Is it true Paul didn't believe Jesus was God and neither did anyone else in the NT? Why do Christians worship him as God then?
>>18119175Yes, and you will find them coping by butchering the word proskuneó despite it not being exclusively given to God. Christians worship him because they run on a Greco-Roman pagan idea of what godhood entails. Performing miracles means you MUST be God, prophets and angels performing great feats were almost foreign ideas. Instead you had divine parents copulating with mortal women to produce demigods that could do the same. And it wasn't unheard of for these demigods to ascend to full divine status. Which is exactly what they believe about Jesus, first he humbled himself into the form of a lowly servant and then after his death he powered up into his new eternal and yet still human somehow form.
>>18119175Paul never calls Jesus God, that is true, but the Gospel of John basically does call Jesus God. Now, I think John in the version we have it is very late, probably mid 2nd century or so (perhaps someone close to Justin Martyr played a role in editing it?) but it's still in the NT.
>>18119175Because Protestants want to pander to their Muslim masters.
>>18119523the only ones who are slaves to muslims are the cathdox you stupid fuck
>>18119175>wasIs
>>18119552No, was. Jesus and Paul both died.
>>18119549He is a Turk. He lives in WASP Muttland
>>18119175Actually, he doesColossians 1:16-17:>For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.I swear, sometimes the discussion around Paul really is like a bunch of Talmudic rabbis squabbling and splitting hairs amongst themselves to find a flaw.
>>18119606The Greek word translated as "by" there is ἐν, and it actually mainly means "in." In fact the same word is translated as "in" at the end there. And according to most sources the sense in which it could be propery translated as "by" is more instrumental, as in "by means of" rather than in a way that would identify its object as the primary agent as it's commonly used to mean in English. Also, immediately before the quoted excerpt, Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" and immediately after it's said that "in him all the fullness [of God] was pleased to dwell." These characterizations distinguish him from the eternal God rather than identifying him with the eternal God. He is God's instrument, agent, representative, but not quite identical with God or coeternal with God.
>>18119665Another way of interpreting it using the list of definitions given here https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/en might be "Because of him all things were created" which at least in English could identify Jesus as the telos or the point of creation rather than the instrument of creation, though I'm not sure how valid translating it that way would actually be. But given that Valentinus and Marcion somehow apparently read Paul's letters and didn't come away with the conclusion that Jesus was intended by Paul to be the demiurge, I assume there must be some other way of reading the several passages (if with a bit of strain) that would seem to give Jesus some type of demiurgic role.
>>18119665It still says "through him", so "in" doesn't invalidate the context of what Paul is actually saying, and would also go onto to recontextualize what "in" actually means here. See what I mean when people get too lawyerly about exact definitions and then miss the wider scope?
>>18119692>doesn't invalidate the context of what Paul is actually sayingWhat does this mean? "invalidate the context"???"Through him" is also consistent with an interpretation where Jesus is God's instrument of creation.
>>18119705>all things were created through him and for him.The point is that Paul is talking about Jesus, and "all things created" through him. You don't talk about someone who is merely an instrument with that kind of phrasing. An "agent of God" doesn't have that capability. Actually, it's the point of making Jesus and God distinct and the same, which is the nature of the Trinity in the first place. "Through" and "For" is both Father and Son, and Father for Son. The confusion comes from the paradoxical concept of the Trinity, but God makes the impossible possible.
>>18119713>The confusion comes from the paradoxical concept of the TrinityIf there's a nore confusing way to understand something and a less confusing way to understand it, I think the less confusing way is generally seen as the most likely to be correct.
>>18119713>TrinityIt isnt complicated or inscrutable. People (individual elements of the Spirit) collectively identify as the body of Christ (the Son) and so are joined with the Father (whose will be done).Only as one are the three the the one true God. Simple.
>>18119741It's confusing when looked at in literal terms, like saying "a human man splits in three. They're different and the same completely at the same time", but in relation to an infinite God, the paradox is resolved through God's own power and nature. >>18119743I didn't really say complicated, but I can see why it would be confusing to some.
