Unique, Not Only-Begotten

[Runningman]

Yes, that's Peter's "opinion" and "suggestion", he didn't come up with any scripture portion to corroborate, he didn't quote Ps. 2:7 in Matt. 16:16, so why do you quote his reply? Why do you take his "opinion" and "suggestion" seriously? And why Thomas didn't have answer from heaven, when the only one who came from heaven was revealed to him in the flesh?

That isn't Peter's opinion. The fact that Jesus is the Son of the Living God proves he is not God.

1 Thessalonians 1
9For they themselves report what kind of welcome you gave us, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God 10and to await His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead—Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

The OP gave a deep dive on the key word "monogenēs", what you're doing is making baseless assumptions.

Do you believe Jesus is the begotten son of God or no? If he wasn't begotten then he isn't a son. If he existed eternally he isn't a son.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That isn't Peter's opinion. The fact that Jesus is the Son of the Living God proves he is not God.

Why not? Somehow Peter's is a fact because it's consistent with your argument, but Thomas's is an opinion because it's contrary to your argument. If you only stick to the bible, then this is a fair assessment for you - “You know neither Me nor My Father." (Jn. 8:19)

Do you believe Jesus is the begotten son of God or no? If he wasn't begotten then he isn't a son. If he existed eternally he isn't a son.

Again, go read the OP and educate yourself, I'm not here to pick side and build coalition. Your trick of false dichotomy doesn't work on me.

 

[Runningman]

Why not? Somehow Peter's is a fact because it's consistent with your argument, but Thomas's is an opinion because it's contrary to your argument. If you only stick to the bible, then this is a fair assessment for you - “You know neither Me nor My Father." (Jn. 8:19)

Seems you reject the answer as revealed by God in heaven about who Jesus is. Believing Jesus is the begotten son of God is a prerequisite in the gospel. John 3:16

Again, go read the OP and educate yourself, I'm not here to pick side and build coalition. Your trick of false dichotomy doesn't work on me.

What was a false dichotomy?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Seems you reject the answer as revealed by God in heaven about who Jesus is. Believing Jesus is the begotten son of God is a prerequisite in the gospel. John 3:16

Of course I do. I mentioned the problem before that "son of God" means very different things to us. To me it's the perfect personification of God in human form, the use of "son" is similar to "son of thunder" or "son of liberty"; to you, though, only you yourself know. As long as there's no agreement on the definition of this term, we're only talking to ourselves, and there's no point to continue this conversation.

What is a false dichotomy?

You black and white thinking, that there're only two mutally exlusive options, if I'm not with you then I'm automatically against you; but actually there're other options, or the two options you present are not mutally exlusive. You think Jesus is EITHER God OR man, I believe He's BOTH God AND man, according to Rom. 1:3-4.

 

[Randy]

My beliefs are correct.

You are very mistaken

No, the world was made through the logos which are spoken words. In Genesis, in the beginning, God spoke and created.

You are mistaken and if you believe just God created it wouldn't be "through" anything.

This was shown to be God, not Jesus.

You are very mistaken John's testimony was about the one who was in the world "Jesus"
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God

Just in context of the church as I already showed.

You are mistaken this testimony about Jesus was believed and testified by the church in the beginning and even to this very day. The movement of those who left the church or never belonged and started their own church known as biblical unitarians not Christians is relatively more modern as in not from the beginning in the days of the Apostles

That testimony of the truth which is still believed to this day.

"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful.

 

[Randy]

You know, when it comes down to Jesus's identity, He didn't ask the disciples what the OT Scripture says he is, he asked who do YOU say that I am, Matt. 16:15. In other words, your opinion and your suggestion.

And the head of the body of Christ, Christ Jesus, told Peter that His answer to that question was learned from "God" not man. As in "truth"
I believe in that revealed truth Jesus built His church not Peter. That is the foundation of the church was built/laid on truth from above not on any man. Peter as a Apostle testified about that truth.

But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

[Randy]

Of course I do. I mentioned the problem before that "son of God" means very different things to us. To me it's the perfect personification of God in human form, the use of "son" is similar to "son of thunder" or "son of liberty"; to you, though, only you yourself know. As long as there's no agreement on the definition of this term, we're only talking to ourselves, and there's no point to continue this conversation.

