Evidence for God from Science

1 Peter 1:3, 1 Corinthians 1:3, and Ephesians 1:3 and Ephesians 1:17

All talk about Jesus having a God...?

How could Jesus have a God...if he is God?

(Note: It doesn't say "His Father, God" , you can look it up. It says His God)


I'm just really confused by this...it's weird, because I know Jesus is God still, but these verses just seem a bit odd. Any answers?

Hi zackabba1!

In short (and without reading the entire passage).

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The scripture above (1 Peter 1:3) and scriptures like it, basically give thanks to God for entering the world as Jesus (the Man God) and for offering salvation to all.

God (as it is used in the scripture above) is the name of I Am’s species.

God is Jesus’ Father, not Joseph (Mary’s husband), so they are right to say that God is the Father of Jesus.

So it is something like saying-Blessed be the man and father of our new member zackabba1, thanks to his (fathers) great love for kids, we have the fortune (because you were born) of reading and thinking on this terrific question.

So basically they are praising Jesus and the glorious cause of his birth for the gift of salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:3 Puts Jesus in the same class as God, makes His status known and points to God (Jesus) as the power and authority behind the disciples actions.

Ephesians 1:3 is the same as 1 Peter 1:3 and Ephesians 1:17 is basically the same as 1 Corinthians 1:3, It points to God the Father as the power and authority behind Jesus.

Remember, during the time Jesus was on earth, the idea that He was God was not popular and it was blasphemous to many. So they are just making the connection between Jesus the man God and the Father God.

If a messenger says- In the name of King David, I command you to open this door! It means that he is acting on behalf of the King, having full authority to carry out his mission using the kings name and power and he is to be respected just as if the King himself were delivering the message, or heads will roll.

So in the case of Ephesians 1:17, saying that God the Father is Jesus’ God means that Jesus acts on earth with the power and authority of the God who sent Him, He is to be seen as and respected as God. Also, they are saying that they act on Jesus’ behalf who acts on God’s behalf, therefore, they act on God’s behalf.

In short, to all us humans, Lord Jesus is God (and he is too).

Just the disciples identifying Jesus as God and acting under His power and authority.

Phil 2:5-11

Jesus is fully God and fully Human. In the context of his humanity he relates to God the Father on the same basis as we do and this is part of His intent in setting apart the privileges of His Deity in order to fully identify with us in our Humanity.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Phil 2:5-11

Jesus is fully God and fully Human. In the context of his humanity he relates to God the Father on the same basis as we do and this is part of His intent in setting apart the privileges of His Deity in order to fully identify with us in our Humanity.

Hi Bart, that passage (Phil 2:5-11) can be taken several ways and it seems that almost every bible interprets it differently, It’s ridiculous really…

Here is the King James……

Phil 2:5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

(The New King James Version) Philippians 2:6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,

(New American Standard Bible) Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

(International Standard Version) Philippians 2:6 In God's own form existed he, and shared with God equality, deemed nothing needed grasping.

(GOD'S WORD Translation) Philippians 2:6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.

(American Standard Version) Philippians 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,

(Bible in Basic English) Philippians 2:6 To whom, though himself in the form of God, it did not seem that to take for oneself was to be like God;

It is most likely that the passage means that Jesus, who thought of Himself as being equal to God and in fact exist in heaven in the true form of God, took how people would perceive His human body into consideration, knowing that they would see and relate to Him as a human. So because of His form and how He would be perceived, He made no reputation for Himself as being a reflection of God/100% equal to God (all that God truly is) and instead (due to his form and how others would perceive Him) He humbled Himself and acted as a servant in order to set an example of how humans (someone who looks like the type of being Jesus is) should behave towards God.

And then the disciple goes on to use Jesus as his example to show how God is pleased and rewards beings that are of the same species (humans) as Jesus should they act in the manner Jesus did (Phil 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus)-Each according to their own works of course.

Never mind the translations. I've examined this pretty extensively in the koine greek.

