The Existence of the Godhead

[DarcyLu]

Hi Darcy

I am ready to return to Jn1:1ff when you are.

Conclusions must be based on exegesis and this is how it works.

BTW - I was curious - were you raised in a traditional religious home?

Best,
Anth

hi Anth, lol no i was not raised in any religious home, i am a 23 year old seeking student of the Word and i have had some bad teachers and i have had some good teachers - which were called to be such and i have had to seek and find them on my own (of course with God's direction ;) )


D4Christ - i will get back to you on your post, i am heading for work and will be kind of busy for the next few days and it will take me awhile to post a commentary for every verse. lol

Drew - i'm not sure if you posted anything to me but will also get back to you if need be.
God bless you all -

 

[Anth]

Darcy,

Thanks - I understand.

When you are ready to get back to Jn1:1ff and work through that, send me an email.

I have long ago learned that if we don't fully resolve and come to agreement on one matter we cannot go on. However, I think we did make some progress so far.

BTW - most so called "teachers" that I know of are baptized in the traditions of the pre-medieval religious institution which eventually became the Eastern Orthodox and western Roman Catholic institutions. That does not mean that you cannot get some insight from them especially at your age. As long as you don't get hard and fast on any of their ideas but use them to develop your own thinking you will be pretty safe. At my age and after listening to tens of thousands of hours from hundreds of preachers/teachers, most of their words now are pretty basic and I find the inability to question and work through their presentation to be far too frustrating to spend any time with (but that was not so when I was a young Christian).

Best,
Anth

 

[DarcyLu]

Darcy,

Thanks - I understand.

When you are ready to get back to Jn1:1ff and work through that, send me an email.

I have long ago learned that if we don't fully resolve and come to agreement on one matter we cannot go on. However, I think we did make some progress so far.

we have not come to a resolution, Christ was not created, you obviously will not change your mind as you have "spent 30 years studying this".

BTW - most so called "teachers" that I know of are baptized in the traditions of the pre-medieval religious institution which eventually became the Eastern Orthodox and western Roman Catholic institutions.

i'm not talking about a pastor who goes to seminary lol, i am talking about a true called teacher of God. many people think they are called (and some people are) but many are not called but teach anyway.

That does not mean that you cannot get some insight from them especially at your age.

this is a pretty offensive statement, Anth, because i mention i am 23 years old, now it's "especially at your age"????? it doesn't matter how old you are, God can reveal truth to a person at any age.

As long as you don't get hard and fast on any of their ideas but use them to develop your own thinking you will be pretty safe. At my age and after listening to tens of thousands of hours from hundreds of preachers/teachers, most of their words now are pretty basic and I find the inability to question and work through their presentation to be far too frustrating to spend any time with (but that was not so when I was a young Christian).

Best,
Anth

like i said, many people "think" they are called by God to teach and they are not.
God bless -

 

[Anth]

this is a pretty offensive statement, Anth, because i mention i am 23 years old, now it's "especially at your age"????? it doesn't matter how old you are, God can reveal truth to a person at any age.

Darcy

Sorry for the confusion - no offense intended I assure you!!

What I meant is that a person who has heard 1,000 hours instead of 10,000 hours will still get some genuine benefit from listening to the average radio preacher (John MacArthur, Swindoll, McGee (deceased), etc.). The simple reality is that at the age of 52 I have lived 2x your lifetime and the 2nd have as "fully" functioning mind - I have heard it ALL and MANY TIMES. Listening to these guys is pretty much a waste of time at this point and has been for probably over 2 decades. HOWEVER, when I was 23 and even26 and perhaps 30 at times, I did get some benefit - in fact, it was listening at that age that got me where I got to today.

Some time ago a fellow at work submitted his life to Jesus and he became fascinated by a particular teacher/church. At some point I told him he would out-grow this - he sort of acknowledged what I said but remain engrossed for maybe a couple years or so including flying cross country to attend services at the church (which turned out to be a bit of a negative experience). Eventually the whole experience became rather banal - and now he has taken the bumper sticker off his car and does not listen any more at all. I knew this would happen because I have gone through the same experience probably half a dozen times.... (I am a slow learner.... ). I remember being pretty interested even excited about Charles Stanley - now I just kind of wince in pain when I hear him and move on.

Does this make sense??

Best,
Anth

 

[DarcyLu]

this is a pretty offensive statement, Anth, because i mention i am 23 years old, now it's "especially at your age"????? it doesn't matter how old you are, God can reveal truth to a person at any age.

Darcy

Sorry for the confusion - no offense intended I assure you!!

