Himself to become a non-omniscient man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.
2. The Logos is omnipotent. Humbling Himself to become a non-omnipotent man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.
3. The Logos is immutable. Humbling Himself to become a mutable man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.
4. The Logos is eternal. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

It has nothing to do with the nature of God. It has to do with the nature of man.

One question. In your view did the humanity become united to God the Son's nature, thus one with his nature before or after the resurrection?

 

[JonC]

One question. In your view did the humanity become united to God the Son's nature, thus one with his nature before or after the resurrection?

Before.

 

[The Biblicist]

JonC said: ↑
What I see as problematic is that you seem to affirm the Trinity in one direction (Father, Son, and Spirit are God) but not in the other (God is Father, God is Son, God is Spirit).

I realize you are simply trying to summarize differences but I would include the definite articles and conjunctions before each name (you probably would also). So, you think that God is changed by reversing the direction? If one accepts the distinction in seats of conscience, persons and manifestations then I see no difference at all. However, if the nature of God changes with the incarnation whereby "the flesh" is added then I see a completely different kind of God becoming than what existed previous to the incarnation, a god that is void of immutability, void of omniscience but was in a state of becoming immutable, becoming omniscient, becoming omnipotent.

 

[The Biblicist]

Before.

So, what is your point in making the distinction that Paul said this after the resurrection if the same was true before the resurrection?

 

[JonC]

Again, your wording is interesting but I believe misleading and irrational. For examle, let me reword your statement as follows that reflects the truth of your position as I see it:

1. The Logos is omniscient. Humbling Himself to become a non-omniscient man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.
2. The Logos is omnipotent. Humbling Himself to become a non-omnipotent man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.
3. The Logos is immutable. Humbling Himself to become a mutable man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.
4. The Logos is eternal. Humbling Himself to become man did not change His nature but his humanity became inseparable with his nature.

I think this is because you are attaching your conclusions to my statements. I do not believe the Logos' nature changed when he became flesh. The difference is, perhaps, in what we view as "nature". Jesus' nature never changed (he is immutable).

 

[JonC]

JonC said: ↑
What I see as problematic is that you seem to affirm the Trinity in one direction (Father, Son, and Spirit are God) but not in the other (God is Father, God is Son, God is Spirit).

I realize you are simply trying to summarize differences but I would include the definite articles and conjunctions before each name (you probably would also). So, you think that God is changed by reversing the direction? If one accepts the distinction in seats of conscience, persons and manifestations then I see no difference at all. However, if the nature of God changes with the incarnation whereby "the flesh" is added then I see a completely different kind of God becoming than what existed previous to the incarnation, a god that is void of immutability, void of omniscience but was in a state of becoming immutable, becoming omniscient, becoming omnipotent.

I think that God is NOT changed by reversing direction. The fullness of God dwells in the Son. The fullness of God dwells in the Spirit. The fullness of God dwells in the Son. To know any is to know God, but man can only know God through Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you please explain how this is not a form of neo-Docetism?

Sure,

I never stated anything that denied the actual humanity or real existence of his physical body but quite the reverse as I demanded the continued existence of his actual humanity but a mergence of humanity with deity is not humanity or deity but a hybrid new God nature that had no eternal existence as opposed to the immutable eternal nature of God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think this is because you are attaching your conclusions to my statements. I do not believe the Logos' nature changed when he became flesh. The difference is, perhaps, in what we view as "nature". Jesus' nature never changed (he is immutable).

Then what does it mean to become flesh with regard to ONE divine nature? I believe he became flesh in the sense of tabernacling in the flesh but I do not believe the nature of flesh merged with the nature of God as one inseparable nature.

 

[JonC]

Then what does it mean to become flesh with regard to ONE divine nature? I believe he became flesh in the sense of tabernacling in the flesh but I do not believe the nature of flesh merged with the nature of God as one inseparable nature.

I do not believe the Word becoming flesh has any meaning in regard to nature.

 

[JonC]

Then what does it mean to become flesh with regard to ONE divine nature? I believe he became flesh in the sense of tabernacling in the flesh but I do not believe the nature of flesh merged with the nature of God as one inseparable nature.

I do not believe the Word becoming flesh has any meaning in regard to nature.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think that God is NOT changed by reversing direction. The fullness of God dwells in the Son. The fullness of God dwells in the Spirit. The fullness of God dwells in the Son. To know any is to know God, but man can only know God through Christ.

Again, quite a choice of words. You did not say the fullness of God dwells BODILY in the Son. Why is this important? Because the Son existed both prior and after the incarnation but the "bodily" aspect did not. So what is the container for the Godhead prior to the existence of a body? If the whole entire Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) dwelt in bodily form rather than the entire attributes (pleroma) that make God to be God then how can you escape the obvious conclusion to that line of thinking that the entire Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) continue to dwell in a body rather than just the Son of God? Either the term "Godhead" includes all three Persons or it does not. If the meaning is only the PLEROMA or all attribues that make God to be God, whether in the Father, or in the Son or in the Spirit dwell within the body of Christ that is one thing but to claim the Father, Son and Spirit dwell in the body of Christ is quite another thing.

If your view was true then why did it not merely say GOD BECAME FLESH or THE GODHEAD became flesh instead of "the Word became flesh"?

 

[The Biblicist]

I do not believe the Word becoming flesh has any meaning in regard to nature.

Do you then acknowledge that the "word" is of one nature and the "flesh" is of another nature?