You black and white thinking, that there're only two mutally exlusive options, if I'm not with you then I'm automatically against you; but actually there're other options, or the two options you present are not mutally exlusive. You think Jesus is EITHER God OR man, I believe He's BOTH God AND man, according to Rom. 1:3-4.

Jesus Himself "the Son" didn't know

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Hebrews "about that Son" a distinction from His Father before the world began. The Jesus in heaven still refers to God as His Father as He has always been the Son.

It is stated in orthodoxy Jesus was fully human and fully God. I'm not sure how you differ. It is also stated in orthodoxy the distinct person of the Son and the distinct person of the Father as Coeternal as in the Son always existed with the Father. Jesus Himself states "His" Father.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

And the head of the body of Christ, Christ Jesus, told Peter that His answer to that question was learned from "God" not man. As in "truth"
I believe in that revealed truth Jesus built His church not Peter. That is the foundation of the church was built/laid on truth from above not on any man. Peter as a Apostle testified about that truth.

Yes, of course. If I remember this right, Peter, "petros", is a small pebble, the rock Christ would build his church on is "petra", that's like a large boulder, it was a play of words. According to late doctor Michael Heiser, Jesus was literally standing on such a large boulder facing Mount Hermon when he declared that, that place was literally known as "gate of hell" because Mount Hermon was believed as Satan's dwelling place.

 

[Randy]

Yes, of course. If I remember this right, Peter, "petros", is a small pebble, the rock Christ would build his church on is "petra", that's like a large boulder, it was a play of words. According to late doctor Michael Heiser, Jesus was literally standing on such a large boulder facing Mount Hermon when he declared that, that place was literally known as "gate of hell" because Mount Hermon was believed as Satan's dwelling place.

The foundation laid was not on single man. Jesus is the chief cornerstone who God blessed.
Clearly a distinction between God and His Son.
Ephesians 2:19-21
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.

Zech
So he said to me, “This is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the Lord Almighty.

7“What are you, mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’ ”

8Then the word of the Lord came to me: 9“The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this temple; his hands will also complete it. Then you will know that the LordAlmighty has sent me to you.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The foundation laid was not on single man. Jesus is the chief cornerstone who God blessed.
Clearly a distinction between God and His Son.

Yes, God is in heaven, Jesus is on earth.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The foundation laid was not on single man. Jesus is the chief cornerstone who God blessed.
Clearly a distinction between God and His Son.

You know, it's outrageous that this snippet of the gospel account is erroneously used to justify the legitimacy of the Catholic papacy system, somehow Peter became the first pope in their propaganda, even though neither the papacy system nor the catholic church existed until several centuries later after the crucifixtion of Christ.

 

[Randy]

Exactly. As the God-man, Jesus still promoted monotheism, as he should have, by continually pointing to the Father as the true God. Of course, that in no way means that he wasn't also God. It would have been much too confusing for people during Jesus's ministry to understand that he was truly God and yet God the Father was in heaven. It would likely have looked like polytheism

That would suggest what Jesus stated wasn't always truth. I disagree with such a outlook and clearly the risen Lord calls the one on the throne in heaven His God and His Father.

Some did clue in, although imperfectly, and Thomas certainly had clued in after Jesus's resurrection. But this is one of the reasons why much of the discussion about the deity of Christ came later--they were seriously wrestling with the revelation that Jesus was God in the flesh and how that fit within monotheism. It was also because the early church was being persecuted and didn't have time to sit down for long, deep, complicated theological discussions. But, even when they had time, it still took quite some time to flesh things out. It's exceedingly complex, as you know.

The NT is a trustworthy accounting of what took place. So what Thomas stated was written in that accounting. While it doesn't weaken the case for Jesus being His God it wasn't presented as such theology but what he stated when in his unbelief that Jesus had risen and was alive suddenly appeared alive before Him.

I also believe there is a reason why John's gospel, which came last (along with his other books), speaks the most clearly about the deity of Jesus. Apart from the inspiration of his gospel, he must have been wrestling with the deity of Jesus for decades before he could start writing about it with clarity and understanding.