What I meant is that a person who has heard 1,000 hours instead of 10,000 hours will still get some genuine benefit from listening to the average radio preacher (John MacArthur, Swindoll, McGee (deceased), etc.). The simple reality is that at the age of 52 I have lived 2x your lifetime and the 2nd have as "fully" functioning mind - I have heard it ALL and MANY TIMES. Listening to these guys is pretty much a waste of time at this point and has been for probably over 2 decades. HOWEVER, when I was 23 and even26 and perhaps 30 at times, I did get some benefit - in fact, it was listening at that age that got me where I got to today.

Some time ago a fellow at work submitted his life to Jesus and he became fascinated by a particular teacher/church. At some point I told him he would out-grow this - he sort of acknowledged what I said but remain engrossed for maybe a couple years or so including flying cross country to attend services at the church (which turned out to be a bit of a negative experience). Eventually the whole experience became rather banal - and now he has taken the bumper sticker off his car and does not listen any more at all. I knew this would happen because I have gone through the same experience probably half a dozen times.... (I am a slow learner.... ). I remember being pretty interested even excited about Charles Stanley - now I just kind of wince in pain when I hear him and move on.

Does this make sense??

Best,
Anth

yes and i have read some of their stuff, but some things they preach about are kind of off, imo.
we won't talk about how at the age of 40 we start losing brain cells. :rolling j/k seriously though, i realize i do not have the life experience as some do here and maturing and growing as an adult has alot to do with ones perception, i do understand that. i do, however, know God can show His truth to a person at any age.

 

[Anth]

i do, however, know God can show His truth to a person at any age.

Fully agree - in fact I was about 23 - 25 yo when I came to understand the Man Christ Jesus as a completely separate entity from the God (the Father) - and slowly came to understand the resolution of the texts commonly (and inappropriately) used in defense of the pre-medieval version...

Anth

 

[DarcyLu]

i do, however, know God can show His truth to a person at any age.

Fully agree - in fact I was about 23 - 25 yo when I came to understand the Man Christ Jesus as a completely separate entity from the God (the Father) - and slowly came to understand the resolution of the texts commonly (and inappropriately) used in defense of the pre-medieval version...

Anth

we do not agree on this subject and i can not ignore nor will i discredit what God has taught me up to this point, i realize i have much learning to do and currently i am struggling to understand certain scriptures, but the Godhead is not one of them. it seems when we are focused on trying to prove one thing, we miss out on all the other stuff He is trying to teach us.

 

[Tongan321]

Trinity for the WIN!

 

[DarcyLu]

Trinity for the WIN!

 

[DarcyLu]

John 17

20 “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. 21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. 23 I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me.

Can someone please explain what Christ meant in this passage above? And please don’t quote more scriptures that say ‘one.’ Let’s do an exercise. If this scripture is speaking of ‘one’ as trinity then in good grammatical form, we should be able to insert the word trinity or any of its synonyms in place of the word ‘one’ into the passage and still have it make sense.

hi D4Christ -
Jesus was praying for His Body, if we are believers in Him, we are His Body, we are all one with Him. He is the head of the Body. it is a union with Christ in the Father, indwelling us with His Spirit, we are one. He was also praying for unity among the believers.
the ASV version says:
John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may believe that thou didst send me.

your assertion that we can place Trinity where "one" is used, is not what Jesus was trying to show us in this particular scripture. He was trying to show us we are all one, in Him. there are numerous other passages together that explain the Trinity, but it seems you want someone's opinion and not the scripture themselves.

the scriptures can not be broken and we can spend all day on one verse and try to prove a point using that one verse, but that is not the intention of scripture, when we use all of scripture, it's easier to come to the truth.

And the question still remains….if Christ is co-equal with His Father, then why does He never state this? Therefore the definition that was given of Godhead – glory equal, majesty co-equal is wrong imho.

1). Jesus came to not only die for our sins and overcome death, He was also here as an example for us, He was a servant while He was here, just as we should serve one another.

2). He was also worshipped while He was on earth, twice that i recall, Thomas worshipped Him and said, "my Lord, my God" and when He calmed the storm, they worshipped Him. if He was not God, He should have corrected them, either that or He was a complete sham - which we both know He was not.

 

[DarcyLu]

I entirely agree that Jesus had no concept of "the Trinity" in His mind, although I admit that the arguments for this are not easy or clear.

And I also agree that the "I and the Father are one" has routinely been misunderstood - it is not a claim of co-divinity but rather a claim of "unity of purpose", if you will.

hi Drew,
i agree with your assessment that the trinity is a "unity of purpose", but disagree as they are co-equal, there is no doubt in scripture and no other way to come to any other conclusion:

God will not give His glory to another:

Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, for mine own sake, will I do it; for how should my name be profaned? and my glory will I not give to another.

in the NT we see Jesus was worshipped - so as in another post i mentioned - Jesus should have corrected them or He was a sham. Jesus WAS worshipped.

