- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Thx 4 that t8,
hhhmmmm souls being God’s thought, interesting!
I suppose that sortta sums up alot of things concerning WHAT God is:
invisible, incorporeal, without limitation…..sortta sounds very similar to pure thought, but obviously on a much higher level of consciencness…..(heck! I hope I’m not sounding too new agee!?)
Maybe going down this type of thinking just might help to clear up the pre-existence issue?
I think we’re getting alot closer to a mutually agreeable outcome as I am also learning more with each new post.
You guys certainly know your stuff!
To t8,
Just curious,
If any being was existing before the beginning of creation, than doesn’t that give the impression of an eternal attribute?
If so, would that mean there are two eternal beings?
To GJG ,
As I said that Post was just my thoughts and it certainly could be controversial. I threw it in as a possibility and to encourage open mindedness with regards to our creeds and beliefs.
If a scripture says something contrary to our current belief, then we should accept that we may be wrong and perhaps it is us who needs to change, rather than just ignoring scripture.
Anyway regarding 2 eternal beings, I wonder when the Angels were created? Before the universe or after? I sorta figured that they were created before the physical universe as they are spirit beings.
Job 38:4-7
<font color=red>4 "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy? </font>We know that the Angels have not existed for eternity.
To t8,
I think you agree that Jesus was/is the dual-natured, man-christ. I was just wondering how do you see the "I AM" of Jesus. The "I AM" we know of as God, so do you maybe see that as also being the Divine nature of Jesus? The Spirit of God.
<a name="part8">BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS PART VIII</font>
Well, I have been away a few days and it seems no-one has any further refutations to my previous points, so I will continue with a discussion of the I AM statements as it seems these have been discussed recently. All discussions below are referenced to the works in which they appear.
Jesus deliberately echoes a pattern of themes that are unique to Jehovah by using the expression "I AM" (Greek: ego eimi; Hebrew: ani hu). The high density of I AM sayings of Jehovah found in Chapters 40-55 of Isaiah match the high density of I AM sayings of Jesus in the gospel of John. The vast majority of these sayings are only found in Isaiah 40-55 and John because the theme of Isaiah 40-55 is the identify of Jehovah and the theme of John is the identity of Jesus. When Jesus echoes the sayings of Jehovah in Isaiah, he is clearly applying this "language of deity" to himself as Jehovah. If we see one elephant in a cloud, it may be a coincidence, but 15 elephants linked trunk to tail is a pattern of design. So too with Jesus saying "I AM". By itself "I AM" would prove little, but the pattern of His use in various themes that exactly match Isaiah, create an unmistakable mosaic that is a powerful and irrefutable proof of his deity.
1. ‘Ani hu’ in Second Isaiah [Isaiah chapters 40-66] is always attributed to Yahweh. It is a solemn statement or assertion that only he can properly make. If anyone else spoke these words, it would be a sign of presumptuous pride, an attempt to claim equality with Yahweh or displace him. This is very nearly the case in 47.8, 10, in which Babylon makes the presumptuous statement, "I am, and there is no one besides me". In these verses it is interesting that Second Isaiah uses the single word ‘I’ (‘ani) to express the idea "I am". He is evidently contrasting Babylon’s claims with the ‘ani hu’ of Yahweh. Yet even here he refrains from attributing the phrase ‘am hu’ to anyone other than Yahweh.
2. ‘The phrase ‘ani hu’ signifies that Yahweh alone is God, in contrast to the so-called "gods" of the various peoples of the world. This assertion of exclusive monotheism is a major theme for Second Isaiah which he expresses in a variety of ways … he makes the explicit assertion that there is no god besides Yahweh (44.6, 8; 45.5, 6, 18, 21, 22; 46.9)
3. ‘… For Second Isaiah the belief in Yahweh as Lord of history is closely related to the assertion that he alone is God. This belief in Yahweh’s sovereignty over history finds particular expression in the prophet’s conviction that he is about to redeem the people of Israel by restoring them to their homeland. In a number of passages Second Isaiah weaves these ideas together (44.6-8; 45.1-8; 46.5-13).
4. For Second Isaiah the belief in Yahweh as redeemer of Israel was closely related to the belief that he is also the creator of the world… It is significant to note here that Second Isaiah associates the phrase ‘am hu’ with creation faith. In this way he indicates that this phrase of self-predication, in addition to its other meanings, also presents Yahweh as creator of the world.
5. ‘One of Second Isaiah’s main tasks was to awaken faith on the part of his fellow exiles in Babylon and reassure them that Yahweh was indeed about to restore them to their homeland. Many of the people, he realised, were inclined to believe that Yahweh was powerless because the Babylonians had destroyed their temple in Jerusalem and taken a large number of Israelites into exile. In the context of this need for renewed faith, Second Isaiah represents Yahweh as using the self-predication "I am He".’
6. ‘Second Isaiah regarded the phrase "I am he" as an abbreviated form of other expressions, especially "I am Yahweh," summing up in concise terms everything represented by the longer terms.’
(Philip B. Harner, The ‘I Am’ of the fourth Gospel, p 7-15, as summarized by Mark Ball, , ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p 202)DISCUSSION OF JESUS I AM STATEMENTS IN JOHN
"Though the first occurrence of ‘ego eimi’ is strangely phrased, the reader may not see any hidden meaning in Jesus’ words. However, as the words ‘I am’ become theologically loaded, especially when they provoke a strange reaction on the part of Jesus’ narrative audience, the reader may be forced to ask whether that first occurrence was as straightforward as it initially appeared. By the same words Jesus identifies himself on the lake and claims to be the Bread of Life. By the same words Jesus claims to be the Light of the World and then makes mysterious statements about his identity (8:24,28) until the Jews finally take up stones to throw at him when he says ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (8:58). At the same time the word ‘ego eimi’ point forward to a future fulfillment (8:24,28) and thus the reader is called to anticipate what it is about Jesus’ exaltation on the cross which will reveal his identity in terms of ‘ego eimi’. The ‘I am’ of ch. 13 points forward to the betrayal and thereby simultaneously anticipates that of ch. 18. In this way the use of ‘I am, in John 8 and 13 demands that the reader understand them in the context of the whole Gospel and especially of the betrayal and passion. In addition, the very form of the ‘I am’ sayings calls for the reader to interpret them in the light of other similar sayings. Thus the words of 8:18 recall Jesus’ words in 4:26. The ‘ego eimi’ of ch. 14 is reminiscent in form to that of ch. 11, while the claim in ch. 15 occurs in the context of a parable and is thus reminiscent of ch. 10. The similarities between the different ‘I am’ sayings suggest that they should be interpreted in the light of one another and should perhaps be seen along the lines of the other Christological themes of the Gospel. It is difficult, however, to determine a strict pattern to the way the ‘I am’ sayings develop in the Gospel as a whole, except that, by the time of Jesus’ arrest the words have become a motif that the reader understands. The identity of Jesus revealed in this motif points forward to the cross and it is there that Jesus’ opponents will ultimately see the significance of the words (8:28)." (David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p 149-150)
While the words ‘I am’ may not be profound in themselves, the way that they are formulated in John points the reader to these words in Isaiah for a correct understanding of who Jesus is. The use of the phrase in Isaiah fits in very well with John’s own Christology and suggests that John saw the events and words of Jesus’ life as a fulfillment of that day when Israel would see the salvation of Yahweh. By the way he uses ‘ego eimi’ he wishes his readers to see the same. (David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p 203)The 10 times "ego eimi" is used without a predicate in John.
1. John 4:26 Jesus *said to her, "I who speak to you am He [ego eimi]."
2. John 6:20 But He *said to them, "It is I [ego eimi]; do not be afraid."
3. John 8:24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am [ego eimi], you shall die in your sins."
4. John 8:28 Jesus therefore said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [ego eimi]"
5. John 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. [ego eimi]"
6. John 9:9 He [man born blind] kept saying, "I am [ego eimi] the one."
7. John 13:19 "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am" [ego eimi].
8. John 18:5 They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He *said to them, "I am [ego eimi]." And Judas also who was betraying Him, was standing with them.
