Kegan Chandler - Early High Christology - Did Jesus think he was God?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2024
- Kegan Chandler works us through the answers from the "Early High Christology Club" to the question "Did Jesus know he was God"? We discover that there is not one consistent view among these scholars (like Michael F. Bird, N.T. Wright, and Larry Hurtado) who want to answer "yes" to the question, and that they fail to explain either the Jesus of the gospels or orthodox tradition.
In contrast, the unitarian option, which emphasizes Jesus' self-awareness as God's human agent, appears to be not only the best and most conservative interpretative option for the gospel data, but the only viable answer in light of what we know about Jewish messianic expectations in the first century, and Jewish understanding of the terms "prophet" and "messiah" in that historical context.l
Wow! What an excellent presentation!!
I would love to peruse a true friendship with a trinitarian, but it has become impossible. Talk about persecution… try being a non-trinitarian in a trinitarian congregation. Try being a person.
I wish I could say that I had no idea what you’re talking about, but I understand it all too well. I used to try to go to trinitarian churches, expressing my Unitarian convictions only after developing fairly solid relationships as tactfully and diplomatically as I could, so as not to be an ass.
But to no avail.
Unitarians will always be regarded as second-class Christians, at best, and as irredeemable black sheep, at worst, among avowedly trinitarian congregations.
For this reason, I look forward to the day when the UCA becomes a force impossible to ignore in the trinitarian world - when open debate becomes inescapable. At that point, the Unitarian perspective will prevail gloriously, as it always does when open conversation occurs on a level playing field.
It's not surprising why they wouldn't accept you.
You have a false jesus.
That's why I made videos exposing their hypostatic union . Pure hypocrisy.
@@matrixlone 1 Kings 8:38-39
whatever prayer...is made...then hear in heaven....for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men (NASB)
God "alone" fully knows the hearts of all, so God "alone" is the proper recipient of prayer.
Since the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60; 2 Corinthians 12:8; etc.) demonstrates He is God.
@@fredrolinners8903 and?
Great, truly great! Wish I can find an article (of transcript).
*_Still another possibility_* involves Christ's own statement about himself in *_John 3.13,_* concerning the only one ever to *_have made_* it up to Heaven -- the one who *_later_* came down from Heaven -- "the Son of man," i.e. himself!
Thus, in this one verse, Jesus proclaims not only *_pre-existence,_* but also his own nature -- NOT as deity, but as a *_sibling_* of the remainder of humanity.
After all, the entire Bible is about the struggle to go from flesh to spirit -- from the "man" created in Genesis 1.26, to the "man" created in Genesis 2.7, and back to the rebirth (John 3) of that "man" which had died on the day he ate of the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3). Genesis 6.3 amplifies this struggle and its inevitable conclusion after God will have considered the rescue mission to have been completed, leaving the "flesh" behind and to its own selfish devices.
REFERENCES:
*_The Logical Christian_* (hardcover)
*_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_The Science of Miracles_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_Four Elements of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_Proof of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
Interesting
@@MichaelTheophilus906And the misinterpretation continues unto today. Perhaps we ALL misinterpret scripture, for none of us is omniscient.
The Holy Spirit can give us Truth, but can our imperfect minds hold it? After nearly 74 years I've come to realize that a little bit of truth changes us so that we are better prepared to receive a little bit more.
Thus, *_Perpetual Humility_* and a Hunger to Learn must remain with us so that we can always learn more, getting ever closer to the Narrow Gate which leads back home.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
1 Kings 8:38-39
whatever prayer...is made...then hear in heaven....for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men (NASB)
God "alone" fully knows the hearts of all, so God "alone" is the proper recipient of prayer.
Since the Lord Jesus affirmed that He is the proper recipient of prayer in John 14:14 ("Ask me") demonstrates He knew He is God.
Have you considered that the idea of Jesus' position as God's exalted human agent -- WHOLLY identified with God's present activities -- would nicely account for what you're seeing here in these verses?
You need not take the leap to declaring that "Jesus is God" in order to explain these passages. Have you looked into the scriptural idea of "agency" before, by any chance? It's worth a look.
