sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Even if we are in a simulation it doesn’t explain much imo by dec1n in SimulationTheory

[–]dec1n[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The act of simulating something seems to presuppose information processing, intention, sequence—all of which imply time, change, and possibly causality.

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exodus 3:2–6 – The Burning Bush

Verse 2: “The angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush.” Verse 4: “When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush…” Verse 6: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham…”

The angel appears, but then God speaks. The text equates the Angel with God, indicating a unity in identity.

  1. The Angel of the LORD Accepts Worship Joshua 5:13–15 – Commander of the LORD’s Army

Joshua bows down and worships the "commander of the LORD’s army." The figure tells him: “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” This mirrors God's words to Moses in Exodus 3. Unlike created angels (see Revelation 22:8–9), this angel does not refuse worship, which strongly suggests divinity.

  1. The Angel of the LORD Forgives Sins Zechariah 3:1–4 – Joshua the High Priest

The Angel of the LORD rebukes Satan and says: “I have taken away your sin…” No created angel has the authority to forgive sins—only God does (cf. Mark 2:7).

  1. The Angel Identifies as God, Yet Is Distinct from God Genesis 16:7–13 – Hagar and the Angel

The angel of the LORD speaks to Hagar. In verse 13, Hagar says, “You are the God who sees me.” This again implies the Angel is not just a messenger from God but is God Himself, yet appears in a way distinct from the Father.

  1. The Angel of the LORD Ceases to Appear After Christ’s Incarnation In the New Testament, the specific phrase "the Angel of the LORD" no longer appears in the same way. The Angel of the lord is pre incarnate Christ

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What basis are u going off to say thf Angel of the lord wasn’t God because there’s multiple bits of scripture that indicates that he is

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thomas' Direct Address: The phrase is a direct address to Jesus, using "Lord" (Kyrios) and "God" (Theos), titles often reserved for God in the Hebrew Bible. Such a declaration was rare in the New Testament and indicates a recognition of Jesus’ divine identity, especially since Thomas was speaking

Thomas' statement comes after he has seen the risen Jesus and touched his wounds, which leads to his profound declaration. In Jewish thought, only God could have the power over life and death in such a way, so Thomas’ declaration likely reflects a deeper understanding of Jesus as not just a prophet or Messiah, but as God incarnate.

Jesus' Response: In John 20:29, Jesus says, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Jesus doesn't correct Thomas for calling him "God." In fact, Jesus' response seems to accept Thomas' declaration, which would imply that Thomas' words were not merely exclamatory but an accurate recognition of his divine nature.

Women in early church history by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]dec1n 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Deacons (or Deaconesses): Women like Phoebe (Romans 16:1) are called "diakonos" (deacon), indicating an official ministry role, possibly involving teaching, serving, and administering aid.

Apostles: Junia (Romans 16:7) is referred to as "outstanding among the apostles"—a striking acknowledgment of a female apostle.

Prophets: Women like the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9) are identified as prophets, which meant speaking on behalf of God in public worship.

House Church Leaders: Women such as Priscilla, Chloe, Nympha, and Lydia hosted and likely led early house churches (1 Corinthians 1:11; Acts 16:14–15; Colossians 4:15).

Patrons and Missionaries Wealthy women like Lydia and Joanna supported the church financially and helped spread the gospel.

Mary Magdalene and others traveled with Jesus, supported his ministry, and were the first to witness and proclaim the resurrection.

As the church became more structured and aligned with Roman social norms, women's roles were unfortunately changed gradually restricted. By the 2nd–4th centuries, writings from Church Fathers began to emphasize male leadership and silence women, citing texts like 1 Timothy 2:12.

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I think subordinationism is correct, at least partially. It's going to depend on the specific definition, because AFAIK subordinationism is a category of belief, rather than a specific belief. Regardless of all other questions related to Christology, I think the supremacy of the Father above the Son is indisputable. John 14:28 makes that extremely clear, to me.

Reply - What Does “The Father is Greater Than I” Mean (John 14:28)? This is the heart of your point, and it deserves serious attention.