9. John 18:6 When therefore He said to them, "I am," [ego eimi] they drew back, and fell to the ground.
10. John 18:8 Jesus answered, "I told you that I am [ego eimi]; i
f therefore you seek Me, let these go their way,"Prime Echo Examples
These passages stand on their own in proving the deity of Christ:
John 6:20 echoes Isaiah 41:10,13 (fear not)Phil 2:6-8 echoes John 13:19 which echoes Isaiah 43:10-12 (saviour/God incarnate)
John 14:5-6 echoes Isaiah 40:3 (the way)
John 4:25-26 echoes Isaiah 52:6 (quoted by Jesus)
John 8:58 echoes Isaiah 40-55; Ex 3:14; Psalm 90:2 (eternal)
John 18 echoes Isaiah’s "I AM"
Rev 22:12-13 echoes Isaiah 44:6 (first and last)
Acts 26:15-18 echoes Isaiah 42:6-8 (calls to service)
John 1:1-5 echoes Isaiah 44:24 (only creator)
1 Cor 10:4 echoes Isaiah 44:8 (only Rock)
King of Babylon echoes Jehovah: Isa 47:8-10; 46:9 (quote)
Secondary Echo Examples
These passages follow the pattern of Jesus echoing the words of Jehovah, but are not in themselves definitive in proving the deity of Christ.
John 11:25 echoes Deut 32:39 (Resurrection)John 18:37 echoes Isaiah 43:15 (King)
Acts 4:12 echoes Zechariah 14:9 (only name)
John 8:18 echoes 1 Samuel 12:5 (witness)
Mark 14:61-64 echoes Isaiah 19:1 (coming)
John 6 echoes Exodus 16:12 (manna)
Rev 22:16 echoes Isaiah 60:1-5 (morning star)
John 10:9-15 echoes Isaiah 40:11 (shepherd)
These ‘I am’ sayings without an image fit into three main categories of form:
1. Those sayings combined with the definite article and a present participle: 4:26; 8:18
2. Those sayings which are grammatically absolute and in which the words ‘ego eimi’ stand alone: 8:58; 6:20; 18:4-8
3. Those sayings which are grammatically absolute and which stand in a ‘oti’ clause to express future fulfillment: 8:24; 8:28; 13:19These three formal distinctions may prove more helpful in the categorization of the ‘I am’ sayings without a predicate nominative than the traditional discussion of whether they have a predicate (explicit or implied). By comparing the form of these sayings it becomes clear that there is not one fixed formula. Rather there are three formal variations. By the fact that the participial clause acts as a predicate, the first category of sayings, to which 4.26 and 8.18 belong, seems to create a formal link between the ‘I am’ sayings with a predicate nominative (image) and those without. On the other hand, the second and third categories of ‘I am’ sayings are grammatically absolute (whether a predicate can be implied from the context or not) . Even within the second category, where the words ‘ego eimi’ stand alone, it is possible to see a distinction between the saying of 8.58 and the other two. In 8:58 ‘ego eimi’ is in formal contrast to the verb [Greek], while in 6.20 and 18.5, 6, 8 the words stand as a phrase in their own right. In the third category ‘ego eimi’ stands within a ‘oti’ clause which points to future fulfilment. It is this category which Wetter and Zimmermann regard as a formula. However, the variation in the presentation of ‘I am’ when not accompanied by an image suggests that to designate the words ‘ego eimi’ on their own as a I revelation- formula’ may be too simplistic, since it is clear that the ‘formula’ has several distinct forms. While John’s use of ‘ego eimi’ without a predicate is very varied in form, this does not of itself rule out a background which understood ‘ego eimi’ as a fixed formula. The literary study of ‘I am’ in John showed time and again that it was being used on more than one level. It may be therefore that a background, where the mere utterance of the words ‘ego eimi’ had great significance, is deliberately played off against a less loaded use of the term. However, the Rabbinic interpretation, where ‘ani hu’ has become such a fixed formula that the mere utterance of it would represent blasphemy,’ does not easily fit the way ‘I am’ without a predicate is used in John. If a rabbinic interpretation is meant to be seen behind Jesus’ words in Jn 8:24 and 28, it is surprising that it is the Jews who then ask ‘Who are you?’ (8.25). They would be the ones most likely to understand the rabbinic implications. If the words ‘ego eimi’ were to be understood as a name for God here, then the reaction of v. 59 would be expected here. Instead, the Jews simply ask ‘Who are you?’ A hostile reaction would be expected again in v. 28, but there the reaction is positive to the extent that many of these Jews put their faith in Jesus. Thus, although such an interpretation is possible, it seems that it could only be brought into play on the two occasions where there is an explicit reaction to the words of Jesus (8:58 and 18:58), but not in the highly problematic sayings of 8:24, 28 and 13:19. should also be noted here that even the reaction of the Jews to the ‘ego eimi’ in Jn 8:58 cannot simply be explained as a reaction to the Hebrew term ‘ani hu’ as a name for God. Even if such an interpretation is implicit, the emphasis in this verse is on the difference between the verb [Greek] and the verb ‘eimi’. The tension between the tense of the two verbs would be lost if the reader was only meant to see the utterance of a divine name here. It would therefore be better to look for a background for these sayings which also contains the variations of form which occur in John. It may be that in finding such a background, further light will be shed on both the function and meaning of the sayings in John. It will be argued below that such a background is found in the Isaianic use of ‘ani hu’ which parallels the Johannine use of ‘ego eimi’ both in its function and in its formulation. (David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p 169-171)
Double meaning of "I AM"
"We may look next at 8:24 and 28, two occurrences of the predicateless ego eimi within the course of a relatively brief passage extending from 8:21 to 8:29. As in 8:58 and 13:19, the phrase in these verses may be understood in an absolute sense, pointing to the unity of the Son and the Father. In addition these two verses also allow a predicate to be supplied from the context, so that the ego eimi may be understood as representing the grammatically complete phrase, ego eimi and a predicate. In 8:24 and 28, that is, we meet ego eimi used with a double meaning. Because John is careful to maintain the identity of the absolute ego eimi as a distinct form of expression, he can also take advantage of the opportunity to use it in a second sense as an abbreviated form of ego eimi with a predicate. In 8:24 Jesus says to the Jews, "I told you that you would die in your sins, for you will die in your sins unless you believe that ego eimi." It is significant that here, as in 13:19, the meaning of ego eimi is explicitly presented as an object of faith. It is further emphasized that to apprehend this meaning is a matter of the utmost importance, for otherwise men will have no hope of receiving life and forgiveness of sins. These aspects of the meaning of ego eimi indicate that the phrase is used here in the same solemn and decisive sense as in 13:19, that is, as a self-contained expression signifying the unity of the Son and the Father. Verses 26 and 27 provide a further commentary on this meaning of the phrase. in verse 26 Jesus speaks of his relation to the Father: "He who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from him." In the following verse John adds his own comment on the meaning of verse 24: "They did not understand that he spoke to them of the Father. " In these ways John makes it clear that the ego eimi in 8:24 is intended to be understood as complete and meaningful in itself. At the same time, however, he indicates that he is using it with a double meaning. When Jesus speaks the words ego eimi, the Jews evidently understand it to mean "I am the one." They mentally supply a predicate. But since they are uncertain exactly what this predicate should be, they ask, "Who are you?" (v. 25). The irony of this question, made possible by the double meaning of ego eimi, is that Jesus has just spoken of his identity but they have not understood his meaning. The exact sense of Jesus’ reply to their question is uncertain. The Revised Standa
rd Version translates, "Even what I have told you from the beginning," or alternatively, "Why do I talk to you at all?" (v. 25). In either case, his reply indicates the futility of further attempts to answer their question directly, and he goes on to speak of the Father and his relation to him. In 8:28 it is also clear that John uses ego eimi with a double meaning. In this verse and the next Jesus says, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that ego eimi, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him." On the one hand, we see that the absolute ego eimi in this passage is complete in itself. After the crucifixion and exaltation of Jesus, men will realize who he is by perceiving his unity with the Father. This unity is a present reality, for the Father who sent him continues to be with him; but it is a unity that men will be able to perceive only after the glorification of Jesus. At the same time, it is also clear that the mention of the Son of man in this verse allows a predicate to be supplied with ego eimi. After the crucifixion and exaltation of Jesus, men will also be able to perceive that the Son of man has truly come in him. The double meaning of ego eimi in this verse complements the use of the expression in 8:24, for those who wonder who Jesus is will perceive after his glorification that he is the Son of man. The double meaning of ego eimi in 8:28 also points to the close interrelationship between these two aspects of Jesus’ identity, for the perception of his unity with the Father coincides with the realization that he is the Son of man. It would be impossible, John implies, to make one assertion without the other." (Philip B. Harner, The ‘I Am’ of the fourth Gospel, p43-45)Use of Irony in "I AM" statements
