Jesus

Incarnation

Read 12089 times

John Leonard

  • **
  • 628 Posts
    • View Profile
Who Does Jesus Think He Was?
« on: December 20, 2010, 04:13:17 am »
I uploaded Dr. William Lane Craig' lecture on the self-understanding of Jesus:






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6rk7DGzYAc
http://drcraigvideos.blogspot.com

1

Cletus Nze

  • **
  • 490 Posts
    • View Profile
Who Does Jesus Think He Was?
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2011, 04:21:15 am »
Jesus CANNOT be correctly referred to as "was"! He IS - and has ALWAYS been - and has remained  the same!And will remain the same for Eternity! That is the key to understanding His Nature as a Part of God that remains forever ONE with God!
Pursue Truth - with rigour and vigour!

2

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
Who Does Jesus Think He Was?
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2011, 07:39:13 pm »
mwalimu wrote: Jesus CANNOT be correctly referred to as "was"! He IS - and has ALWAYS been - and has remained  the same!And will remain the same for Eternity! That is the key to understanding His Nature as a Part of God that remains forever ONE with God!


I think the implication is "who did Jesus think he was when he spoke during his teaching ministry recorded in the N.T." Of course, Christians believe that God is unchangeable, but its just easier to use common language this way, as well as the fact that I am guessing Dr. Craig is arguing for Christianity rather than assuming it.

3

jayceeii

  • **
  • 332 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Who Does Jesus Think He Was?
« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2019, 10:13:36 am »
Jesus CANNOT be correctly referred to as "was"! He IS - and has ALWAYS been - and has remained  the same!And will remain the same for Eternity! That is the key to understanding His Nature as a Part of God that remains forever ONE with God!
I’ve seen this attitude before, in fact Keith Green included it in some of his songs. I’d warn however, against the error of confusing “unchanging” with “attributeless.” Rocks are relatively unchanging, but the Creator is not dismissed from relevance to His creation, should the creatures assign Him a lifeless position. The attributes of God have not been described in the Bible, in any way that would help to define human sin specifically instead of leaving it enormously vague, or that could be used to establish when His living Presence was again upon His world. In other words, I’d ask you to state His attributes.

I’d assert that the Creator is constant, but the angels are also constant, if the word “divine” means anything (and angels are divine). The sameness of God is not in a retreat from relevance to the background of impotence or noninterference, but in stable character traits that are not like the traits of humans. (My ways are not your ways, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.) The Lord can be relied upon as eternally Good, but by a goodness He must define for Himself and by Himself, before trying to make it relevant to creatures. In particular today, the Lord would be looking for powerful and pure souls, if the prayer of Christians is to be answered, “Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.” (And as Jesus also said, the pure in heart shall see God.)

My point is that the goodness of the Lord is not compatible with the goodness of man. To shout that He is “ever the same,” in the mouths of the unwise, may be merely a declaration of their eternal separation.