There are a few stumbling blocks to people coming to Christianity. But one of the larger stumbling blocks is the idea of the Trinity –
One God in three persons – Each is same in substance; Equal in Power, and Equal in Glory. (I believe this comes from the Westminster Confession.)
I think the real problem of accepting the idea of the Trinity is accepting that Jesus is God. Although all four of the Gospels repeatedly refer to Jesus as the "Son of God" (The Gospels refer to Jesus as the 'Son of God 28 times – here are examples from each of the Gospels: Matthew 26:63-64; Mark 1:1; Luke 3:38; and John 1:34. Some may consider this description of Jesus being the 'Son of God' somehow means that Jesus is less than God the Father. This understanding is wrong. Jesus is fully Divine, equal to God, yet fully human. The purpose of this post is to show the Biblical support that shows Jesus is not only fully human, but also fully God. The Divine Jesus is:
Jesus is Fully Human. Two great verses showing this –
First, Galatians 4:4 (
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law – (ESV)); and,
Hebrews 2:17 (Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people. (NLT)).
And so, these verses show Jesus was but a man born of a woman (Galatians 4:4), and that He was in every respect like every other person (Hebrews 2:17). OK, I hope you are still with me. Let's get to the real question now – Is Jesus really God, not just a child of God?
Jesus is Fully God. Several verses show that Jesus is Divine, the visible picture of the invisible God. Here are several of many verses showing the Divinity of Jesus (from the NIV):
Hebrews 1:3 -
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being…;
John 1:1 – In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God. And the Word was God.
John 8:58-59: "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.. (I AM is the Holy Name of God, which is why the Pharisees tried to stone Him, because they thought Jesus committed blasphemy.)
Phil. 2:9-11 - Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Lordship only belongs to God.)
Colossians 1:15 - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
And there are more verses that show that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but God with us (Emmanuel), God in the flesh. But I think I've made my point. And so, my hope is this helps you in better understanding the nature of Jesus. Jesus is the only fully pure and righteous Man to have lived. And by His righteousness through faith we can receive and have credited to us His righteousness. This is the only way to God (John 14:6). Thanks be to our Lord and Savior Jesus, Who is fully Man and fully God.
4 comments:
Hmmph... I can claim to be fully hamster and fully clock tower, all while still being fully human.
But if I can't run on all fours in a wheel, and I can't make sounds like Big Ben, but I do fall over dead when someone shoots me, I guess that about does it for the rodent and the Timex...
Seriously, this has always looked like nothing more than an attempt to string several rather minor, regional deities into one Ubergod through the plain old machinations of myth formation. It has always had the faint whiff of politics about it... The ghost of some ancient king's Minister of Propaganda is STILL laughing about how well his scheme worked out.
Either way, by ancient conspiracy or the simple confluence of generations of story-telling, this is still clearly an attempt to disguise a pantheon as a monotheist religion. But that dog won't hunt, and you can't fit a round peg into a square hole, and birds of a feather flock together. Mystery mostly solved.
:-)
~Ed~
(aka Sherlock-Freakin'-Holmes)
What leads one to believe that Luke 3:23-31 is the genealogy of Mary? Every one of the 5 Bible versions i checked clearly states that is the lineage of Joseph, yet several on-line sources state that is actually Mary's lineage.
It occurs to me that one of the reasons for the "fully man and fully god" riff is that this is the only way Jesus can claim David as an ancestor, and thus fulfill that crucial prophecy. Now just why would this make my mythological and/or political opportunist Spidey-Sense start to tingle?
~E~
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your thoughts. On your first comment, let me you a quick question:
If everything written about Jesus in the Bible is true, how do you reconcile these verses - Jesus is the exact representation of God (Hebrews 1:3); He is the I AM (meaning Yahweh), (John 8:58-59); yet He is fully man (Hebrews 2:17).
If you take these verses seriously, do you see how the Old Testament prophecy by Isaiah is only filled in one man - that there is a man entitled Immanuel which means 'God with us'. That Jesus' divinity means that God has walked on the streets of earth with us, in the form of Jesus of Nazareth.
How else do you read these verses?
Hebrews 1:3 speaks of the Son as representing, not being, God. It also clearly states that the Son will sit NEXT to God. Clearly the two are separate beings.
John 8:58-59 sounds to me like either A) A man who could use some psychiatric care (seriously - many holy men have turned out to be merely insane) B) A man telling the Big Lie to gain credibility C) Revisionist history by some storyteller trying to connect dots that don't really fit.
Hebrews 2:17 suggests that Jesus had human vulnerabilities.
"If everything written about Jesus in the Bible is true, how do you reconcile these verses...?"
They don't really need reconciling, but if they meant what you wanted them to mean, then they would be unreconcilable, thus proving that your primary assumption is false.
Congratulations... You have just formulated an indirect proof of the non-existence of your God in his most commonly presented form.
:-)
~E~
Post a Comment