"Thomas’s question ‘How can we know the way’ only becomes ironic in the light of Jesus’ revelation of himself as the Way, for while the ‘I am’ saying resolves the ambiguity in the use of the word ‘way’, it also reveals the extent of Thomas’s ignorance. He does not know that the one to whom he speaks is also the one of whom he speaks (cf. 4.26; 6.35). The ambiguity of Jesus’ initial statements to the disciples (cf. 13.33; 14.5, 7, 19-21) allows irony to take place, for the first offer of saving truth by Jesus is always understood by the interlocutor on the surface level. Jesus clarifies his meaning to them (14.2, 6, 9, 22-23). At the same time this shows that they have not grasped the deeper meaning of what he has said. The use of irony here again furthers the revelation of the character of Jesus. If it was not for Thomas’s inability to see who Jesus really is, there would be no need for such a clear explanation. Since Thomas does not understand, Jesus makes the emphatic declaration, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me’ (v. 6). The irony here is in the fact that ‘this magnificent statement goes far beyond the scope of the question’. Jesus’ claim through an ‘I am’ saying thus functions as an indispensable part of the irony developed in this chapter as a result of the differing points of view between Jesus and his disciples." … "The use of ‘ego eimi’ in the irony of John’s Gospel has shown itself time and time again. The Samaritan woman expects a negative answer to her question ‘Are you greater than our father Jacob?'(4.12). The Jews expect a negative answer to their question ‘Are you greater than our father Abraham’ (8.54). To the former Jesus replies that he is the messiah (4.26), to the latter he answers the statement directly. ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ (8.58). The Samaritan woman does not realise that when she speaks of the messiah, she speaks to the messiah. The crowd do not realize that when they ask for the bread (6.34), that they are speaking with the one who is that bread (6.35). When Martha talks of the resurrection at the last day, she does not realize that she is speaking with the one who can bring that resurrection into the present (11.24, 25). On the use of such irony in ch. 4, O’Day goes so far as to say that: "As a result of John’s use of irony to communicate the dynamics of revelation, the narrative does not mediate the revelation but is the revelation." (O’Day, Revelation, p 92) The potential for irony reaches its peak in the ‘I am’ sayings without a predicate. The Jews do not understand who Jesus is when he claims that they will die in their sins unless they believe that ‘ego eimi’ (8.24,25). Here the potential for misunderstanding the term makes irony possible. The astute reader must recognize both the senselessness of the term when taken the way the Jews do and also the deeper meaning that the term may have in and of itself, in order to appreciate any irony. The double entendre conveyed by the absolute use of ‘I am’ comes to its greatest expression in the arrest of Jesus when it is obvious that a mundane meaning is being played off against a far deeper meaning. It is only those who see both meanings who can appreciate the irony." (David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p 124, 152-153)
"I AM" as an object of faith
It is significant that "ego eimi" is used as an explicit object of faith in John 8:24 and 13:19.
"ani hu" is a code word of absolute monotheism
Lightfoot suggested that, although each ‘I am’ saying should be decided by the context, the occurrences of the absolute ‘ego eimi’ in John 8 and 13.19 should be translated ‘I am’, since ‘the two words in the Greek are the same as those of the LXX in certain O.T. passages, e.g. Deut. 32.39 9 is. 46.4 where Yahweh is the speaker, and thus emphasizes his Godhead’. He also reasoned that this interpretation should be kept in the reader’s mind in Jn 18.4-8 while accepting the RV’s rendering ‘I am he’ . A far more detailed investigation into the relationship between ‘ego eimi’ and the ‘ani hu’ of the Old Testament was undertaken by J. Richter in his dissertation.’ With Wetter, he regards ‘ego eimi’ as a fixed formula. Richter sets out to investigate in detail the thesis, which had been hinted at many times, that this formula refers back to the Old Testament formula ‘ani hu’. Richter looks at the idea of ani hu as a divine revelation formula. In a comprehensive study of the use of ‘I am’ in the Old Testament, he argues that the ‘profane’ (i.e. the human), which is limited to ‘identification and emphatic self- statement’,’ and the ‘divine’ usage of ani hu are parallel in form.’ By an individual exegesis of the divine occurrences of ani hu in Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy, he is able to distinguish the peculiarities of the divine revelation formula. His conclusion is that ani hu is a code word of absolute monotheism and thus it becomes ‘by its breadth and all embracing significance the sum of all God’s statements about himself." By reasoning that ‘ego eimi’ in the New Testament does indeed point back to ani hu in the Old Testament, he maintains that Jesus speaks as God. Zimmermann looks at the Old Testament use of the term ‘ani YHWH’ which he regards as the Revelation Formula of the Old Testament.’ He wishes to build a bridge between that formula and the ‘ego eimi’ of Jesus. He finds such a link in the LXX translation of Isaiah where the absolute ‘ego eimi’ becomes the translation of ani hu. This in turn is connected with the formula ani YHWH. The LXX of Isa 45:18 shows an even clearer link between the formula ani YHWH and the ‘ego eimi’ of the New Testament since the ani Yhwh there is translated with an absolute ‘ego eimi’. To those who focus on Deutero-Isaiah for an understanding of the ‘I am’ sayings of John can be added the names of Feuillet, Brown, Coetzee and many others. Harner sees Deutero-Isaiah as the main influence on the absolute ‘I am’ of John, but does not rule out a link with the Tetragrammaton of Exod 3:14 nor with the interpretation given to the words by Rabbinic Judaism. (David Mark Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel, p
33-34)"ego eimi" equated with Lord and God
Luke 24:39 and John 20:27-28 are clearly two different contexts. However the connection with "I AM" [ego eimi] and Jesus being proclaimed God, is worthy of taking note. Luke calls the reader to wonder who the "ego eimi" is. John answers this with "Lord and God". So ego eimi is equated with Lord and God.
„h Luke 24:39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I [ego eimi] Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
„h John 20:27-28 "Then He *said to Thomas, ‘Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.’ Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’"Themes linked directly with ‘I am’
„h ‘I am’ and light: John 8:12; 11:25; 14:6; 6:35; 10:9-11,15
„h ‘I am’ and belief: John 6:35; 8:24; 11:25; 13:19
„h ‘I am’ and knowledge: John 8:28; 10:14; 14:6,7
„h ‘I am’ and witness: John 8:12-13, 8:18
„h ‘I am’ and truth: John 4:24, 26; 8:17-18; 14:6
„h ‘I am’ and origin/destiny: John 6:40, 5 1; 7:34; 8:23-24
„h ‘I am’ and time: past and future: John 8:58; 13:19; 7:34
„h ‘I am’ and the Father: John 8:18; 8:28; 10:14; 14:6; 15:1
„h ‘I am’ and Titles: John 4:26; 8:28
„h ‘I am’ and Authority: John 6:20; 8:28; 18:5-6Life as a theme in the I AM sayings of Jesus
„h John 8:12 Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life."
„h John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies
„h John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.
„h John 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
„h John 10:9-11,15 "I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. "The thief comes only to steal, and kill, and destroy; I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly. "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. v15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.More soon.
Be Well.
(Edited by global at 4:02 pm on Aug. 16, 2003)
FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE I AM STATEMENTS
John 6:20 echoes Isaiah 41:10,13
Isaiah 41:10,13
‘DO NOT FEAR, for I AM with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I AM your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand. … For I AM the Lord your God, who upholds your right hand, Who says to you, ‘DO NOT FEAR, I will help you.’John 6:20
But He *said to them, "IT IS I [ego eimi – predicateless absolute]; DO NOT BE AFRAID."Comments about how the Isaiah theme is echoed by Jesus:
These verses in Isaiah are a commandment from the mouth of Jehovah not to fear because He is their saviour are unmistakably intended for the mouth of Jesus who echoes their structure and content. Jesus is creator, redeemer, saviour, our owner/purchaser and said, "do not fear". To Peter when he walked on water. The predicate absolute ‘I AM’ is used of the saviour in Isaiah. Jesus the saviour, used the same predicate absolute being our saviour. Not only is the I AM the same in the LXX and John 6, but so is the word to "fear not" the identical Greek word in all these verses in the LXX. This is most striking.