Many actually believe that this was a Christological hymn in the early church. As such, that may be an indicator that it shouldn't be tightly constucted and rendered in meaning as most of Paul's other writings. Paul was a very careful and deliberate author who said what he meant. Even if this was not of his construction and was a quote of said Christological hymn it would still follow that Paul believed it well suited his purpose.

The purpose is introduced in vs. 5. What follows then focuses upon the attitude of Christ, who being in the form (the very stuff of God is what is meant here I believe, meaning there was no difference between Christ and God, they are one and the same) of God. The rest of the passage uses the word and the image of 'emptying" meaning that Jesus never ceased to be God but rather, in order to become Human in a very real sense, emptied or set aside many things voluntarily.

When it refers to "grasped" it's not speaking in the sense of Jesus aspiring to become more than human to become God (which is the way Mormons and some other cults view this) it is in the sense of Jesus releasing or emptying what he already had and was in order to become like man. He started as God and became Man, not the other way around.

His Deity is eternal. That has no start or finish. His Humanity does have a start, namely the incarnation (literally becoming flesh).

HI Bart!

Canuckster1127 wrote:Never mind the translations. I've examined this pretty extensively in the koine greek.

Hey…LOL!…The people who wrote those bible translations understand greek and examined the text extensively as well..lol.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Many actually believe that this was a Christological hymn in the early church. As such, that may be an indicator that it shouldn't be tightly constructed and rendered in meaning as most of Paul's other writings. Paul was a very careful and deliberate author who said what he meant. Even if this was not of his construction and was a quote of said Christological hymn it would still follow that Paul believed it well suited his purpose.

No one can say for a fact that it was a Christological hymn or not, it’s an opinion. But in either case it would not change anything, the disciple used it. But honestly, the scripture looks pretty normal to me and seems to be of the same quality, character and standard as much of the disciples writings.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The purpose is introduced in vs. 5. What follows then focuses upon the attitude of Christ, who being in the form (the very stuff of God is what is meant here I believe, meaning there was no difference between Christ and God, they are one and the same) of God. The rest of the passage uses the word and the image of 'emptying" meaning that Jesus never ceased to be God but rather, in order to become Human in a very real sense, emptied or set aside many things voluntarily.

Taking the full passage into account (and many other biblical elements)…I believe that the disciple was saying that Jesus’ true form consisted of the Father, the Holy Ghost and all that God is in Heaven (God’s true form that is not seen by men looking at Jesus). And even though he is a member of God’s form and knew He was equal with God, He humbled Himself to set an example to show how someone who looks like Him (Human) should behave towards God. That makes the most sense considering the message contained within the scriptures. It makes the point that Jesus was God and knew He was God, He knew of His great power and true nature (as God is in Heaven, In all His heavenly glory) but still He humbled Himself for us humans. So shouldn’t we (humans) who are not equal to God be humble considering the fact that Jesus, who is God (In all His glory), humbled Himself ?

If we take away the point I made above, the passage makes a lot less sense and really loses it’s true meaning.

Canuckster1127 wrote:When it refers to "grasped" it's not speaking in the sense of Jesus aspiring to become more than human to become God (which is the way Mormons and some other cults view this) it is in the sense of Jesus releasing or emptying what he already had and was in order to become like man. He started as God and became Man, not the other way around.

His Deity is eternal. That has no start or finish. His Humanity does have a start, namely the incarnation (literally becoming flesh).

You are not implying that I suggested Jesus was aspiring to become more than human to become God here right? I most certainly did not….

I said nothing with regard to what you were attempting to say or not say. I was simply expounding more upon the passage in question. They key in that passage is the "emptying" and yes, it is in the context of humbling. Not in the sense of humbling in a hierarchical manner of a lesser before one that is greater, but in the sense of an equal, lovingly giving way to another equal.

Hi Bart!

Canuckster1127 wrote:I said nothing with regard to what you were attempting to say or not say. I was simply expounding more upon the passage in question.

