There are a multiplicity of contemporary claims regarding Jesus made by folks who refer to themselves as Christian. 1) Jesus was and is both God and man. 2) Jesus was and is only man 3) Jesus was an angel, became a man, and is an angel again. (Or was and is both.) 4) Jesus was a man and now is God. These are, perhaps, not all of the options and certainly not all of the nuances. What I have not come across is a contemporary claim that Jesus was God only and not really man at all. Docetism is one form of the sort of thing I am referring to but I am unaware if Docetism is still alive under the umbrella of claimed Christianity: > In the history of Christianity, docetism (from the Koinē Greek: δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn "to seem", dókēsis "apparition, phantom"1 ) was the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality.[3] Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. - Wikipedia I have seen articles describing "docetic christianity " wherein the importance of being led of the Spirit becomes so magnified that human responsibility to any sort of biblical hermeneutic disappears: > On this view, it becomes unimportant whether Jesus lived or died according to the Gospel records. What matters is the ethical and existential message of the stories about him; how the story affects my understanding of myself. This begins to sound like what I have seen described as Christian Atheism in practice, but theologically cannot be since Christian Atheism denies the existence of God: Are there any contemporary denominations who claim to be Christian and whose theology holds that Jesus was God only and not really human?

In John 18:37–38, Jesus says He came into the world *“to testify to the truth,”* and Pilate responds, *“What is truth?”* In Christian theology, “truth” is often associated with God’s nature, His Word, and the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Jesus also says in John 16:13 that the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth.” However, does this theological concept of truth also encompass factual truths about the created world (e.g., the shape of the earth, historical facts, scientific realities), or is it limited to spiritual and moral truths revealed by God? How have Christian theologians understood the scope of “truth” in Scripture?

A similar question has been asked here , but no details have been asked other than how Trinitarians interpret this verse. The top answer of the linked question talks about the Son being "eternally begotten" by the Father, and the Son *proceeding from the Father* (something I have not found in any of the Chalcedonian Creeds). My question is less about the Son's origin, but about the Father and the Son **sharing the same divine essence**. Thus, here is a more detailed question for this bible passage. Let me quote it first in its immediate context: > 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and > believeth on him that sent me, hath **everlasting life**, and shall not > come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. > > 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, > when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that > hear shall **live**. > > 26 *For* as **the Father hath life in himself**; so hath he ***given*** to the Son > to have life in himself; > > **John 5:24-26** (*KJV - emphasis mine*) **How is it that in light of John 5:26, the Father has "*everlasting life*" in Himself that has to be GIVEN (greek: edoken - other translations also say GRANTED) to the Son, so that the Son has that life in himself?** The type of life being talked about in John 5:26 is "everlasting life" (verse 24). So God the Father has this eternal life in Himself **inherently**, because he has no beginning and thus must have it inherently in Himself, otherwise He would not have been able to live for eternity past. Nobody gave the Father this life - he inherently has it in Himself! The Athanasian Creed says: > "The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And > yet they are not three eternals; but **one eternal**. So likewise the > Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty... > The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is > of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy > Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor > begotten; but proceeding... > And in this Trinity **none is before, or after another**; none is > greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are > **coeternal**, and **coequal**." It is hence clear that, according to the Chalcedonian Creeds, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit share the same essence of being, the same nature. In order to be an eternal living being (past, present and future), as God Almighty is, you have to have life in yourself, **always**. If you have to be GIVEN or GRANTED that life, it means you didn't have it. Life itself (being alive) is an inherent part of the nature of a living being! According to Philipp Schaff who analyzed the works of St. Augustin , John 5:26 is explained as follows in the light of the Trinity: > For it is not, as with the creature so with the Son of God before the > incarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begotten > by whom all things were made; that He is one thing, and has another: > but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more > plainly, if any one is fit to receive it, in that place where He says: > “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son > to have life in Himself.”[John 5:26] For He did not give to Him, > already existing and not having life, that He should have life in > Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He is life. Therefore “He gave to > the Son to have life in Himself” means, He begat the Son to be > unchangeable life, which is life eternal" Put in simpler terms: God the Father gave the Son life in Himself, which is life eternal. It means that the Son is eternal life, because what he has been given is what he became - it has become part of his essence! God the Father is the cause and the source of life. All Christian denominations I know of, that believe in the creation by God agree to this. **How can it be maintained that Jesus shares the same divine essence with the Father, but had to be GIVEN "everlasting life" that was never given to the Father, who apparently inherently had it in Himself, whereas it had to be GRANTED/GIVEN to Jesus (the Son)?** The act of the Father having granted and/or given (greek: ἔδωκεν ) Jesus eternal life in Himself, is an act that has temporal implications - *in the 68 occurrences of this form of the verb "edoken" in the Aorist Indicative Active , which expresses the simple occurrence of an action in past time, none appear atemporal/eternal* - which means that there was a point in time where Jesus did NOT have this type of life in Himself, which would mean that he does not share exactly the same essence with God. **How do Trinitarians explain this apparent contradiction?**

