Is Jesus a demi-god?

[Superdog]

Trinitiarians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are co-equal in divine attributes.  However, there are some instances in the gospels that show that the Son did not know certain things, and of course subordinated himself to God the Father.  Isn't this an obvious contradiction?

[Scribbles]

No it's not a contradiction..
Jesus who was fully man and fully God came here as a man being obedient unto death..to the Father to do his will which was to be our savior, without sin, and to die for our sins..

Before Jesus was crucified he prayed this to The Father

John 18
 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

God raised Jesus from the Dead and put all things under Jesus's feet..
20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 1
 21Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

 22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

 23Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

Romans 14 says..
for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

 11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

We will all stand before Jesus at judgement and give account of ourselves..

[Thorolf]

I'm sorry... I'm a little confused.

You start off by saying that Jesus was fully man, and fully God... but then seem to eliminate the divine from the equation.

He came here as a man. He was "obedient" unto death (death has some sort of divine authority?) He was obedient to the Father and His will, indicating subjugation - of a theoretically co-equal person of God?

God raised Jesus from the dead, which seems to argue that Jesus was not divine Himself and required another being to defeat death for him.

God put all things under Jesus' feet, which seems to claim that Jesus bore no natural authority Himself, and only bore the authority granted him by the Father - sort of like an Ambassador bears the authority of the President.

And so on... the trinitarian view of Jesus raises all sorts of issues regarding this theoretical co-equality - or even Jesus' divinity itself - that are generally skirted around, waived off, or explained as "mysteries" of our limited understanding.

I would maintain that the Oneness view does a much more effective job of eliminating confusion and avoiding the logical elimination of Jesus' native divinity.

[Acumen]

No it's not a contradiction..
Jesus who was fully man and fully God came here as a man being obedient unto death..to the Father to do his will which was to be our savior, without sin, and to die for our sins..

Before Jesus was crucified he prayed this to The Father

John 18
 5And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

God raised Jesus from the Dead and put all things under Jesus's feet..
20Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
 

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  The two passages you quoted require a little more interpretive explanation before I'm willing to write off the contradiction. 

For instance, If the Son if fully God, then why is he praying to God the Father for anything? 

Second, if the God the Son is truly God, then why must he ask for the Father to restore his glory?  Where did his glory go?  And why must he ask for it back?  Is it like a 16 year old son losing his father's car keys? 

And Third, the Father placing all things under the Son's feet, depending on the interpretive explanation, seem to imply that the Son wasn't completely in control of things

[thedefender]

Superdog,

Yes, Jesus is a Demi-god in Oneness theology. And if you are confused about this see Acumen or Thorolf.

Derrick the defender

[Thorolf]

Superdog,

Yes, Jesus is a Demi-god in Oneness theology. And if you are confused about this see Acumen or Thorolf.

Derrick the defender

Don't be ridiculous. It is Oneness theology that allows Jesus the full power and authority of God. There is no limitation on the power of God in Jesus - self-imposed or otherwise.

I suspect that you have us pigeonholed into a neat little "rejection" box without ever having seriously considered what we believe or say. All I ask is that you avoid making it up as you go... if you have a question or a problem with something you think we believe, ask about it. We'd be more than happy to discuss it.

[Thorolf]

This isn't really a thread on Oneness itself, but out of curiosity - how is "God wants us to know everything about Him" not "far enough?" As opposed, of course, to the concept that there are things intentionally left as mysteries that He intentionally confuses and confounds us against... I don't get the "far enough" comment at all.

I also don't understand the entire second paragraph, as I'm not convinced there is a ton of difference between 'Catholic Trinitarian' and any other Christian perspective on our purpose and role in eternity... perhaps you'd like to start a thread somewhere explaining what you consider to be the differences there.

[Thorolf]

Actually, you said that Oneness doesn't go far enough to elucidate what God wants us to know about Him.

My response - that's silly, because Oneness tends to believe that God wants us to know EVERYTHING about Him. What more could there be??? How much farther could anyone possibly go?

[Thorolf]

And that was the purpose of my second paragraph.

Because Oneness falls short of giving any deep understanding of our role, as Humans, in creation and eternity.

Which I still find to be utter nonsense.

Perhaps if you deign to expound, I would be more open to that being something more than a dismissive wave of a prideful hand.

[Acumen]

Well, Thor, it's so deep, it cannot be expounded per ^{(Holy Roman Catholic Church)}.

[thedefender]

Essentially, the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary because without it Christ's claims to be God would amount to lies. One can't very well claim to be something one is not.

The Jesus that was born as a shell and indwelt by God the Father, or even a Jesus with a separate mind and will from God the Father could not have claimed to be God truthfully. When the Christ of the Bible claimed to be so, it was because He was/is God.

Does this mean he was a demi-god? No. He was fully God, the kind of God whose blood rendered sufficient satisfaction for our sins. No shell of a man could have done this. It took God in all his fullness to conquer sin. Did God die on the cross? No, of course not. He had a work to do and it wasn't finished. So God the Son literally went to Sheol/Hades and delivered the captives and he is still delivering captives today.   


