JudaicChristian
Member
I would tell you the truth but it would get deleted. Good night!Anth said:
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
The Existence of the Godhead
- Thread starter DarcyLu
- Start date
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)
Here we see God as the Lord, redeemer, creator saying He, by Himself, created all things.John 1:1 said:
Here we see the Father calling the Son, LORD.Isaiah 44:24 said:
God the Son is the Creator.Heb. 1:10 said:
Same here...Col. 1:16 said:
Then we see the Word became flesh...Jesus Christ. This is when He became the Son, and this is why, in human form, He gives glory to the Father.John 1:3 said:
John 1:14 said:
however, the pronoun "him" is in the original text, correct? that is what i am seeing, that He/His is out but not Him (#846)Anth said:OK - Jn 1:1 - that will be your first stab at proving the Trinity
First, do you have your Greek text in hand....(OK, don't answer that...).
First we have to dispense with the personal pronoun "He/His" in v2,3,4. The use of a English personal pronoun is simply a translators' interpretation of the text rather than the actual text itself. There is no basis for personalizing O LOGOS (the Word) at this point in the text. We are simply informed that O LOGOS exists as well as provided some explanatory material. In English, the pronoun would be the neuter "IT" so v2 s/b "It was towards [the] God", etc.. The word translated "with" is actually "pros" and means "towards" as in "pointing towards".
OK - we need to come to agreement on these basic points before we move forward
BTW - a good place to come to a genuine understanding of O LOGOS is kind of obvious - Gen1. If you read through Gen 1 - you will see exactly what John is referring to.
BTW2 - Jn1:14 is one of my favorite vss.
Best,
Anth
PS Did I hear a pin drop in the class room....
Here we see the Father calling the Son, LORD.glorydaz said:
God the Son is the Creator.Heb. 1:10 said:
Same here...Col. 1:16 said:
Then we see the Word became flesh...Jesus Christ. This is when He became the Son, and this is why, in human form, He gives glory to the Father.John 1:3 said:
[/quote:3924qww3]John 1:14 said:
Many European languages are "gendered" - that is objects/concepts (nouns) have a gender (don't ask - it just "is" that way) - French is a great example (have you ever taken French?). The gendering of nouns has NOTHING to do with persons or body parts. The nouns themselves have different case endings depending on the gender (and number) and the related pronouns must "agree" in gender. Therefore, if a noun is "masculine", the related pronoun is "masculine". In English gender typically relates only to persons - though we sometimes use gendered pronouns to refer to certain institutions and other such usages, i.e. "America sure is a great country isn't she" (even though America is not a female person, etc.) but this is more of an expression rather than a fundamental to the language structure.
Does this partially make sense? This concept is both a critical as well as a basic linguistic concept to understand when you are using a gendered language. AND this is totally relevant to Jn 1:1ff in which John employs masculine gendered pronouns to refer to the Logos solely because the Logos is a masculine noun. Again, the use of masculine pronouns has NOTHING to with personness or body parts - it is an element of linguistics. The personness of a noun must not be determined by its linguistic gender in a gendered language.
Here is a link on the subject to Wiki - I did not hardly read it except glanced at the first couple sentences so I am sort of assuming that it is reasonably accurate. However, let me stress again, this is pretty basic linguistics - and something you would be exposed to in your first week of Greek Classes (actually probably the first day...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
Thus this is why I say that the use of an English Masculine pronoun is completely in appropriate in Jn1:2 - 4 - because in English a masculine pronoun is typically personal - which is NOT the case in Greek. So the translators are simply translating according to their theology rather than according to what God wrote. I am not sure about you but I call that adding to God's Word....
Best,
Anth
Does this partially make sense? This concept is both a critical as well as a basic linguistic concept to understand when you are using a gendered language. AND this is totally relevant to Jn 1:1ff in which John employs masculine gendered pronouns to refer to the Logos solely because the Logos is a masculine noun. Again, the use of masculine pronouns has NOTHING to with personness or body parts - it is an element of linguistics. The personness of a noun must not be determined by its linguistic gender in a gendered language.
Here is a link on the subject to Wiki - I did not hardly read it except glanced at the first couple sentences so I am sort of assuming that it is reasonably accurate. However, let me stress again, this is pretty basic linguistics - and something you would be exposed to in your first week of Greek Classes (actually probably the first day...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
Thus this is why I say that the use of an English Masculine pronoun is completely in appropriate in Jn1:2 - 4 - because in English a masculine pronoun is typically personal - which is NOT the case in Greek. So the translators are simply translating according to their theology rather than according to what God wrote. I am not sure about you but I call that adding to God's Word....
Best,
Anth
Perfect - I think Spanish is just like French and both are essentially the same as Greek in this instance.
I think we are both in agreement re: the nature of the linguistics?? Yes?
If so, I would like to move back to my original post.
BTW - this type of discussion is exactly what is needed - specific point by point instead of wild throwing of numerous scriptures without actually resolving anything.