Phil 2:6 echoes John 13:19 which echoes Isaiah 43:10-12
(The incarnation of I AM, Jehovah, God)Isaiah 43:10-12
"You are My witnesses," declares the Lord, "And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that YOU MAY KNOW AND BELIEVE ME, AND UNDERSTAND THAT I AM. [Heb: ‘ani hu’ – ‘ego eimi’ in LXX] Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. "I, even I, AM [‘ego eimi’] the Lord; And there is NO SAVIOR BESIDES ME."John 13:1-19
"From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, YOU MAY BELIEVE THAT I AM. v19 [‘ego eimi’ – predicateless absolute]"
v 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God, and was going back to God … rose from supper, and laid aside His garments … and taking a towel, He girded Himself about. … Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. … And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again … "You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. … v 19 you should know that I AM" [ego eimi – predicateless absolute]"Comments about how the Isaiah theme is echoed by Jesus:
In a spectacular three way parallel, Jesus quotes Isa 43:10 during the foot washing of John 13. Then Paul writes Phil 2:6-8 which is exactly parallel to John 13 as an incarnation passage. He salts the readers anticipation of proof of His identify at a future time. Something about his arrest will become a proof of His identity while invoking the I AM. Amazingly, at his arrest in John 18, Jesus uses the same predicateless I AM again TWICE causing those arresting him to take three steps backwards and fall to the ground. Just as Israel, as a witness, would eventually come to know for certain that Jehovah was their only saviour, so too the apostles, as witnesses, would soon come to know for certain that Jesus was their only saviour.
But even more spectacular is the fact that the foot washing of John 13, is a metaphor for the incarnation itself and directly parallel to Phil 2:6. Phil 2:6 states Jesus existed in the form of God, equal to the Father. Phil 2:6-8 is the fulfillment of "when it does occur you will believe that I AM".
JOHN 13 WASHING FEET, I AM AND THE INCARNATION OF PHIL 2:6
OUTER GARMENTS REPRESENT THE FORM OF GOD
John 13:3-17
rose from supper, and laid aside His garmentsPhil 2:5-11
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be graspedTOWEL REPRESENTS HUMAN FLESH
John 13:3-17
and taking a towel, He girded Himself about.Phil 2:5-11
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man,GOD SERVING IN HUMAN FLESH
John 13:3-17
Then He poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded.Phil 2:5-11
He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.RESTORED TO THE FORM OF GOD AGAIN AFTER THE ASCENSION
John 13:3-17
And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table againPhil 2:5-11
Therefore also God highly exalted HimJn 13:19 = Isaiah 43:10 "In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I AM. [Heb: ‘ani hu’ – ‘ego eimi’ in LXX]
"You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. … v 19 you should know that I AM" [ego eimi – predicateless absolute]"
at the name of Jesus every knee should bow [worship]… every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:10 = Is. 45:23 = Rom. 14:11)
More later.
Be Well.
To Global,
Very interesting notes. I enjoyed reading the way in which the "I AM" in both OT and NT share the same theme.
Thank you for putting in the time and effort:)
Just a quick question:
In light of your ”I AM" posts, what are your thoughts on the "Dual-Nature" of the man-Christ Jesus?
Lokk 4ward 2 ur reply.
To Global,
My reply to your Biblical Arguments Part I (final part) on page 20.
Your quotes are in gray.
John 17:3 (English-NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Again we see that the only True God is the Father, and Jesus Christ was sent by the only True God. Again you cannot make this scripture say anything else, it is self explanatory. John said that this truth is eternal life.I can’t see the logic of this argument. If God was a Trinity he obviously could send himself, even if he wasn’t a Trinity, he could send himself to Earth and yet remain in Heaven at the same time. God is omni-present, he is everywhere at once.
The point here is that it specifically states that Jesus Christ is different to the ONLY TRUE GOD. Yes I think we both believe that Jesus Christ was sent by God, but you believe that the one who was sent by God is also God. Your view contradicts John's view.
1 Corinthians 11:3 (English-NIV)
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
The Head of Christ is God. This scripture shows a completely different structure or pattern from the trinity.No, it doesn’t show a different structure from that of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity fully allows for the principle of headship, St Paul gives an example in this very verse to help us understand what he is saying
and the head of the woman is man
In a marriage, or family the man has headship i.e. he is the one who has certain responsibilities, the wife has other responsibilities.
This in no way makes the husband superior or greater than the wife, they are of course equals in every way.
In the same way the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) fulfill different roles within the Trinity, but none is greater or lesser than the other, the principle of headship applies.
First of all 1 Corinthians 11:3 makes a distinction that God and Christ are different, which is the distinction that I preach and that you are trying to hide.
Secondly God is mentioned first and is said to be the master of Christ which is contradictory to the Trinity doctrine again because that doctrine preaches equality within a Godhead. Even though you advocate a headship within this equality, it seems to me that even these 2 terms that you believe contradict because to be a master of someone shows that one has authority over another.
Anyway, let's imagine that your view is the correct one, then that would also mean that Christ is the head of Man only in headship terms but is equal otherwise. So if man is equal to Christ, then Man must also be equal to God with your view, with headship being the only distinction.
However to a clear unindoctrinated mind and a heart that seeks truth, I think such people would clearly see what Paul is saying here. That God is the head of all. Christ is the head of all except God. Man is the head of all bar God and his Son. And the Woman is head of all except her husband, Christ and God.
Now I could imagine that people may think what Paul was saying here was sexist. But we know that men and woman are equal and in Christ there is no distinction.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.In the Resurection, we will also become like the Angels and will not marry.
Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.But in the bond of marriage, the scriptures teach that wives should submit to their husbands as to the Lord and husbands are to submit to Christ and Christ submits to God.
Now today this submission reminds us of slavery or lording ones authority over another. It's just that this world doesn't understand God's love and submitting to that love. In this world, such authority and submission is often abused, which makes people reject such things. But in God's perfect Kingdom, it is a pattern of receiving love and responding to that love. Husbands are the initiator and the wife responds, (positively or negatively). The saying “That happened before you were a sparkle in your dads eye”, demonstrates this along with many other attributes held by husbands and wives.
1 Corinthians 15
27 For he “has put everything under his feet. Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.Ephesians 5:24
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.Titus 2:5
to be selfcontrolled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.Ephesians 5:22-28
21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.
24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,
27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.John 15:1-2 (English-NIV)
1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.
2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.
So God is the gardener, Jesus is the vine and we are the branches. This model indicates that the Father is greater than Jesus and us.Here Jesus tells a parable about the vine and branches. Is the purpose of this parable to give an explanation of the status of God and Jesus, or as the summary says, a model?
Jesus explains why he relates this story in verse 11
John 15:11
“These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.John 15:12
“This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.So he is explaining how much God loves and cares for us as a gardener cares for and tends his vines, and he does this by sending Jesus (the vine) and we are the branches. It shows how the Father and the Son co-operate in our salvation. He tells us this to give us joy.
Interestingly, the parable ends with v.16
the Father will give you whatever you ask of him in my name.
If Jesus was not equal to God how could he claim this authority? No created being could make such a claim.
The fact that Jesus used a model to describe our relationship to Christ and his Fathers relationship to us and to Christ is significant. This model when compared to the Trinity model is very different in structure.
We see that we are the branches and this shows us that without Christ we will wither up and die like a branch that falls to the ground. We can see that our life comes from the vine and if we are not in the vine we will die.
Now the fact that the Father is likened to the Gardener shows that us that the vine is tendered by the gardener in the same way that Christ is su
bject to the Father. We have a choice to believe whatever we want but I choose to believe this scripture over the Trinity model.This model shows dependancy, support, authority and hierarchy. In the scriptures you never see Jesus being exalted in anyway above the Father. You often see equality in the sense that the father has given authority Christ because the Father trusts his Son and created all for him. But it is always given by the Father.
Jesus never enforces his own will and this is why the Father gives the Son authority. Jesus is in total submission to his Father. That may seem bad to some people, but we must remember that God is love.
Let's face it, Christ gives us his authority, but we are not equal to Christ in all things. We (Church) are equal with respect to the authority we have been given and yes we are sons just as Jesus is the Son. In fact he will call us brothers, but Jesus is so much more greater than us, he is the Firstborn.