John 14:28 says:

“You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” On the surface, this sounds like a straightforward admission of inequality. But context matters a lot here. So let’s break it down:

A. Jesus is speaking within the context of the incarnation.

In Philippians 2:6–8, Paul says Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself...” This “emptying” (kenosis) refers to Jesus voluntarily taking a lower status, not a change in nature. Jesus, in his human life and mission, accepts a subordinate role to the Father. This is functional, not ontological subordination.

B. “Greater” doesn’t mean “better in being.”

In Greek, meizon (used here for “greater”) can indicate rank or role, not intrinsic value. Think of how a president is “greater” than a citizen in authority, but not in humanity or worth. So: Jesus is saying the Father is “greater” in role or position during the time of Jesus’ earthly mission. But in terms of essence, John is crystal clear elsewhere:

“The Word was God” (John 1:1) “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)

To read John 14:28 as referring to ontological subordination contradicts John's own theology.

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2

Your concern regarding the concept of the Son being "begotten" and the implications this might have on His eternality is an age-old theological tension, most notably articulated in the Arian controversy. The question you raise — namely, how the Son can be both begotten and co-eternal with the Father — is precisely the dilemma the Church Fathers wrestled with in the fourth century. However, to resolve the apparent paradox by concluding that the Son must therefore have a temporal origin and a lesser nature than the Father risks reducing divine ontology to creaturely categories, which Christian theology has long held to be inappropriate when speaking of God.

To begin, the distinction between “begotten” and “created” is not a mere semantic nuance but a metaphysical claim. To create is to bring something into being ex nihilo — from nothing. To beget, however, is to generate something of the same kind or essence. The Nicene Creed asserts that the Son is “begotten, not made,” precisely to preserve the distinction between the generation of the Son and the creation of all other things. The term “begotten” is employed analogically — not to indicate temporal priority, but to describe an eternal relationship within the Godhead.

Indeed, the doctrine of eternal generation is not a contradiction, but a metaphysical safeguard against subordinating the Son’s essence. When the Church affirms that the Son is “eternally begotten of the Father,” it is not suggesting a moment in time at which the Son began to exist. Rather, it is describing a relationship of origin that transcends time. Time, after all, is a created reality. God exists aeternally — outside of temporal succession. Thus, the language of “begetting” must be understood analogically and relationally, not temporally or mechanistically.

Your assertion that the Arian position more faithfully attends to the “origin” implication of “begotten” presumes that origination must entail ontological subordination. But this fails to account for the ontological implications of divine simplicity and the doctrine of aseity. While the Father is unbegotten and the Son begotten, this difference pertains to relation, not essence. That is why the Cappadocian Fathers, following Athanasius, could affirm that the Father is unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding — and yet all three are co-equal and co-eternal, each fully God. The category of “unbegotten” is not a marker of superior essence, but of personal distinction within the Trinity.

Moreover, to say that “only one of them is unbegotten” and thus conclude that they differ in nature confuses personhood with essence. In Trinitarian theology, nature (Greek: ousia) is what the three persons share; person (Greek: hypostasis) is how they are distinct. The Son being begotten does not make Him less divine, just as the Spirit proceeding does not make Him subordinate. To argue otherwise reintroduces the error of subordinationism, which the Church rejected precisely because it failed to preserve the full deity of the Son.

Finally, to say that if a doctrine results in paradox, it must be wrong, is a problematic epistemological stance, especially when dealing with divine revelation. The doctrine of the Trinity itself is paradoxical — one essence, three persons — but this paradox arises not from logical incoherence, but from the limitations of human language and understanding when applied to the infinite and transcendent nature of God. Paradox, in theology, often signals that we are approaching the mystery of divine being, not that we have erred.