Wisdom and understanding and revelation from above is not something obtained by wrestling with anything but as something given from God. As Jesus told Peter you didn't learn this from man but from My Father in heaven. "inspired" obtained from the Spirit of truth.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[Randy]

Yes, God is in heaven, Jesus is on earth.

But Jesus, not the Father, came down from heaven from the Father as a witness of what He saw and heard.

This was not rejected but stated
Begotten from the Father alone before all things

This was rejected
Begotten from the Father before all things with a beginning or a time when He was not.

The Father is the source as stated True God from True God

If the Father as stated is the true God

That would suggest what Jesus stated wasn't always truth. I disagree with such a outlook and clearly the risen Lord calls the one on the throne in heaven His God and His Father.

The NT is a trustworthy accounting of what took place. So what Thomas stated was written in that accounting. While it doesn't weaken the case for Jesus being His God it wasn't presented as such theology but what he stated when in his unbelief that Jesus had risen and was alive suddenly appeared alive before Him.

Wisdom and understanding and revelation from above is not something obtained by wrestling with anything but as something given from God. As Jesus told Peter you didn't learn this from man but from My Father in heaven. "inspired" obtained from the Spirit of truth.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

"from" source then Jesus who is called, the word of life, has the "Fathers" nature not His own nature. Hence God from true God. Col 1:19

Jesus is the very image of the Father but is not the Father
Jesus is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the very imprint of the Fathers being but is not the Father.

That is what I see "Father and firstborn Son"

About that Son -Hebrews 1
1-6
"When God brings the Firstborn into the world He commands all angels of God to bow to Him."

Hebrews 10-5
A body was prepared for Him, that Son who was with the Father
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;

His Father and His Fathers throne
Rev 3:21
To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne.

The New Jerusalem "from" "His God"
Rev 21:2
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Rev 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.

 

[Runningman]

Of course I do. I mentioned the problem before that "son of God" means very different things to us. To me it's the perfect personification of God in human form, the use of "son" is similar to "son of thunder" or "son of liberty"; to you, though, only you yourself know. As long as there's no agreement on the definition of this term, we're only talking to ourselves, and there's no point to continue this conversation.

I also think that I don't make a special exception for Jesus. If he is a Son of God and others a Son of God then either they are God or they aren't. Since we can safely say that human beings are not God then Jesus isn't God. I think that's fair. I may have mentioned this to you once already, but what Jesus did others did too.

You black and white thinking, that there're only two mutally exlusive options, if I'm not with you then I'm automatically against you; but actually there're other options, or the two options you present are not mutally exlusive. You think Jesus is EITHER God OR man, I believe He's BOTH God AND man, according to Rom. 1:3-4.

I believe he is a man through whom God worked. God also works through other men. A half man half God isn't God. At best that would be a demigod which is equally unscriptural. If Jesus is a God Man then he isn't even a human being.

Think of it like this... if someone's father is not a human and someone's mother is a human then they're a hybrid, not even a human.

Contrary to what you may feel, the Bible describes Jesus as a man even post-resurrection and post-ascension.

By some estimates, 1 Timothy was written some 30 years after God took Jesus to heaven. Do you call God a man between God and men?

5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

[Free]

The word of Life is a that which, an it.

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

First, as I stated, "it" isn't actually in the Greek text in verse 2; it's added by some translators. Second, the Word of life is most likely an indirect reference to Jesus, "meaning something relating to the person and revelation of Christ. . . . The successive clauses, that which was from the beginning, etc., express, not the Eternal Word Himself, but something relating to or predicated concerning (περί) Him. The indefinite that which, is approximately defined by these clauses; that about the Word of Life which was from the beginning, that which appealed to sight, to hearing is, to touch" (M. R. Vincent).

Or, read Albert Barnes's thoughts on verse 1:

'The apostle, in speaking of “that which was from the beginning,” uses a word in the neuter gender instead of the masculine, (ὅ ho.) It is not to be supposed, I think, that he meant to apply this term “directly” to the Son of God, for if he had he would have used the masculine pronoun; but though he had the Son of God in view, and meant to make a strong affirmation respecting him, yet the particular thing here referred to was “whatever” there was respecting that incarnate Saviour that furnished testimony to any of the senses, or that pertained to his character and doctrine, he had borne witness to.