My original post on the matter:
As I briefly reviewed Gen 1 in the Septuagint I was impressed with "GOD SPOKE" and it was - NOTHING was made without the SPEAKING (the Word) of God.
Ultimately God spoke and there was a man (v14) - the Messiah (how cool is that!!!!!).
OK - back to Jn1:1ff...
Best,
Anth
I think we are both in agreement re: the nature of the linguistics?? Yes?
If so, I would like to move back to my original post.
BTW - this type of discussion is exactly what is needed - specific point by point instead of wild throwing of numerous scriptures without actually resolving anything.
My original post on the matter:
As I briefly reviewed Gen 1 in the Septuagint I was impressed with "GOD SPOKE" and it was - NOTHING was made without the SPEAKING (the Word) of God.
Ultimately God spoke and there was a man (v14) - the Messiah (how cool is that!!!!!).
OK - back to Jn1:1ff...
Best,
Anth
The picture - means of describing Jesus - is that God's Word (logos) became flesh (v14) - became a human being -
God SPOKE - and IT was (Gen 1)
God spoke and the the Messiah appeared in physical history.
If you can envision this, it is the singularly most glorious sight that I can envision. God speaking >>> Messiah appearing!
Further if you understand the character/authority of God being manifested in and through Jesus (Phil2/Heb1) you see essentially much if not all of what is conveyed in the Logos becomeing flesh - God's word becoming a personalized/physical reality - in this case a human being.
OK - back to Jn1:1....
Best,
Anth
God SPOKE - and IT was (Gen 1)
God spoke and the the Messiah appeared in physical history.
If you can envision this, it is the singularly most glorious sight that I can envision. God speaking >>> Messiah appearing!
Further if you understand the character/authority of God being manifested in and through Jesus (Phil2/Heb1) you see essentially much if not all of what is conveyed in the Logos becomeing flesh - God's word becoming a personalized/physical reality - in this case a human being.
OK - back to Jn1:1....
Best,
Anth
Bro, with all due respect, you have been misled, for Christ was not created. with your belief, you have completely changed the entire gospel message.Anth said:Of course - Heb 2:11
BUT we must get back to Jn1:1....
Heb 2:11 in context, seems to me if we bring this scripture into play, as you have done, we've once again shown proof of the Godhead.
Heb2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; Thou crownedst him with glory and honor, And didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou didst put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he subjected all things unto him, he left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we see not yet all things subjected to him. 9 But we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should taste of death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, In the midst of the congregation will I sing thy praise. 13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me. 14 Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same; that through death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; 15 and might deliver all them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham. 17 Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
D4Christ
Member
DarcyLu said:
Since you just wrote scriptures and added no commentary, I’m not sure what these scriptures are supposed to prove. I am not confused. Christ never describes His relationship with the Father or with the Holy Spirit as that of some 3-headed entity that separates and comes together at will. And what about those scriptures that say Christ and the Father are one? So….Christ also says that He is one with His Father the same way He is one with us and the way we should we should be one with one another. So does that mean we are all multiple people in one person, just as some try to claim that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all one.
Christ practically vomited what he meant by ‘one’ on us. Linguists agree that one means unity and agreement in the instances where he used it. And yet, despite Christ clarifying what he meant by one (even claiming to be one with us), some still choose to reinvent the definition of one to mean 3 people occupying one body.
John 17
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.
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.
Drew
Member
I agree with this part of your post, even though, as you will see from a follow-on post, I do not agree with your ultimate conclusion.D4Christ said:
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.
Drew
Member
Post 1 of 2 suggesting that, through His actions, Jesus indeed claimed to be co-equal to the Father:D4Christ said:
One Old Testament theme is often overlooked is the theme of the promised return of YHWH to Zion – that though God has abandoned His people through the exile, He will, one day, return to them. A wide range of Old Testament texts embody this hope. Here are just two:
Ezekiel 43:1-7:
Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; 2and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory. 3And it was like the appearance of the vision which I saw, like the vision which I saw when He came to destroy the city And the visions were like the vision which I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell on my face. 4And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate facing toward the east. 5And the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house. 6Then I heard one speaking to me from the house, while a man was standing beside me. 7He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell among the sons of Israel forever And the house of Israel will not again defile My holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their harlotry and by the corpses of their kings when they die,…
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.
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.
These and other texts express a deep hope of the Jewish nation – the God that had abandoned them will one day return to them. When we forget such expectations, and reduce the discussion of Jesus’ divinity to technical matters about the boundaries between the concept of “man†and of “godâ€, we entirely overlook what really matters – the Jewish matrix of expectation into which Jesus was born. I suggest the Biblically literate 1st century Jew would be anticipating this return. If that Jew were being true to the Biblical tradition, he would at least be open to the possibility that YHWH might return to His people in the form of a “humanâ€. From the famous throne chariot vision of Ezekiel 1:
And there came a voice from above the expanse that was over their heads; whenever they stood still, they dropped their wings. 26Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.
I want to be clear: 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.