John 17
2 “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him.Matthew 28:18
Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Does God need authority to do anything?
John 5:27
And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.So we can see clearly that Jesus has been given authority.
Ephesians 1
20 which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.So who is the greater, the one who gives or the one who receives? The one who gives authority or the one who recieves it?
Acts 1:6-7
6 So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.No one gives the Father authority, he does things on his own authority. Jesus does things with the Fathers authority, not his own.
Luke 4:6
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world.
6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to.Does this verse prove that Satan is God because authority was given to him?
Revelation 13:7
He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.Is the AntiChrist equal to God because he will have certain authority over everyones lives.
Regarding your quote “the Father will give you whatever you ask of him in my name.” Well this verse alone shows us that we have authority that is not our own in the same way Christ has authority (greater) but not his own authority. So if I ask for something in the name of Christ Jesus then that doesn't prove equality to God in all things? No it reinforces the head of man is Christ and the head of Christ is God and authority is given to us in that order and given to us in love and in the hope that we will be trustworthy. That same hierarchy is seen in Revelation 1:1.
All of these verses are in no way incompatible to the Trinity. Jesus was fully man in his incarnation ( I assume everyone accepts he was fully man whether you believe in the Trinity or that Jesus was some other type of created being).
Being fully man, the Father is his God just as he is to every man, so to say that the Father is God of Jesus only confirms the doctrine of the Incarnation and is not incompatible with a Trinity, in fact it is essential to it.
Jesus is not the result of God indwelling flesh. He is a person seperate to his Father but united in thought and deed. Now we know that the Word became flesh (human nature) and he also partakes of God's nature too.
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in very nature[ 2:6 Or in the form of] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,John 1:14
The Word became flesh (human nature) and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.The Logos who was in the beginning with God, has the nature of God and he also partook of human nature. He is neither nature rather a person. He is not the result of God inside human flesh. Scripture doesn't support this. He is a person who has his own will and he chooses to align his will with his Father. It is his unity of thought and purpose that makes Jesus one with God, just as our unity of thought and purpose with Christ makes us one with God.
Again, our alignment of will and submission to Christ and God doesn't make us God but one with him in purpose. We all retain our seperate wills and our will proves that we are different to God.
John 17
21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one:Quote Quote: from GJG on 5:50 am on Aug. 16, 2003
To t8,I think you agree that Jesus was/is the dual-natured, man-christ. I was just wondering how do you see the “I AM” of Jesus. The “I AM” we know of as God, so do you maybe see that as also being the Divine nature of Jesus? The Spirit of God.
I will write on this subject when I respond to Globals post regarding this subject. I am up to Part 2 of his rebuttals and this one is Part 8.
In the meantime I point you to my writing on this subject, the one that Global is challenging.
Hi everyone,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to read my posts, I appreciate the opprtunity to be able to discuss these issues in a civilized atmosphere.
GJG, right now I’m going to write a little answer to your question about the dual nature of Christ, and I’ll put it up as soon as its ready.
T8, I think you might be interested in that aswell as I think that many of your replies to me about Jesus being lesser than God etc are related to this question about his dual nature.
For example John 17.3
John 17:3
"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.John 17:4
"I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do.John 17:5
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world wasYou are saying that it distinguishes between Jesus and God, therefore Jesus is not God, but I believe that as Jesus is here talking to his Father it only distinguishes Jesus from God the Father, but does not exclude Jesus from also being God.
(Note, I do not use this verse as a proof of the Trinity, I only say it doesn’t preclude the Trinity).
In fact in verse 5 Jesus seems to be saying that he has a glory equal to that of the Father because he says that he had “the glory” i.e a specific type of glory with the Father before the existence of the world. I don’t believe that any created being can claim a glory equal to that of God.
We also need to remember that as Jesus was fully man, he necessarily had a God like every other man, and would therefore refer to God as a seperate person, I will write more about this when I reply to GJG’s question on the dual nature.
I don’t agree that the idea that Jesus was sent by God and is also God contradicts John’s view, as you say, I think it is wholly in accord with John’s statements
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,Regarding the next part
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.You said:
“First of all 1 Corinthians 11:3 makes a distinction that God and Christ are different, which is the distinction that I preach and that you are trying to hide.”
I don’t think I am trying to hide that Jesus and God are two different people, I am trying to explain how Jesus can be fully man and yet be given so many divine attributes by the Bible, I explain this by saying Jesus is a different person from the Father, both in his divinity and his humanity, otherwise when Jesus prays to his father it makes no sense, so I understand that it is his humanity which prays to the Father.
You then say –
“Secondly God is mentioned first and is said to be the master of Christ which is contradictory to the Trinity doctrine again because that doctrine preaches equality within a Godhead. Even though you advocate a headship within this equality, it seems to me that even these 2 terms that you believe contradict because to be a master of someone shows that one has authority over another.”
Again I say that this is not incompatible with the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity says that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one IN SUBSTANCE, i.e all equally God, but it does not say that they are all equal as to authority or functions.
I mentioned to you before that the best way to understand this is with the example St. Paul uses about the husband and the wife. The husband is head of the wife, but they are both human. The Father can be head of the Son but they are both God.
I am glad of the opportunity to correct this mis-conception about the Trinity because many people have it. I find that many people have trouble reconciling the Trinity with the scriptures because what they believe about the Trinity is actually mistaken.
You then say –
“Anyway, let’s imagine that your view is the correct one, then that would mean that Christ is the head of Man only in headship terms but is equal otherwise. So if man is equal to Christ, then Man must also be equal to God with your view, with a headship as being the distinction.”
No!
Because I did not say that the Father being head of Christ MAKES Christ equal to the Father, just that it doesn’t preclude him from being equal (in substance)
If Christ is our head it doesn’t MAKE us equal to him! But it doesn’t preclude us from being equal to him as a class of being, i.e we are fully human, and Jesus is also fully human.
I think with the example of the husband and wife St. Paul makes clear that he is not talking about one being superior than the other, just that they have different functions, or one has authority that the other doesn’t. I think he deliberately spells this out in verses 11 and 12. Were he says they are dependant on each-other and both are equally dependant on God –
1 Corinthians 11:11
However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.1 Corinthians 11:12
For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.You then say –
“However to a clear unindoctrinated mind and a heart that seeks truth, I think such people would clearly see what Paul is saying here. That God is the head of all. Christ is the head of all except God. Man is the head of all bar God and his Son. And the Woman is head of all except her husband, Christ and God.”
I can agree with everything you wrote here since the Trinity doctrine would say exactly the same thing!
You then discuss the parable of the garden, I think we just have a different understanding of this parable as I cant add anything to what I said before.
You then discuss authority, I think we have covered this quite extensively now in the discussion on headship. Jesus receiving authority from the Father doesn’t mean he cannot be of the same substance as the Father.
You then discuss the following –
“Jesus is not the result of God indwelling flesh. He is the Word become flesh (human nature) and he also partakes of God’s nature too.
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in very nature[ 2:6 Or in the form of] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,John 1:14
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.The Logos who was in the beginning with God, has the nature of God and he also partook of human nature. He is neither nature rather a person. He is not the result of God inside human flesh. Scripture doesn’t support this. He is a person who has his own will and he chooses to align his will with his Father. It is this unity of thought and purpose that makes Jesus one with God. Not God himself. Like our alignment of will to Christ and God doesn’t make us God but one with him.”
I have to disagree that your view is more scriptural than mine. I believe that the scripture does indeed show that Jesus is very much God become flesh and is at once a man and God.
John 1.1 does not say the Logos has the nature of God, it says he IS God.
You then incorrectly paraphrase Philippians 2:6 to “has the nature of God”, but it actually says “being in very nature”
While most versions actually have
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
(King James Version)We can compare this to
Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
(New American Standard)Or the King James Version says
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.Young’s literal version renders it –
Colossians 2:9
because in
him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,The Living Bible says
Colossians 2:9
“for in Christ there is all of God in a human body”This seems to be quite different from your idea that Christ simply “chooses to align his will with his Father”, a phrase which is found nowhere in the Bible.
I have found this part of the discussion to be quite interesting, I think we can really make some progress looking at the dual nature of Christ.
I saw your message that your post was incomplete, so let me know if you subsequently change anything thanks.
Be Well.
