The Trinity Doctrine

[NickHassan]

Hi Eli,
My views.

So in what way is your son your image?
You are both men.
You have similar, but not the same, chromosomes so he will look and behave in ways that have similarities.
You are bigger, more educated and more experienced in the ways of the world and you have worked, married and begotten children so you differ here too.

And God and His Son?

God begat a Son directly in his image, with no other other being's involvement but only His own derivation. We are told he was the image of his Father, spoken into being as the Word that He loved. That being was also of divine nature and they were able to communicate. That Monogenes Word had will and choices and chose obedience to the will of his Father.

God made all things and all other life through this beloved son. God also decided to make man in His image. He started with the dust of the already created earth and by His breath created an integrated being of flesh, soul and spirit.

Since flesh is of earth the only similarity to God is in the inner man of soul and spirit. We know God is spirit so there is similarity there. We can also wonder that since Christ was a vessel as we are that was emptied but not changed to become like us that if he is like to God perhaps God is soul and spirit too?

But it was as vessels that the Son and we bring the living God, as Spirit to be revealed to mankind.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (david @ Aug. 03 2006,06:18)

Quote the fact is, I have witnessed to JW's many times, and visited the Kingdom Hall for services etc…. and if you look at the issue in terms of “confusion” or disagreement” I, as a Trinitarian, might well say that it is all the non or anti Trinitarians who have generated all the confusion and disagreement… what would you think of that line of reasoning in so far as disproving JW doctrine of any kind? I am betting you would not find it very convincing. And that is what I think when I look at this objection, it's not very convincing as a proof for or against the doctrine of the Trinity. Hi Epy. First, is it true that you are a Calvanist?  Does this mean that you follow Calvin's beliefs? “if you look at the issue in terms of confusion or disagreement,” you say that it is the non-trinitarians that have generated this confusion. Listen, that's just not true.  The pope himself is confused over this one.  It's a “mystery.”  Mystery's, by nature, are confusing.  Over and over again, scholars and religionists have explained how hard it is to explain the trinity.  There is a reason for this.  It's hard to explain a mystery that's been described as “unexplainable.” Yet, you assert that it is those who don't believe in the trinity that are the cause of confusion.  I've talked to a lot of people I've met in the ministry about the trinity.  And if there is anyone that is confused, it is … most everyone.  Coincidentally, most everyone believes in the trinity.   Those who decide to go against the crowd of deceived humanity (Rev 12:9) almost always have very definite reasons for believing what they do. Interestingly, the great majority of people who believe in the trinity simply don't have a clue, except for the occasional person that has heard something about John 1:1.  And for those who actually believe the trinty and are considered learned and schooled in it, they have been taught that it is better not to discuss it–after all, it is a mystery. david.

hey David.. whats up?

Actually I am simply a biblical Christian who beliefved that Calvin was one of the teachers that God gave to the church, so many people… especially here at this forum…. seem to have a phobia regarding saying that they agree with anyone else in their doctrine, this is in clear violation of the Scriptures which explicitly states that it is God Himself who gives teachers to the church;
(1 Cor 12:28 NASB) And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

Jesus is also said to be the one who gave teachers to the church, another sign of His unity and equality with the Father;
(Eph 4:11 NASB) And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

at any rate, I agree with him on the most important issue, the nature of the gospel. But I disagree with him in matters of ecclesiology and trhe sacraments. I would consider myself a Reformed Baptist, thus in closer agreement with people like Charles Spurgeon, John Gill, John Bunyan (the famous writer of Pilgrims Progress), Andrew Fuller, AW Pink, and modern teachers like James White, John Piper and Jerry Bridges…. a decent short summary can be found at Wikpedia, if you are interested, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Baptist

as far as the non-trinitarian issue is concerned, my main point in that discussion was to say that the idea of dissension alone as not being suffcient grounds to determine the truth…. that “dissension” itself is often in the eye of the beholder

as far as the Pope being confused, I agree, he is an many many issues….

and you are absolutely wrong that mystery is always inherently confusing…. you need to read the Bible carefully on this one David….. according to Paul, a mystery is the revealing of that which was heretofore unknown, in his case especially, as the Apostle to the Gentiles, the mystery was the inclusion of the Gentiles as the people of God. And Jesus said that the mystery of the kingdom had been given to His disciples, thus they had knowledge, true knowledge, specific knowledge, that was a “mystery”. I could give you the passages, but I am sure you are capable of checking this out for yourself.

Secondly, the fact that something is difficult to explain does not mean that the idea must therefore be false. Can you show me any logical rule that states this? Of course not. The fact is, the very existence of God is hard to explain to some people, but that does not make the idea false.

you said “Those who decide to go against the crowd of deceived humanity (Rev 12:9) almost always have very definite reasons for believing what they do.”

yeah, people usually have specific reasons for doing what they do… so???

I would agree that many that claim to believe in the Trinity have not looked into it much. Of course that too is a moot point on several levels, one being the fact that most people do not know why they believe what they do on many issues, biblical inerrancy, the existence of God, the nature of the atonement, eschatology, etc etc, so this fact alone is no mark against the doctrine of the trintiy itself….. secondly, the fact that some people do not know what the doctrine of the trinity is simply has no bearing on whether or not it is false. I am sure there are a great many things you do not know, but, that doesn't make them automatically false.

Lastly, your final paragraph is nothing but rhetoric…. and on the whole, a lie… I have been “schooled in it” and never was I told not to discuss it. In fact, all I have heard is the exact opposite, that it needs to be discussed more. A simple example of this would be Millard J Erickson's book “Making Sense of the Trinity” and Alistar McGrath's “Understanding the Trinity” and James White's “The Forgotten Trinity”…. more indepth books on the issue are found within all Systematic Theologies written by conservative evangelical Christians, Charles Hodge, Robert Reymond, John Murray, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Wayne Grudem, , Buswell, etc as well as Robert Morey's “The Trinity; Evidence and Issues”.

At any rate, if you can give me specific quotes from conservative Christians saying explicitly “its better not to discuss the Trinity”, I would be very interested in you substantiating your claim.

blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi E.
You say
“I would agree that many that claim to believe in the Trinity have not looked into it much. Of course that too is a moot point on several levels, one being the fact that most people do not know why they believe what they do on many issues, biblical inerrancy, the existence of God, the nature of the atonement, eschatology, etc etc, so this fact alone is no mark against the doctrine of the trintiy itself….. secondly, the fact that some people do not know what the doctrine of the trinity is simply has no bearing on whether or not it is false. I am sure there are a great many things you do not know, but, that doesn't make them automatically false.”

