How many Jesus' are there?

[Devekut]

I think you should start using Greek scholars who wrote in this century.

So, why did John use "the" before the first occurrence of God (Theon), but not before the second occurrence of it, and yet again in the third occurrence ?

It's really simple. Theos en ho logos. Both words are in the same case (nominative) so to indicate this only one article is neccessary. Later it is written "ton Theon" because "God" in this instance is no longer in the nominative case, but the accusative (not the subject but the object) and so the article (Ton) is required to indicate the case.

As you can see, the article is needed to indicate the case of a noun. When two nouns are in the same case, and therefore both serving the same role in the sentence, the article need only be used for one of them.

Virtually no credible scholar today thinks "was a god" is the best translation. It is clearly selective in favor of an anti- Trinitarian bias. Otherwise any instance of "Theos" with the article in the New Testament would have to indicate some "god" other than "God".

 

[nadab]

Hello Devekut,
The Emphatic Diaglott is based on the Greek master text of J.J. Griesbach. The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek master text, not just a Bible version, that has attained wide acceptance and was produced by the Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, in 1881. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like J.J Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,†which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E. While Westcott and Hort viewed matters as quite conclusive when these manuscripts agreed and especially when they were supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts, they were not bound to that position. They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve problems presented by conflicting texts; and when two readings were of equal weight, that, too, was indicated in their master text. Proofs of Westcott and Hort’s Greek text were consulted by the British Revision Committee, of which Westcott and Hort were members, for their revision of the “New Testament†of 1881. This master text is the one that was used principally in translating the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament) into English in the New World Translation. This master text is also the foundation for the following translations into English: The Emphasised Bible, the American Standard Version, An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed), and the Revised Standard Version.

Is it really all that simple, to say that kai theos en ho Logos means that Jesus is God ? Who is the "gods" that is mentioned at Psalms 82:1, 6 ? Are you not aware that the judges of ancient Israel were themselves also called "gods" and that Jesus pointed this out to the Jews at John 10:34-36.

You have "theos" capitilized, but in the Ellis Ultra Bible Library, "Theon" is capitilized in both instances, whereas "theos" is not. This library contains 14 Bible versions. It is not unanimous among Bibles that John 1:1 be rendered as "and the Word was God".

Trying to grasp the meaning of John 1:1 using the five cases of Greek - nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, or vocative is not what Jesus' apostles used when understanding just Jesus is, for Peter, when asked by Jesus as who he was, said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".(Matt 16:16) How could Jesus be "God" and yet be the "Christ", anointed by God ? Too, why did Peter refer to Jesus as the "Son of the living God if Jesus were also "God" ? Peter, along with the rest of the apostles knew Koine Greek far better than we do, yet the apostle John, in concluding his Gospel account, said: "But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God."(John 20:31)

If Jesus were God, then how could he be "ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God", as he expressed at John 20:17 ? The Bible must harmonize and saying that Jesus is God or part of a trinity conflicts with this statement that Jesus personally made after his resurrection. Truth is not at odds with itself. For example, how could Jesus be God and yet receive God's approval at his baptism ?(Matt 3:17) Jesus also made other statements that provide the correct view of him.

For instance, if Jesus were God, then please explain how Jesus ' lives because of the Father' ?(John 6:57) Or that Jesus said "that I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the things pleasing to him.†?(John 8:28,29) How can Jesus be God and yet be "taught" or "do nothing of my own initiative" ? The Bible must harmonize and it does. In addition, how can Jesus be God and yet offer "up supplications and also petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death" or be "favorably heard for his godly fear" ?(Heb 5:7) Since when does God have "godly fear" ? Too, how was it that Jesus "learned obedience" or was "made perfect", if he is God ?(Heb 5:8,9)

To say that Jesus is God goes totally contrary to just these few Scriptures. Yet there is more. For example, Jesus had to provide the basis for atonement of our sins. As used in the Bible, “atonement†(Hebrew Ka·phar´) has the basic thought of “cover†or “exchange,†and that which is given in exchange for, or as a “cover†for, another thing must be its duplicate. Thus, anything making satisfaction for something that is lost or forfeited must be “at one†with that other thing, completely covering it as its exact equivalent. There must be no overlapping and no coming short. No imperfect human could provide such a covering or atonement to restore perfect human life to any or all of mankind. (Ps 49:7, 8) To make adequate atonement for what was forfeited by Adam, a sin offering having the precise value of a perfect human life would have to be provided.