In Philippians 2:6–7 (ESV), Paul writes of Christ: >*“Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”* Some interpret this "emptying" (Greek: kenóō) to mean that Christ temporarily gave up or set aside His divine attributes, and became fully human in appearance and function. Others argue that He remained fully divine while also taking on full humanity — the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Does this passage support the idea that Jesus ceased to operate in divine nature during His earthly life, or is it describing something else (e.g., a voluntary humility or servant posture)? How do major theological traditions (e.g., Chalcedonian Christianity, kenotic theology) interpret this “emptying”?

If Psalm 110 was NOT written by David, then did Jesus make an error in stating that "David himself calls him [the messiah] 'lord'" in the Psalm (Mark 12:36-37; Mat. 22:43-45; Luke 20:42-44), or is there a better way of looking at this? I've read a few commentaries (expositional and scholarly) on the New Testament passages and Psalm in question (Expositor's Bible Commentary: Carson (Matthew), Wessel and Strauss (Mark), Liefeld and Pao (Luke), VanGemeren (Psalms); Word Biblical Commentary: Evans (Mark), Hagner (Matthew), Nolland (Luke), Allen (Psalms 101-150); and the NET Bible's notes to name a few). At least one of the Expositor's commentators recommended Allen's commentary. I agree that his appears to provide the most thorough analysis of the Psalm's original context of the commentaries I've read and also best addresses the question at hand. While he concludes that the Psalm was most likely written *about* David rather than *by* David (as also the NET concludes), he also writes, > "An understanding of the heading of the psalm in terms of Davidic authorship features twice in argumentation, at Mark 12:35–37 (and parallels) and Acts 2:33. This understanding, already as old in principle as the redactional characterization of the block of Davidic psalms in Pss 3–71 as “the prayers of David son of Jesse” in Ps 72:20, accords with what R. N. Longenecker has called the “circumstantial” or “descriptive” type of interpretation, based on ancient cultural norms, to be found in the NT, as distinct from the normative kind of exegesis practiced today (TynBul 21 36–38; Biblical Exegesis, 193–98)." I've since read some of the recommended book by Longenecker, *Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period*, learning much about Jewish exegetical practices around the 1st century. I also read Dr. Michael Brown's take on Jesus' use of Psalm 110 in his book, *Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol.* 3. While he prefers defending the Psalm originally being written about the Messiah, he also concedes, > "Even if the psalm was originally written by a court poet for his lord, King David, it would still point to David’s priestly calling (as a prototype of the Messiah) as well as to his worldwide reign, fulfilled only through David’s greater descendant, King Messiah. This would mean, then, that Jesus was pointing to Jewish interpretation of the day, interpretation that attributed the authorship of this psalm to David, thereby proving that Messiah had to be greater than David, but without making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm." This is the best and most direct answer I've found so far. The difficulty now is reconciling the assumption that Jesus was not "making a definitive statement about the authorship of the psalm" with the language that he uses, which appears to be definitive. Matthew's version seems to be most easily reconciled with this approach, since Davidic authorship is merely an assumed part of Jesus' questions to his opponents. Mark and Luke are more difficult, Mark's version reading, "David himself said by the Holy Spirit,... David himself calls him 'Lord'." (I also explored the possibility that *David* could merely be a colloquial designation for the Davidic Psalms, attempting to replace *David* with *the Davidic author* in Jesus' quote. This, however, doesn't seem to work well, since the argument in the gospels revolves around the question of how the messiah could be *David's son*, whenever *David*, the assumed author of the Psalm, calls him 'Lord'.) I also have some deeper questions, which I think are pertinent to how we answer the main question: - Does Jesus himself believe that David wrote the psalm? (It's easier to account for other New Testament writers' use of Jewish tradition, since they aren't themselves *divine*.) If so, how should that inform our Christology? (Which part of His argument is divine and which part is human?) - Is the point Jesus tries to make undermined if his argument is based on a false premise? - If Jesus said that David wrote this Psalm, but it actually wasn't written *by* David, how do we reconcile that with the doctrine of inerrancy?