>>18119175No.>>18119409>>18119523>>18119665Enjoy Hell.
>>18119606This is literally Philo's Archangel of many names, or Logos.
>>18119175The Consensus is that Paul did believe Jesus was God and so did most early Christians.What skeptics argue about is that the Gospel of Mark doesn't have high christology.But the belief that Paul had low Christology is a fringe one.Reddit is not representative of things.
>>18119409Jesus was divine in OG christianity. He was a lesser god. I mean how can the supreme God (or a "person" of god participating in the divine essence) be temped by the devil in the wilderness with power over earth. The bible framers are clearly working with this old greco roman style of religion where satan is like the god of earth and the Father well thats like Zeus the Supreme god and Jesus is like a demigod/extension of his divinity on earth>>18119491Gospel John says jesus is divine and like an extension of God using logos theology. Literally the new greco roman philosophical hotness of the 1st century. Read this from John 20>But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.If John was arguing that he was the supreme God he would have said he was trying to show you he was god. Not just the son of God (extension of divinity on earth)either way literally none of this teaches the trinity.
>>18119903>I mean how can the supreme God (or a "person" of god participating in the divine essence) be temped by the devil in the wilderness with power over earth.Because God in the form of Man went through the tribulations of Man and then became the risen Christ. It's not that complicated.
>>18119175>jew seething about Paul thread number six gorillionNo.
paul was a heretic? Christianity makes less sense every day I learn about it
>>18119945No
>>18119888High Christology doesn't only mean Jesus was God. Jesus being a preexistent divine being of some sort (like an angel) also counts, and that seems to what a lot of scholars believe Paul believed.
>>18119945The 'orthodoxy' that won out was only ever larping apostolic succession
>>18119907From Philo's De agricultura passage 51:>He has appointed over them his right Logos and first-born Son, who like a deputy of a great king will take upon himself the care of this sacred herd. For it is said somewhere: Behold I am, I send my messenger before your face to guard you on the route.Hmm, this sounds familiar...
>>18120175Did Philo also predate the concept of equal divinity in a Trinity form and also assume that Jesus would completely upend the idea of the Jewish messiah completely? No, right?
>>18120200>Did Philo also predate the concept of equal divinity in a Trinity formHe's writing this between the 20s and 40s, in either case: yes.>also assume that Jesus would completely upend the idea of the Jewish messiah completelyNo idea what you're talking about, but there is actually evidence indicating Philo thought one of the Logos' names was Jesus (YHWH is salvation).From on the confusion of tounges:>(62) I have also heard of one of the companions of Moses having uttered such a speech as this: "Behold, a man whose name is the East!" A very novel appellatiok indeed, if you consider it spoken of a man whonis compounded of body and soul; but if you look upon it as applied to that incorporeal being who in no respect differs from the divine image, you will then agree that the name of the east has been given to him with grear felicity. (63) For the father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he calls firstborn...Now Philo is quoting Zechariah 6:12 when he talks of "the east". Let's have a look shall we?>Take the silver and gold, make an elaborate crown, and set it on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying: “Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord:"Now in the Greek septuagint it says "ἀνατολή" instead of "branch", which means east, among other things. And whos is the only person who is named in this verse? Well what do you know, Joshua son of Jehozadak, or Jesus son of "God had justified". Now there is a potential controversy here, which is that the passage might have been messed with, and the east would originally have been Zerubbabel, but in the verson Philo has, "the east" would have been identified with Jesus! Another amazing coincidence.
>>18120315I'll also note that Philo assigning the name Jesus (God is salvation) to the logos makes perfect sense, wheras Zerubbabel (seed of Babel) wouldn't fit at all, but that is of course redundant since the latter isn't even in the passage Philo is reading.