Ok, I just wanted to make it clear, I take what I post (concerning interpretations of scripture) seriously, knowing how God feels about His creation and not wanting to cause anyone to be mislead.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The key in that passage is the "emptying" and yes, it is in the context of humbling. Not in the sense of humbling in a hierarchical manner of a lesser before one that is greater, but in the sense of an equal, lovingly giving way to another equal.

Concerning only what you said above, it seems really vague to me. I believe the passage (Phil 2:5-11) says in part (it’s not the full meaning as I described it above) that Jesus set aside some of His privileges, renown, clout etc as God in order to set an example for how beings that have a human appearance should behave towards God.

The only equals concerning the passage (Phil 2:5-11) are Jesus and God, humans are equal to the human appearance of Jesus (we are solely equal to His human form as well) and humans should be equal to the servant role Jesus (who thought of Himself as equal to God) demonstrated for us humans (because that is our place).

Jesus is greater than us (we are not equal to Him), the only equals that lovingly gave way to an equal concerning the passage (Phil 2:5-11) is God giving way to His Human vessel due to Jesus’ appearance, purpose and desire to set an example for humans. So God gave way to Himself, His plan and God’s perspective of His vessel’s (Jesus’) status (Jesus’ rank according to His appearance in relation to where God places Humans among His creations, making the point that no one who has a Human appearance similar to Jesus’ should behave in a way that God does not deem appropriate for humans).

And Humans should lovingly give way to what God demonstrated and considered to be a perfect example of humility that is equal to how Humans should behave towards God.

I’m not 100% clear on your position concerning the passage, but we are all free to believe as we choose.

Hi All,

Then there is added to the above the five verses of Trinity,

Jesus, John.1:1,2,3,4,5.

I prefer ESV. but you pays your money of belief and takes your choice!

I have been prompted in The Spirit to go back four hundred years to King James too,

"In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God."
John.1:1. KJV.

I will let you read the rest for yourselves!

Begotten not made you know! Safe hands and in my old, not so old 1804 Bible it has above this verse 'The divinity, humanity, and office of Jesus Christ.'

Nicely summed up perhaps, The Word never changes, He is always the same!

Yours in Christ,

Colin.

J.Davis wrote:Hi Bart!

Canuckster1127 wrote:I said nothing with regard to what you were attempting to say or not say. I was simply expounding more upon the passage in question.

Ok, I just wanted to make it clear, I take what I post (concerning interpretations of scripture) seriously, knowing how God feels about His creation and not wanting to cause anyone to be mislead.

Canuckster1127 wrote:The key in that passage is the "emptying" and yes, it is in the context of humbling. Not in the sense of humbling in a hierarchical manner of a lesser before one that is greater, but in the sense of an equal, lovingly giving way to another equal.

Concerning only what you said above, it seems really vague to me. I believe the passage (Phil 2:5-11) says in part (it’s not the full meaning as I described it above) that Jesus set aside some of His privileges, renown, clout etc as God in order to set an example for how beings that have a human appearance should behave towards God.

The only equals concerning the passage (Phil 2:5-11) are Jesus and God, humans are equal to the human appearance of Jesus (we are solely equal to His human form as well) and humans should be equal to the servant role Jesus (who thought of Himself as equal to God) demonstrated for us humans (because that is our place).

Jesus is greater than us (we are not equal to Him), the only equals that lovingly gave way to an equal concerning the passage (Phil 2:5-11) is God giving way to His Human vessel due to Jesus’ appearance, purpose and desire to set an example for humans. So God gave way to Himself, His plan and God’s perspective of His vessel’s (Jesus’) status (Jesus’ rank according to His appearance in relation to where God places Humans among His creations, making the point that no one who has a Human appearance similar to Jesus’ should behave in a way that God does not deem appropriate for humans).

And Humans should lovingly give way to what God demonstrated and considered to be a perfect example of humility that is equal to how Humans should behave towards God.

I’m not 100% clear on your position concerning the passage, but we are all free to believe as we choose.

I'm not attempting to provide you with a 100% clear position on the passage so maybe that helps to clear things up.