The difference here is that we do not teach as DOCTRINE what we do not or cannot know.
Why do you do so?

[Admin]

Quote (Jill @ Aug. 02 2006,22:06)

Quote (camrezaie @ Aug. 02 2006,22:01) jill what are u talking about I don't know. I'm new here too. I just joined yesterday. I know I got a friendly PM basically saying that this Forum was created by people that do no believe in the Trinity Doctorine. I think it was a friendly warning.

That PM would have come from a member.

New members are not welcomed in such a manner. You should just get a standard welcome message/email.

[david]

Hi Eppy. I shall retract that one statement where I said that those who claim to understand the trinity have been “taught that it is better not to discuss it.”
What I should have said was that they have “learned” that it is better not to discuss it.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Trinity:
“4. There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, “But how does one preach the Trinity?” And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.”

The truth of that observation can be verified by going to a library and examining books that support the Trinity. Countless pages have been written attempting to explain it. Yet, after struggling through the labyrinth of confusing theological terms and explanations, investigators still come away unsatisfied.

In this regard, Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no [effect] in day-to-day Christian life and worship.”

Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.”

[NickHassan]

Hi,
I was reading yesterday an article that quoted 1 Tim 6.13-16, specifically v 15-16, as applying to Christ.

“13(A)I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of (B)Christ Jesus, who testified the ©good confession (D)before Pontius Pilate,

14that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the (E)appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,

15which He will bring about at (F)the proper time–He who is (G)the blessed and (H)only Sovereign, (I)the King of kings and (J)Lord of lords,

16(K)who alone possesses immortality and (L)dwells in unapproachable light, (M)whom no man has seen or can see (N)To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.”

Of course it does not do so but applies to the God and Father of Jesus Who, in context, is shown at the start of the verse.

If it applied to Jesus then does the Father not dwell in unapproachable light and possess immortality? And if it applies to God, the Father, then why does Jesus not share these matter if he is part of a trinity God?

[oops I see there is a thread on this ]

[epistemaniac]

David, I can't help what “they” (whoever “they” may be, esp. if they are Romanists) say about the doctrine…. the simple point I was making is that your overarching criticism was simply not true…. I listed numerous modern books that make it very clear that not all Christians believe (have “learned”) that “it is better not to discuss it”…. after all, they would not have written entire books on the subject, would they? I think you would also note, quite easily as a matter of fact, any cursory perusal of the many conservative Systematic Theologies out there would also establish the fact that the issue is both “learned” and “taught”. In no case do these authors suggest that we ought not discuss the issue. I personally study Systematic Theology a great deal and in every case, the Trinity is clearly taught…

after all, it what should be most evident to you, this forum and so many others across the net discuss the Trinity as well… and isn't it the case that we are discussing the issue right now? Aren't there numerous people right here on this forum who are teaching that the doctrine is both true and important? Thus, your assertion is patently, and really, quite clearly false.

secondly, I really do not see what all the fuss is about our not fully understanding the doctrine of the trinity. After all, there are numerous issues that we do not fully understand about the Christian faith. Eschatology…. postmil, amil, premil— pre trib, mid trib, post trib…. or reconciling the existence of evil while God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent…. the appearance of age in a young universe, or even the most fundamental issue of the Christian faith of all…. God Himself, who is, in his nature and being, beyond our comprehension….while these things are beyond us in an ultimate sense, that while we do not comprehend fully, we still comprehend some things truly, without comprehending fully…..

blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
If anyone was prepared to risk the wrath of God
and espouse doctrines about His nature that are not taught in the bible
then it is also highly unlikely that they will see the need to repent of such behaviors either.

[epistemaniac]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Aug. 06 2006,21:35)

Hi E, If anyone was prepared to risk the wrath of God and espouse doctrines about His nature that are not taught in the bible then it is also highly unlikely that they will see the need to repent of such behaviors either.

I totally agree Nick, that is why I am dubious that you will repent…..

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
I do my best to abide in the Word as that is what God requires.

If I was to step outside of Revelation and teaching about God in the bible to grasp concepts about God that men have derived from scripture and place my foundation on them, then I would not be still abiding in that Word.

Those who do so will have to repent.

It is up to you to sell us the need to not abide in the Word,
and so far your reasons for disobeying God in this matter as shown,
have been far from adequate.

[camrezaie]

http://www.greekbible.com … use this if you dont have the greek text so you can follow with what im saying here…

i dont know if this is going to be helpful to anyone or not but i just want to post this and see what you guys have to say.. ive taken a few select verses that are said to prove the trinity entirely and ive broken them down individually, please take your time to cross reference and check the translations from different verses that i have provided as a comparison, im sure it will be helpful… thanks

John 1:1: the word theos used to explain jesus is also used in these verse: Acts 28:5-6, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, John 10:34-35, John 1:18. also the word “god” is used for these verses not referring to “the god almighty”: Psalm 82:6. in acts 28:5-6 and 12:22 look at greek wordage, what gives them right to put an “a” before god and in nwt not an a before the one in john 1:1? Also, there is no article before the greek word theos which means that it cant be a noun but an adjective describing jesus’s qualities like 2 Corinthians 7:10.

1 John 5:20: Read it carefully, the verse in 19 says we are the children of God, in 20 it refers to him who is true which is talking about God, and we are in him who is true, so we are in God, and even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life, it only makes sense that its talking about God since in the previous sentences it uses him and his to refer to God himself, why would it suddenly switch to Jesus when the previous sentences are talking about knowing the true one, God. To further back up this point go to Jeremiah 10:10, John 17:3 and John 8:42.

John 5:18-19: the jews accused jesus of making himself of equal status with god, jesus denied this in those verses and also in John 10:33-36, wouldn’t that mean the trinity is making the same mistake as the jews did? If jesus himself denied equality to god, and Christianity is defined as being based off the life and beliefs of Christ Jesus, yet the trinity is contradicting what Christ has said, how can you still call your self a Christian?