>>18120315>He's writing this between the 20s and 40s, in either case: yes.In either case: no. He mentioned no such equal co-existence of divinity, which is why you didn't quote shit from him regarding it. >No idea what you're talking aboutYou don't? That when Philo reconciled the Talmud with his culture's writings, that he didn't write a cent of a messiah defying the Jewish thought of having some powerhouse that would slaughter all the Jew's enemies, and not just humbly submit himself to die on the cross? Didn't breathe a single word about that, did he? >Now Philo is quoting Zechariah 6:12 when he talks of "the east". Let's have a look shall we?So, you're actually using The Old Testament itself to actually justify...The Bible itself, in turn justifying the New Testament. IF the verse in Zecariah was actually from Philo himself, then I could start to give thought to what you're trying to argue. So....yeah, you don't really got anything. I will say that at the very least, you could argue that later Trinitarian thought maybe used Philo's writings as a basis to formulate it, but it didn't originate with him, and even his own writings in turn are using OT for a basis. This copycat angle you're trying to drive is weak.
>>18120466The bible never explicitly teaches trinitarianism, so I don't know what you're talking about.>you don't really got anythingYou think the fact that Philo's logos who is God's agent of creation, the firstborn son of God, and is named Jesus doesn't have any resemblance to the Jesus in Christianity?>This copycat angle you're trying to drive is weak.Not a copycat per-se, it is rather that this Jesus being was already known in some sects of Judaism before Christianity came on the stage.
>>18120480>The bible never explicitly teaches trinitarianism, so I don't know what you're talking about.No, but it can be strongly inferred, that's the point. We started this off with you trying to refute a stance that I went on to push as Trinitarian here: >>18119713 Maybe it was just unfortunate timing on your part, but the point is that if you can't reconcile Paul's writing with any Trinity leanings from Philo, you can't start taking the narrative of him being rip-offed. >>18120480>You think the fact that Philo's logos who is God's agent of creation, the firstborn son of God, and is named Jesus doesn't have any resemblance to the Jesus in Christianity?>You think the fact that Philo's logos who is God's agent of creation, the firstborn son of God, and is named Jesus doesn't have any resemblance to the Jesus in Christianity?The caveat being it being sourced from The Old Testament. The reason why I brought up Jesus subverting the common thought of a Jewish messiah is to bring the point that Philo made no mention of it. Could you argue that "Well, if they ripped off Philo, they could add some extra seasoning with other things?" I guess, but then you would have to argue why. Why completely divert the cultural norm of an understood coming messiah, leave the followers under extreme persecution from a hostile empire, and lay the groundwork for three entities being different and the same at the same time. >Not a copycat per-se, it is rather that this Jesus being was already known in some sects of Judaism before Christianity came on the stage.Could be inspired research and a few that that were sharp enough to catch it out in the OT. You can't really say God was hiding it completely, but there's no real evidence for anybody in these stated sects for nailing Jesus to a T (no pun intended).
>>18119907>Because God in the form of Man went through the tribulations of Man and then became the risen Christ. It's not that complicated.I think this is ad hoc because i understand jesus in christianity to have two natures a human and a divine. It also doesnt address the central implication: the devil offers power to God, as if satan has anything to offer God. When you talk about "God coming in the form of a man" idk if youre making a modalist claim. Did God "turn into" jesus. He "became the risen christ" or did he return to his divine nature. >mutt bapist The story simply works better outside of the trinitarian understanding. The trinitarian understanding empties this of meaning. He's not getting tempted, hes perfect. It's not a struggle at all for him so the significance of him turning the devil down is completely rendered null. If thats not proof christianity doesnt match the bible idk what is
>>18120494>The caveat being it being sourced from The Old TestamentNot quite, Philo and his sect of Platonist jews read the old testament in quite bizzare ways (Paul does something similar, although with a different emphasis) to fit the OT with Platonic philosophy. If the logos was already a known entity of some kind (although not known under such a name ofc) in Judaism before Platonic influence I cannot say, but what is clear is that Philo THOUGHT there were references to the logos in the OT, and the passage I quoted is mearly to show he was known under the name Jesus.>Why completely divert the cultural norm of an understood coming messiahWho knows? We lack a lot of information about the Judaism of the time we'd like to have, but what seems utterly obvious to me is that Jesus' apostles identified him with this Logos-archangel, for some reason.