In Phil 2:7 there is a form of the vern kenoo which is from the root of the word kenosis. This is where the term "emptying" comes from. It's not inferment from the context of the text. It's a direct statement rooted in the etymology of the word.

Even the Wikipedia (which I realize is not the best source but in this context I think it works fine) gives a pretty good background of what I'm trying to say. Jesus never ceased or ceases to be fully God but Jesus willingly emptied himself (literally) of many rights, privileges and attributes that He was fully entitled to maintain as God Himself, in order that He might fully identify with us in our humanity. In one sense, Jesus certainly was our equal in God's sight because God imputes to us positionally the righteousness of Christ. In other senses, of course Jesus is our superior, as we are the body of the Christ and Christ is the head. Part of the problem I see with some of our theology is that we insist upon universal applications of Scriptural principles where it's clear in some cases there is an analogy being given in order to help us understand by means of revelation something about God, the Trinity, the relationship between God within the 3 members of the Godhead, the relationship of the Church to Christ etc. Many times these are referred to as mysteries or the deep things of God. It's inevitable that the analogies when drawn beyond the context they are given are going to break down and even at time conflict, because their purpose is not philosophically or scientifically precise. Their purpose is to draw an anaology for the purpose of the passage in question.

So, as you note, the primary theme of this Kenotic Hymn as it's commonly known, is to first and foremost call us to humility on the basis of the example of Christ. It remains however, that the Christological hymn that follows is a clear understanding of the early Church's belief that Christ was indeed fully God while setting aside those things which were necessary to identify Him with us as fully human.

This is not anything new from me. You can google "Kenotic" (for the emptying element of Christ and the 4 other places in the NT where a form of the word is used) or you can google "Hypostatic Union" if you want to look more closely at it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm not attempting to provide you with a 100% clear position on the passage so maybe that helps to clear things up.

I’m not surprised… Your pervious responses show a lack of understanding and spiritual insight. I was beginning to think that you lacked the mental capacity to grasp the truth behind this passage. It’s good to know that you were not putting any real effort into those embarrassing post of yours Bart, I’m glad to hear it, thanks for clearing that up.

But honestly Bart…It’s a little rude and quite unbecoming of an Admin, intentionally posting incoherent statements and potentially misleading the viewers of this forum is no way for someone in your position to act….unbecoming Bart…very unbecoming of you.

Canuckster1127 wrote:In Phil 2:7 there is a form of the vern kenoo which is from the root of the word kenosis. This is where the term "emptying" comes from. It's not inferment from the context of the text. It's a direct statement rooted in the etymology of the word.

And yet you continue with this behavior….

I understand your intentions concerning the use of the word emptying, I believe there are better ways to make the truth behind the passage clear, just my opinion.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Even the Wikipedia (which I realize is not the best source but in this context I think it works fine) gives a pretty good background of what I'm trying to say. Jesus never ceased or ceases to be fully God but Jesus willingly emptied himself (literally) of many rights, privileges and attributes that He was fully entitled to maintain as God Himself, in order that He might fully identify with us in our humanity. In one sense, Jesus certainly was our equal in God's sight because God imputes to us positionally the righteousness of Christ. In other senses, of course Jesus is our superior, as we are the body of the Christ and Christ is the head. Part of the problem I see with some of our theology is that we insist upon universal applications of Scriptural principles where it's clear in some cases there is an analogy being given in order to help us understand by means of revelation something about God, the Trinity, the relationship between God within the 3 members of the Godhead, the relationship of the Church to Christ etc. Many times these are referred to as mysteries or the deep things of God. It's inevitable that the analogies when drawn beyond the context they are given are going to break down and even at time conflict, because their purpose is not philosophically or scientifically precise. Their purpose is to draw an anaology for the purpose of the passage in question.

So, as you note, the primary theme of this Kenotic Hymn as it's commonly known, is to first and foremost call us to humility on the basis of the example of Christ. It remains however, that the Christological hymn that follows is a clear understanding of the early Church's belief that Christ was indeed fully God while setting aside those things which were necessary to identify Him with us as fully human.