John 14:6-7: this does NOT prove the trinity, we know that our only way to God is through Jesus Christ. This scripture clearly says that and by Jesus saying that since you have seen me you have seen the father can only mean that since you have believed in Jesus, he has revealed the father to you. If anyone was to take this literally, whether you believe in the trinity or not, it would mean that Jesus is the father which is one thing everyone can agree is not true because it clearly says he is the son countless times and also we can refer to this verse John 1:18.

Philippians 2:6: jesus says we should have this same attitude in the sense that we should not consider equality with god something to be grasped, this doesn’t mean that Jesus was equal to god but just because he was in human form he didn’t consider himself to be because Jesus said we should have the same attitude, okay so that would be like us saying that and meaning we really are equal to god but don’t consider ourselves to be just because we are in a human form, that’s nonsense. Jesus calls us brothers in Hebrews 2:11 but we know that jesus is greater than us so he is like our older brother because the bible says he was the first in all creation Colossians 1:15 and we know this makes us god’s offspring or children proved here Acts 17:29 Jesus also claims hes not equal in these verses: Mark 10:18, John 5:19, John 6:38, John 7:16. Was Jesus lying to us?

Colossians 2:8-10, Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20: Romans 1:20, greek wording shows that Godship or Godhead means “divine nature.” 2 peter 1:4 says we can participate in divine nature, does this make us god almighty with eternal power and invisible qualities that is says in Romans 1:20?

Isaiah 45:23 and Philippians 2:10-11: so what? This does not prove the trinity, god exalted him to this position and made his name above everyone elses, of course knees will bow to jesus just as they will to God. Jesus was anointed to be in this position of lord the same way that Pharaoh, king of Egypt, put Joseph as lord of egypt in Genesis 41:41-43. but Pharaoh had the power to take that away from him because he was king, he gave him that position and he can take it away. Just as god has given jesus this power like it says in Acts 2:36.

Colassians 1:16: Compare greek wording Colossians 1:16 the word through with the greek wording in john 1:3, col 3:17, 2 tim 4:17, matt 2:23, matt 3:3, matt 4:14, now look at by in matt 2:16, matt 3:6, matt 3:13. so if all things were created “through” him it means that Jehovah created these things because of his son and he created it all for him. This is proven in john 1:3. also compare the greek wording of “by” to Matthew 1:20, Matthew 2:1, Colossians 1:2, Colossians 1:4-6

Matthew 28:19: 1 Thessalonians 1:1, I suppose this makes Paul, Silias, and Timothy a trinity, too. 1 Ti 5:21, and this would make the angels the part of the trinity, too I suppose.

John 10:17-18: compare greek word for receive with Matthew 20:9-11, Matthew 25:16,18,20, his father loves him because he gives up his life so he can receive it again, verse 18 is saying that no one took his life because he gave his life on his own initiative so therefore it was not taken, he has authority to give it away and he has authority to receive it again because god has given him this authority as it says in the last sentence. Another point i would like to make, he talks about receiving his life “again”. Why would he say “again” if he was never created and given life?

[NickHassan]

Hi cam,
Thanks for the thoughtful post, which I will give time to later.
Trinity cannot be proven sripturally because it is not taught in scripture.

Men have found fascinating verses that they believe might suggests aspects of God that are not written and they have wandered off the path of truth in search of these butterflies of speculation.

[seminarian]

Excellent Cam!

I especially liked:

“Matthew 28:19: 1 Thessalonians 1:1, I suppose this makes Paul, Silias, and Timothy a trinity, too. 1 Ti 5:21, and this would make the angels the part of the trinity, too I suppose.”

So true, so true.

Nick is on top of it as well.  You can't prove something scripturally which is NOT IN SCRIPTURE.
Show me just where in the Bible is the word trinity or triune to be found in it's Greek equivalent.

Likewise those who claim the “diety” of Christ as being the cornerstone of salvation. Not so fast
there either.  This article excerpt surely makes sense:

I Corinthians 8 says:

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus the Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

There are many gods out there in the world, even inlcuding the “elohim” such as Moses and human judges. Psalms 82:
GOD standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods (elohim). but to us there is only one God, the Father.

Also, there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. There’s a big difference between “Yahweh” (the Creator) and “a god” (a deity) by actual definition. By the way, “deity” is another pagan term that has been adopted by the churches. Just like trinity, triune, God the Son, Eternal Son, etc. it is also NOT found in the Bible.

Semmy

[epistemaniac]

Cam, Re 1 Jn 5:20,

“One verse in 1 John requires special notice, for in it John quite likely intends to
employ θεός, theos, as he does in John 1:1, 18, and 20:28, as a christological title.
Translated literally, 1 John 5:20 reads:
And we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us understanding in order that we may know the True One. And we are in the True One in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.

The issue is to determine who it is that John had in mind when he wrote, “This is
the true God and eternal life,” the Father or the Son. I am personally persuaded that a better case can be made for understanding θεός, theos, as referring to the Son. The case for the Father being the referent of “the true God” highlights the
following features in the verse. First, reference to the Father is indirectly but clearly present in the genitives “of God” and the “his” following the two occurrences of “the Son.” Second, it is likely that the two occurrences of “true One” (τὸν ἀληθινόν, τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ton alēthinon, tō alēthinM) both refer to the Father because (1) it would be a harsh rendering to interpret John as saying that “he [the Son] has given us understanding that we may know the true One [that is, himself]”; (2) the Father clearly seems to be the referent of the second occurrence of “true One” because of the αὐτοῦ, autou, in the phrase immediately following it, “in his Son” (the NIV rendering, “even in his Son,” implies the presence of a καί, kai, before the prepositional phrase, but there is no καί, kai, in the Greek text); (3) it is truer to Johannine thought to represent the Son’s messianic mission as a revelation of the Father than as a revelation of himself (see John 1:18; 17:3–4). These features, it is urged, since it is highly unlikely that John would have referred to two different persons so closely in the same verse by the one adjective “true,” point to the Father as the referent of John’s phrase “the true God.” This would accord with John’s clear reference to the Father as “the only true God” in John 17:3. Accordingly, John’s assertion at the end of 5:20, “This is the true God and eternal life,” it is urged, has as its referent the Father. Both exegetically and theologically, this interpretation is possible, and it has been espoused by Brooke (ICC), Westcott, and Dodd. Murray J. Harris also urges this interpretation in his Jesus as God.