Thus, only someone who was Adam's exact eqivalent in human perfection before his rebellion in the Garden of Eden would be accepted by God. This is God's justice. In the role of high priest under the Mosaic Law covenant, the high priest stood between the nation of Israel and God as an intercessor or mediator and was appointed by God.(Ex 28:1-3) He never was God and high priest, for this was impossible. Jesus, in like respect, being appointed by God, could not be God, neither could he be "anointed" by God and yet be God.

You, along with many others, also fail to understand the meaning of "only-begotten". Yet the dictionary says: "Begotten - to be the cause of something, to be the father of a child".(Microsoft Encarta Dictionary), "to procreate or generate offspring".(Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language) Thus Jesus, as God's "only-begotten Son", had a Father, God, being ' generated as his offspring'. One cannot rewrite the meaning of words to suit their own taste.

And one final question. How could Jesus be God and yet say in prayer to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." ? How could call his Father the "only true God" if he were God ? The answer is self evident, for Jesus himself has provided all that is needed to clearly comprehend that he is not God, but God's "only-begotten Son".

 

[Free]

As per usual, those who argue against the Trinity focus only on half of the evidence. I can put together several verses which clearly show that Jesus is God. This is precisely why we have the doctrine of the Trinity - it simply provides the best explanation of Christ's nature given all that Scripture reveals about him.

 

[Devekut]

Nadab,

Its really quite simple, you are translating John 1 in your favor because you don't think the Trinity makes sense. Virtually no competent biblical scholar will translate it today in your favor. You should find sources that agree with you within this century.

 

[beloved57]

There is only one True Jesus and thats why its important to know what the doctrinal teachings are of those saying they represent the True Christ..remember my savour wasrning in matt 24:

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25Behold, I have told you before.

26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

I commend these articles to those who are serious about knowing the True Christ of scriptures..


http://www.godsonlygospel.com/God's%20Only%20Jesus2.htm

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_68.html

 

[wavy]

The thing with Greek is that it does not actually matter.

Apparently it does, according to many qualified trinitarian scholars (like A.T. Robertson, for example). I'm inclined to ask whether you know biblical Greek.

It is the Son, who proceeds eternally from the Father

A mistake on your part, if you're trinitarian. It is the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father according to orthodoxy, not Jesus.

This does not mean inequality in a somewhat similar way that both a man and woman having different roles in marriage does not imply inequality. The father is not inequal to the mother for not bearing children, nor is the mother inferior to the father for not producing semen.

Irrelevant. Jesus clearly states he is subservient to the Father, and NT authors agree (cf. 1 Corinthians xi.3).

The Word of God, if existing before creation, can not be anything other than God himself.

Not 'God himself' but definitely like God.

 

[Devekut]

I don't suppose you use the New World Translation of scripture? Either way, it relies on many of the same errors as do most non-Trinitarians.

What reputable scholars say about the New World Translation of John 1:1:

Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."
Bowman, Robert Bowman, All scholars agree that in John 1:1 "logos" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate. This sets the translation of John 1:1c as, (The Word was God" not "God was the Word". Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.)
Boyer: Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."
Bruce: Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]
Colwell: Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"
Feinberg: Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."
Griesbach: Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."
Johnson: Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."
Kaufman: Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."
Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
Mantey: "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Mantey: Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Mantey: the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Martin: Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."
Metzger: Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)
Mikolaski: Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"
Nida: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.)
Wescott: Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-texts-john1-1.htm

 

[stranger]

Hi nadab,

When Moses met God in the wilderness, and (Moses) asked: Who are you? God replied: I am that I am. Call this 'self authentication' or some similar expression that speaks of no appeal by God to any higher authority than Himself.