This is why arguments against Jesus’ divinity that are grounded in conceptual distinction entirely miss the point (e.g. Jesus is man, and a man cannot be God, Jesus is the “son†of God and therefore cannot be God, etc.). The real issue is the grand plan of covenantal redemption that we see woven through both testaments. If honouring the coherence of that story leads us to see Jesus as divine, so be it – the conceptual distinctions are derivative, not fundamental.
As I argue below, Jesus clearly sees Himself as fitting into the story in a specific way – it is His life’s work to embody the promised return of YHWH to Zion. And that makes Him “divineâ€, with divinity understood in the appropriate framework – not the framework of conceptual categories that have little connection to large Biblical narrative of covenantal redemption, but rather in the context of a God who promised to return to His people. In that framework, we have a young Jew named Jesus who saw Himself as called to the vocation of implementing that promised return.
Drew
Member
Post 2 of 2, arguing that by His actions, Jesus sees Himself as co-equal to the Father:D4Christ said:
Much of the gospel of Luke is the story of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem. Towards the end of that journey, Jesus tells the parable of the returning king – the story of a king who goes away and then returns to call his servants to account. This parable is found in Luke 19:11 and following.
This parable has almost universally been understood to constitute a statement by Jesus that He will go away, though crucifixion, resurrection, and then ascension, only to return in the future (i.e. in the 2nd coming). On such a reading, Jesus sets Himself, as He tells the parable, in the role of the king who is about to leave.
I suggest this is not the correct reading. Instead, we should understand that in telling the parable, Jesus is setting Himself in the role of the returning king, not the departing one. On such a reading, the departing king represents YHWH leaving his people by abandoning the temple and sending the Jews into exile, something that lies in the past of Jesus’ audience. If this interpretation is correct, Jesus can logically fill only one role in the parable: YHWH returning to Zion as promised. And this means, of course, that Jesus is the embodiment of Israel’s God.
Why should we read the parable this way? Well, for starters, the parable does not really work on its traditional reading. Note what happens to the third servant – all that he has is taken from him. This really cannot be reconciled with the notion that the returning King is Jesus at his 2nd coming, calling his people to account. Nowhere in the New Testament is there even the slightest suggestion that any of Jesus’ followers will be cast out and lose all at Jesus’ 2nd coming as the parable would seem to suggest on the traditional reading. It is clear from the scriptures that that believers who “build with hay and stubble†will still be saved. So it is very hard to make the parable work with Jesus as the King about to go away and return at a 2nd coming.
Besides, consideration of what happens next makes it clear that Jesus is setting himself in the role of the returning king. Note what happens after parable is told – Jesus rides on to Jerusalem and, upon seeing it, says the following:
"If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43"For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, 44and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."
Clearly, Jesus sees Himself as the King returning in visitation, returning to judge Jerusalem who is set in the role of the unfaithful 3rd servant. If, as many believe, the returning King in the parable is Jesus at His second coming, then it would be deeply misleading for Jesus to give the parable then immediately ride into Jerusalem as He does, to palm branches waving no less, with all the imagery of a returning King that this action clearly evokes. No. Jesus clearly intends his listeners to understand that He is the returning King, not the departing one. In giving this parable and then riding into the royal city as a king, Jesus is clearly telling us that He, through this teaching and these actions, is embodying the fulfillment of the hoped for return of YHWH to his people. And what does Jesus do next?:
Then he entered the temple area and began driving out those who were selling. 46"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be a house of prayer'; but you have made it 'a den of robbers.'
Note how this maps perfectly to this prophecy about the return of YHWH to his people:
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.
The overall picture is clear. As per an earlier post, we have the strong Biblical tradition of the promised return of YHWH to Zion (and his temple) after the time of the exile. Now here, in Luke, we have the journey of a young Jew named Jesus to Jerusalem. As He is about to enter, He tells a parable of a king who goes away and then returns. Next, He laments over Jerusalem and declares that she is not recognizing His mission as a “visitationâ€. In the context of Jews who saw themselves still in exile, and still awaiting the return of YHWH, Jesus’ intended meaning is clear. In saying that Jerusalem has not recognized her visitation, He is saying that she has failed to recognize that, in His very actions, the promised return of YHWH to Zion is being fulfilled. And then Jesus enters the temple and overturns the tables in judgement, fulfilling the Malach 3 promise that YHWH will come suddenly to the temple in judgement. The coherence of this picture is compelling. Jesus is embodying the return of YHWH to Zion. And that, of course, makes Him the embodiment of Israel’s God.
This is why arguments like “Jesus cannot be divine since Jesus was tempted and God cannot be tempted†are a spectacular exercise in missing the point. Such arguments assume a model for the nature of God-hood and human-ness and then leverage that assumption to make the case against Jesus’ divinity. 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. And in the Old Testament, YHWH is the one who has left His people and promised to return. 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. Again, the conceptual arguments people often make are deeply misleading since they are built on a model of the “boundaries†between god and man that make no reference at all to the Scriptures.