But there are four grammatical or exegetical considerations which tell against this interpretation. First, the nearest possible antecedent to οὗτός, houtos, (“This One”) is the immediately preceding phrase “Jesus Christ,” and it is a generally sound exegetically principle to find the antecedent of a demonstrative pronoun in the nearest possible noun to it unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. There are no such reasons here, as there are in the oft-cited counter examples of 1 John 2:22 or 2 John 7, which would require that one go further forward in the sentence to “his” or to “true One” or to “God.” (The suggestion of some critics that “in his Son, Jesus Christ” is a gloss and should therefore be omitted, this being suggested in order to make “the true One” the nearest antecedent, has no manuscript support and is a mere expediency.)

Second, to choose the more distant antecedent—that is, the Father, injects a
tautology into the verse, for one does not need to be informed that the Father, who has just been twice identified already as the “true One,” is “the true God,” whereas John advances the thought and avoids the tautology if he is saying that Jesus Christ is “the true God.” It is true that Jesus describes the Father as “the only true God” in John 17:3, but there the Father has not been previously identified as the “true One.”

Third, both the singular οὗτός, houtos, and the fact that “true God” and “eternal
life” both stand under the regimen of the single article before “God,” thereby finding the two predicates closely together on the pattern, for example, of “the true God who is (also for us) eternal life” (unless both are titles of a person, which seems preferable for this avoids placing a person and an abstract concept under the regimen of a single article) indicate that one person is before the mind of the apostle. This eliminates the suggestion of some that the first title refers to the Father and the second refers to the Son. And while it is true that the Father has life in himself (John 5:26; 6:57) and gives to men eternal life (1 John 5:11), he is nowhere designated “the Eternal Life” as is Jesus in 1 John 1:2 (see also John 1:4; 6:57; 11:25; 14:6). “This predicate fits Jesus better than it fits God,” writes Raymond E. Brown. But then if Jesus Christ is the referent of “Eternal Life,” and if both titles refer to one person, it would follow that he is also the referent of “the true God.”

Fourth, while John reports that Jesus describes the Father as “the only true God”
(John 17:3), he himself either describes or records that Jesus describes himself as “the true Light” (John 1:9; 1 John 2:8; see John 1:14, 17), “the true Bread” (John 6:32), “the true Vine” (John 15:1), “the true One” (Rev. 3:7; 19:11), “the true Witness” (Rev. 3:14), and “the true Sovereign” (Rev. 6:10). We have already established that John is not at all reticent about designating Christ as “God” (see John 1:1, 1:18, 20:28). So just as “the true One” can refer as a title both to the Father (1 John 5:20) and to the Son (Rev. 3:7), there is nothing that would preclude John from bringing together the adjective “true,” which is used of Jesus elsewhere, and the noun “God” which he himself has used of Jesus, and applying both in their combined form as “the true God” to Jesus Christ. These considerations make it highly probable that 1 John 5:20 is another occurrence of θεός, theos, as a christological title. Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome, Bede, Luther, and Calvin in earlier times, and Charles Hodge, Bengel, R. L. Dabney, B. B. Warfield, Raymond E. Brown, F. F. Bruce, R. Bultmann, I. H. Marshall, John Murray, Olshausen, Schnackenburg, and the translators of the
NIV, to name only a few in more modern times, have so interpreted John here.
Portraying Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, then, as just “the true God and
Eternal Life” (1 John 5:20) and the Co-source with the Father of the blessings of
grace, mercy, and peace (2 John 3), who “came in the flesh” and who also came
“through water and blood, not with the water only but with the water and with the blood,” John asserts a “real and lasting union between the Son of God and the flesh of Jesus” from the very beginning of Jesus’ life and throughout his ministry, including even the event of his death. Presupposing the same concept of incarnation as is found in John 1:1–3, 14, John leaves no room for a docetic or an adoptionist Christology.

Only the real incarnation of the Son of God satisfies all the doctrinal affirmations of these letters. There is no explicit Christology in 3 John, the only allusion to Christ being the reference to “the Name” in verse 7. But about this term Westcott writes: “From the contexts it is evident that ‘the Name’ is ‘Jesus Christ’ … , or, as it is written at length, ‘Jesus Christ, the Son of God’ (John xx.31; I John iv.15). This ‘Name’ is in essence the sum of the Christian Creed.… When analyzed it reveals the triune ‘Name’ into which the Christian is baptized, Matt. xxviii.19.” (RR New Sys Theo of the Christian Faith)
blessings

[epistemaniac]

Cam, eg John 1:1:

“John begins his Gospel with a powerful statement concerning the Logos (ὁ λόγος,
ho logos)—a term, according to his usage, meaning “[the independent, personalized] Word [or Wisdom] [of God].” He deliberately repeats the term three times in verse 1 to refer to the Son of God—against the background of the first-century forms of pre-Gnostic and Stoic theology—in order to warn his readers against all of the false forms of the Logos doctrine.

Translated literally, verse 1 reads:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and God was the Word.

The term occurs in each clause, each time in the nominative case (subject nominative), and three times ἦν, ēn, the imperfect of εἰµί, eimi, occurs, expressive in each case of continuous past existence.

In the first clause, the phrase “In the beginning,” as all commentators observe, is
reminiscent of the same phrase in Genesis 1:1. What John is saying is that “in the
beginning,” at the time of the creating of the universe, the Word “[continuously] was” already—not “came to be.” This is clear not only from the imperfect tense of the verb but also from the fact that John declares that the Word was in the beginning with God and that “all things were made by him, and without him nothing was made which has been made” (John 1:3). In short, the Word’s preexistent and continuous being is antecedently set off over against the becoming of all created things.

In the second clause, the Word is both coordinated with God and distinguished in
some sense from God as possessing an identity of its own. The sense in which the
Word is distinguishable from God may be discerned by comparing the phrase in 1:1, ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ēn pros ton theon, with its counterpart in 1 John 1:2, where we read that “the Word,” which was “from the beginning” (v. 1), “was with the Father” order—the Logos—that makes the world a “cosmos,” that is, an ordered whole. The Stoics, faced with the common Greek dualism of form and matter, employed the notion of a seminal Logos that pervades all things to solve the problem of dualism and to provide them the basis for a rational moral life. Philo of Alexandria employed the Logos as a means of mediation between God, who is absolutely transcendent and separate from the material universe, and the universe itself. For him the Logos was both the divine pattern of the world and the power that fashioned it. In Jewish wisdom literature one may find Wisdom personified in Proverbs 8:22–31. All this led C. H. Dodd to conclude in his The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 280: The opening sentences … of the [Gospel] Prologue are clearly intelligible only when we admit that the Logos, though it carries with it the association of the Old Testament Word of the Lord, has also a meaning similar to that which it bears in Stoicism as modified by Philo, and parallel to the idea of Wisdom in other Jewish writers. It is the rational principle in the universe, its meaning, plan or purpose, conceived as a divine hypostasis in which the eternal God is revealed and active.