>>18120544>I think this is ad hoc because i understand jesus in christianity to have two natures a human and a divine. It also doesnt address the central implication: the devil offers power to God, as if satan has anything to offer God. When you talk about "God coming in the form of a man" idk if youre making a modalist claim. Did God "turn into" jesus. He "became the risen christ" or did he return to his divine nature.Here's the thing: Satan, being a spiritual being, recognized Jesus's power, but the line of thought follows as "He knew Jesus was special, but did not know that he was God in emptied form". The strongest evidence we have of this is the crucifixion happening in the first place. Had Satan realized that what he perceived as the "agent of God's defeat" would turn around to be the ultimate victory over him, he would have never allowed it to go through. Paul says as much:1 Corinthians 2:7–8:>But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glorySatan is often referred to as "ruler" and "god" of the world. He's lumped in with the others. As to answer your other question, God emptied himself in the form of Man, in order to share in our experience and transform into the Risen Christ. Why? To become a mediator between man and God, for God has no form but infinity. In sharing with humans, he is now a part of us, bringing the New Covenant into the game. They are now one and the same, and they are not. The Risen Christ is God.
>>18120544The story simply works better outside of the trinitarian understanding. The trinitarian understanding empties this of meaning. He's not getting tempted, hes perfect. It's not a struggle at all for him so the significance of him turning the devil down is completely rendered null. If thats not proof christianity doesnt match the bible idk what isAs for, "getting tempted doesn't matter, he was perfect" isn't exactly the right way to see it. Jesus was Man, and he still felt temptation's pull. It wasn't so much as "Jesus could have been tempted", but rather "This is one who shares with us even the devil's pull" Hebrews 4:15:>For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.”The point was to set an example that in temptation's pull, Christ overcomes and puts that standard for the rest of us. We are to live like Christ, and he's showing us how it can be done. That's why the Trinity is important, because the Holy Spirit is part of Christ and God, and it's our greatest gift, ally, and weapon. It's part of us.
>>18120562>Not quite, Philo and his sect of Platonist jews read the old testament in quite bizzare ways (Paul does something similar, although with a different emphasis) to fit the OT with Platonic philosophy. If the logos was already a known entity of some kind (although not known under such a name ofc) in Judaism before Platonic influence I cannot say, but what is clear is that Philo THOUGHT there were references to the logos in the OT, and the passage I quoted is mearly to show he was known under the name Jesus.That sounds more of the Old Testament leading to that discovery, and in turn God, because in the end, scripture is God breathed. You can give credit to Philo and the others if you want, there's no real problem, but the OT was the one to lead to it. >Who knows? We lack a lot of information about the Judaism of the time we'd like to have, but what seems utterly obvious to me is that Jesus' apostles identified him with this Logos-archangel, for some reason.Well, I suppose that's something you'll have to find for yourself.
>>18119175>is it true that *(insert thing jew wants you to think here)*no. never is, and never will be.
>>18120631But christ being all powerful didnt overcome anything. Christians are borrowing a human for a couple stories then going right back to supreme God status. It was a fake temptation to a man who cant be tempted which is about as powerful as just flat out saying "dont get tempted"Regardless of how paul or any church father fixed this with endless interpretive bable, clearly the framer of a temptation story is not intending for the weak man temped with power to be a supreme god or "person" of God or whatever
>>18119560He is risen.
>>18120702>Didn't overcome anythingHe literally overcame death. Whatever interpretation you want to lay out to discredit Christ to yourself, that's your prerogative, and nobody is going to stop you, but your Philo arguments don't hold much water for a hijacking case, other than credit due to finding the sourced divinity laid by God.
>>18120767I'm the Philo guy, that wasn't me.>a hijacking caseThere was no "hijacking", just a milieu with certian ideas floating around.