Acts 1:9–11 records Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Hebrews 1:3 and other passages state that He "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Yet other verses, such as Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25, describe Him as interceding for believers. Revelation 3:21 also speaks of Him sharing His Father’s throne. According to Christian theology, since His ascension, has Jesus been permanently seated on His throne, or is this meant to describe His authority while He remains actively engaged in roles such as interceding, reigning, and preparing for His return? I’m seeking an explanation based on Scripture and Christian doctrine about what Jesus has been doing since He ascended to the Father.

In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul says: >"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) As someone who affirms the full divinity and sinlessness of Jesus, I’m trying to understand how He could be said to "become sin" without that implying any corruption in His nature or character.

Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him. There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology? --- 1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41. 2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458. 3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

Does Psalm 51 imply that an unborn child will have no sin? Assuming that is true, are there any denominations that support that all unborn children have salvation? Is there newer scripture (in the NT) that reverses this? **Psalm 51:3-5 ESV** > For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. > > Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. > >Behold, (K)I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. **Psalm 51:3-5 CEV** > I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt. > > You are really the one I have sinned against; I have disobeyed you and have done wrong. So it is right and fair for you to correct and punish me. > > I have sinned and done wrong since the day I was born.

In Genesis 1, we observe that God the Father appears to be the one speaking creation into existence (“God said…”) and the Spirit of God is described as “hovering over the waters” (Genesis 1:2). However, the Son is not seen engaging in any form of activity in the narrative. This seems puzzling in light of John 1:1–3, which identifies the Word (the Son) as being present in the beginning and as the agent through whom all things were made, and Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him and for Him. Why doesn't Genesis include any mention or visible action of the Son in the creation account? How do Christian theologians reconcile this apparent absence with New Testament claims about the Son's role in creation?

I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief? It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once: > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us > > John 1:14 I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.

I'm interested in whether there was an early Church Father who ***explicitly*** drew the connection that Trinitarians commonly draw today: the connection between Jesus' "**I am**" statement, found in **John 8:58** and God Almighty calling Himself the "**I am**" in **Exodus 3:14**. I would be interested in any Trinitarian answer that holds on to the Chalcedonian creeds. **When did the Church start drawing this connection?** I couldn't find such an explicit reference to such a connection being made by any of the 1st to 3rd-century Church Fathers in my research and am wondering if I'm missing something.

While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He *literally* claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God). Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God? OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

In [John 17:3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&version=NIV) it says that Jesus called the Father the "only true God" and called himself sent by the Father. Also, in [Matthew 4:10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10;&version=NIV;) , Jesus himself says to: > ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’` What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but "god in the flesh"?