In short, Joseph bearing Pharaoh's signet ring in Genesis, and exercising all of the power and authority of Pharaoh without actually BEING Pharaoh, is the quintessential picture of the relationship Jesus presently enjoys with his God and Father.
@@MidWhit The concept of "Agency" does not apply at all in the area of prayer that is directly rendered unto the Lord Jesus since one can just as easily render prayer directly unto the Father.
An "agent" is therefore unnecessary.
@Fred Rolinners You're right that prayer can just as easily be rendered unto the Father, yes. But you're wrong when you insist that prayer could only be offered to Jesus were he God himself. And I therefore offered Jesus' exalted, signet-ring-bearing agent status as a means of explaining his present ability to hear and respond to prayer.
"Agency" is a simple and scriptural explanation of this, while the idea that "Jesus is God" is unnecessarily complex and unscriptural.
@@MidWhit Jesus is to prayed to as being YHWH, for to call upon the Lord always means praying to the Lord and Paul applied YHWH from Joel 2:32 unto the Lord Jesus in Romans 10:13.
Agency cannot account for this for an "agent" is not needed when it comes prayer. I already pointed this out and there is no proof given to reject it.
An agent would be a party when the other party is not there and/or cannot be reached.
42:01 "If in the end, the phrase "Early High Christology" fails to describe any particular Christological proposition, the phrase may show itself to be merely code for an affirmation of the cogency and truthfulness of orthodoxy. But as it stands, with no singular and agreed upon thesis in view, the EHCC seems to be a club in search of a thesis..."
A pretty damning indictment, to be sure. Dale Tuggy’s “Trinity Club” comes to mind, but the EHCC appears to be even better as it wears a veneer of objectivity and intellectual honesty, all with the aim of buttressing an unscriptural trinitarian creed.
If, in fact, this is really what’s going on here, these are galaxy-brain tactics. My hat’s off to them… (tips fedora)
Just sayin'... In some Unitarian groups, Jesus's literal, personal preexistence is seen as unnecessary and unbiblical. But I don't see that preexistence demands that Jesus has to be God. Jesus can be the Logos, the express image of God, and primordial co-Creator along with God... perhaps a kind of preexistent "angelic being" - created by God as unique Son, given God's name, deputed with execution of God's judgment, celestial Messiah, Adam Kadmon...and the heavenly Son of Man (as all the Gospels designate him to be).
Denying personal preexistence to Jesus, of course, does not diminish who he is, but affirming it - in my view - enhances his stature. Paul's conception of Jesus as preexisting in the form of God does not necessarily conflict with Paul's perspective of Jesus being the perfect new/second Adam. One can complement the other, and enrich scriptural understanding, it seems to me.
If Jesus is a co-Creator would prove He is God (Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24).
@@fredrolinners8903 Nope. Scripture says Jesus is the express IMAGE of God. But an image is NEVER identical to that which it mirrors or reflects. So Jesus is not God.
God "hired" Jesus as his subcontractor. The heavenly Father - the first, authentic creator - handed Jesus God's blueprint for the world and then Jesus followed those plans. God - without whom Jesus says he can do NOTHING - was the world's designer, while Jesus was its chief builder.
Thus Jesus remains God's obedient servant, agent. and image, without once falling into the heretical Trinitarian role ... thus preserving God's sovereignty AND Jesus's servile, obedient Sonship. Monotheism triumphs over Trinitarian tritheism, and authentic scriptural christology conquers the false, blasphemous, and idolatrous notion that Jesus is "of one substance with the Father".
God created the universe "alone".
Jesus created.
Therefore, Jesus is God.
@@fredrolinners8903 God created the universe alone because God ALONE thought up the idea. God assigned Jesus to follow the blueprint, which makes Jesus not the creator, but rather a co-creator who was designated in that role by God.
I'm done with you because you don't have the honesty to acknowledge that, because the biblical Jesus is the express IMAGE of God, Jesus CANNOT be God - - because an image is never identical to that which it reflects or mirrors. Thus scripture tells us that Jesus CANNOT be God. Trinitarianism self-implodes once again.Goodbye.
@@stephenbastasch7893 God alone thought of the idea and God ALONE is the Creator (Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24).
One advantage Jesus has is His Father’s genetics
You think God has dna?