George Eldon Ladd in A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Eerdmans, 1974) notes, however, that never is the Logos personalized or is it
incarnated in these earlier usages of the concept: “the theological use John makes of the Logos … can be paralleled neither in Hellenistic philosophy nor in Jewish
thought” (241). Leon Morris concurs in The Gospel According to John (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1971), 115–26, esp. 116, 123–25. (ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ēn pros ton patera). This shows that John intends by “God” in John 1:1b God the Father. The Word which stands coordinate with and yet distinguishable from God as Father is by implication then the preexistent Son, which means that John is thinking of the Word in personal terms. This thought is reminiscent of Hebrews 1:8–9, where the Son is both identified as himself God but distinguished from God the Father. In the third clause, John now asserts the obvious: “And the Word was God” (KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, NKJV). That ὁ λόγος, ho logos, is the subject with θεὸς, theos, as the predicate nominative is evident from the fact that the former is articular while the latter is anarthrous. But the fact that θεός, theos, is anarthrous does not mean that it is to be construed qualitatively, that is, adjectively (“divine,” as Moffatt’s translation suggests) or indefinitely (“a god,” as the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation suggests). No standard Greek lexicon offers “divine” as one of the meanings of θεός, theos, nor does the noun become an adjective when it “sheds” its article. If John had intended an adjectival sense, he had an adjective (θεῖος, theios) ready at hand. That the anarthrous noun does not connote indefiniteness is evident from the recurring instances of the anarthrous θεός, theos, throughout the Johannine Prologue itself (John 1:6, 12, 13, 18), where in each case it is definite and its referent is God the Father.
That θεός, theos, is to be construed as definite in meaning is suggested by its
position in the clause before the copula ἦν, ēn, in accordance with E. C. Colwell’s
observation. But that John wrote θεός, theos, anarthrously is also due most likely to his desire to keep the Word hypostatically distinct from the Father to whom he had just referred by τὸν θεόν, ton theon. If John had followed 1:1b by saying, “and ὁ θεός [ho theos] was the Word” or “and the Word was ὁ θεός [ho theos],” he would have implied a retreat from, if not a contradiction of, the clear distinction which he had just drawn in 1:2b, and thus fallen into the error later to be known as Sabellianism. Ladd concurs:

If John had used the definite article with theos, he would have said that all that God is, the Logos is: an exclusive identity. As it is, he says that all the Word is, God is; but he implies that God is more than the Word.

Here then John identifies the Word as God (totus deus) and by so doing attributes to him the nature or essence of deity. When John further says in 1:2 that “This One [οὗτος, houtos, the One whom he had just designated “God”] was in the beginning with God,” and in 1:3 that “through him all things were created,” the conclusion is that as God his deity is as ultimate as his distinctiveness as Son, while his distinctiveness as Son is as ultimate as his deity as God.

When John then declares that the Word, whom he had just described as eternally
preexistent, uncreated, personal Son and God, “became flesh,” he not only goes beyond anything in the first-century pre-Gnostic theology but also ascends to an
incarnational Christology. Marshall has observed:
the prologue of the Gospel comes to a climax in the statement that the Word who had been from the beginning with God and was active in the work of creation and was the light and life of men became flesh and dwelt among us. It is noteworthy that the subject of the passage is the Word or Logos. It is the career of the Logos which is being described, and not until verse 17 is the name Jesus Christ used for the first time, thereby identifying the Word who became flesh with the historical figure of that name. From that time onwards John ceases to use the term Logos and writes about Jesus, using his name and a variety of Jewish mess
ianic titles to refer to him.

For John, then, Jesus is undoubtedly the personal Word of God now adopting a
fleshly form of existence. When we talk of incarnation, this is what is meant by it, for it is here that the New Testament offers the closest linguistic equivalent to the term “incarnation”: ho logos sarx egeneto.” (ibid)

blessings

[epistemaniac]

Cam, in John 5:18, or rather, the overall context, we see Jesus making a strong affirmation of His deity. This is seen in the fact that Jesus consideres Himself to be the Lord of the Sabbath, which is a title that only God can claim. It was this, that the Jews were objecting to, for they knew full well what it was that Jesus was claiming for Himself, and that is exactly why they charged Him with the crime of blasphemy. Also, we see Jesus' claims of equality with the Father maintained in the equating of He and His Father doing exactly the same work, and this, especially in regard to healing and the forgivenessof sins.

So consider the following on this important passage:

“17. My Father worketh hitherto. We must see what kind of defense Christ employs. He does not reply that the Law about keeping the Sabbath was temporary, and that it ought now to be abolished; but, on the contrary, maintains that he has not violated the Law, because this is a divine work. It is true that the ceremony of the Sabbath was a part of the shadows of the Law, 1 and that Christ put an end to it by his coming, as Paul shows, (Colossians 2:16;) but the present question does not turn on that point. For it is only from their own works that men are commanded to abstain; and, accordingly, circumcision — which is a work of God, and not of men — is not at variance with the Sabbath.

What Christ insists upon is this, that the holy rest which was enjoined by the Law of Moses is not disturbed when we are employed in works of God.2 And for this reason he excuses not only his own action, but also the action of the man who carried his bed; for it was an appendage, and — as we might say — a part of the miracle, for it was nothing else than an approbation of it. Besides, if thanksgiving and the publication of the divine glory be reckoned among the works of God, it was not a profanation of the Sabbath to testify the grace of God by feet and hands. But it is chiefly concerning himself that Christ speaks, to whom the Jews were more hostile. He declares that the soundness of body which he has restored to the diseased man is a demonstration of his divine power. He asserts that he is the Son of God, and that he acts in the same manner as his Father.