This is not anything new from me. You can google "Kenotic" (for the emptying element of Christ and the 4 other places in the NT where a form of the word is used) or you can google "Hypostatic Union" if you want to look more closely at it.

Now you are saying almost exactly what I have been saying in this thread, good call. But I do not believe the passage was meant to be a hymn at all, earlier you said Christological hymn, kenotic closely (not fully) fits some elements of the passage but that is not the main point the disciple was making, many just take that point alone (kenotic, meaning a partial relinquishing of divinity to become a man) and do not grasp the reasons Jesus humbled Himself or the reasons the disciple mentioned it. Jesus never became only a man outwardly (he only looked like (just) a man to the humans looking at Him, I‘m know you know that). Nor did He become a man on the inside (He thought of Himself as equal with God). And he did not humble himself to be one of us, only to show us the proper behavior for a human.

He mainly gave up His right to be publicly recognized as the God I Am (all that He is), which would have given Him serious reverence and praise from the Humans (especially the Jews) He loved so much. God simply felt it was better to be humble when walking on earth before humans in His human vessel, to set a good example for His beloved humans (Instead of saying…I AM GOD! Praise me or witness the full force of My POWER!), It’s AWESOME really! But He still walked on water, turned water to wine, multiplied fish and bread, performed countless miracles, allowed the disciples to recognize Him as God and eventually was killed for admitting He was God. He just wanted to demonstrate acceptable morality for humans the majority of the time, so mostly, His moral code (or moral status) became human according to His standards. And the passage in question specifically addresses humility (I know you agree with that).

I was only concerned about this line, which is the same as your first post…

in order that He might fully identify with us in our humanity.

This is your first post..

Canuckster1127 wrote:Phil 2:5-11

Jesus is fully God and fully Human. In the context of his humanity he relates to God the Father on the same basis as we do and this is part of His intent in setting apart the privileges of His Deity in order to fully identify with us in our Humanity.

That interpretation of the passage leaves out the overall purpose for the passage (which is ok only in some cases) and I do not feel that it is an accurate interpretation of the part of the passage it relates to. Also, your use of the passage and statement has the potential to contradict my first post (even if that was not your intentions) if it is perceived the way it seems it is written and combined with what I believe is a poor interpretation of the passage on the New American Standard Bible‘s (the bible this forum uses) part.

So that was the only part, we agree with most things concerning this and as I said, I’m fine if what you typed is what you believe.

J. Davis,

You're welcome to disagree with me or question my judgement.

I’m not surprised… Your pervious responses show a lack of understanding and spiritual insight. I was beginning to think that you lacked the mental capacity to grasp the truth behind this passage. It’s good to know that you were not putting any real effort into those embarrassing post of yours Bart, I’m glad to hear it, thanks for clearing that up.

This is a personal attack and simply condescending and rude and I don't appreciate it and if someone were to speak to you in this manner and I saw it, I would call them on it, as I am now calling you on it, in the same venue that the comment was made.

Please examine the Discussion Guidelines of the board and in particular the elements relating to pesonal attacks versus disagreement.

When I'm ready to make your agreement or disageement with my understandings on positions of this nature the standard I work from, I'll let you know.

Thank you,

Bart

J.Davis wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm not attempting to provide you with a 100% clear position on the passage so maybe that helps to clear things up.

I’m not surprised… Your pervious responses show a lack of understanding and spiritual insight. I was beginning to think that you lacked the mental capacity to grasp the truth behind this passage. It’s good to know that you were not putting any real effort into those embarrassing post of yours Bart, I’m glad to hear it, thanks for clearing that up.

But honestly Bart…It’s a little rude and quite unbecoming of an Admin, intentionally posting incoherent statements and potentially misleading the viewers of this forum is no way for someone in your position to act….unbecoming Bart…very unbecoming of you.

I'm not exactly certain what happened here J that prompted you to go off on a tangent like that. I am used to reading strong opinions in your posts but also great levelheadedness so I will attribute this to a momentary lapse of judgment and remind you as Bart did of the discussion guidelines. This was uncalled for and way out of line, please rethink it.

