It seems to me evident from scripture that Jesus is divine. It seems to me that Jesus has always existed, even pre-incarnation, as the "Word" (Logos) as put forth in John. It seems to me that Jesus is one of three persons who make up what we call the Trinity or Godhead. Most orthodox thinkers so far probably all agree on these points.
Further, it seems to me that the question of whether or not we ought to refer to Jesus as "God" begs to be asked in light of how we use language. Specifically, in philosophical parlance, we recognize many different ways to use the verb, to be (including the words, is, am, are, was, were, be, being, and been). What do we mean when we say "Jesus is God"?
In philosophical circles, and specifically in Metaphysics (which is the study of the nature of being or reality), we recognize at least 5-different ways to use the word, "is". In other words, there are many different ways for something to be something. For instance, If I say that I am the first-born son of Mitchell Shull, then the verb to be used in that sentence (namely, "am") is used as what we call, in Metaphysics, the is of identity. This is to say that I am identical to that person who is the first-born son of Mitchell Shull. This sentence identifies me. (Take note, however, that it is not to say that all sons of Mitchell Shull are identical. As a matter of fact, Mitchell Shull has two other sons who are distinct persons from me. Nevertheless, when I say to you, "I am the first-born son of Mitchell Shull," you understand that I am using this statement to identify myself in a certain way; namely, that Mitchell Shull is my father, I was born his first son, and I am his son.) So if we know that Simon is the first-born son of Mitchell Shull, and that I am Simon, then we know that 'I am the first-born son of Mitchell Shull' where "I" refers to me. And if reading those last few sentences didn't bring a smirk to your face then I don't know what will. To put it into a kind of valid argument form, namely, a syllogism, we see that:
P1: Simon is the first-born son of Mitchell Shull
P2: I am Simon.
(Therefore,)
C: I am the first-born son of Mitchell Shull.
This is a valid, deductive, argument form; "deductive" because if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. That is to say, the conclusion naturally follows from the premises. Furthermore, the verb to be used in both premises and in the conclusion is the is of identity. That is, the first-born son of Mitchell Shull is the very same thing as (identical to) the person, Simon. And, I, am the very same person as, Simon. This is what I mean when I say that, "I am Simon."
There are, of course, other ways I may speak about myself in order to convey my be-ing. Suppose I tell you that I am real. In this statement, I use the is of existence to convey my being an existing thing. To say that, "Simon is real," is to say that Simon exists. If I were to say, "I am real," and I meant to use the is of identity as in the first example, then I would be claiming that I am the very same thing as (identical to) whatever is real. From this, I would be able to make the mistake of saying that I am the very same thing as a hammer, given that a hammer is real. However, I do not mean to say, with the statement, "I am real," that I am reality itself, nor that every real thing is me. Instead, I mean to say simply that I am an existing thing. However, not all existing things are the very same thing. I mean to employ the is of existence when I use the verb to be in the statement, "I am real," and the statement demonstrates that I have at least one property, given that existence lies in the having of properties. [*]
Or suppose I say that I am human. Here I employ the is of essential predication. "I am human," tells you something fundamental about what kind of thing I am. Humanness is my essence. I could not cease to be human and still be myself. Put another way, if I lost my humanness (the property of being human), I would eo ipso cease to be (to exist). Now, keep in mind that a subject is what a statement is about, while a predicate is what a statement says about its subject. In the statement, "I am human," I have told you something essential about what makes me me. Thus, the verb to be here used is the is of essential predication. I do not mean to use other forms of the verb to be in this case. For instance, I do not mean to use the is of identity when I say that I am human; if I did, I would be making the claim that I am whatever is human (or that I am the very same thing as that which is human). However, clearly, I am not whatever is human, given that you are human, and I am not you. Nor do I want to use the is of existence when I say that I am human; if I did, I would be making the claim that I exist because I am human. But clearly, to exist is not merely to be human; humans happen to exist, but so do a great many other things.
Or suppose I say that I am white. Here I employ the is of accidental predication. "I am white," tells you something that is not fundamental about what kind of thing I am. Whiteness is not my essence. I could cease to be white (perhaps due to sunburn) and still be me (or, we could flip this around and talk about Michael Jackson ceasing to be black.. but that's an entirely different story altogether). In saying that I am white, I am telling you something nonessential to my being. My existence is not dependent upon my having the property whiteness; and so, I do not mean to use the is of existence when I say that I am white. For, my being white is said of what color I am; it is what color my skin is, but what "color I am" does not determine what I am in essence. Thus, I employ the is of what we call accidental predication.
Or suppose I say that I am flesh and bone. Here I employ the is of part/whole. I mean to say that, in this sense, I am a whole made up of parts; namely, flesh and bone parts. I do not mean to use the is of essential predication here because if I were to lose some of my parts, I would still be, in essence, me. For instance, if I lost an arm or a leg, (or an ear, as in the case of Evander Holyfield) I would be losing some of my parts, but I would still be me, given that losing limbs does not necessarily entail that I die.
Much more can be said about these 5-different ways to use the verb to be, these different is's; this is just a brief introduction to the different ways a thing can be something.
An important point of this nature needs to be made when we speak of the relationship between Jesus and God. Many times, perhaps in response to statements like, "Jesus is dead," and "If he even ever existed, Jesus was only a man," we Christians may want to say that, in fact, "Jesus is God." However, as J.P. Moreland likes to point out, we see that there are things true about God that are not true about Jesus. For instance, God is triune and Jesus is not. Likewise, there are things true about Jesus that are not true about God. For instance, Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and God is not. Jesus died on a cross to pay for the sins of humankind, whereas God did not. So, to say that, "Jesus is God" when we mean to use the is of identity is obviously false. Upon examination, we see that to say, "Jesus is God," while probably a bit misleading for most people, and while it is, perhaps, something that should not be asserted without proper explanation, it is nevertheless, a true statement if and only if we mean to use the is of essential predication. Jesus is essentially God; that is, his essence is divine. He could cease to be human and still be essentially God, but He could not cease to be divine and still be essentially God. And there are many different ways to put this, but what is important is to understand the concept that lies behind what we call, essential predication.
Incidentally, it seems to me that sometimes, too much emphasis is put on Jesus' divinity at the expense of His being the messiah. In living out our purpose as children of God, we are charged with affirming Christ before men - and yes, that sometimes means defending the claim that He is divine; however, most often it means telling the good news - not just that He is divine, but that He is the messiah - the savior of humankind.
[*] This is how Dr. J.P. Moreland describes existence.[/size]
On Jesus as God and Messiah
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
Didn't he kinda have to be God to save us (ie how could a man do it? man is flawed).
Boy! it's good to be around a Trinitarian again! Have you seen the thread with SO MANY PEOPLE REJECTING THE TRINITY? I didn't know there were so many!
Boy! it's good to be around a Trinitarian again! Have you seen the thread with SO MANY PEOPLE REJECTING THE TRINITY? I didn't know there were so many!
