Jesus is Lord?

[man]

Jesus is Lord!

I have seen this on bumper stickers, TV and the internet, but I'm not quite sure what it means.

It seems to be saying that Jesus and the God are the same thing, is this correct?

[marco]

It's so obvious to see that the RCC is far from infallible, and it wasn't even a RC teaching until fairly recent centuries (or maybe it was decades).

Uncharitable. Papal infallibility is applied in very limited circumstances where the guidance of Christ is sought on issues concerning faith or morals. For Christ said the RC Church - JW hadn't been invented yet - "Behold I am with you even to the consummation of the world." And to be fair, the RC Church puts its trust in Jesus. This gets over the problem you have of expressing your own opinion for I don't think Christ said: I will be with onewithin for all time.

Anyway, the Scriptures DO clearly confirm that Jesus is not God, and I have shown this so many times I can't believe people haven't gotten the idea

A happier way of expressing this would be that they "confirm it clearly for me" but it isn't clear to other people who exact tougher standards of proof, perhaps.

I personally agree that Christ wasn't God, but perhaps you wouldn't agree with me when I say the same about Jehovah. It is all a matter of opinion - hence the cleverness of the RC Church going for divine guidance from Jesus when there is some tough dispute over what to believe.

[marco]

I've asked people to explain to me how they show that Jesus IS God, but I've had no takers on that! NO ONE has commented on the verses that I cited! Here they are again....tell me that they DON'T say that Jesus is subordinate to God:

I'm fairly sure I've commented on these verses in the past. They do not in any way refute the doctrine of the Trinity. Christ, as God-made-man, cannot in his human position do things without the Father.


"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, "

"For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me." He has come down from heaven - the word was made flesh - and we therefore have the Incarnation and the two natures, divine and human. Acting as man, he obeys the will of the Father.

And so on with the other verses where Christ tries to explain that in the hypostatic union with the father and the Spirit, he as a man submits himself to the Father's will. The design of the Trinity is not shattered by any of these quotes because it is accepted that Christ lived as a man and died as a man. You would have to find quotes that refuted the concept of the Trinity not quotes that testified Christ acted truly as a man after his incarnation.

[marco]

Just to add 1 Timothy 2.5

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

This is fine if you ignore the Trinity doctrine and the hypostatic union. Accept Christian teaching on them, and verses such as this are not refutations of the belief that Christ was God.

The theology is that the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us. This is pretty heavy stuff. Christ's persona as man enabled him to live and suffer as a man, which is in accord with the idea that God sent his only begotten son to die for us.

There s still just one God and the incarnate Christ is the mediator. So the Trinitarian would argue and who can refute this?

[Elijah John]

- and we therefore have the Incarnation and the two natures, divine and human. Acting as man, he obeys the will of the Father.
.

Assuming the "Hypostatic Union" is a reality, and Christ had both Divine and human natures...why didn't Jesus' human nature obey, (take orders from) his Divine nature?

Why bring the Father into it... at all?

Unless of course, there is no such thing as the "Hypostatic Union" and Jesus was just a man, obedient to and guided by his God.

The other alternative is that there are at least two gods, and Jewish monotheism goes into the trash bin!

Seems to me that the doctrine of the "Hypostatic union" is just one more example of theological gymnastics. Another complication created to enable the Church to maintain it's cherished Jesus-worship while still claiming good, old-fashioned Abrahamic monotheism.

[marco]

Assuming the "Hypostatic Union" is a reality, and Christ had both Divine and human natures...why didn't Jesus' human nature obey, (take orders from) his Divine nature?

But his divine nature was part of the Trinity. He acted independently, as a functioning human and his acceptance was simply submission to act fully as a human, with its pain and touches of despair.

Why bring the Father into it... at all?

The Father references are his explanation to the apostles of God and his submission to divine will, in his capacity as man.

I agree that much of theology involves gymnastics but when a theory is proposed it is interesting to see how far it can travel on its own merits without falling down. Old theologians arrived at the hypostatic union and the Trinity as ways of reconciling inconsistencies, and they assumed divine guidance in their speculations, just as JWs assume they have God's guidance in their very different speculations. At some point you have to INTERPRET Scripture or fill in the gaps.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 24 by Elijah John]

"Assuming the "Hypostatic Union" is a reality, and Christ had both Divine and human natures...why didn't Jesus' human nature obey, (take orders from) his Divine nature?

Why bring the Father into it... at all? "

Jesus (the human nature) did obey, take from the Divine in Himself (the Father).

Human is lower than the Divine. Jesus obeyed this order in himself.
For this purpose He came into the world, to unify the human with the Divine in Himself.
Through this His Humanity we can access the Divinity.
That is why He says - I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no man cometh to the Father but by Me.

[man]

[Replying to post 1 by man]

Not in my opinion no.

"Lord" is a title, like "Mr" or "Teacher" and the title "Lord" in scripture is not only applied to YHWH (Jehovah) but to humans, other (false) gods, and as you mention Jesus. Just as calling to two different people "Sir" doesn't imply they are all one and the same person, calling Jesus Lord doesn't of itself imply they are both the same person.


JW

My problem with that interpretation is it smacks of polytheism.