He was looking rather at the evidence that he was incarnate; the proofs that he was manifested; and he says that those proofs had been subjected to the trial of the senses, and he had borne witness to them, and now did it again. This is what is referred to, it seems to me, by the phrase “that which,” (ὅ ho.) The sense may be this: “Whatever there was respecting the Word of life, or him who is the living Word, the incarnate Son of God, from the very beginning, from the time when he was first manifested in the flesh; whatever there was respecting his exalted nature, his dignity, his character, that could be subjected to the testimony of the senses, to be the object of sight, or hearing, or touch, that I was permitted to see, and that I declare to you respecting him.” John claims to be a competent witness in reference to everything which occurred as a manifestation of what the Son of God was.'

Wuest states in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament:

"John begins his letter with a relative pronoun in the neuter gender, "that which." The reference is to things relating to the Lord Jesus. We are not to understand the expression as equivalent to "He who." The preposition "of" in the expression "of the Word of life" is peri, "concerning." This speaks of the things concerning our Lord, rather than of Him personally." (vol. 2, p. 87)

Here is Wuest's translation of those two verses:

"1Jn 1:1 (1-2) That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard with the present result that it is ringing in our ears, that which we have discerningly seen with our eyes with the present result that it is in our mind's eye, that which we gazed upon as a spectacle, and our hands handled with a view to investigation, that which is concerning the Word of the life and this aforementioned life was made visible, and we have seen it with discernment and have it in our mind's eye, and are bearing witness and bringing back to you a message concerning the life, the eternal life, which is of such a nature as to have been in fellowship with the Father and was made visible to us."

It is incorrect to assume that because John uses a neuter gender that "the Word of life" himself is an "it."

An it manifested a man.

When God become man, yes:

Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
...
Joh 1:9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.
Joh 1:11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (ESV)

Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (ESV)

No to mention that just as Jesus claimed to be the light of the world, he also claimed to be "the life":

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV)

Then Luke affirms t

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. (ESV)

If you would like.

Not at the moment, it takes time.

I'm saying that the Bible pre-dates your theology about Jesus being God. You're trying to use the Bible to prove something that isn't even stated.

No, that Jesus is God is based entirely on the Bible. No one would believe it, or still believe it, if it wasn't. Again, it would help if you actually addressed everything I post instead of dismissing it out of hand. I'm not making long posts for fun or for people to be so disrespectful by dismissing them with hardly a word.

What you believe came later on as different sects began creating their own doctrines.

Evidence please.

Ever wonder why so many of the writings from people who misunderstood Jesus to be God never made it into the Bible?

Evidence please.

Why the Bible never says so explicitly what they said? It's because when the Bible was being canonized those writings were rejected as rank heresy.

Evidence please.

 

[Free]

It is right there! Thomas had to see it to believe it.

Of course Thomas had to see in order to believe, but that is not what we're talking about. The issue is that Runningman claims Jesus said Thomas isn't blessed because he had to see to believe. But Jesus does not say that.

 

[7thMoon]

Of course Thomas had to see in order to believe, but that is not what we're talking about. The issue is that Runningman claims Jesus said Thomas isn't blessed because he had to see to believe. But Jesus does not say that.

But why is Thomas less blessed? Thomas didn't confess a man-god, rather the apostolic fathers were impressed without written proof there, by the miracle. It is obvious that Thomas did not think his God and his lord were the same.

 

[Runningman]

Of course Thomas had to see in order to believe, but that is not what we're talking about. The issue is that Runningman claims Jesus said Thomas isn't blessed because he had to see to believe. But Jesus does not say that.

Jesus said Thomas isn't blessed. Thomas was a doubter and required seeing Jesus to believe. Jesus said those who believe and do not see are the blessed ones; that isn't Thomas. That was directly after your opinion that Thomas called Jesus God. Jesus' response was not praise, it was an immediate lecture informing Thomas how to be better.