As mainstream Christians we believe that Jesus is the Son of God AND the Son of Man. There have been many debates about 'Trinity' which has to include the Father and the Holy Spirit but since we are focusing upon Who is the real Jesus? I suggest that we consider the titles Son of God and Son of man. The Church confesses that Jesus is one person and has two natures. When you make reference to Jesus being the exact equivalent of Adam - and indeed Jesus is referred to as the second Adam in scripture itself - Adam was a son of God but we believe Jesus is the Son of God. Adam was created, Jesus was begotten. There are differences.

' If Jesus were God, then how could he be "ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God", as he expressed at John 20:17 ?

The redeemed can say 'my Father and my God' and to the redeemed it can be said 'to your Father and your God'. There is no difficultly here. The ascending to heaven only makes sense after the decending from heaven otherwise Jesus would not be going back to the Father.

For example, how could Jesus be God and yet receive God's approval at his baptism ?(Matt 3:17)

The 'testimony' Jesus received was this is My Beloved Son lisen to Him. John felt that Jesus should baptise him but Jesus insisted that He be baptised 'to fulfil all righteousness. Baptism is associated with death, burial and resurrection as well as forgiveness of sins.

You wrote: Thus, anything making satisfaction for something that is lost or forfeited must be “at one†with that other thing, completely covering it as its exact equivalent. . . .Thus, only someone who was Adam's exact eqivalent in human perfection before his rebellion in the Garden of Eden would be accepted by God. This is God's justice.

No, because more is at stake at redemption. The fall of Adam had an affect that extended beyond himself seen in the words 'cursed is the ground because of you'. The apostle Paul speaks of creation groaning in travail for the revealing of the sons of God. In this personification it is implied (believed by Christians) that creation itself will be set free from its bondage - thus the new creation. There is another problem with exact equivalent theory in that there is no redemption offered to Satan and the demonic realm nor are all men redeemed - this is also the justice of God.

In the role of high priest under the Mosaic Law covenant, the high priest stood between the nation of Israel and God as an intercessor or mediator and was appointed by God.(Ex 28:1-3) He never was God and high priest, for this was impossible. Jesus, in like respect, being appointed by God, could not be God, neither could he be "anointed" by God and yet be God.

What we have in Mosaic Law pointed to a greater fulfilment for the nation of Israel and beyond it's borders. Strictly speaking we say that Jesus is not only the Son of God but was appointed by the Father (God). Call it self authenticating appointment - Why can't a man appoint himself for a task? For example - a Captain in a war needs to appoint someone for a task - and there is no higher authority present - the Captain can appoint himself to do it. If man can do this how much more can God appoint Himself to do as He pleases?

A direct answer to your objection is found in David's psalm: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET."' The words were not directed at David but God Himself.

 

[nadab]

Hi stranger,
Jesus is indeed the Son of God, for his former "brothers" called him such (Matt 8:29; Mark 3:11) and was rightfully called the "Son of man", (Matt 8:20) being born through Mary as a human. Both Adam and Jesus were "begotten", for the word "begotten" is the past participle of beget, which means "to be the father of a child".(Microsoft Encarta) Both were fathered by God as his sons.(Luke 3:38) Yet, only Jesus is called the "only-begotten Son of God". Why ?

Because he alone was created directly by God. The word "only-begotten" comes from the Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´, and literally means "the only one" and is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,†or “the only member of a kin or kind.†(Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents. Thus the apostle John wrote of Jesus in his prehuman existence: "By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son (or was fathered) into the world that we might gain life through him. The love is in this respect, not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins."(1 John 4:9,10) The Greek Septuagint uses mo·no·ge·nes´ when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.â€Â(Jg 11:34) Hence, Jesus is God's "only child" directly created by him.