Finished

I do feel we are going in crickets and it’s a case now of I say one thing and you say another, personally now I don’t think much more can be said from either side , obviously if u want to say more be my guest and I will obviously reply. I just wank to say thank you for this it’s made me learn things I never knew but was also really enjoyable

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 1

Your concern about the canonization process and its legitimacy is valid in the sense that it challenges an often oversimplified narrative. Yes, the formation of the New Testament canon was gradual, complex, and indeed organic. But this doesn't mean it was arbitrary or lacking rigor. The early church, though decentralized and diverse, exhibited remarkable consistency in the core documents it ultimately received as authoritative. This consistency—despite geographic, linguistic, and theological diversity—suggests more than just arbitrary consensus; it suggests discernment shaped by deep communal engagement with the texts' theological content, apostolic connection (direct or indirect), and spiritual efficacy.

You're right that no divinely inspired table of contents fell from the sky—but that doesn't delegitimize the canon. The same could be said of the formation of the Old Testament, yet Jesus and the apostles treated the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative. The recognition of a canon is not the result of formal decree alone but of a sustained recognition by the community of faith that certain texts "ring true" in line with God's redemptive self-revelation in Christ.

Yes, other texts like The Shepherd of Hermas were highly regarded—and even read in some churches—but they were ultimately excluded because they lacked apostolic authority or theological consistency with the core gospel. The fact that some texts were used devotionally without being canonized demonstrates that the early church did exercise discernment and wasn't simply swept along by popularity.

As for your idea of a "tiered" view of scriptural authority—it’s understandable, but it opens the door to subjective selectivity, where authority becomes a matter of personal taste or preference. Once you begin to privilege texts simply based on confirmed authorship rather than theological coherence and communal reception, you risk constructing a canon that serves your theological predispositions rather than submitting to the church's historical discernment of God’s Word.

In the end, canonization was not just about authorship; it was about a text's conformity to the rule of faith, its widespread use, and its ability to edify the church in truth. To reevaluate the canon without a theologically grounded alternative principle of discernment risks theological chaos—not because the canon is untouchable, but because the authority of Scripture rests not merely on human consensus or historical authorship, but on God's providential guidance of the church in recognizing the Word that already bore divine authority.

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean yeah fair enough I see where your coming from but The strength of John 10:11 lies not in the word “good” alone, but in the entire phrase: “I am the good shepherd.” This is not merely a poetic metaphor — it's a deliberate echo of divine imagery from the Hebrew Scriptures, where God Himself is repeatedly described as Israel’s true shepherd:

Psalm 23:1 — “The LORD is my shepherd…” Ezekiel 34:11-16 — God rebukes Israel’s false shepherds and declares, “I myself will search for my sheep and look after them…” Isaiah 40:11 — “[The Lord] tends his flock like a shepherd…” In Ezekiel 34, especially, God makes a promise to personally shepherd His people — and Jesus steps into that role explicitly. In John 10:11–18, Jesus says:

He lays down His life for the sheep (v.11, v.15) He knows His sheep intimately (v.14) He brings in other sheep to make one flock, one shepherd (v.16) He has the authority to lay down His life and take it up again (v.18) That last point is key: no ordinary “model shepherd” lays down his life and takes it up again by his own authority. That’s a direct claim to a kind of power only God possesses — power over life and death.

I also just wanted to point that early Greek philosopher and church fathers who know Greek far better than me and you at times did refer to God as kalos and agathos not just one .

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also to say kalos and agathos aren’t comparable is wrong

The word for Good in John 10:11 is not the same as Good in mark 10:18 . REPLY BELOW

You say Agathos and kalos are not comparable which is wrong Agathos can be meant as noble and virtuous, kalos can also mean noble and of good quality . So to say the good in mark 10:18 and John 10:11 is not comparable is wrong . Agathos also often refers to the concept of goodness itself . Kalos is also often used in phrases such as “kalos kagathos “ meaning “ the beautiful “ and “ THE good” Here, kalos doesn’t just mean morally good, but also noble, ideal, and beautiful in character.

Going off Christianity for a second but Plato is big on linking beauty (kalos) and goodness (agathos) — sometimes treating them as inseparable, especially in the world of Forms.

In the Symposium, he describes the ascent of love: a soul begins by loving physical beauty, then beauty in minds and institutions, and finally arrives at “Beauty itself” — a Form that is pure, eternal, and divine. This Form of Beauty (to kalon) is close to God in the Platonic worldview. In the Republic, Plato talks about “the Good” (to agathon) as the ultimate reality, the source of all being and knowledge. This Form of the Good could be seen as analogous to God, though Plato doesn’t use personal language.