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.

Mark 5:6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped him;

Luke 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

i could bring in all the Revelation versus, too, but hopefully this will suffice.

 

[DarcyLu]

Anth -

could you please clarify what you are trying to point out in this verse:

John 9:9 Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he.

thanks -

 

[Anth]

He said, I am he.

??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????.

The blind man claimed to be the Great I AM according to your usaged of this predicate nominative (albit, humbly I say, you are using it incorrectly as will be obvious to anyone who both knows Greek as well as knows the actual words that Jehovah used for His name - which was NOT ego eimi (see Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint for the correct answer...).

I note that no one had a problem with him claiming to be EGO EIMI..... (s/b a clue there somewhere...).

Best,
Anth

 

[ronniechoate34]

:robot :transformer

 

[DarcyLu]

He said, I am he.

??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????.

The blind man claimed to be the Great I AM according to your usaged of this predicate nominative (albit, humbly I say, you are using it incorrectly as will be obvious to anyone who both knows Greek as well as knows the actual words that Jehovah used for His name - which was NOT ego eimi (see Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint for the correct answer...).

I note that no one had a problem with him claiming to be EGO EIMI..... (s/b a clue there somewhere...).

Best,
Anth

Come on Anth, are you kidding? they asked the blind guy if he was the blind guy who now could see, he said "i am he". do you see the difference in John 9:9 compared to:

John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

 

[DarcyLu]

He said, I am he.

??????? ?????? ??? ??? ????.

The blind man claimed to be the Great I AM according to your usaged of this predicate nominative (albit, humbly I say, you are using it incorrectly as will be obvious to anyone who both knows Greek as well as knows the actual words that Jehovah used for His name - which was NOT ego eimi (see Ex 3:14 in the Septuagint for the correct answer...).

I note that no one had a problem with him claiming to be EGO EIMI..... (s/b a clue there somewhere...).

Best,
Anth

i posted this to Drew - above -
God said He would give no one His glory:
Isaiah 42:8 I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.

Isaiah 48:11 For mine own sake, for mine own sake, will I do it; for how should my name be profaned? and my glory will I not give to another.

in the NT we see Jesus was worshipped - so as in another post i mentioned - Jesus should have corrected them or He was a sham. Jesus WAS worshipped.

Matthew 28:9 And behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and took hold of his feet, and worshipped him.

Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted.

Mark 5:6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped him;

Luke 24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

 

[Anth]

Darcy

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point.

BUT, first, let's clarify, I understand that you are saying that Jesus is Jehovah because he called himself "Ego Eimi" - which is translated as "I am" (therefore, you claim he is claiming to be Jehovah bvecause he called referenced himself as "I am" and Jehovah also did in Ex 3:14.

Am I missing something here???

Anth

 

[DarcyLu]

Darcy

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point.

BUT, first, let's clarify, I understand that you are saying that Jesus is Jehovah because he called himself "Ego Eimi" - which is translated as "I am" (therefore, you claim he is claiming to be Jehovah bvecause he called referenced himself as "I am" and Jehovah also did in Ex 3:14.

Am I missing something here???

Anth

hi Anth, i am not missing your point, your claim is the blind guy said he was the great I AM, he did say "i am" but if you check out the greek in the following verse, Paul says the same thing - so Paul is also saying he is the "great I am"? no, neither are because what is missing is context:

here Paul is not claiming diety, He is telling us he is an apostle because God made him so.

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

here, the blind guy is telling them he was in fact the man who was blind from birth and now can see:

John 9:9 Others said, It is he: others said, No, but he is like him. He said, I am he.

in this passage, Jesus is telling us He is the "I AM" before Abraham was born....
John 8:58
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

all 3 verses use the same exact greek words - it's context that changes their meanings.

 

[Anth]

Darcy,

Very good - I am aware of Paul's statement (as well as, I believe, other instances that I don't recall but have seen). In fact, Paul specifically states "I am that I am" (hmmm...kind of sounds like Ex 3:14 - are you sure he is not claiming to be Jehovah by using the same words...???)

OK, so if ego eimi does NOT mean the great I AM - Jehovah, what exactly does ego eimi mean then??

And why does the context in Jn8:58 mean anything different than the standard usage (since standard usage is the default hermenutic)???

Best,
Anth

PS I am aware that we have left Jn 1 and gone into Jn8 - because of your sincere heart, I am giving this one - but will not go further until we resolve both of these.

 

[D4Christ]

Hi Drew….Sorry it has taken so long to respond…but I had to investigate your theory thoroughly Part 1 of 2

Well, we should be getting our concepts of who YHWH is from the Old Testament, not from conceptual definitions with no connection to the Jewish worldview.