There is a famous quote from [sermon 23](https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360323.htm) on the Feast of the Nativity by [Leo the Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I) , the bolded text among the paragraph context below: > Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true God born, complete in what was His own, complete in what was ours. And by ours we mean what the Creator formed in us from the beginning, and what He undertook to repair. For what the deceiver brought in, and man deceived committed, had no trace in the Saviour; nor because He partook of man's weaknesses, did He therefore share our faults. **He took the form of a slave without stain of sin, increasing the human and not diminishing the divine: for that emptying of Himself, whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, was the bending down of pity, not the failing of power.** The section context (II. The Arians could not comprehend the union of God and man) is clearly an articulation for the proper meaning of Christ's "emptying himself" (Phil 2:7) from his pre-existence, against Arianism. But **what did he mean by "increasing the human"** (part of the bolded text above)? Does it simply mean God "adding human nature" during Incarnation instead of "relinquishing divine nature" (which is unorthodox)? Or does it refer to "healing humanity" (for example: by "taking the sins of the world", [John 1:29](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201%3A29&version=CSB) , or by giving new life to us so we can "share in the divine nature", [2 Pet 1:4](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201%3A4&version=CSB)) since in the beginning of the paragraph he said something about "undertook to repair"? A good answer should try to do one or more of these: - shed light on possible translation issue from Latin to English - provide a link for a critical edition of the text - discuss how his original audience would have understood the meaning - include consideration that the language he used may not be precise if the sermon has been dated PRIOR to Chalcedon (since his papacy is from 440-461 AD) - include discussion on how the quote could have been cited in Patristic, Medieval, or post-Reformation theological text in discussing Christology. For example, if Aquinas quoted it, what's his understanding of "increasing the human"? - doctrines (maybe related to Eastern Orthodox *theosis*) that use it for support

And what is the name of this Angel of the LORD, who later also made many other appearances, but only in the Old Testament?

All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth. The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?. Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: [Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus) Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: [The Liberal Catholic Church](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thelccusa.org/about/doctrine.html&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjAVegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tmC-K73qW9T0pMn8NF4yE&cshid=1577636090716) and [Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjATegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jVuej_N56fVnUqmJKBsJ5&cshid=1577637685926) I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

How do people who believe in the theology of The Holy Trinity respond to these clear differences between God and Jesus Christ? | # | The Father | Jesus Christ | |----| -------- | -------------- | |1.| God is not put to the test (Deut 6:16)| Jesus was put to the test in the wilderness| |2.| God is not mocked(Gal 6:7) | Jesus was mocked on the cross, *save us and yourself, he is calling Elijah*| |3|God has immortality and cannot die | Jesus died first and received the breath of life from God| |4|God has been seated on that throne for all eternity| Jesus is seated at the right hand of that throne and not on it, *One Sat On it*| |5|God knows the end from the beginning | Jesus does not know the time of his second coming, *not even the angels but the Father* | The differences above show that Jesus Christ received the breath of life from God like the two witnesses of The Book of Revelation and indeed he is the *Suffering Servant*. *Isaiah 53:4-6* >However, it was our sicknesses that He Himself bore, And our pains that He carried; Yet we ourselves assumed that He had been afflicted, Struck down by God, and humiliated. 5 But He was [c]pierced for our offenses, He was crushed for our wrongdoings; The punishment for our [d]well-being was laid upon Him, And by His wounds we are healed. 6 All of us, like sheep, have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the wrongdoing of us all To [e]fall on Him. And surely a servant is not greater than his master who is God. As a Christian, I do believe in the words Jesus said that , *he did not know of the second coming, not even the angels but the Father*, if Jesus denied this knowledge then he is not *omniscient* and hence not God, If I deny those words, I make the Lord Jesus Christ a liar, which he is not and never will be. How do Trinitarian Christians respond?

There is much discussion in secular academia about the possibility/impossibility of Christ being a God? And there are sects *within religious circles* who diss the idea of Christ really being Deity. Some of those sects fly under the banner of "Christianity." ***Since a "Christian"--in normal patois--is defined as someone who is a disciple of Christ***, it follows that that disciple would believe and teach faithfully whatever the essence of Christ is. But many interpret the Bible as declaring that ***Christ taught He was Deity (God in the flesh)***. >Israelites...whose are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9:5) >I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him that sent me. (John 6:38; also 8:24,42) >Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed on Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32) Note that the second half of this verse is engraved on the portals of Harvard University! Yet none would say that Harvard wishes to promote Christ's divinity. Could all others who claim to be Christian, whether sect or individual, ***but do not believe in His divinity*** still legitimately fall under the umbrella of the title, ***Christian***? Or is that deceptive? Is that unwarranted? ***Is that contradictory to the words of Jesus in these verses?*** >For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9, NIV)

This is certainly not found in the New Covenant of Jesus yet it is prevalent in Christian teachings, media, and reading materials.