What is the use of the Sabbath, and for what reasons it was enjoined, I do not now argue at greater length. It is enough for the present passage, that the keeping of the Sabbath is so far from interrupting or hindering the works of God, that, on the contrary, it gives way to them alone. For why does the Law enjoin men to abstain from their own works, but in order to keep all their senses free and occupied for considering the works of God? Consequently, he who does not, on the Sabbath, allow a free course and reign to the works of God, is not only a false expounder of the Law, but wickedly overturns it.

If it be objected, that the example of God is held out to men, that they may rest on the seventh day, the answer is easy. Men are not conformed to God in this respect, that He ceased to work, but by abstaining from the troublesome actions of this world and aspiring to the heavenly rest. The Sabbath or rest of God, 3 therefore, is not idleness, but true perfection, which brings along with it a calm state of peace. Nor is this inconsistent with what Moses says, that God put an end to his works, (Genesis 2:2;) for he means that, after having completed the formation of the world, God consecrated that day, that men might employ it in meditating on his works. Yet He did not cease to sustain by this power the world which he had made, to govern it by his wisdom, to support it by his goodness, and to regulate all things according to his pleasure, both in heaven and on earth. In six days, therefore, the creation of the world was completed, but the administration of it is still continued, and God incessantly worketh in maintaining and preserving the order of it; as Paul informs us, that in him we live, and move, and are, (Acts 17:28;) and David informs us, that all things stand so long as the Spirit of God upholds them, and that they fail as soon as he withdraws his support, (Psalm 104:29.) Nor is it only by a general Providence that the Lord maintains the world which He has created, but He arranges and regulates every part of it, and more especially, by his protection, he keeps and guards believers whom he has received under his care and guardianship.

And I work. Leaving the defense of the present cause, Christ now explains the end and use of the miracle, namely, that by means of it he may be acknowledged to be the Son of God; for the object which he had in view in all his words and actions was, to show that he was the Author of salvation. What he now claims for himself belongs to his Divinity, as the Apostle also says, that

he upholdeth all things by his powerful will, (Hebrews 1:3.)

But when he testifies that he is God, it is that, being manifested in the flesh, he may perform the office of Christ; and when he affirms that he came from heaven, it is chiefly for the purpose of informing us for what purpose he came down to earth.

18. For this reason, therefore, the Jews sought the more to slay him. This defense was so far from allaying their fury that it even enraged them the more. Nor was he unacquainted with their malignity and wickedness and hardened obstinacy, but he intended first to profit a few of his disciples who were then present, and next to make a public display of their incurable malice. By his example he has taught us that we ought never to yield to the fury of wicked men, but should endeavor to maintain the truth of God, so far as necessity demands it, though the whole world should oppose and murmur. Nor is there any reason why the servants of Christ should take it ill that they do not profit all men according to their wish, since Christ himself did not always succeed; and we need not wonder if, in proportion as the glory of God is more fully displayed, Satan rages the more violently in his members and instruments.

Because he not only had broken the Sabbath. When the Evangelist says that the Jews were hostile to Christ, because he had broken the Sabbath, he speaks according to the opinion which they had formed; for I have already showed that the state of the case was quite the contrary. The principal cause of their wrath was, that he called God his Father. And certainly Christ intended that it should be understood that God was his Father in a peculiar sense, so as to distinguish himself from the ordinary rank of other men. He made himself equal to God, when he claimed for himself continuance in working; and Christ is so far from denying this, that he confirms it more distinctly. This refutes the madness of the Arians, who acknowledged that Christ is God, but did not think that he is equal to the Father, as if in the one and simple essence of God there could be any inequality.” (JC)

and

“Did the Jews at this moment begin to address Jesus personally, accusing him
of violating the sabbath? Or did the Lord, reading their hearts, address them first?
Either way, in defence Jesus points out that in performing this work of mercy on the sabbath he had acted in conformity with the example of his own Father (note my Father; and see on 1:14, the nature of Christ’s sonship) and in conformity with the mandate which he had received from him. Do the Jews really mean to say that the essence of the sabbath is idleness, and that all work on that day is wrong? But then would they not be accusing God himself of sabbath-violation? If up to this very moment the Father of Jesus is carrying on the work of preservation and redemption, how should not the Son, who stands in the closest possible relation to him (5:19–23), do the same? In the final analysis, Father and Son are engaged in one task. Hence, we read:

But he answered them, My Father is working until now, and I too am
working. 18. So, for this reason (διὰ τοῦτο, just as in 4:16) the Jews tried all t
he harder to kill him; i.e., they were already determined to bring him to death because not only did he break the Sabbath, (in their estimation he was a sabbath-violator), but now this determination became even more intense, active, and energetic; the added reason being: but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

By the words, he also called God his own Father, making himself equal with God,
the author once more brings into clear view the purpose of his Gospel. That purpose was to strengthen believers so that they might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might continue to have life in his name (20:30, 31).

In addition to his stand with respect to the sabbath it was his claim of being equal
with God that nailed Christ to the cross. When the Jewish authorities heard Jesus call God “my (own) Father,” they did not do what many moderns have done. They did not try to tone down the character of Christ’s sonship. They immediately understood that Jesus claimed for himself deity in the highest possible sense of that term. That claim was either the most wicked blasphemy, to be punished with death; or else, it was the most glorious truth, to be accepted by faith. The very character of the sign which Jesus had just now performed should have caused these religious leaders to adopt the latter alternative. Instead, they chose the former.” (NTC)

Greek scholar Lightfoot says of this passage:
“John 5:17
17. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. My Father worketh hitherto .

Our Saviour being called before the Sanhedrim, 1, asserts the Messiah to be God: and, 2, that he himself is the Messiah. ‘The Son of God’ and ‘the Messiah’ are convertible terms, which the Jews deny not; and yet have very wrong conceptions about ‘filiation,’ or being made a son.

St. Peter confesseth, Mt 16:16 , ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ So also Caiaphas in his interrogatory, Mt 26:63 , ‘Tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God?’ But they hardly agree in the same sense and notion of sonship. Aben Ezra upon Ps 2:12 , Kiss the Son , confesseth that this is properly spoken of the Messiah; but in Midras Tillin there is a vehement dispute against true filiation. The same Aben Ezra likewise confesseth, that in Da 3:25 , one like the Son of God is to be taken in the same sense with that of Pr 31:2 , What, my son? and what, the son of my womb?

