Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is Jesus God!! Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 91 03:41:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Lines: 134 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: Gene begins his argument that Jesus is the Almighty God Jehovah by pointing out that the same desciptive titles are used for both Jesus and Jehovah. His conclusion is that that since two individuals in the Bible share the same *DESCRIPTIVE TITLE*, then you can identify one with the other. >"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have >chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: >before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." > >So Jehovah clearly states that there is no other God -- not even a >little one. But notice what else our God says in the 11th verse of this >chapter: > >"I, even I, am the LORD [YHWH]: and beside me there is no saviour." > >In other words, there is no one who can claim to be our Saviour but God. >Yet we know Jesus as our Saviour. By this reasoning, I would also point out that Othniel, a judge in Israel must be Jehovah also since he too is called a Saviour (Judges 3:9, see also Neh 9:27 where many are called Saviours). The truth is that Jehovah has provided salvation through men (i.e. both Jehovah and the men are called Saviours), as well Jesus Christ(i.e. both Jehovah and Jesus are called Saviours). As for the equating of the *DESCRIPIVE TITLE* "God", Gene answers his own question for me. Thanks Gene! >Then in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we find "ho theos" once again. But this time >it is talking about Satan as "the god [ho theos] of this world" (KJV). >Does this mean that Satan is Jehovah? Exactly, you have pointed out that the term "God" is a desciptive title that is used for many different individuals and things: Literally it means 'mighty one'. This descriptive title is used in reference to the true God Jehovah, the false gods of the nations, it is used in reference to Satan(2Cor 4:4), even power men, judges were called gods(Psa 82:1-6).At Phillipians 3:19 we even see that a persons belly can be called their god. In light of the fact that the Bible uses the *DESCRIPTIVE TITLE* 'god' for even powerful men here on earth, it is not improper to use this title in reference to Jesus Christ, and thus the Bible does. POINT: ------ If a certain tile or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, beacuse both were called "king of kings" (Dan 2:37; Rev 17:14); and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called "the light of the world." (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) On the issue of Polytheism:` --------------------------- Gene states that the New World Translation is teaching polytheism: >The problem with the New World Translation is that it doesn't make sense >from several points. First is the issue of polytheism that I presented >above.... Once again Gene answers the question, by pointing out that the Bible uses the term "God" as a desciptive title: >Then in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we find "ho theos" once again. But this time >it is talking about Satan as "the god [ho theos] of this world" (KJV). >Does this mean that Satan is Jehovah? Exactly, you have pointed out that the term "God" is a desciptive title that is used for many different individuals and things: Literally it means 'mighty one'. This descriptive title is used in reference to the true God Jehovah, the false gods of the nations, it is used in reference to Satan(2Cor 4:4), even power men, judges were called gods(Psa 82:1-6).At Phillipians 3:19 we even see that a persons belly can be called their god. Is this teaching polytheism? In light of the fact that the Bible uses the *DESCRIPTIVE TITLE* 'god' for even powerful men here on earth, it is not improper to use this title in reference to Jesus Christ, and thus the Bible does. >Jesus is God incarnate. He is God the Son. Gene concludes his presentation with the statement "Jesus....is God the Son" If Jesus is God the Son, is it your opinion that right now in heaven, Jesus as "God the Son" has a God that he serves and worships? Yes, or No? If Yes, then are you teaching polytheism anymore that JW's are? If No, then why do the following Scriptures say he does? After he had returned to his heavenly glory, *Jesus had a God* (Rev 3:12 "*My* God) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, Jesus was under the Headship of *God* 1Cor11:3 Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep [I think the orthodox answer to your last question is yes, although you should understand that because the Son has two natures, there's the possibility of two slightly different answers. The orthodox claim is that the Son has two different forms of existence, as the divine Logos, and as a human being. In both of his natures, the Son is dependent upon the Father, but this dependence is shown in different ways, as as appropriate to the two natures. I would say that in his humanity the Son serves and worships God, even after the Resurrection. I'd say this because Jesus is said a number of times in the NT to be the "firstfruits" of the same resurrection that all of us will experience. Jesus continues to be a model for us even after our death. In his divine nature, the Son is still dependent upon the Father and serves him. I think it would strike most Christians as odd to say that the Logos worships the Father, because the members of the Trinity presumably have a much tighter mode of communication than what we think of as worship. Yet I think we should view our worship as being in some way modelled after the relationship between Father and Son, even if because of the difference between us and God, the human experience of it is more indirect. Thus I'd say that worship is the human experience corresponding to the relationship between the Father and Son in eternity. I think this is suggested by John 14 and 15, etc. However for most of us the similarity may be fairly weak, simply because of the many roadblocks between us and God. For Christ's human existence this would of course not be true. As to whether this implies polytheism, the answer is no. The Trinitarian concept is that the relationship of Father to Son is intrinsic to God. It does not require a separate creature. To us this is the implication of saying that "God is love" (I John 4). Love is a relationship. God didn't have to create the world, or some other creature, before he could love. In Christ we see the human face of God's love, but it's the same love that has been in him all along. --clh]