Kelt, would it be accurate to say that Jesus then was a really nice and devout chap specially created by God, who had a special relationship with God but had no powers of his own and was simply a human?
NO. At least that is not what I believe with regard to Jesus.
What you propose is something similar to what Arius believed. Arius even had a favorite saying that went something like: "There was a time when he (Jesus) was not." He held that Jesus was fully human but not fully God. And this was easily predicated, in Arius' view, on the simple fact that Jesus had a birthday, or in some other sense (according to scripture) "begotten". Even if one were to accept the assertion of John 1 (that Jesus was in some sense the Word and the Word was God), Arius still believe that this Word (the Greek is
Logos) was somehow a lesser, inferior deity. Perhaps close to God, but still exterior to God and thus a product of God's creation.
Opposing Arius was Athanasius who distinguished between "generation" and "creation". According to Athanasius, the Son was
generated (or begotten) by the Father from eternity, but had no beginning. This was because this generation was eternal and internal to God who exists outide of time. Whereas, creation was in time and external to God. The Son, Athanasius argued, was therefore
homoousios (being of the same substance) and co-eternal with the Father, not simply
homoiousios (beiing of similar substance) to God as some Arians claimed.
In Greek it is only the difference in the letter "i" in the middle of the word, but it means a huge difference in Christian theology.
First, it is the difference between having two gods, and greater and a lesser (what Christians are often accused of), and understanding that there is just one God (what Christians actually believe) who himself exists in an eternal divine community within himself.
Second, if Christ is not the eternal God who created the universe, then this means that God sent a second to bridge the gap which exists between humankind and God. (For Christians do believe that a gap exists.) Christians do not believe that God sent a creature in order to simply show us how to bridge that gap, for that would make bridging it something that we were responsible for doing in our own power. And we do not think that human kind has the ability to make itself better without divine intervention. We need more than a wonderful example, we need a savior. It's the difference between a religion which says to us "try harder," and the belief that God is the one who has done what it takes to deliver us, through the incarnation and the cross.
Third, if Christ is just some devout chap specially created by God, then we are left without knowledge of God, for God remains hidden from us. Again, Christianity proclaims that Christ does not offer us secondhand, indirect knowledge of God, but the direct experience of a relationship with the eternal God in and through placing one's personal trust in Jesus Christ to be able to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves. On the other hand, if you and Arius are right, then the love we find in Christ is really external to God. If Christ does not fully know God, can we fully trust him to deliver us?
Fourth, why should anyone want to offer praise to the God of Arius? Why should we want to emulate this "good chap", when God remains distanct from us, an insulated ruler who cannot involve himself intimately with his creation?
It is true, some of the verses cited here, that Jesus was limited by his humanity. Scripture tells us that though he was equal with God that he did not count such equality as something to be grasped and emptied himself of it in becoming incarnate as a human being (Philippians 2:5ff). So, he did hunger, thirst, tire, experience a full range of human emotions including sorrow and a desire to not face his mortality. But none of these things are with regard to his divine essence, and there a plenty of passages that speak to the full diety of Christ:
For us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (Colossian 1:16-17)
In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form. (Colossians 2:9)
We wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. (Titus 2:13)
Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Romans 9:5)
All texts by Paul who, according to his own testimony, "according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee" (Acts 26:5), a group that was charged with protecting the Law of Moses and would never compromise their monotheistic faith. Philippians 2 does not make sense if Jesus is just a devout chap. It only makes sense if Jesus is the pre-existant God incarnate. And Paul goes on to say (Philippians 2:9-11) that this man has been given the name which is above every name.
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and
every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
(Philippians 2:9-11)
That name which is above every name for Paul, the devout Pharisee, is the tetragrammaton (YHWH), the name that Jews even today cannot even speak -- this is the name that is to be given to Jesus.
What is particularly striking in this passage from Philippians is how Paul anchors it in the Tanakah:
"Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
(Isaiah 45:22-23)
I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not give my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
(Isaiah 42:8)
In affirming that this name and this glory belong to Jesus, Paul is applying some of the strongest affirmations about the unique sovereignty and identity of the God of the Tanakah to the person of Jesus Christ. And that is why Christian cannot accept that Jesus is just some devout chap.
And of course it isn't just Paul, John does it as well in just putting this simple affirmation of who Jesus is on the lips of the disciple Thomas following the resurrection, greeting him as "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). I think it took the resurrection for the disciples to come to this awareness. But most certainly Jesus is more than just some special chap; for those of us who accept the testimony of the Bible, that option isn't open to us.
