Justifying the Trinity Doctrine - Part 1 the divinity of Jesus
I have argued that the Nicene Conference and the Trinity Doctrine which emerged were a case of men making decisions which no man is qualified to make. I cannot understand why the Church considers it important anyway - God loves us he wants us to love him and he wants us to behave as Jesus taught. What difference does it make whether God brought the message himself or recruited a man to act as his agent or something else? It does not effect how we relate to God or how we follow the teaching of Jesus. Can the Church Justify, to a potential recruit, its No 1 must-believe Doctrine, acceptance of which would appear to be a condition of admittance into the Church Community?
Justifying the claim that Jesus was God is made very difficult because as far as I can see he made it very clear he wasn't.
" ‘But what about you?’ he [Jesus] asked. ‘Who do you say I am?’ “Peter answered, You are the Messiah.” Mark 8:29 Jesus acknowledged that to be the case.
"The woman said, 'I know that Messiah' (called Christ) 'is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.' Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” John 4:25. The Messiah was expected by the Jews but he wasn’t God. The word 'Messiah' comes from the Hebrew word meaning ‘anointed’. Jesus did not claim to be God, he claimed he was a man chosen/anointed by God. 'Christ' is the Greek version of 'Messiah'.
“While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. A voice came from the cloud, saying, ’This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.’ ” Luke 9:34. So God said he chose Jesus. You can only choose if there are alternatives to choose from. The version in Matthew "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” compliments what Jesus said: “I remain in the Father’s love because I obey his commands” John 15:10 Jesus makes it clear he is a willing servant, trying to please God and thinks God would be disappointed in him if he disobeyed. We have it from God that he is well pleased with the obedient one he has chosen.
In order to equip him for his mission God gave him some extraordinary powers - the power to forgive sins, and heal the sick. His critics said his claims were blasphemy as only God can do these things but that would imply a limitation on what God can do: that God cannot give a man such powers. I rather assume God can do whatever he wants, don't you? This doesn’t stop the Church using the same arguments as his critics “he did things only God could do”. His extraordinary powers allowed Peter to say: “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs". Acts 2:22.
God gave him some insight into things not available to the common man but Jesus says “.....but about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" Mark 13:32 Proof he was only partially in God's confidence so clearly he isn't God. After he rose from the dead we have: “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me’” Matthew 28:18 . If it was given to him he didn’t already have it did he? So he wasn’t God.
The “I AM” sayings of Jesus e.g. “I AM the way the truth and the light” in John’s Gospel are claimed to show Jesus was God because in the Old Testament “I am” is a prefix used by God. “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites : I am has sent me to you.’” Exodus 3:14. The Church’s argument is that Jesus is claiming to be God. However in among the I AM statements Jesus makes it perfectly clear - not once but twice - what his roll is: "The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” John 14:10 "These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." John 14:24. Jesus is acting as God’s conduit. Obeying his commands and explicitly denying personal authority for the words which God has given him to speak. He is in effect saying “these are God’s words not mine, I'm not God”. He also makes clear God has sent him – you send a servant or a volunteer.
“I go to my father and your father, to my God and your God” John 20:17 His relationship with God, while special, is in essence the same as that of his Disciples to whom this was addressed.
In the above he uses the phrase “My God” and again he called out on the cross “My God, My God why have you forsaken me”. How can God - the supreme being - have a God?
He said "the Father is greater than me" (John 14,28)
So what is the Church’s case? I have already dealt with two claims – ref the “I AM” statements and the “he did things only
God can do” claim which don’t stand up. The only Jesus related argument put to me is that when Jesus appeared to Thomas, Thomas is reported as saying “My Lord and my God!” and Jesus did not correct him so Jesus apparently accepted being called 'God'. It is a valid point but it is in effect arguing - "Jesus is God because on this one occasion he didn't say he wasn't" when there is a list of 12 things he (and God) makes it clear he wasn't. It does not require a lot of imagination to find a different interpretation. “My Lord” addressed to Jesus and raising his eyes to heaven “and My God” thanking God. It has been suggested that this shows the other Disciples – who did not correct him either – recognised Jesus was God. That does not appear to be the case:
Acts 2:22 “Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs".
Acts 3:13 " God…. has glorified his servant Jesus".
Acts 4:27 “…. your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed".
Acts 18:5 "Paul ...testified ...that Jesus was the Messiah".
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man, Christ Jesus".
Acts 10:38 "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit ..... God was with him"
Acts 10:42 "he is the one whom God appointed"
The Word statements at the start of John's Gospel "In the beginning was the word...." are a bit ambiguous but do indeed appear to imply that Jesus is God but we don't know who wrote John's Gospel or where he got this idea from and the text was not finalised until nearly 100 years after Jesus. Near the end of his Gospel John writes ".. these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah...." and the Messiah was God's chosen one.
Isaiah is quoted - someone who lived 700 years before Jesus. Apparently the fact that Isaiah is writing about something happening at the time does not prevent it being "a prophesy" nor does the fact that even with a great deal of imagination only part of the "prophesy" can be claimed to fit with Jesus. Taking things out of context and claiming they are prophesies is surely what the teachers of the law did. Apart from which if the prophesy implies Jesus was God then surely you have to show Jesus was God in order to show the prophesy was correct - not the other way around. In one "prophesy" the word Emmanual - is claimed this mean God is with us. If you look at the context in the Old Testament it means "God is with us" in the sense of "God is on our side".
The Forth Problem - The Church appears to use the technique used by conspiracy theorists where you don't look at the evidence and reach a conclusion you start with a conclusion and look only for evidence which supports it. Perhaps there is some convincing evidence which I have failed to come across. I'm open to further suggestions but today's generation are not in awe of the Church, and are skeptical of "experts", if you suggest they should believe in something they are entitled to ask why and as the Church is supposed to be promoting the teaching of Jesus it needs to show it is something he taught - and as far as I can see this isn't.
NEXT >
 |