Could the apostle Paul have said that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" or "begotten" if he were God ? This would have been a lie and Paul would have been speaking incoherently. No one is begotten that had no beginning. Or could Jesus himself have said that he is "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev 3:14) and yet had no beginning as God had ? If this were the case, then Jesus also lied, and thus this would invalidate God's word ! He also would have deceived all by saying he was the "only-begotten Son of God", for if he is God, he was not begotten or fathered. Who am I to believe, you or Jesus ?

Your explanation of how Jesus could say that "I am ascending to my Father and my God" makes no sense, for it is not reasonable. Obviously, if I accept your account, then Jesus did not know what he was talking about. Who again should I believe, you or Jesus ? Jesus made a plain, straighforward statement that even Mary could readily understand. When Jesus was about to resurrect Lazarus, did she say to Jesus that you are God ? She forwardly told him: "Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son of God, the One coming into the world."(John 11:27) If he was God, then why did he not correct her ? Because she spoke the truth, knowing full well that Jesus was "the Christ the Son of God", the "One" sent forth by God.

Please explain Psalms 2 where it says that "The kings of earth take their stand and high officials themselves have massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one,....The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh;...At that time he will speak to them in his anger...[Saying:] “I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain.Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to me: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.â€Â(Ps 2:2,4-7) Jehovah is God, but who is "his anointed one" that becomes "king" and is also spoken of as Jehovah's "son" ?

Did not the apostles provide the clear explanation of Psalms 2 in prayer to God, saying: "Sovereign Lord, you are the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them, and who through holy spirit said by the mouth of our forefather David, your servant, ‘Why did nations become tumultuous and peoples meditate upon empty things? The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one.’ Even so, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with [men of] nations and with peoples of Israel were in actuality gathered together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed,...stretch(ing) out your hand for healing and while signs and portents occur through the name of your holy servant Jesus.â€Â(Acts 4:24-27,30) How could Jesus be God and yet be God's "holy servant", his "anointed one" ?

Only a "son of man" equal to Adam could be the "last Adam", not less nor higher, for again, this is God's justice, just as he himself said under the Mosaic Law, "eye for eye, soul for soul."(Ex 21:23) Where in the Bible does it say that man has appointed himself ? You are grasping for straws. The Bible says clearly that God "anointed " Jesus, not Jesus anointing himself. The apostle Peter said on the day of Pentecost that "This Jesus God resurrected, of which fact we are all witnesses. Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which you see and hear. Actually David did not ascend to the heavens, but he himself says, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.â€Â’ Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.â€Â(Acts 2:32-36)

How could Peter say that Jesus was "exalted to God's right hand" if in fact, he was already God ? Or that "God made him both Lord and Christ" if Jesus were already the Supreme Ruler of the Universe ? Or that Jesus was resurrected by God ? How could he be God and yet "received the promise holy spirit from the Father" ? On this thought, how could the holy spirit be considered also as God and yet Jesus receive it from the Father ? This makes no sense unless God, Jesus and the holy spirit is accurately understood in their respective positions, with God as the Father of all, including Jesus, Jesus as his "only-begotten Son" and the holy spirit as God's active force.

Too, at Psalms 110:1, it says more accurately: "The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.†To whom was Jehovah God speaking, to himself or to Jesus ? Who is the one called "my Lord" here ? Jesus corrected the Pharisees view that the "Christ" was David's son, by sternly telling them that he was indeed Jehovah's son, asking these: "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?†They said to him: “David’s.†He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Ld,’ saying, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feetâ€Â’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?†(Matt 23:41-45)

 

[wavy]

Devekut:

I do not read the NWT, and I do not believe 'a god' is a correct translation. I believe John i.1 is simply saying the Logos was divine like God.