(Edited by global at 3:02 pm on Aug. 17, 2003)
Hi T8,
Just another quick thought which occurred to me, I was looking at Philippians 2:6
Philippians 2:6
who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,And I was pondering on the meaning of the phrase “did not regard equality a thing to be grasped”
Would it not be reasonable to interpret this as “did not regard equality a thing to be held on to”? or “a thing to be maintained”?
Websters dictionary defines “hold on” as –
Main Entry: hold on
Function: intransitive verb
Date: 13th century
1 a : to maintain a condition or position : PERSIST b : TO MAINTAIN A GRASP ON SOMETHING : HANG ON
2 : to await something (as a telephone connection) desired or requested; broadly : WAIT
– hold on to : to maintain possession of or adherence toThis indicates that it would be an acceptable alternative for grasp.
My point is that Christ could not hold onto equality with God unless he already had it, so Philippians 2:6 seems to be saying –
“although he existed in the form of God (and was therefore equal to God) he did not regard equality with God as a thing to be held on to, but voluntarily gave up his equality and took the form of a man”
Sometimes I find it helps me to understand certain passages by looking at them in various different versions of the Bible, in this case I found the Weymouth version of the New Testament seems to give an almost identical interpretation of this passage as I am proposing –
Philippians 2:6
Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.The King James version has –
Philippians 2:6
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:Again, Christ considers that it is not robbery to be equal with God, therefore he must consider that it is his rightful place to be equal with God.
So this passage for me seems to indicates Christ’s equality with God, and therefore makes him God.
Be Well.
(Edited by global at 4:13 pm on Aug. 17, 2003)
To Global,
To be equal to something means that you are not that thing, rather you are like it.
e.g Manchester United may be equal to Ajax, but they are 2 different soccer teams. Manchester United is not Ajax and vice versa. Also we can see in this world that an Ambassador of a country has equal authority to the leader of a country if that leader allows it. Same with Christ. He has authority, but it is on behalf of his Father and God.
Any equality that Christ has, was given to him by God, just as any equality we have with Christ was given to us (church). There are plenty of scriptures that show that the Father is greater than the Son. There is no point in disputing that.
Now we know that God has a divine nature. But his nature is not himself, it is part of his character in the same way that his eternal power is part of who he is.
Romans 1:20
<font color=red>For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.</font>If Christ partakes of God’s nature, then that doesn’t make Christ, God. After all, we will also partake of the divine nature too.
2 Peter 1:4
<font color=red>Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.</font>Now if we look at Philippians 2:6 in context we see that it is God who exalts Jesus to the highest place and we are also told that every toungue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. So again these verses confirm that Jesus is not God, he is Lord. A distinction made plain throughout the New Testament.
Philippians 2:5-11
<font color=red>5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature[2] of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. </font>Hi T8,
You make a fair point about the football teams but I believe that in the unique case of God and only in this case, equality does make Jesus God.
Why? Because otherwise, since no created being can be equal to God, we would have to believe there are two equal Gods.
I am sure you reject polytheism as much as I do.
Maybe we share divine qualities but we will never be equal to divinity in any sense.
See also the parallels between Phil. 2:6 and Isa.43:10 and Jn 13 which I posted on page 31.
Anyway, it was just a thought.
I’m going to try and post some information about the incarnation later today as requested by GJG.
Be Well.
(Edited by global at 4:56 am on Aug. 18, 2003)
Hi GJG, here are some ideas on the dual, God-Man, nature of Christ which you asked me for.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION
The Incarnation is the mystery and the dogma of the Word made Flesh. ln this technical sense the word incarnation was adopted, during the twelfth century, from the Norman-French, which in turn had taken the word over from the Latin incarnatio.
The Latin incarnatio (in: caro, flesh) corresponds to the Greek sarkosis, or ensarkosis, which words depend on John (i, 14) kai ho Logos sarx egeneto, "And the Word was made flesh".
The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed in Scripture by other terms: epilepsis, the act of taking on a nature (Heb., ii. 16): epiphaneia, appearance (II Tim., i, 10); phanerosis hen sarki, manifestation in the flesh (I Tim., iii, 16); somatos katartismos, the fitting of a body, what some Latin Fathers call incorporatio (Heb., x. 5); kenosis, the act of emptying one’s self (Phil., ii, 7).
The Incarnation implies three facts: (1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ; (3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.
Since I am presenting proofs for the divinity of Jesus elsewhere, here I will limit the discussion to presenting a view of his humanity and the hypostatic union.
THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS CHRIST
The Gnostics taught that matter was of its very nature evil, somewhat as the present-day Christian Scientists teach that it is an "error of mortal mind"; hence Christ as God could not have had a material body, and His body was only apparent. These heretics, called doketae included Basilides, Marcion, the Manichaeans, and others. Valentinus and others admitted that Jesus had a body, but a something heavenly and ethereal; hence Jesus was not born of Mary, but His airy body passed through her virgin body. The Apollinarists admitted that Jesus had an ordinary body, but denied Him a human soul; the Divine nature took the place of the rational mind.
However scripture shows the truth of his true humanity.
The title that is characteristic of Jesus in the New Testament is Son of Man; it occurs some eighty times in the Gospels; it was His Own accustomed title for Himself. The phrase is Aramaic, and would seem to be an idiomatic way of saying "man". The life and death and resurrection of Christ would all be a lie were He not a man, and our Faith would be vain. (I Cor., xv, 14). "For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim., ii, 5).
Christ even enumerates the parts of His Body. "See my hands and feet, that it is I myself; handle and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have" (Luke, xxiv, 39).
In regard to the human soul of Christ, the Scripture is equally clear. Only a human soul could have been sad and troubled. Christ says: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death" (Matt., xxvi, 38). "Now is my soul troubled" (John, xii, 27).
His obedience to the heavenly Father and to Mary and Joseph supposes a human soul (John, iv, 34; v, 30; vi, 38; Luke, xxii, 42).
Finally Jesus was really born of Mary (Matt., i, 16), made of a woman (Gal., iv, 4), after the angel had promised that He should be conceived of Mary (Luke, i, 31); this woman is called the mother of Jesus (Matt., i, 18; ii, 11; Luke, i, 43; John, ii, 3); Christ is said to be really the seed of Abraham (Gal., iii, 16), the son of David (Matt., i, 1), made of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom., i, 3), and the fruit of the loins of David (Acts, ii, 30).
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION
The human and Divine natures are united in one Divine Person so as to remain that exactly which they are, namely, Divine and human natures with distinct and perfect activities of their own
This union of the two natures in one Person has been for centuries called a hypostatic union, that is, a union in the Divine Hypostasis. What is an hypostasis? The definition of Boethius is classic:
“a complete whole whose nature is rational”
St. Thomas defines hypostasis as
“a substance in its entirety”
It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the forcefulness of God’s activity, not only was the human soul of Christ created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived.
When God created the world, the world was changed, that is. it passed from the state of nonentity to the state of existence; and there was no change in the Logos or Creative Word of God the Father. Nor was there change in that Logos when it began to terminate the human nature. A new relation ensued, to be sure; but this new relation implied in the Logos no new reality, no real change; all new reality, all real change, was in the human nature.
EFFECTS OF THE INCARNATION
On the Body of Christ
Catholics hold that, before the Resurrection, the Body of Christ was subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature unassumed is universally subject; such are hunger, thirst, pain, death. Christ hungered (Matt., iv, 2), thirsted (John, xix, 28), was fatigued (John, iv, 6), suffered pain and death. "We have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin" (Heb., iv, 15). "For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted" (Heb., ii, 18).
They were part of the free oblation that began with the moment of the Incarnation. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not; but a body thou hast fitted to me" (Heb., x, 5).
The Fathers deny that Christ assumed sickness. There is no mention in Scripture of any sickness of Jesus. Sickness is not a weakness that is a necessary belonging of human nature. It is true that pretty much all mankind suffers sickness. It is not true that any specific sickness is suffered by all mankind. Not all men must needs have measles. No one definite sickness universally belongs to human nature; hence no one definite sickness was assumed by Christ.
St. Clement of Alexandria (III Paedagogus, c. 1), Tertullian (De Carne Christi, c. ix), and a few others taught that Christ was deformed.
They misinterpreted the words of Isaias: "There is no beauty in him, nor comeliness; and we have seen him, and there was no sightlinesss" etc. (liii, 2). The words refer only to the suffering Christ. Theologians now are unanimous in the view that Christ was noble in bearing and beautiful in form, such as a perfect man should be; for Christ was, by virtue of His incarnation, a perfect man.