Derrick the defender

[thedefender]

I want to also quickly add that there is unimaginable value in what took place between God the Father and the Son that gets destroyed or left out in Oneness theology. It's nothing to go to Earth, Mars, or Venus if you are God. However, if you were to send your only begotten son, there is a wealth of emotions there that had to be expressed between the divine.

In sending his Son, God the Father was allowing a separation to take place that had never been from Eternity past. We trinitarians have a heavenly Father who understands what separation is and how hard it is to give away the most valuable thing that we possess. Our Father understands loss at the deepest level. Our God Jesus Christ the Son also knows the fear of separation and alienation, and he also knows what it is like to take ultimate suffering, and to lay down his life for others.

The Bible is clear that God understands us intimately and personally. Stuffing almighty God into the shell of a man seems a little sterile to me, a little passionless, a little less than sacrificing. . . a little less than honest.

Derrick the Defender

[thedefender]

if you have a question or a problem with something you think we believe, ask about it. We'd be more than happy to discuss it.


Thorolf, since you have all the answers was this a dismissive wave of a prideful hand, or just plain prideful?

Derrick the Defender

[Thorolf]

if you have a question or a problem with something you think we believe, ask about it. We'd be more than happy to discuss it.


Thorolf, since you have all the answers was this a dismissive wave of a prideful hand, or just plain prideful?

Derrick the Defender

I'm not sure how an offer to discuss some clear misconceptions about what I believe can be considered prideful.

[Thorolf]

Essentially, the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary because without it Christ's claims to be God would amount to lies. One can't very well claim to be something one is not.

Once again, I fail to see why Trinity is necessary for this. Oneness theology FIRMLY holds that the fullness of God was present in Jesus - more so than with Trinity, which maintains that only the person of the Son was present.

The Jesus that was born as a shell and indwelt by God the Father, or even a Jesus with a separate mind and will from God the Father could not have claimed to be God truthfully. When the Christ of the Bible claimed to be so, it was because He was/is God.

It's easy to say, but there is absolutely no reason to say it. EVERYTHING Jesus said was true and fits within Oneness theology.

Does this mean he was a demi-god? No. He was fully God, the kind of God whose blood rendered sufficient satisfaction for our sins. No shell of a man could have done this. It took God in all his fullness to conquer sin. Did God die on the cross? No, of course not. He had a work to do and it wasn't finished. So God the Son literally went to Sheol/Hades and delivered the captives and he is still delivering captives today.

I agree - He was fully God. In no way, shape, or form have I or anybody else here argued that Jesus was a "shell of a man."

Now, perhaps you can explain to me how God, even "God the Son" could have lacked knowledge, experienced pain and suffering, needed to pray to the Father while being co-equal and unified in spirit with the same, and could die.

While we're at it, I think we can agree that God is all-powerful, so why would it have been necessary or have been considered some sort of amazing feat to have gone to Sheol/Hades and returned in the first place?

[Acumen]

Defender,

We trinitarians have a heavenly Father who understands what separation is and how hard it is to give away the most valuable thing that we possess. Our Father understands loss at the deepest level. Our God Jesus Christ the Son also knows the fear of separation and alienation, and he also knows what it is like to take ultimate suffering, and to lay down his life for others.

I'm starting to think that your trinitarianism isn't that orthodox -- but maybe that is just me.

Help me understand how a perfect God can lose value and still be perfect.  Or how a perfect God can sustain a loss?

The Bible is clear that God understands us intimately and personally. Stuffing almighty God into the shell of a man seems a little sterile to me, a little passionless, a little less than sacrificing. . . a little less than honest.

Well, this is part of the problem.  Oneness folks don't believe that God inhabited a human shell.  When they say that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, this means that Jesus was equiped with a human personality, inclinations, and weaknesses.   However, I have heard some Oneness use language that implied your "shell theory" because they sought to emphasize the power of God in Christ.

-Acumen

[thedefender]

Acumen,

I suppose I am orthodox in my view of the Trinity. Don't let me frighten you with my idea of a God that can "be touched" as the KJV says it.

I believe God is absolutley capable of all the emotions that you or I have because emotions in themselves are not evil. For example we are told not the grieve the Spirit, it seems to me that if we are not to grieve the Spirit then He is one that can feel grief.

Derrick the defender

[Acumen]

I believe God is absolutley capable of all the emotions that you or I have because emotions in themselves are not evil. For example we are told not the grieve the Spirit, it seems to me that if we are not to grieve the Spirit then He is one that can feel grief.

I don't necessarily have a problem with a perfect God possessing emotions.  Emotions can symbolize weakness to humans because of the way it can cloud our judgment.  However, I'm not convinced that a God with emotions is subject to the same sort of problem.  However, I DO have a problem with God "understanding loss" if you mean that God had actually lost something.

[thedefender]

Okay, we need to flesh out some of these differences.

Derrick the defender

[Acumen]

I think that is a good idea, however I'm not convinced that trinitarian ideas can be fleshed out the way we want.  I believe there is an essential contradiction in the trinity that stems from the notions of perfection and identity.  I think the only way to reconcile the inherent contradiction that exists between perfection and identity, one would relegate God's triune behavior to roles toward human kind.

-Acumen