 

[unred typo]

I don’t care to get into the whole trinity debate, but I have a small thought to throw in. If I know my father as a dad who plays baseball with me, and disciplines me when I don’t clean my room, but I never realized he was a WWII hero, valedictorian of his class, state spelling champ of 1929 or the chairman of a big corporation or leader of the citizen’s watch group, does that mean I don’t really know my Dad, or that I have the wrong idea of who he is? No, it only means that I don’t know everything about him, but I know my dad personally as many, who only know all the correct 'important' facts about him, could never know him.

 

[Devekut]

I do not read the NWT, and I do not believe 'a god' is a correct translation. I believe John i.1 is simply saying the Logos was divine like God.

Wavy,

Have you ever considered that Greek has ways of saying one thing is like another without explicit identification between the two? Is Greek not capable of saying "The Word was like God"?

What of the passage in John where Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am"?..."I am" being a name reserved only for YHVH.

Then we also have to consider what kind of religion Christianity is if it starts worshiping divinities apart from the One God. If the Word is not God, and yet we worship Him, does that make Jesus another God?

 

[wavy]

Is Greek not capable of saying "The Word was like God"?

Yes, that is exactly what I believe it's saying.

What of the passage in John where Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am"?..."I am" being a name reserved only for YHVH.

Not a name. He's simply saying he existed before Abraham.

Then we also have to consider what kind of religion Christianity is if it starts worshiping divinities apart from the One God. If the Word is not God, and yet we worship Him, does that make Jesus another God?

No. John presents Jesus as an agent of God, so worshipping Jesus is like worshipping the Father (cf. John xiv.6).

 

[Devekut]

Wavy,

Does Greek not have word for "in the likeness" or "similar too"? To say the Word was God is a very different statement from "the Word is like God". Why would John appear to identify the Word with God, when he means that the two are only alike?

Secondly, John 8:58 is a clear claim for the divnity of Christ. Jesus is not simply establishing his pre-existence. If this were so, he would have said "before Abraham was born, I was". Instead he speaks in the present tense. He uses the same name that YHVH uses when Moses asks for his identity.

Why would Jesus say "Iam" instead of "I was" and why would the Jews "pick up stones to kill him" for being a blasphemer? If Jesus was just claiming to be an angel or something similar, why were they so offended? It was already believed that angels existed before man.

Lastly

No. John presents Jesus as an agent of God, so worshipping Jesus is like worshipping the Father

From the perspective of Abrahamic monotheism, this is outright blasphemy. Does God now give us liscense to worship the things that serve him well or even perfectly? Can man worship what God created? Certainly this means we can now worship angels as well.

 

[darcy]

Everyone speaks of Jesus as if there is ONLY ONE. Really? If someone talks of or teaches of a Jesus that is CONTRADICTORY to The Word, is this the SAME Jesus that IS the Son of God?

MEC

Let me ask you a question, how many god's do you think there are? :smt017

 

[darcy]

Wavy,

Does Greek not have word for "in the likeness" or "similar too"? To say the Word was God is a very different statement from "the Word is like God". Why would John appear to identify the Word with God, when he means that the two are only alike?

Secondly, John 8:58 is a clear claim for the divnity of Christ. Jesus is not simply establishing his pre-existence. If this were so, he would have said "before Abraham was born, I was". Instead he speaks in the present tense. He uses the same name that YHVH uses when Moses asks for his identity.

Why would Jesus say "Iam" instead of "I was" and why would the Jews "pick up stones to kill him" for being a blasphemer? If Jesus was just claiming to be an angel or something similar, why were they so offended? It was already believed that angels existed before man.

Lastly

No. John presents Jesus as an agent of God, so worshipping Jesus is like worshipping the Father

From the perspective of Abrahamic monotheism, this is outright blasphemy. Does God now give us liscense to worship the things that serve him well or even perfectly? Can man worship what God created? Certainly this means we can now worship angels as well.

what if someone made up that name than would you believ that there could be more than one "god"

 

[wavy]

Does Greek not have word for "in the likeness" or "similar too"? To say the Word was God is a very different statement from "the Word is like God". Why would John appear to identify the Word with God, when he means that the two are only alike?