‘There is one who hath neither son nor brother; the Holy Blessed; who hath neither brother nor son: he hath no brother, how should he have a son? only that God loved Israel, and so called them his children.’

It is not unknown with what obstinacy the Jews deny the Godhead of the Messiah. Whence the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, lays this down as his first foundation of discourse, That the Messiah is truly God, Heb 1 . Which they, being ignorant of the great mystery of the Trinity, deny; fearing lest, if they should acknowledge Messiah to be God, they should acknowledge more Gods than one. Hence they every day repeated in the recitals of their phylacteries, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.’ And so, being blind as to the mystery of the Trinity, are the more hardened to deny that.

Our Saviour strenuously asserts here the Godhead of the Son, or Messiah; namely, that he hath the same power with the Father, the same honour due to him as to the Father, that he hath all things in common with the Father. And hence he makes this reply upon them about healing on the sabbath; ‘ My Father worketh on the sabbath day, so do I also.’” (John Lightfoot commentary on Matt thru Acts from the Talmud and Hebraica)

Josh McDowell looks at this passage in the context of a larger discussion on the Self Understanding of Jesus:

“In Matthew 12:6, Jesus says to the Pharisees, “I say to you, that something greater than the Temple is here.” How much greater? Look at verse 8. Referring to Himself, Jesus asserts, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” How can anyone be Lord of the Sabbath except God who instituted it? This is a direct claim to deity.

In Matthew 23:37, Jesus speaks as though He has personally observed the whole history of Jerusalem:

0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

In Mark 2:1,2, Jesus tells a paralyzed man, “My son, your sins are forgiven.” Some scribes sitting there caught the obvious intent of Jesus' words and reasoned:

Why does this man speak in this way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?

Jesus challenged them:

Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, “Your sins are forgiven”; or to say, “Arise, and take up your pallet and walk”? But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins …

And then Jesus healed the paralytic. The implication was obvious. No one forgives sin but God. Anyone could say he is able to forgive sin; but Jesus proved He had the authority to forgive sin when He healed the paralytic. Jesus was clearly claiming deity for Himself.

Back again in Matthew, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount (7:21-23), Jesus speaks of Himself as the ultimate judge who will have authority to deny entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

In the next paragraph, rather than say, “Everyone who hears the words of God or Torah will lay a strong foundation for their lives,” Jesus states, “Everyone who hears these words of mine . . . “

David Biven, a researcher of the Hebraic background of the Gospel accounts, concludes:

It was not the way He taught or even the general content of His teaching that made Jesus unique among the rabbis. What was unique about Jesus was who He claimed to be, and He rarely ever taught without claiming to be not only God's Messiah, but more startlingly, Immanuel, “God with us.”

It is surprising how critics try to reject Jesus' constant references to Himself as deity. Ian Wilson, for example, writes:

In the Mark Gospel, the most consistent in conveying Jesus' humanity, a man is represented as running up to Jesus and addressing Him with the words “Good Master.” Jesus' response is a firm rebuke: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18).

Wilson's interpretation is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Seen within the context of the situation, Jesus is using obvious irony In essence, He is arguing: (1) If no one is good but God alone, and (2) if I am good, then (3) 1 must be God. Often Jesus receives worship and does nothing to discourage it (see Matthew 14:33, John 9:38). You would think one who severely rebukes Peter for trying to keep Him from God's will of being crucified would also severely rebuke someone offering worship to Him which rightly ought to be given only to the one true living God. Paul severely reacted against being deified at Lystra (Acts 14:8-18). How much more should Jesus have reacted if He were only a mere man? Did He not quote Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan during His temptation, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only”?

One notable occurrence of Jesus accepting worship is in Matthew 21:15,16. Children cried out, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” in praise to Jesus. “Hosanna” is used here as a cry of adoration, but some critics insist on interpreting “Hosanna” in a stiffly literal sense, rendering the statement “Save us Son of David.” This interpretation cannot be accurate, though, because (1) it would actually read: “Save us to the Son of David,” which makes little or no sense; (2) the chief priests and scribes who saw Jesus receiving the praise “became indignant and said to Him, 'Do you hear what these are saying?'
” as though Jesus should have silenced the crowd (something He would be expected to do only if the crowd were worshipping Him); and most important, (3) Jesus replied by attributing to Himself something which was meant for God alone. He asked the chief priests and scribes, “Have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes Thou [God] hast prepared praise for Thyself [God]'?”

Did you catch what Jesus said? Basically it was, “When those children praise me, they are praising God.”

Of all the Gospel writers, John most clearly perceived the cues Jesus gave about His identity. For his effort to report those cues, he has been the most criticized Gospel writer of all, allegedly falling under Hellenistic influence. Scholars today, however, have begun to realize the inaccuracy of this charge. In John 8:58, when Jesus proclaimed to a Jewish crowd, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I Am,” He was claiming two aspects of deity for Himself:

· the eternal existence of God; and

· the name of God.

Jesus was referring His listeners back to Exodus 3:13,14 where Moses tells God:

Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I shall say to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you.” Now they may say to me, “What is His name?” What shall I say to them?

God answered Moses,

I AM WHO I AM … Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”

Any Jewish person would have heard Jesus' claim to deity loud and clear. That is why the very next verse in John's account says: “Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him” (John 8:59). In all, Jesus uses the term I am (Gr. Ego eimi) more than nineteen times in reference to Himself in the Gospel according to John. Often it is used to make claims about Himself that normally would be thought appropriate only for God. For example,

I am the bread of life, he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst (6:35);

I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life (8:12);

Unless you believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins (8:24);

I am the good shepherd (10:11-14) [cf. Psalm 23:1: “The LORD is my shepherd”];

I am the resurrection, and the life; He who believes in Me shall live even if he dies (11:25).

Other Scriptures on this subject include John 4:26; 6:41,48,51; 8:18, 28,58; 10:7,9; 13:19; 14:6; and 15:1.)

Earlier, in John 5:17, Jesus claimed to be continuing the work of the Father. He also called God “My Father.” In John 10:28-30 Jesus again called God “My Father.” He also claimed at one time to be the giver of eternal life and at another time to be one with the Father. On both those occasions, the Jewish crowds picked up stones to stone Him because, as they put it, “You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33; cf. 5:18).