>>18120774Oh okay, my bad. Well, I hope something was established or at least considered in this thread...whatever that may be.
>>18119175Paul saw Jesus as a necessary conduit to God. How to classify that is up for debate, but certainly it was open to interpretation enough to allow for something ike the Trinity.
>>18120681>JewYou mean like Paul?
>>18120859>to allow for something like the TrinityAbsolutely not, you cannot read works attributed to Paul and ever come to the conclusion that he believe Jesus was a coequal and coeternal person in the godhead. If you squint you can see him believe that he was a lesser divine being like in John, but still never the God of the OT.
>>18121923Lol I like the "absolutely not" as if we have an open and shut case herePhilippians 2:5-7:>Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.He's flat out saying Jesus was God before taking the form of Man.
I am convinced that there is a deliberate and malicious ongoing effort to obfuscate the trinity by suggesting it is anything but what it really is.
>>18121952From translations I've read there seems to be enough ambiguity in several places in the passage to make several readings possible.E.g. it could be:>having the form of God (common translation, to me maybe not implying anything different from calling him the image or reflection of God as Paul does elsewhere)>being in very nature God (as the NIV has it, implying he straight up is God)>having the form of a god (see picrel from David Bentley Hart's translation, I guess implying he had a godlike or angelic body. Imo this interpretation fits best with the apocryphal vision of Isaiah where Jesus descends through the heavens to earth, disguising himself at each step to match the inhabitants of each heaven, until finally he disguises himself as a human)And it could be:>equality as in equal status with God (so deserving of worship alongside God, but not the same as God, as Paul puts them together elsewhere, "One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ")>equality as in identity with God (typical way trinitarians take it, I assume)>existing in the manner of a god (picrel again)And it could be:>something to be grasped (ambiguous)>something to be seized/stolen (implying it isn't something he already had, but something be could've attempted to take by force, as "Lucifer"/Satan tries to in his extrabiblical story, so Jesus would be like the positive counterpart to Satan who is given equal status with God as a reward for his faithfulness and willingness to go the opposite way, in line with "he who would lose his life will save it")>something to be held onto (implying he did have it, but he was willing to let go of it)
>>18121923Philo calls the Logos a mediator between God and man, and a being that is neither created nor uncreated.>>18121952>Form of godPhilo's Logos is called the image of God, and also the celestial high-priest (cf Hebrews 4:14)
>>18122020That's been going on for centuries, anon. Just look at Islam and Mormonism.
>>18122020It isn't malicious, it's just trying to make sense of all the stuff that's weird under trinitarianism, like Jesus being called the firstborn of all creation implying he came to be at some point; Jesus saying the Father is greater than him, the Father knows stuff he doesn't, and the Father's will is different from his will; Jesus only ever being called the Son of God, not the popular trinitarian phrase "God the Son," Jesus crying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" on the cross, and so on, plus the lack of a really clear statement of trinitarian doctrine in the Bible (and noting that maybe the least ambiguous, the Johannine comma, was an interpolation, so presumably the absence was uncomfortable enough for trinitarians early on that someone was compelled to "correct" for it.)
>>18122146You can extrapolate from Jesus's own words, such as "Before Abraham, I am" and look at the surrounding context of his disciples calling him "My lord" and even showing worship towards him. I think the worship is pretty key, because even in the OT, worship is not something permitted to anybody outside God Himself. You can also look at Revelations, where the angel strongly refuses worship from John of Patmos, because it's not meant for angels.