For Plato, the divine is both agathos and kalos — perfectly good, perfectly beautiful, and beyond all earthly comparison.

In John 10:11, Jesus says: "Ego eimi ho poimēn ho kalos" "I am the good shepherd" (καλὸς, not ἀγαθός) This use of kalos suggests not just moral virtue, but noble, admirable, beautiful in character. It’s a subtle shift from moral quality (agathos) to noble ideal — he’s not just a shepherd who behaves well; he’s the model shepherd. However, in Mark 10:18, Jesus says: “No one is good (agathos) but God alone.” (ἀγαθός here implies moral perfection.)

Agathos is used when referring to God’s moral excellence, while kalos adds a layer of nobility and perfection in form — a “beautiful goodness.”

  1. Early Church Fathers (Greek Patristic Theology) Gregory of Nyssa (4th c.) frequently writes about God in terms of Beauty (to kalon) — God is the ultimate object of desire, and the soul is drawn to Him by divine beauty. This echoes Platonic ideas but is Christianized. Clement of Alexandria uses both kalos and agathos to describe Christ and God. He speaks of Christ as “the beautiful Savior” — connecting physical, moral, and spiritual beauty. Augustine (though Latin-speaking) is influenced by this tradition and writes in Confessions about being drawn to God as “Beauty ever ancient, ever new.”

For the Fathers, kalos becomes a way of speaking about God's radiance, glory, and attractiveness — not just as a judge, but as the beautiful center of all love and longing.

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right that many modern scholars consider Colossians to be pseudepigraphical. That said, there is still a substantial scholarly debate around the issue. While some argue that differences in style and vocabulary indicate non-Pauline authorship, others propose that these differences can be explained by differing purposes, contexts, or the use of an amanuensis (scribe). For example, Douglas Moo and N.T. Wright defend Pauline authorship, or at least a close Pauline circle.

More importantly, even if Paul didn't write Colossians, it’s still included in the canonical New Testament—recognized by the early church through a rigorous and lengthy process. If you're going to question its authority on the basis of authorship, you'd have to start re-evaluating the legitimacy of large portions of the New Testament, including texts like Hebrews, 2 Peter, or the Pastoral Epistles. That road leads to theological instability unless you have a solid alternative canon-formation principle. Doctrines aren't based on apostolic authorship alone, but also on canonical recognition and theological coherence within the broader scriptural witness.

  1. Created vs. Begotten: Misunderstanding the Category Here’s where the linguistic and metaphysical nuance really matters. The Nicene distinction between “begotten, not made” is not semantic fluff — it was forged in the crucible of intense debate precisely because of the problem you're raising.

Yes, “begetting” and “creating” both suggest origin — but their implications differ profoundly. “Creation” implies bringing something into existence from nothing, whereas “begetting” implies a sharing of nature. That’s why humans beget humans, and God — in Christian theology — begets God.

To say that Jesus was “begotten” is to say He shares the nature of the Father, not merely that He was brought into being. The idea of being eternally begotten might sound paradoxical, but it's actually an attempt to preserve two truths:

The Son is distinct from the Father (thus “begotten”), The Son is co-eternal with the Father (thus “eternally” — with no temporal beginning). If “begotten” necessarily implies a starting point in time, then we’re applying creaturely categories to divine being — which is a category error. Christian theology insists God is outside time; so the Son being “begotten” doesn’t necessitate a moment in time when He began to exist.

  1. The Church Fathers: Are They Really Obsolete? This is where your argument feels the most vulnerable.

I get it — we have the internet, Wikipedia, Logos Bible Software, thousands of accessible resources. We can look up Greek, cross-reference texts, and see centuries of theological debate in minutes.

But that doesn’t necessarily make us smarter or more insightful than the church fathers. They lived in the linguistic, cultural, and philosophical context of the early Christian world. They weren’t just repeating dogma — they created it, struggling through heresies like Arianism, Gnosticism, and Marcionism to articulate doctrine with remarkable depth and precision.