 

[Runningman]

First, as I stated, "it" isn't actually in the Greek text in verse 2; it's added by some translators. Second, the Word of life is most likely an indirect reference to Jesus, "meaning something relating to the person and revelation of Christ. . . . The successive clauses, that which was from the beginning, etc., express, not the Eternal Word Himself, but something relating to or predicated concerning (περί) Him. The indefinite that which, is approximately defined by these clauses; that about the Word of Life which was from the beginning, that which appealed to sight, to hearing is, to touch" (M. R. Vincent).

Or, read Albert Barnes's thoughts on verse 1:

'The apostle, in speaking of “that which was from the beginning,” uses a word in the neuter gender instead of the masculine, (ὅ ho.) It is not to be supposed, I think, that he meant to apply this term “directly” to the Son of God, for if he had he would have used the masculine pronoun; but though he had the Son of God in view, and meant to make a strong affirmation respecting him, yet the particular thing here referred to was “whatever” there was respecting that incarnate Saviour that furnished testimony to any of the senses, or that pertained to his character and doctrine, he had borne witness to.

He was looking rather at the evidence that he was incarnate; the proofs that he was manifested; and he says that those proofs had been subjected to the trial of the senses, and he had borne witness to them, and now did it again. This is what is referred to, it seems to me, by the phrase “that which,” (ὅ ho.) The sense may be this: “Whatever there was respecting the Word of life, or him who is the living Word, the incarnate Son of God, from the very beginning, from the time when he was first manifested in the flesh; whatever there was respecting his exalted nature, his dignity, his character, that could be subjected to the testimony of the senses, to be the object of sight, or hearing, or touch, that I was permitted to see, and that I declare to you respecting him.” John claims to be a competent witness in reference to everything which occurred as a manifestation of what the Son of God was.'

Wuest states in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament:

"John begins his letter with a relative pronoun in the neuter gender, "that which." The reference is to things relating to the Lord Jesus. We are not to understand the expression as equivalent to "He who." The preposition "of" in the expression "of the Word of life" is peri, "concerning." This speaks of the things concerning our Lord, rather than of Him personally." (vol. 2, p. 87)

Here is Wuest's translation of those two verses:

"1Jn 1:1 (1-2) That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard with the present result that it is ringing in our ears, that which we have discerningly seen with our eyes with the present result that it is in our mind's eye, that which we gazed upon as a spectacle, and our hands handled with a view to investigation, that which is concerning the Word of the life and this aforementioned life was made visible, and we have seen it with discernment and have it in our mind's eye, and are bearing witness and bringing back to you a message concerning the life, the eternal life, which is of such a nature as to have been in fellowship with the Father and was made visible to us."

It is incorrect to assume that because John uses a neuter gender that "the Word of life" himself is an "it."

1 John 1:1,2 says the word of life is an it. I see it right there on the pages. I am not reading paragraph after paragraph of your workaround to attempt undo that.

When God become man, yes:

No. I think we are going in circles at this point. I don't need anymore theology and reason and loopholes and semantics. Jesus didn't say he's God or do anything that demonstrated it.

No to mention that just as Jesus claimed to be the light of the world, he also claimed to be "the life":

Previously refuted.

Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (ESV)

Then Luke affirms t

Act 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. (ESV)

Where did Jesus get his way, truth, and life from? This isn't a trick question.

John 14
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 8
40But now you are trying to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing.

John 12
49I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. 50And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say.”

No, that Jesus is God is based entirely on the Bible. No one would believe it, or still believe it, if it wasn't. Again, it would help if you actually addressed everything I post instead of dismissing it out of hand. I'm not making long posts for fun or for people to be so disrespectful by dismissing them with hardly a word.

I will respond in any way I wish to respond. If I want to give you more then I will. If I don't then I won't. However, it is not my intention to make anyone feel disrespected. I am sorry to hear you feel that way.

 

[hawkman]

Did Thomas miss a blessing because of his doubt , yes he did .
But by all means Thomas was a blessed man beyond anything we can grasp .
Thomas was chosen by Jesus to be a disciple ! What a great blessing that was !
Those in this thread that have doubts of Thomas being blessed please tell me who more blessed by Jesus than the disciples.