On the Human Soul of Christ
IN THE WILL
The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ.
This fact of Christ’s sinlessness is evident from the Scripture. "There is no sin in Him" (I John, iii, 5). Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us" i. e. a victim for sin (II Cor., v, 21).
LIBERTY
The will of Christ remained free after the Incarnation. This is an article of faith. The Scripture is most clear on this point. "When he had tasted, he would not drink" (Matt., xxvii, 34). "I will; be thou made clean" (Matt., viii, 3). The liberty of Christ was such that He merited. "He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him" (Phil., ii, 8). "Who having joy set before him, endured the cross" (Heb., xii, 2). That Christ was free in the matter of death, is the teaching of all Catholics; else He did not merit nor satisfy for us by His death.
Just
how to reconcile this liberty of Christ with the impossibility of His committing sin has been a problem for theologians ever since. St Thomas Aquinas gives several explanations in Summa Theologica III:47:3, ad 3LIKES AND DISLIKES
The Hypostatic Union did not deprive the Human Soul of Christ of its human likes and dislikes. The affections of a man, the emotions of a man were His.
We find that he was subject to anger against the blindness of heart of sinners (Mark, iii, 5); to fear (Mark, xiv, 33); to sadness (Matt., xxvi, 37): to the sensible affections of hope, of desire, and of joy. These likes and dislikes were under the complete will-control of Christ.
ON THE GOD-MAN
One of the most important effects of the union of the Divine nature and human nature in One Person is a mutual interchange of attributes, Divine and human, between God and man,
The God-Man is one Person, and to Him in the concrete may be applied the predicates that refer to the Divinity as well as those that refer to the Humanity of Christ. We may say God is man, was born, died, was buried. These predicates refer to the Person Whose nature is human, as well as Divine; to the Person Who is man, as well as God. We do not mean to say that God, as God, was born; but God, Who is man, was born.
WHAT THE INCARNATION IS NOT
It can help us to further understand the incarnation by looking at some incorrect ideas which were rejected by the Church.
The Council of Nicea implicitly defined the Incarnation as a physical union of two natures in one hypostasis, it professed a belief in "One Lord Jesus Christ . . . true God of true God . . . Who took Flesh, became Man and suffered". This belief was in one Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature.
NESTORIANISM
Nestorius, who had been elected Patriarch of Constantinople (428), said the union of the two natures is not physical (physike) but moral, a mere juxtaposition in state of being (schetike); the Word indwells in Jesus like as God indwells in the just.
He insisted that "the Man Jesus should be co-adored with the Divine union and almighty God, he denied that Christ was two persons, but his teaching effectively said that there was, he proclaimed Him as one person (prosopon) made up of two substances. The oneness of the Person was however only moral, and not at all physical. Mary is the Mother of Christ (Christotokos), not the Mother of God (Theotokos).
As is usual in these Oriental heresies, the metaphysical refinement of Nestorius was faulty, and led him into a practical denial of the mystery that he had set himself to explain.
The Council of Ephesus (431) condemned the heresy of Nestorius, and defined that Mary was mother in the flesh of God’s Word made Flesh (can. i). It anathematized all who deny that the Word of God the Father was united with the Flesh in one hypostasis (kath hypostasin); all who deny that there is only one Christ with Flesh that is His own; all who deny that the same Christ is God at the same time and man
MONOPHYSITISM
Soon however, a new heresy sprang up. Nestorius had postulated two persons in Jesus Christ, the new heresy postulated only one person, the divine person, but it went farther, it postulated only one nature aswell.
The leader of this heresy was Eutyches. His followers were called Monophysites. They varied in their ways of explanation. Some thought the two natures were intermingled into one. Others are said to have worked out some sort of a conversion of the human into the Divine.
All were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451).
This Fourth General Council of the Church defined that Jesus Christ remained, after the Incarnation, "perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity . . . consubstantial with the Father according to His Divinity, consubstantial with us according to His humanity . . . one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures not intermingled, not changed, not divisible, not separable"
Monophysitism resulted in the national Churches of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia. These national Churches are still heretic, although there have in later times been formed Catholic rites called the Catholic Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian rites.
MONOTHELITISM
One would suppose that there was no more room for heresy in the explanation of the mystery of the nature of the Incarnation.
But once again a new heresy arose. Three patriarchs of the Oriental Church gave rise, so far as we know, to the new heresy. These three heresiarchs were Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Athanasius, the Patriarch of Antioch.
They defended the union of two natures in one Divine Person but denied that this Divine Person had two wills. Their principle was expressed by the words, en thelema kai mia energeia, by which they would seem to have meant one will and one activity.
These heretics were called Monothelites. Their error was condemned by the Sixth General Council (the Third Council of Constantinople, 680). It defined that in Christ there were two natural wills and two natural activities, the Divine and the human, and that the human will was not at all contrary to the Divine, but rather perfectly subject thereto.
The error of Monothelism is clear from the Scripture as well as from tradition. Christ did acts of adoration (John, iv, 22), humility (Matt., xi, 29), reverence (Heb., v, 7). These acts are those of a human will. The Monothelites denied that there was a human will in Christ. Jesus prayed: "Father, if Thou wilt, remove this chalice from me: but yet not my will, but thine be done," (Luke, xxii, 42). Here there is question of two wills, the Father’s and Christ’s. The will of Christ was subject to the will of the Father. "As the Father hath given me commandment, so do I" (John, xiv, 31). He became obedient even unto death (Phil., ii, 8). The Divine will in Jesus could not have been subject to the will of the Father, with which will it was really identified.
We have trace of only one body of Monothelites. The Maronites, about the monastery of John Maron, were converted from Monothelism in the time of the Crusades and have been true to the faith ever since.
All the information presented here is a summary from the Catholic Encyclopedia where you may find a more detailed treatment if you are interested.
Be Well.
To Global,
Quote no created being can be equal to God, we would have to believe there are two equal Gods.
…………………Maybe we share divine qualities but we will never be equal to divinity in any sense.
See also the parallels between Phil. 2:6 and Isa.43:10 and Jn 13 which I posted on page 31.
Anyway, it was just a thought.
No problem,
Thoughts are good. It is one way that we search.I actually do not believe that Jesus is a created being. I believe that he was born from God as the Word and then much later he became flesh. Jesus cannot be created because all created things were made by God through Christ and nothing was created outside of this.
I believe that he is the firstborn in status and literally.
He was begotten not created.Yes I agree that we will partake of the divine nature, in other words we will share in it. But I also believe that Christ shares the divine nature too as he is first in all things. He is not the nature itself. He is the Son of God, we (church) are the sons of God too and we will follow in his footsteps. He has first place in all things and God has exalted him to the highest place. We will rule and reign with Christ on his throne
I believe as the scriptures say, that Jesus is the Image of God and we are the Image of Christ. I believe this is the divine order. So we are an image of an image of God, which means that we are created in God's Image.
The Word became Flesh and dwelt among us and we (believers) have been born again by the Word of God (Logos). Jesus will call us brothers. To our Father we will always be his children.
I believe that Christ is my Master and my source. I was created by God through Christ through Adam through my parents and then I was reborn by the Logos later in life, to receive new, uncorruptable and eternal life through Christ Jesus my Lord.
Jesus will present me to the Father holy and blameless if I let him do his work in me.
I believe that Isaiah 43:10 is talking about Yahweh, i.e God/The Father).
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD , “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.Phil. 2:6 is talking about Christ who partakes of the nature of God as we do/will.
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,We cannot equate the word LORD in the Old Testament with Lord in the New Testament.
Yahweh has a son called Yehsua. Yeshua is not Yahweh.
Ex.3:15 and Ps.135:13
And Elohim said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Abraham, the Elohim of Isaac, and the Elohim of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.Psalm 2:7
“I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”Therefore Yahweh (God) is the Father of Jesus/Yeshua. Jesus is the Son of Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh.
Hi T8,
thanks for clarifying your belief about Jesus. In that case your position is not that different from mine.
Trinitarians also believe that Jesus is begotten from the Father just like you, the difference appears to be that you think it took place at a concrete moment in time and that therefore Jesus has not been eternal.
Trinitarians believe that the Son is "eternally" begotten i.e. his generation from the Father has been (and is) a continuous eternal process.