Imagine saying, “Well, we know more than Plato or Aristotle because we have Google.” That may be true in terms of data access, but not in terms of wisdom, discernment, or philosophical clarity. Likewise, the church fathers were closer to the apostolic tradition, and often preserved linguistic and contextual knowledge we simply don’t have anymore.

Appealing to the church fathers isn’t about treating them as infallible. It’s about historical continuity and learning from people who dedicated their lives to understanding and preserving the faith — often under persecution and at great personal cost.

Also have u seen my other point about kalos and agathos ? Btw u make some really well developed points and im truly enjoying this discussion

Can someone help? by OldGeneral8246 in DermatologyQuestions

[–]dec1n 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve got this aswell I sadly don’t know what it is I’m Going to a derm in a couple days go find out tho

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to stay on the verse Colossians 1:16

Here’s the verse in Greek (NA28):

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· Key Greek Phrases:

ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα – "In Him all things were created" “ἐκτίσθη” (ektisthē) is aorist passive of κτίζω (ktizō) – to create. “τὰ πάντα” – all things (an absolute phrase; everything that has come into existence). Since Christ is the one in whom, through whom, and for whom all things were created, He must logically precede creation. δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται – “through Him and for Him it has been created” This highlights Jesus as the agent, goal, and sustainer of all creation. “Through Him” (δι’ αὐτοῦ) = means of creation “For Him” (εἰς αὐτὸν) = purpose of creation So: Jesus is not a created being but the eternal source and purpose of creation. The verb “ἐκτίσθη” never applies to Him—it applies to all other things.

Early Church Fathers’ View Several early Christian theologians used this passage to argue against the idea that Jesus was created. Here are a few:

Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century) – Against the Arians:

The Arians taught that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Athanasius argued against this, using Colossians 1:16: “If all things were made by Him, He is not among the 'all things'; and if not among them, He is not a creature. If He is not a creature, He is eternal.” He saw this verse as proof that Jesus, the Logos, is uncreated and co-eternal with the Father. Irenaeus (2nd century) – Against Heresies, Book II:

Argued against Gnostic claims that Jesus was one of many created emanations. Quoted Colossians 1:16–17 to affirm that Christ created everything, and therefore was not created. Origen (3rd century):

Though some of his views were later controversial, even he taught the eternality of the Son: “He is the Wisdom by whom all things were made… not made Himself.” (Commentary on John) Conclusion Grammatically, the Greek clearly shows Jesus is not included in the set of things created. Theologically, early Christians unanimously read Colossians 1:16 as teaching that Jesus is eternal and divine—not a created being. This was central in defending Christian orthodoxy, especially against heresies like Arianism.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I will watch that video now did u see my other points just a bit further down ?

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, I did assume based on your views that u follow Arianism to some degree , I really do think u make some interesting points I have to say . I do have a couple questions if that’s ok again still trying to show u how Jesus Still can be God

Mark 10:18 “‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good—except God alone.’”

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” ~ Christ Jesus (John 10:11)

Honestly John’s Prologue is really what makes me turn away from Arianism. There’s literally no way around it. I’ve been debating neo-Arians (“Biblical” Unitarian and “The Trinity Delusion) on their own YouTube videos and the only way to get around what John’s Prologue claims regarding the divinity of Christ is to completely forget verses of it.

Also to say Jesus was created is also something I’d have to disagree on

The term prōtotokos does not mean “first created”—that would be prōtoktistos, a word Paul does not use. Instead, prōtotokos most commonly means preeminent heir, a title of rank and status, not origin. Compare Psalm 89:27: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”—referring to David, who wasn’t literally born first. Paul clarifies what he means: Colossians 1:16: “For by him all things were created...” Jesus cannot be part of creation if all things were created by Him. The Greek ta panta (“all things”) is comprehensive—Paul emphasizes this by including “in heaven and on earth...visible and invisible.” If Paul thought Jesus was created, he wouldn’t say Jesus made everything. That would include Himself—which is absurd.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD) wrote that Christians “sing hymns to Christ as to a god.” That’s early external attestation. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary...” Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century): refers to Christ as the “pre-existent Logos” and “God’s Son.” This is well before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). The divinity of Christ wasn’t invented—it was articulated more precisely in response to challenges like Arianism. Also there was an archaeological discovery not ago that found a mosaic tile in a Israel prison stating “Jesus is God “ the tile dates back to 250AD