If Jesus and God were the same person the polytheism problem goes away which from what I have read in other places from basic christians to theologists is what gave the Jesus is Lord saying its start.

Polytheism? It is the trinitarian belief that "smacks of polytheism." They tell us that Jesus is God, the Father is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Add them up. I get THREE GODS.

I don't see how calling Jesus "Lord" would be polytheistic. "Lord" does not automatically mean "God." There is ONE GOD, the Father....the one that Jesus called "the only true God" (John 17:3), and the one that Paul said of: "Yet for us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER." (I Corinthians 8:6)

ONE GOD. NOT THREE.

There are four things that exist in the supernatural Angels, God, Jesus and Satan.

All of them have supernatural powers and can remain invisible.

God is most powerful of all and the others work for him or against him.

Zeus had the same setup all the other supernatural entities work for him or against him.

Zeus was often referred to as the Father of Gods and men.

No matter what people do they can't account for everything in just one supernatural being.

Whether you realize it or not it's already polytheism no matter how many loopholes like the trinity you try to employ to explain it away.

[marco]

Zeus had the same setup all the other supernatural entities work for him or against him.

Zeus was often referred to as the Father of Gods and men.

In fact it was the Titan, Prometheus, who created man out of clay. He was kinder to man than was Yahweh. Cronus was the father of Zeus. Having learned a child of his would overthrow him Cronus swallowed each of them at birth, but Rhea, wife of Cronus, successfully hid Zeus and gave Cronus a stone wrapped in baby clothes to swallow. He regurgitated them all; the artist Goya has a lovely depiction of this.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3Lawz8TcPig/hqdefault.jpg


The creation of the Biblical pantheon (gods, angels and countless demons) has developed into something more sophisticated. Yahweh in many ways is still brutal and up for a fight, needlessly destroying cities and Lot's wife, out of pure spite. He sent bears to gobble up schoolchildren. His infantile rainbow covenant still makes philosophers laugh while his need for genitalia is a match for Zeus in his amorous pursuit of handsome youths or pretty girls. It would all be fascinating if people didn't take it so seriously, for some of the creations and speeches in the Bible are excellent. But so too are the tales of Greek gods, who are probably much more interesting.

I think the invention of the Trinity was a clever piece of theology. It gave us the rousing hymn: Veni Creator Spiritus (come Holy Ghost).

[onewithhim]

[Replying to ttruscott]

Three divine attributes - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
God is one. Jehovah in the OT is the the Lord in NT.

We are are also triune - body, soul, spirit.

Not really. We are a soul. That includes everything about us, even our body and our emotions.

Genesis 2:7 (The word translated "being" is also translated as "soul" in many versions, and notice what caused the man to come alive---the "breath of life," or, spirit from God.)

We really can't say we are partly made up of "spirit." The "spirit" is the force or power that gives us the breath of life. It is not something the has a separate consciousness and departs our body at death.


So, are we "triune"? No, I wouldn't say so. We are one....a SOUL that is kept alive by the breath of life from God. God is also one. To say he is "triune" would mean that there are three Gods, and that is polytheism.

[onewithhim]

Jesus is Lord!

I have seen this on bumper stickers, TV and the internet, but I'm not quite sure what it means.

It seems to be saying that Jesus and the God are the same thing, is this correct?

I think the way most modern bumper-sticker Christians mean it is that "Jesus is God".

But that is not the original meaning of the expression. To Paul, it meant "Jesus is master" our best authority for understanding things Divine and the mediator for access to the Divine.

In the OT/Hebrew Bible "LORD" always meant YHVH, Lord meant Adonai ( "my Lord, referring to YHVH)

Only in the NT does the lower case "Lord" refer to Jesus.

And even in the NT YHWH has been obliterated. Where God's personal name was included in old manuscripts, it is deleted in modern translations. So sometimes where it says "Lord" it might be referring to YHWH. (See Acts 2:34 where Jehovah is definitely referred to.) It's hard to tell, and that is thanks to men through the centuries altering the texts to irradicate God's name.

[/i]

That is sad. I do like and respect the way the NWT has restored some of the NT references to YHVH, when it is clear that OT Scripture is being quoted, and in certain other cases.

What may be encouraging is that even outside of the JW organization, some are rediscovering the importance of the Divine name. Some Evangelicals refer to "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" and an Evangelical couple Peter and Linda-Miller Russo have published "Proclaim His Holy Name" , and also the "Proclaim His Holy Name Bible" which is based on the KJV, but with all the "LORD"s restored to "Yehovah".

I recommend the book and their version of the Bible.

Also, Keith E Johnson's "His Hallowed Name Revealed Again". I don't think he is either a JW or an Evangelical, but this book demonstrates he really understands the importance of The Name as well. Highly recommended.

Awesome! I will look for those books and the "Holy Name Bible." I have The Divine Name King James Bible by Divine Name Publishers, which restores the name in all 6,972 places it occurs in the O.T. and includes it within parentheses where it should be in the N.T.

It's really great that more people are recognizing God's name. Soon the whole planet "will have to know that I am Jehovah" (Ezekiel 38:23). I long for that day.