I agree…and imho you do not properly understand the relationship between the Father and His Son.

The OT describes YHWH as loving, but jealous God who promises to send someone to reconcile His people back to himself. Frankly, there are many OT examples…too many for me to list here of the Father referring to a future servant whom He will send to save the world. Jews in Christ time understood that this servant/saviour/messiah was coming. Christ also understood the people were looking for this saviour….a being always described as separate from the Father.

Zechariah 6:12
12 Tell him, ‘This is what the Lord of Heaven’s Armies says: Here is the man called the Branch. He will branch out from where he is and build the Temple of the Lord.

Zechariah 3:8
8 “Listen to me, O Jeshua the high priest, and all you other priests. You are symbols of things to come. Soon I am going to bring my servant, the Branch.

Jeremiah 23:5
5 “For the time is coming,â€
says the Lord,
“when I will raise up a righteous descendant
from King David’s line.
He will be a King who rules with wisdom.
He will do what is just and right throughout the land.

And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return….Remember the context. The Jews are in a state of exile. The temple had been abandoned by God and destroyed. This vision given to Ezekiel constitutes a promise that God will return to inhabit the “temple†once more.

I have a couple of issues with this conclusion. First, it seems like you base your statement that YHWH has left and will return to the Temple on Ezek 43, which speaks of the “Glory of God†once again inhabiting the Temple. However, a closer look at what the “Glory of God†is reveals an interesting fact.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father and will judge all people according to their deeds.

Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he returns in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.â€

Luke 2:32
He is a light to reveal God to the nations, and [color=#0000ffhe is the glory of your people[/color] Israel!â€

John 8:54
Jesus answered, “If I want glory for myself, it doesn’t count. But it is my Father who will glorify me.

John 11:4
But when Jesus heard about it he said, “Lazarus’s sickness will not end in death. No, it happened for the glory of God so that the Son of God will receive glory from this.â€

The Glory of God (The Father) is Yahushua. So, it is Yahushau who will inhabit the Temple described in Ezek…just as the scriptures state.

The 2nd problem I have with your assessment is about the Temple being abandoned and destroyed….but perhaps this is another discussion for I feel many people incorrectly sees Ezek’s Temple prophecy as something that happens before the wrath of God takes place. In brief, the prophecies of Daniel and Matt 24 can happen without a physical temple in place before the start of the GT…but I digress.

…When Jesus, then, so obviously sees Himself as embodying that promised return, that, and not vague conceptual arguments, makes the case that Jesus sees Himself as the incarnation of Israel’s God.

Christ does not see himself as the Father incarnate, like some confused Buddha. Christ always understood that His role was to implement His Father’s plan as Saviour and ruler of Israel. There is no place in scripture where He compares His role as equal to His Father’s.

I think the confusion arises because many do not understand how the Father communicates. The Father may send a message thru His Son in which the Son will speak in the 1st person. So for example, instead of saying, ‘I the Son am telling you what my Father is saying,’ many times Yahushua will speak the Father’s words exactly, from the first person personal point of view, without saying ‘he said’ or ‘he will’, etc. How about some proof…

Ask yourself this…who was speaking to John in Rev 1? Let me know what you conclude.

1 This is a revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants the events that must soon take place. He sent an angel to present this revelation to his servant John, 2 who faithfully reported everything he saw. This is his report of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the LORD of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.

This material, just like the Ezekiel text, was written during the time of exile. Once more we have a promised return of God to the temple.

I disagree. I think a basic read of the sentence states it’s the “messenger,†aka Christ who is the one anticipated.

Malachi 3

“Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. Then the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger of the covenant, whom you look for so eagerly, is surely coming,†says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.

Why would YHWH refer to himself as the messenger who is coming. In this passage there is a clear reference made to the One whom YHWH has promised thru out scriptures He would send.

…this and other texts such as Daniel 7 only hint at a possibility - there is no strong and pervasive theme in the Old Testament that clearly anticipates the notion of God incarnated in the form of man. But, and this is key, neither is such a possibility over-ruled, with texts like this one from Ezekiel and the one from Daniel 7 giving the hint of the possibility a divine human figure.

Of course the Messiah is a divine human figure. The Word…the Father’s begotten Son,…came to us in Human form [the Word became flesh]….fully man and fully God. Like I have said before, humans’ beget humans, dogs beget dogs and the Father (God) beget a Son (God). But let’s not get it twisted…the Father is clearly in charge.

John 5
19 So Jesus explained, “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the Father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he is doing. In fact, the Father will show him how to do even greater works than healing this man. Then you will truly be astonished. 21 For just as the Father gives life to those he raises from the dead, so the Son gives life to anyone he wants. 22 In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge, 23 so that everyone will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son is certainly not honoring the Father who sent him.