Canuckster1127 wrote:J. Davis,

You're welcome to disagree with me or question my judgement.

I’m not surprised… Your pervious responses show a lack of understanding and spiritual insight. I was beginning to think that you lacked the mental capacity to grasp the truth behind this passage. It’s good to know that you were not putting any real effort into those embarrassing post of yours Bart, I’m glad to hear it, thanks for clearing that up.

This is a personal attack and simply condescending and rude and I don't appreciate it and if someone were to speak to you in this manner and I saw it, I would call them on it, as I am now calling you on it, in the same venue that the comment was made.

Please examine the Discussion Guidelines of the board and in particular the elements relating to pesonal attacks versus disagreement.

When I'm ready to make your agreement or disageement with my understandings on positions of this nature the standard I work from, I'll let you know.

Thank you,

Bart

Bart, come on now…. you know good and well that it was only friendly banter said in the spirit of debating, no different then two guys taking shots at each other during a friendly sparring match. And you dealt the first blow, it’s only proper debating conduct for me to return the favor.

You Said….

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm not attempting to provide you with a 100% clear position on the passage so maybe that helps to clear things up.

What could your statement towards me, followed by the customary smile and wink, which is an emblem of modern day debating banter have meant other than what is clear to me to be a playful shot at my understanding and interpretation of the passage (it had a dual meaning). I simply returned the favor in the spirit of debating, and I could have claimed foul play as well but due to your level of skill and understanding of the sport, felt you could handle my play. Come on Bart, admit it, it was a sweet move .. And you did leave yourself open for it… you are trying to claim moral leverage here but you know I have it, you dealt the first blow Bart.

Honestly, I am giving you a lot of respect as an Admin here, and you deserve it, you are excellent at what you do and I really enjoy your post.

I have absolutely no intentions of taking this to a level that could cause future ill feelings nor was that my intent at all. I am sorry if I truly offended you Bart, just being a debater.

But Bart, we both know that many will not understand much of the deeper meaning in this discussion or grasp the meaning of many biblical elements. They will simply consider the parts they understand along with each statement the participants concede towards one another and draw a conclusion that because one conceded, the other is right, and that is not always true. Then they may believe the false parts of the discussion they do understand. That is why the disciples said to correct those who are wrong concerning the gospel one or two times, but if they don’t agree, have nothing to do with them. Because if you do, those watching will consider that the wrong person has the same beliefs as the Christians he hangs outs with, and they approve of him, therefore, what he speaks should be considered concerning the gospel. I am not saying that this matter is that serious and I have no intentions of having nothing to do with you, you are an excellent Christian.

But I am saying that (as I said earlier) I take what I post (concerning interpretations of scripture) seriously, knowing how God feels about His creation and not wanting to cause anyone to be mislead.

In many cases I am fine with not commenting, people are free to believe as they wish in all cases. But if I give what I feel to be an accurate interpretation of scripture then I want to do my best to honor God. People will still think what they want but I am accountable for what I say to God’s creation and I know to much for God not to expect good effort from me (and he will). I just want to do my best to be right, not feel right.

I hope we are ok concerning this matter and know that I have much respect for your online character Bart. But I do think that anything that strays to far away form what we have already discussed concerning the passage will be going in the wrong direction.

J.Davis.

J. Davis,

I'm generally pretty good at picking up tone and inference and I will take your word for it that this was intended as "banter." I don't believe a reasonable person reading it would pick it up as such, and given the depth of the comments it really surprised me and felt like a personal attack. I don't see at all how you get that response from what you cite from me as being of the same nature. I sincerely wasn't trying to give a Theological Paper and discourse and further, as I went on to explain in the large portion of text that you passed over following this, my point was too that presenting an air-tight logical presentation for the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union or the Kenotic elements of the Phil 2:5-11 passage is impossible given the mystery that surrounds these issues and our limited ability to comprehend them at that level.

I take what I post seriously as well. I also stand by what I've posted as relevant to the conversation and exegetical to the text.

bart