In John 14:6, Jesus did not just claim to be teaching mankind the truth; He claimed that He was the truth. In John 14:9, Jesus admonished Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” In Isaiah 42:8, God said, “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” But in John 17:5, Jesus prayed, “And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with Thee before the world was.”

In John 5:19ff., Jesus delivers a long monologue in which He makes repeated claims to be on the same level of authority as God the Father.

“Even in His parables,” says Norman Geisler, “Jesus claimed functions reserved only for Yahweh in the Old Testament, such as being Shepherd (Luke 15), Rock (Matthew 7:24-27), and Sower (Matthew 13:24-30).” 31/14

C. S. Lewis puts all these claims in the right perspective when he reminds his readers that Jesus was a Jew among Jews:

Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.”

blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
You have never grasped the nature of Christ as a vessel for God have you?
You keep confusing the vessel with the contents of that vessel.

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
If we were sitting together at the table
and I asked you to pass the milk
would you pass the bottle of milk
or would you pour the milk into your hands and offer it?

[epistemaniac]

Cam… re John 14 …

true, the Son is not the Father….. but this does not change the fact that Jesus had the audacity to claim that if you had seen Him, you had in effect also seen the Father… .that the 2 were so identified with one another that to see one is to see the other…. the doctrine of the Trinity is the best was to understand what this verse means…. that while God is one, and the Father is invisible, being Spirit, the best way to “see” the Father is to look at Christ. Elsewhere we are told that when we look at Christ Jesus we are in effect seeing God, because Jesus is the exact representation of the Father (Heb 1:3) and He is the image, form or likeness of the Father (Col. 1:15). If Jesus is not God, how can He be the exact representation and image of God? I know that humans are created in the image of God, and this does not make us God. But, it is not ever said of humans that we are the exact representation of God, that if you were to look at me, you would, in effect, be seeing God the Father. It is blasphemy for anyone to say this unless they are in fact God.

Also, Jesus' claims to actually be the Truth instead of merely teaching truth or knowing truth, that He was and is the Truth…. His claim to not just know the way but to be the Way…. and His claim to not merely be alive, but to actually be Life itself, the giver of life, He who will ressurect the dead, is a perogative of God alone, only God embodies truth in it's entirity, only God can be a Savior… these all point to His deity…..

Gill remarks “way,…. Our Lord takes the opportunity of this discourse about the place he was going to, and the way unto it, more fully to instruct his disciples concerning himself, saying, “I am the way”; Christ is not merely the way, as he goes before his people as an example; or merely as a prophet, pointing out unto them by his doctrine the way of salvation; but he is the way of salvation itself by his obedience and sacrifice; nor is there any other; he is the way of his Father's appointing, and which is entirely agreeable to the perfections of God, and suitable to the case and condition of sinners; he is the way to all the blessings of the covenant of grace; and he is the right way into a Gospel church state here; no one comes rightly into a church of Christ but by faith in him; and he is the way to heaven: he is entered into it himself by his own blood, and has opened the way to it through himself for his people: he adds,

the truth he is not only true, but truth itself: this may regard his person and character; he is the true God, and eternal life; truly and really man; as a prophet he taught the way of God in truth; as a priest, he is a faithful, as well as a merciful one, true and faithful to him that appointed him; and as a King, just and true are all his ways and administrations: he is the sum and substance of all the truths of the Gospel; they are all full of him, and centre in him; and he is the truth of all the types and shadows, promises and prophecies of the Old Testament; they have all their accomplishment in him; and he is the true way, in opposition to all false ones of man's devising. And this phrase seems to be opposed to a notion of the Jews, that the law was the true way of life, and who confined truth to the law. They have a saying Â, that משה ותורתו אמת, “Moses and his law are the truth”; this they make Korah and his company say in hell. That the law of Moses was truth, is certain; but it is too strong an expression to say of Moses himself, that he was truth; but well agrees with Christ, by whom grace and truth came in opposition to Moses, by whom came the law: but when they say (s), אין אמת אלא תורה, “there is no truth but the law”, they do not speak truth. More truly do they speak, when, in answer to that question, מה אמת, “what is truth?” it is said, that he is the living God, and King of the world (t), characters that well agree with Christ.

And the life: Christ is the author and giver of life, natural, spiritual, and eternal; or he is the way of life, or “the living way”; in opposition to the law, which was so far from being the way of life, that it was the ministration of condemnation and death: he always, and ever will be the way; all in this way live, none ever die; and it is a way that leads to eternal life: and to conclude all the epithets in one sentence, Christ is the true way to eternal life It is added by way of explanation of him, as the way,

“No man cometh unto the Father but by me” (verse 6). Christ is the only way to God. It is utterly impossible to win God’s favor by any efforts of our own. “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:6). Let every Christian reader praise God for His unspeakable Gift, and “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath newly-made for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:19-22).”

also

“If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him” (verse 7). This is intimately connected with the whole of the immediate context. The reason why the apostles found it so hard to understand the Lord’s references to the Father, the Father’s House, and His and their way there, was because their views respecting Himself were so defective and deficient. The true knowledge of the Father cannot be obtained but by the true knowledge of the Son; and if the Son be really known, the Father is known also. The Father is known just so far as the Son is known; no farther. Christ was more than a manifestation of God; He was “God manifest in flesh.” He was the Only-begotten, who fully declared Him.” (AW Pink)

Interestingly, in this regard, Paul tells us (1 Cor 2:11 NIV) For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

So if Jesus reveals the Father to us perfectly, if Jesus is the way the truth and the life, He must in fact know the thoughts of God perfectly… but no one can know the thoughts of God perfectly except God Himself…. well, it follows then that if Jesus knows the thoughts of God perfectly, and only God can know His own thoughts perfectly, that Jesus must be God.

blessings

[NickHassan]

Hi E,
You say
“So if Jesus reveals the Father to us perfectly, if Jesus is the way the truth and the life, He must in fact know the thoughts of God perfectly… but no one can know the thoughts of God perfectly except God Himself…. well, it follows then that if Jesus knows the thoughts of God perfectly, and only God can know His own thoughts perfectly, that Jesus must be God”

You are right in that the vessel of God reflects perfecting the nature of God and mind of God.
You are wrong in to conclude that that proves he IS
what he reflects.

Such a conclusion is a nonsequitor
that rails in the face
of even human logic.

[Author]

Posts