This point seems to be worth further investigation in two ways:
1) We could examine the scriptures to see if their is any clear indication whether Jesus had a starting point, or is eternal.
2) We could examine the philosophical and logical implications for each point of view.
By this I mean what does it imply that Jesus is not created but begotten from the Father as a natural Son?
To me, it seems that if the Son is begotten from the Father, he must necessarily share in the very nature of his Father i.e. he must also be divine, in the same way as a human son born of a human father must also be human.
But wouldn’t this logically lead to two divinities? Something which is prohibited by the scriptures.
Trinitarians avoid this problem by saying that the Son is one in substance with the Father, i.e they are two people but both equally God.
How do you avoid that issue in your theology?
Secondly, most theologians say that God can never change.(perhaps there is a scripture which says that but I can’t locate it right now)
When he creates something he does not change. But Jesus was not created he is begotten. But the word begotten implies a procreation which itself implies that the Son comes out of the Father, this seems to suggest that the Father changes in the process.
Trinitarians avoid this as they say he is eternally begotten. i.e as the process is continuous and eternal the Father has never changed due to it.
What are your thoughts on this?
Be Well.
To Global,
I will still answer your other Posts, but this one is in response to your last post.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Word=Logos
Logos=something said (including the thought);To me this verse shows that the Word/Logos was once God or God's thought and after that the Word was with God, meaning that the Word/Logos/thought is now alongside God. If so, then he is unique and different to God. (a thought with his own will). Whatever is with God cannot be God.
With regards to being eternally begotten, I think that John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God before there was a creation, but the fact that the Word was God or the Word was godlike shows that God is the source of the Word. Scripture reinforces this concept many times. e.g I came from God” , “I can do nothing of my own accord” , “He is the image of the invisible God” etc.
Your quote:
To me, it seems that if the Son is begotten from the Father, he must necessarily share in the very nature of his Father i.e. he must also be divine, in the same way as a human son born of a human father must also be human.I agree with this, because Christ came from God he is like God and shares his nature. Like Father like son as the saying goes. But the Father is the originator, the source and this makes the Father greater than the Son. He is called the Most High God for a reason. Jesus Christ is the first to admit this. He often spoke of his Father being greater than himself and that only God was good, not himself. He also said that he spoke and did only what his Father spoke and did. Again we see the Father Son relationship in action. Even in the Book of Revelation we see that the glorified Christ still refers to his Father as his God and our God.
Now we (sons) also partake of the divine nature and we are conceived through the Word of God/the Son of God. We are twice removed from God the originator. We are the image of Christ and Christ is the image of God and that is why we are created in God's Image.
To be created means that we were brought into existance by God through his Word, but we also partake of the divine nature too. But God himself is eternally greater than all creation and God is greater than the Son who was begotten.
Jesus even called us gods (theos) and Paul says that we are Gods offspring. Jesus also calls us brothers. So if he is God then God is our brother and I know that it is incorrect to exhalt humans to God's level. Rather Jesus is the firstborn among many sons.
I believe the divine order is
God > The Son of God/Christ > Sons of God
All 3 share the divine nature, but again God is the originator. We also know that there is only one mediator between God and man and it explains how we can have a relationship with a God that cannot even look upon sin. Christ interceeds for us to God on our behalf.
As you can see, this model is very different to the Trinity model and is the reason that I do not believe the Trinity doctrine. The scriptures reinforce this hierachy many times, yet the Trinity doctrine denies this model. I have also seen Christians who are confused and do not know who to pray to because of the Trinity doctrine, but I think the scriptures show us that we do all things for God, through Christ.
As it stands now, I do not have any problem with the Nicene Creed except for the fact that it was used to draw men to mens interpretation rather than letting the Spirit and scripture reveal truth. If the Nicene Creed was a teaching then that would be ok, but it has become the basis for a whole system and other creeds have been added which have led men away from the truth in scripture and into the teachings of men. One error at a time, one error on another. Some of the later Creeds endorse idolatory and I believe they contradict Jesus, Pauls, Johns and Peters teachings about who Christ is and who God is.
John 10:24-38
24 The Jews gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,
26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one.”
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,
32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,
36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does.
38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”Hi T8, thanks for your answer.
You said:
“John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Whatever is with God cannot be God.”
I think you say this because you are still thinking in a modalistic way regarding your idea of the Trinity i.e. that Father=Son=Holy Spirit.
This forces the above verse to –
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was God the Father. He was in the beginning with God the Father."
I think you used this argument in the summary putting it as –
"In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with ADAM, and EVE was ADAM. SHE was in the beginning with ADAM."
However as I mentioned before, since the word “God” is a class of being and not a name it would be better to interpret it as –
"In the beginning was EVE, and EVE was with MAN, and EVE was MAN. SHE was in the beginning with MAN."
This does not force the word God to equal the person of the Father.
Another problem with your interpretation of Jn. 1.1 is that it breaks the rule of consistent translation by giving a different meaning to the word “God” (theos) in the very same verse, by making it refer to two different things as –
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (proper name of the Father), and the Word was God (lesser class of being)."
The Trinitarian interpretation of Jn 1.1 is the only consistent way to treat this verse –
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (equal class of being God), and the Word was God (equal class of being God)."
I like to think of the the relationship between Father and Son as being like the Sun and the rays of light which come from it.
They are both different, for the rays are not the Sun, nor is the Sun the rays, but they are both light. Nor can we think that the Sun has ever appeared without giving out rays, and neither have there ever been the rays without the Sun.
Now if this is possible with a physical object we can perceive with our own senses, how can we say it is not possible for God?
You said:
“Word=Logos
Logos=something said (including the thought); “Yes this is a good point T8, we should examine the meaning of the word Logos.
John begins his Gospel directly using the word Logos so it seems to be assumed that his readers already understand the term. Of course this is logical since the Old Testament uses the term where it is personified and identified also with the term Wisdom which is also spoken of in a personified way. Most people therefore identify these two terms in the Old Testament as being a revelation of Christ.
However what did the term Logos mean for the Jews in the Old Testament?
I have found the following information. –
“In Palestinian Rabbinism the Word (Memra) is very often mentioned, at least in the Targums: it is the Memra of Jahveh which lives, speaks, and acts, but, if one endeavour to determine precisely the meaning of the expression, it appears very often to be only a paraphrase substituted by the Targumist for the name of Jahveh.
The rabbis are chiefly concerned about ritual and observances; from religious scruples they dare not attribute to Jahveh actions such as the Sacred Books attribute to Him; it is enough for them to veil the Divine Majesty under an abstract paraphrase, the Word, the Glory, the Abode, and others.”
I believe this indicates that the word Logos in the Bible is understood as more than just “something said” but is in fact another word for God himself, and St. John understood that his readers would interpret it that way.
In any case, I mentioned previously in one of my Biblical arguments that the word "with" (Gr. pros) in Jn. 1.1 means "to, towards" when used with the accusative as it is here (Thayer, p.541). The word is generally translated "to" or "toward" (NKJV) or "unto" (KJV; see John 1:29,42,47; 2:3; 3:2,4,20,26). So this phrase cannot be referring to "something said" coming FROM God.
I mentioned in my previous post that it would be a good idea to look for verses which could shed more light on the question of whether the Word/Jesus was created or eternal.
I haven’t been able to find many verses which deal with this. In my opinion all the verses which identify the divinity of Jesus would necessarily imply for the Jews and early Christians his eternal existence since for them the concept of a divinity which is not eternal would not be possible, however I have discovered the following –
Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.And Proverbs speaking of Wisdom says –
Proverbs 8:23
I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.This would put the phrase “in the beginning” in Jn 1.1 in context to mean “from eternity”.
So the expression, "In the beginning was the Word," shows His Eternity, so "was in the beginning with God," has declared to us His Co-eternity.
Just as when God says –
Revelation 22:13
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.He does not mean that he has an actual beginning, but rather the expression is used to declare his eternal existence, as in the psalm –
"From everlasting and to everlasting Thou art" (Ps. 90. 2).
Be Well.
(Edited by global at 5:44 pm on Aug. 19, 2003)
(Edited by global at 5:49 pm on Aug. 19, 2003)
Hi all,
So do we all maybe agree that the ‘man’ Jesus was born as a man: conception, development, birth, death…etc?
The vessel was made of created substance?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