>>18122168>"Before Abraham, I am"As the firstborn of all creation, Jesus would indeed have been before Abraham.>his disciples calling him "My lord"Paul distinguishes between Lord and God. 1 Corinthians 8:6, "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.">worship is not something permitted to anybody outside God Himself.My understanding of this is that Jesus as the officially-designated image of God is like the one God-approved idol. People can worship God the Father through him because he has the perfect image of God and the fullness/pleroma of God dwells in him. And I remembering reading that early Christians thought "Lord" in the Old Testament often referred to the preincarnate Jesus.>You can also look at Revelations, where the angel strongly refuses worshipJesus has a kind of similar thing in Mark 10:18 where he says "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone."There's also the issue that when Jesus is directly accused of making himself out to be God in John 10, he doesn't just go "Yup, you got me." Instead he asserts that his primary claim is only to be God's son, and he also gives a defense of being called "a god," distinct from *the* God for some reason. But if he thought and claimed he were *the* God, this would be dishonest backpedaling on his part rather than an honest attempt at clarifying his claim.
>>18122237>As the firstborn of all creation, Jesus would indeed have been before Abraham.I suppose you could look at it that way, but really, I think it's a strong case of Jesus saying "I am the Father". >Paul distinguishes between Lord and God. 1 Corinthians 8:6, "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live."I see what you're saying, however if we are to take the concept of the trinity, then the two are both distinct and sharing the same existence. Paul isn't differentiating between the two in terms of being God, just that they are the same and serve different functions, which ties back to Jesus's role as being a mediator, as was quoted before.Deuteronomy 6:4:>Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.Being called Lord isn't separate from calling to God himself.>My understanding of this is that Jesus as the officially-designated image of God is like the one God-approved idol. People can worship God the Father through him because he has the perfect image of God and the fullness/pleroma of God dwells in him. And I remembering reading that early Christians thought "Lord" in the Old Testament often referred to the preincarnate Jesus.You're talking about "The Angel of the Lord", and yeah, there's a strong case to make that it is actually a pre-incarnate Jesus, because not only does he not refuse worship, but he's also shown "carrying a sword", which is what Jesus has been depicted to be related to, as "bringing a sword" and he's imagery in Revelations with a "sword coming from his mouth". >Jesus has a kind of similar thing in Mark 10:18 where he says "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone."That was more of a query to the man in a way to say "Do you know what good truly means?" It wasn't an outright rejection, but a framing, which is why he told him to sell all his possessions right after.
>>18122237>There's also the issue that when Jesus is directly accused of making himself out to be God in John 10, he doesn't just go "Yup, you got me." Instead he asserts that his primary claim is only to be God's son, and he also gives a defense of being called "a god," distinct from *the* God for some reason. But if he thought and claimed he were *the* God, this would be dishonest backpedaling on his part rather than an honest attempt at clarifying his claim.He pretty clearly states that "I and The Father are one", so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that he doesn't confirm who he is.
>>18122303>Paul isn't differentiating between the two in terms of being GodHe calls one of them God, the Father, and he doesn't call the other one, Jesus, God. That sounds like differentiating in terms of being God to me.>Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.In the Hebrew it's the tetragrammaton, not Lord. And in John 17:11, Jesus says "Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one." So Jesus might share God's name, but that doesn't necessarily make him the same as God either. It would just be part of his role as the representative of God. And that his "oneness" with God doesn't mean he *is* God I think is also apparent in this verse from him implying that Christians can be one with each other in the same way. If James and John or Peter and Paul were one with each other in the way that the trinity construes Jesus and the Father as being one... what would that look like?
>>18122334>He calls one of them God, the Father, and he doesn't call the other one, Jesus, God. That sounds like differentiating in terms of being God to me.In the same passage, you would have to ask yourself why, if Jesus was just some high agent, that Paul frames him with such divine deference:Philippians 9-11:>Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.Notice how that, across time and space, Paul is saying that Jesus is the one to kneel and bow to. If he were separating the two, why is he appointing such high authority to Jesus, and not just saying that would be reserved for God? In your argument, you would naturally put God > Jesus, but Paul isn't doing that whatsoever. The reasoning is because the two are the same. Jesus IS God. >(Your second point, field was too long lol) What you have to understand from a Trinitarian perspective, is that Jesus's being and ministry on Earth has him separate, but the same as the Father. God in the form of the Son of Man chose this path to share in human suffering, living, and to walk amongst them, for he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to die for our sins. Only with an expansive and infinite God can the impossibility of separation and oneness be harmonized completely.