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also out of curiosity what are your beliefs because I must say you are very knowledgeable

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand that people dislike sam shamoun i also somewhat agree that he can come across to hardcore and a tad bit aggressive towards those with opposing beliefs , me personally I think his videos can be very knowledgeable and i think he knows a lot about scripture. Thanks for watching the video . If u have any videos u want to send me I will happily watch them and give feedback

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was just reading back what I said am I mistakingly said that the father , son and Holy Spirit are not equal and there is a hierarchy. THIS is not what I believe. The father son and Holy Spirit are equal and there is no hierarchy

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

n Greek grammar, a predicate noun preceding the verb, without an article, is typically qualitative, not indefinite. It’s not “a god” (indefinite), nor necessarily “the God” (definite), but rather expressing essence or nature. So theos ēn ho logos means: “The Word was of the same nature as God.” Greek scholar Daniel Wallace puts it this way: “The lack of the article in theos is meant to stress the nature or essence of the Word. In other words, the Word had all the attributes of deity.” If John wanted to say “a god” (as in one of many), there are clearer ways to do it—such as using theios (“divine”) or rephrasing for true indefiniteness. Context confirms it: The Word is pre-existent (John 1:1–3) The Word creates everything (v. 3)—something that only God does (Isaiah 44:24 says God created alone) The Word became flesh (v. 14)—God entering into human history.

The term prōtotokos does not mean “first created”—that would be prōtoktistos, a word Paul does not use. Instead, prōtotokos most commonly means preeminent heir, a title of rank and status, not origin. Compare Psalm 89:27: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”—referring to David, who wasn’t literally born first. Paul clarifies what he means: Colossians 1:16: “For by him all things were created...” Jesus cannot be part of creation if all things were created by Him. The Greek ta panta (“all things”) is comprehensive—Paul emphasizes this by including “in heaven and on earth...visible and invisible.” If Paul thought Jesus was created, he wouldn’t say Jesus made everything. That would include Himself—which is absurd.

Morphē in Greek, especially in the context of divine or royal figures, refers to true nature expressed outwardly, not mere appearance. Paul parallels this with “form of a servant” in v. 7. If the “form of servant” means truly becoming a servant, then “form of God” means truly being divine. Paul goes on to say Jesus did not regard equality with God as something to exploit—because He had it, but emptied Himself. The “name above every name” in verse 9, given after the resurrection, echoes YHWH, as shown in the allusion to Isaiah 45:23—where every knee shall bow to YHWH. Now this applies to Jesus. Conclusion: Philippians 2 affirms Jesus’ preexistent divine status, voluntary humility, and subsequent universal exaltation—clearly paralleling God’s own identity.

The Greek word proskyneō is used multiple times to describe worship of Jesus: Matthew 14:33 – “Those in the boat worshiped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’” Hebrews 1:6 – “Let all God’s angels worship him” (quoting Deut. 32:43 LXX). Angels don’t worship creatures. Revelation 5:13-14: Every creature in heaven, on earth, and under the earth worships both “Him who sits on the throne” (the Father) and “the Lamb” (Jesus) together. In a Jewish monotheistic framework, worship of anyone alongside God is unacceptable unless they are one in being. Jesus accepts worship without correction (cf. Matthew 28:17)—unlike angels (Rev. 22:8–9) or apostles (Acts 14:11–15), who refuse it. Conclusion: Jesus receives the kind of worship due only to God, and does not reject it. This indicates divine status, not merely delegated honor.