Because the concept is borrowed from Hellenism. The Word/Logos was a divine being, the thought, reason, and creative principle. The Johannine gospel equates it with Jesus Christ and says this Logos was 'God' (theos). This is where things become a bit confusing and need clarification. Obviously 'the God' is the Father (cf. the introduction in the first Johannine epistle). Is the Logos the Father? No, plain and simple (which explains 'with the God'). All NT authors view Jesus as a different person.

So how is John i.1 using it the second time? I believe, since it's a predicate adjective in the emphatic position (see Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words), John is equating everything that God was with the Logos. In other words, as the revealer of God and agent of creation, the Logos had to be synonomous and perfectly compatible with the God in terms of nature (not identity; cf. John xvii.3). He's not trying to confuse his readers by confusing Jesus with the God, because all types of questions would immediately arise: 'Is Jesus the Father? Are there two gods?'

That is why the distinction exists between the God (ho theos) and simply God (theos without the article). Of course trinitarians attempt to explain it in light of the trinity, but no such concept existed in the Johannine prologue. John views Jesus as one with the Father as the revelatory extension of the Father's being on earth (without making them synonomous).

Secondly, John 8:58 is a clear claim for the divnity of Christ. Jesus is not simply establishing his pre-existence. If this were so, he would have said "before Abraham was born, I was". Instead he speaks in the present tense. He uses the same name that YHVH uses when Moses asks for his identity.

I believe ego eimi is a literary tool of John's gospel to draw attention to Jesus. The LXX reads a bit different than just ego eimi in Exodus iii.14. The blind man in the next chapter uses the same phrase (John ix.9). It is not an indication of the divine name. Jesus is saying he is an eternal being, without regard for time. That is why it says 'I am' and not 'I was'.

Why would Jesus say "Iam" instead of "I was" and why would the Jews "pick up stones to kill him" for being a blasphemer? If Jesus was just claiming to be an angel or something similar, why were they so offended? It was already believed that angels existed before man.

I didn't say Jesus was an angel.

From the perspective of Abrahamic monotheism, this is outright blasphemy. Does God now give us liscense to worship the things that serve him well or even perfectly? Can man worship what God created? Certainly this means we can now worship angels as well.

The Johannine gospel (or any other gospel or NT writing) is not concerned with whatever 'perspective of Abrahamic monotheism' you may have. Btw, I never said Jesus was created in the context of John since according to the Johannine gospel he pre-existed (John i.1; viii.58).

 

[Devekut]

John views Jesus as one with the Father as the revelatory extension of the Father's being on earth (without making them synonomous).

So you believe that Jesus shares the same being with God the Father, is an extension of God the Father, yet is a different person than God and yet shares His nature but not identity. You believe that Jesus is an eternal entity, without regard for time (Therefore, can not be created) And yet the Trinity doesn't make sense to you?

That is why the distinction exists between the God (ho theos) and simply God (theos without the article).

Doesn't his mean we have to distinguish betwen "God"and "the God" when the Greek is written that way everywhere in scripture?

 

[wavy]

yet the Trinity doesn't make sense to you?

There is no defined teaching of the trinity anywhere in the bible. The trinity is reasonsed out systematically from the bible. The Johannine gospel could have read as it does in its own context...without reading the trinity into it. The doctrine of the trinity to me is nothing but a historical development.

Doesn't his mean we have to distinguish betwen "God"and "the God" when the Greek is written that way everywhere in scripture?

I wouldn't think so. But in the context of the Johannine purpose I think it is neccessary.

 

[Devekut]

So do you believe that Jesus is simply "God" in some ambiguous, undefined way so long as it is given that the personhood of Jesus is distinct from the personhood of God the Father?