>>18122370>Therefore God has highly exalted himDoes it really make more sense to say that God has "exalted" a coequal, coeternal subpersonality of his or does it make more sense to say that God has exalted a being who isn't quite identical with himself and isn't necessarily eternally coequal with himself?>Why is he appointing such high authority to Jesus, and not just saying that would be reserved for God?Because God the Father is too transcendent and unchanging and incomprehensible for us, and Jesus is his logos, the best means by which he makes himself known to us? Still weird Greek philosophy stuff, but not quite the same weird Greek philosophy stuff used to justify the trinity.
>>18122398>Does it really make more sense to say that God has "exalted" a coequal, coeternal subpersonality of his or does it make more sense to say that God has exalted a being who isn't quite identical with himself and isn't necessarily eternally coequal with himself?Tell me where in the OT where God would ever exalt anybody on a higher level than himself? "Every knee will bend and bow"? "In Heaven and Earth?" That would be to God Himself, no? >Because God the Father is too transcendent and unchanging and incomprehensible for us, and Jesus is his logos, the best means by which he makes himself known to us? Still weird Greek philosophy stuff, but not quite the same weird Greek philosophy stuff used to justify the trinity.You're touching on a valid point. God Himself is an infinity incarnate, which means He had to empty himself in Jesus with the shared experiences of Man and THEN have Jesus be the mediator between Himself and Mankind. Jesus is understandable and human, because he shared in the experience of Man. That is the point of the Trinity, my friend. It's no longer God the beyond human imagination, it's Jesus Christ, our friend and greatest ally. The Holy Spirit was also implemented to keep us in contact without God's and Jesus's direct intervention.
>>18122415>"Every knee will bend and bow"? "In Heaven and Earth?" That would be to God Himself, no?If what Paul means by "gave him the name that is above every other name" is that Jesus was given God's name, then "at the name given to Jesus every knee should bend" means the knees are bending to God, and Jesus has been granted the privilege of taking part in that. Not above God, but alongside him.
>>18122450Then Paul would have explicitly directed it to God Himself, is the point. You should ask yourself why would God use Jesus, an agent below Him in your point of view, to have veneration and ultimate worship directed at Jesus's name. It's like saying that the angel Michael is directly at God's side, but let all praises be heaped unto him so it can be relayed to God. The simple point is, that all worship and dedication is for God alone. OT makes this blatantly clear. The only reconciliation possible is that Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and The Holy Spirit is God. I will say that, right now, even if you're still skeptical of the Trinity, that you have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you right now. It's brought us to here, right now, in this thread, to have this very conversation. All speech from Man is always breathed from God, no matter how insignificant or stupid it might be.
>>18122303Guess who a certian Alexandrian jew identified the "Lord" (κύριος) in contrast to "God" (θεός) with?>>18122370>bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bowGuess who also thought Jesus was the best possible name.
>>18122484>The Philo guy again Did you think I was a different guy? So, not only did you not consider any of the rebuttals I put forward, but you're using it not in a good faith conviction, but to break people from God. Good to know. Thank you for showing your true colors.
>>18122398In support of the "Father is too transcendent" justification: John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known." Notably there are manuscript variations of this verse where sometimes "God" is written after only-begotten, and many translations interpret it as identifying the only begotten with God, so supporting trinitarianism. But that variation could also be interpreted as identifying the only-begotten as *a* god rather than *the* God, like "the only-begotten god, who is in the bossom of the Father, he has made him known." So you've got some manuscripts that are neither here nor there, and some manuscripts that could go both ways depending on interpretation.
>>18122487I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but I just genuinly don't see how all these points of similitude can be mere coincidence.
>>18122516Read the thread, then. Not being antagonistic, but the posts are there.
bump
>>18123015>>18123247Hell awaits. Tick tock.
>>18123255NTA but who is Kramnik?
>>18123259Off-topic. Google it.
>>18123015>>18123247>>18123623what more do you want from this thread