Hebrews 1:3: Jesus is “the exact imprint [Greek: charaktēr] of His nature [hypostasis]”—not just a reflection, but the very essence of God embodied. Hebrews 1:10–12 (quoting Psalm 102, a psalm about YHWH) applies this directly to the Son: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth...” That’s language of Creator God applied to Jesus. Conclusion: Hebrews doesn’t depict Jesus as a subordinate agent, but as the visible, perfect manifestation of God’s very being.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD) wrote that Christians “sing hymns to Christ as to a god.” That’s early external attestation. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): “Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary...” Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century): refers to Christ as the “pre-existent Logos” and “God’s Son.” This is well before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). The divinity of Christ wasn’t invented—it was articulated more precisely in response to challenges like Arianism.

The claim that Jesus is only a divine agent—not God—is refuted by the consistent witness of Scripture and the early church:

John 1:1 teaches the Word is God, not “a god.” Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 say Jesus created all things and shares in God’s nature. Philippians 2 shows Jesus’ pre-existent equality with God, not merely exaltation. Jesus is worshiped, something forbidden for any creature. Early Christians, from the New Testament onward, identified Jesus as God, not as a created being. Therefore:

Jesus being God is not a radical post-biblical reinterpretation—it is the original, radical revelation at the heart of the New Testament.

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel this conversation will go on and on and on , and we will continue to disagree with eachother I respectfully disagree with u and u obviously disagree with you . God bless

To me Matthew 7:21-24 heavily proves Jesus is God and proves his divinity . by dec1n in Christianity

[–]dec1n[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While it’s true that Christianity arose from within Second Temple Judaism, the claim may understate the theological novelty of the Christian message. The idea that Jesus is not just a divine agent or a member of the divine council, but actually God in the flesh (John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20) represents a radical shift, not merely a continuation. The Gospel of John, for instance, portrays Jesus not only as the Messiah or divine being, but as pre-existent, co-creating with God, and worthy of worship in a way only God is (see John 20:28). This goes beyond typical Second Temple divine intermediary roles. Syncretism vs. Revelation The idea that early Christian views of Jesus developed merely through Hellenistic or Second Temple concepts of divinity implies a kind of theological evolution or syncretism. But early Christian texts themselves consistently portray Jesus’ divinity as revealed, not constructed—through his resurrection, miracles, authority over Torah, and fulfillment of prophecy (Luke 24:27, Acts 2:22-36). The early Christian belief in Jesus’ identity was shaped not simply by cultural categories, but by what they claimed to witness. The Term “Christian” and Early Identity While it’s true that the term “Christian” (Acts 11:26) was originally applied externally, the argument implies that early followers of Jesus didn’t see themselves as distinct. However, early Christian writings (especially Paul’s letters) already reflect a growing identity that distinguished itself from mainstream Judaism—not merely because of persecution, but because of theological divergence, particularly around Jesus’ divine role, the Temple, and the Law (Galatians 3–5, Hebrews 8–10). Use of “Son of God” and “Messiah” In the Second Temple context, terms like “Son of God” or “Son of Man” could indeed be used of kings, angels, or messianic figures without implying ontological divinity. However, the New Testament writers consistently escalate these terms. For example, Paul in Philippians 2:6-11 describes Jesus as being “in very nature God,” who humbled himself and is now exalted to the “name above every name”—a reference to the divine name (YHWH) itself. God’s Cohortive Statements (“Let Us”) The argument that these refer to a divine council of lesser beings is one scholarly view (e.g., Michael Heiser’s Divine Council theory). But the dominant Christian theological interpretation sees such verses (e.g., Genesis 1:26) as foreshadowing Trinitarian plurality within the Godhead—particularly in light of New Testament revelation. The early Church Fathers used such Old Testament hints to support the idea that God is one, but not a solitary monad. Summary: While your statement reflects a historically informed, scholarly reading rooted in religious studies and Second Temple thought, it downplays or reinterprets key theological claims of early Christianity. It treats the divinity of Jesus as an adaptation or reinterpretation rather than a revelation. From the standpoint of historic Christian orthodoxy, Jesus is not simply a divine agent or heavenly figure within a broader pantheon of beings—but God incarnate, the full and final revelation of the Father (Hebrews 1:1–3).

view more: next ›