*_There are MANY definitions of "divine," most of which do NOT include identity as "deity."_* The third alternative -- that Jesus was *_both_* "divine" and "human," but *_not_* "deity," remains the strongest likelihood from a strictly logical standpoint. Christ (not Jesus) was pre-existent; he states as much in John 3.13. And God *_Loves_* His children -- NOT the bodies they wear! We saw this when God destroyed all land-borne life to save the ones who look like Him.
*_This entire physical universe is NOT our destination or objective. Read Genesis 6.3 carefully and understand its deepest implications!_*
REFERENCES:
*_The Logical Christian_* (hardcover)
*_Trinity Treason: How the church betrayed its flock with the only unforgivable sin_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_The Science of Miracles_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_Four Elements of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
*_Proof of God_* (hardcover, paperback, ebook)
Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form. (NASB)
1. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains: the nature or state of being God (12.13, theotēs, page 140, J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida).
2. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: the state of being God (theotēs, page 288).
3. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (EDNT): the rank of God (2:143, theotēs, G. Schneider).
@@fredrolinners8903 Yes? So?
I'm sure your worldview colors your interpretation of scripture, giving it the meaning you prefer. But which is greater -- humility to the interpretations of man filtered through their current worldview, or perpetual humility to God and to His Truth, ever struggling to get closer to that elusive Truth. For we will *_never_* arrive at that Truth so long as we do not have God's omniscience! Thus, the *_requirement_* that we remain "painfully humble" to God's interpretation of Truth.
There are many ways to interpret Colossians 2.9, and this makes any "Jesus as God" thesis ambiguous at best, especially since every other "proof text" for this thesis is similarly ambiguous; and especially since there are many *_unambiguous_* proof texts which deny Jesus as God.
The implications of John 3.13 are startling in their simplicity, and those implications confound even some of the unitarian beliefs against pre-existence.
@@RodMartinJr As properly defined the words of the Bible demonstrate the Lord Jesus is God (cf. Colossians 2:9).
@@fredrolinners8903 Properly defined by you?
@@RodMartinJr See my first response. I quoted from two Greek lexicons. More can be supplied if need be.
Having a bachelor's and a master's degree in theology means that you're of the world, it's a wonderful thing to believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God but then to go lean unto your own understanding and partake of the doctrine of the nicolaitans it's a shame.
Just the idea of having a person announce who you are and all your accomplishments before you come on stage is clearly exalting yourself and a work of the flesh.
How absurd… formal study of theology is to be encouraged and cheered, not jeered. And explaining someone’s credentials during an introduction is normal and helpful. Bizarre comment!
I have never heard anyone speaking on a particular topic not announced. Aught not speak of achievements or have inclinations to trust those heady religious leaders. We are striving toward perfection as a unified body in Christ Jesus the lord. He who was raised from the dead is lord!
Paul boasted but not in a fleshly way. Trinitarians introduce themselves in this way and some people will only listen to people with these qualifications. Quite a few times I have been ignored simply because I have no qualifications. I don't care what qualifications a person has , what is important is that he speaks in line with scripture.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance theology is not a good thing my friend, having sound doctrine and abiding in the doctrine of Christ is what we must do.
I would say over 99.9% of theologians are going going to hell and are blind.
And like I said it's good that you believe Jesus Christ is the son of God but that is not the end of the faith and understanding of the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
@@UnitarianChristianAlliance To play the devil's advocate here, I would cite a splendid qualification made in the preface to Graeser, Lynn and Schoenheit's "One God and One Lord":
"We would ask those impressed by worldly credentials to consider that neither Jesus himself (John 7:15) nor his followers (Acts 4:13) were considered properly educated by their contemporaries. The best recommendation of this book is that through logic and Scripture, it enables men and women to be devoted followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. Any other validation is secondary at best."
I realize that it would be rather clunky to have to say this every time the credentials and scholastic history of a speaker are trotted out on a stage like this, but it's certainly worth emphasizing very, very often - especially in Unitarian circles where the nitty-gritty of Scripture is habitually examined with a scholastic fervor so easily mistaken for pure pedantry.
Let's be real, guys, and admit that we're easy targets for this kind of criticism, and tailor our optics accordingly.