- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2007,06:50) Hi CB,
You say
“Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.Jesus could have said to the high priest, “I wasn't blaspheming, you misunderstood me, I am not claiming to be God.” But He didn't correct the high priest because Jesus was in fact asserting His deity.
Jesus was accused many times of blasphemy, of making Himself God, but never once did He try to change their perception of Him claiming deity. Jesus was and is the self existent and eternal Jehovah God.”
You forget that in the same chapter, in the same context he did correct them.
He told them he was rather the SON of God.Jn 10
” 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? “
CB (or are you “Guest” now?)What Nick said – ditto.
Being the Son of God and being God are not the same thing. Jesus only became God a few hundred years after he went to be with the Father. He certainly didn't sign up for that job and he wasn't in that capacity while on earth either. He pointed us to the one true God!
Quote (Guest @ June 16 2007,23:34) not3in1 Quote Listen, it's confusing OK. You cannot have it both ways. Either you want Jesus to be God or you don't. To Thomas, “God” meant the Father. He was a Jew, and there are no records ANYWHERE of Jews believing that Jesus was God (meaning, the Father). If you know of such a record, please direct me to it.
Hello not3in1. Where in the bible does it say that Thomas believed that God meant the Father?Apostle John believed that Jesus is God. Of course he didn't believe that Jesus was the Father. He just believed that Jesus is God.John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John was a Jew, and he believed that Jesus was God.What do you think?
You ask me what I think and I will tell you that we have different opinions as to what John 1:1 is saying. A thorough study of the passage (along with the favorite Philippians 2 passage) will shed some light on the differing opinions.Hi not3
You say
” Jesus only became God a few hundred years after he went to be with the Father.”
Can you expand on what you mean here?Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2007,08:32) Hi not3
You say
” Jesus only became God a few hundred years after he went to be with the Father.”
Can you expand on what you mean here?
Oh, hi Nick – I didn't mean anything weird – ha – I just meant that the creeds made Jesus God and they weren't created until hundreds of years after Jesus had already joined the Father in heaven.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 16 2007,18:14) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 16 2007,11:14) Hi Not3,
I think what WJ and CB are arguing here is that there are natural interpretations (i.e those supported by the grammar and context of the passage), and then there are those that are forced (i.e. made to conform to doctrinal axioms, in spite of the grammar and context). With regard to the John 20:28 declaration it's quite apparent from the grammar/context that Thomas was addressing Yeshua personally. That he was calling Him his God.
Isaiah,OK. Like I was saying to WJ – OK, so Thomas called Jesus God. Gotcha. But wait! Thomas was a good Jew. Jew's only believed that the Father was God. No Jew believed otherwise!!
So if Thomas was calling Jesus God – then he was calling Jesus the Father.
God=Father
“My Lord, and my Father!”
No? Why?
All WJ could do was use different colors and bold and cap his text – saying the same thing over and over again. Do you have a different answer to my sincere question?
Hi Not3,
You've asked a sincere question and I will answer candidly. I think it's patent from the John 20:28 text that Thomas was addressing Yeshua as the God. There really is no other plausible explanation. Thomas was evidently persuaded that Yeshua was YHWH, yet not the person of the Father. And you're right, to a Jew there is only One true God – YHWH. It would have been unthinkable that Thomas had suddenly acquired a second God. So exactly how did Yeshua fit into Thomas’s theological framework of monotheistic understanding? I have no idea. Perhaps it had something to do with the “oneness” with the Father that Yeshua often spoke of (John 10:30, 10:38, 14:10, 14:20) which clearly went well beyond commonality in purpose/will. Certainly it’s nothing unusual for the disciples to have been slow to understand Yeshua, He was seemingly exasperated at times at their apparent inability to “get Him”. Here is a typical senario:John 14:8-10
8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10″Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me?.If you read through the Gospels is actually quite amazing how generally enigmatic Yeshua was to his followers. Yeshua actually explicitly told them that there were some things that they wouldn’t be able to bear at that point in time and the Holy Spirit would later lead them to the truth (also refer John 14:26):
John 16:12-13
12″I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13″But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.The Holy Spirit would lead them to all the truth, so clearly they didn’t have a read on all of it until after His ascension.
My thoughts.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 17 2007,10:29) Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 17 2007,08:32) Hi not3
You say
” Jesus only became God a few hundred years after he went to be with the Father.”
Can you expand on what you mean here?
Oh, hi Nick – I didn't mean anything weird – ha – I just meant that the creeds made Jesus God and they weren't created until hundreds of years after Jesus had already joined the Father in heaven.
The writers took their cues from the Bible. Yeshua is explicitly called God in scripture. He was “God” in the beginning (John 1:1). He is the “Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” now (Revelation 22:13).“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
Hi Is 1.18,
He is the Son of God.He is not the God he was with in the beginning and that God is the Father.
Revelation 22 12And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. '
Context does not have the same relevance in a book of so many authors
Rev 1
“1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 'Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2007,13:06) Hi Not3,
You've asked a sincere question and I will answer candidly. I think it's patent from the John 20:28 text that Thomas was addressing Yeshua as the God. There really is no other plausible explanation. Thomas was evidently persuaded that Yeshua was YHWH, yet not the person of the Father. And you're right, to a Jew there is only One true God – YHWH. It would have been unthinkable that Thomas had suddenly acquired a second God. So exactly how did Yeshua fit into Thomas’s theological framework of monotheistic understanding? I have no idea. Perhaps it had something to do with the “oneness” with the Father that Yeshua often spoke of (John 10:30, 10:38, 14:10, 14:20) which clearly went well beyond commonality in purpose/will. Certainly it’s nothing unusual for the disciples to have been slow to understand Yeshua, He was seemingly exasperated at times at their apparent inability to “get Him”.
Isaiah, I have come to respect you a great deal my brother. Please tell me something, if you know that Thomas is a faithful Jewish man, and you know that the only God Thomas knows is the Father alone….how can you stretch this passage in John to mean that Thomas understood the Trinity?It's true that the disciple were slow to learn, however in John 17 (Jesus' prayer to God), Jesus was sure that they knew who he was and that he was sent by God. Do you believe that the disciples were sure of the Trinity before Jesus went to be with the Father?
PS – thanks for taking my questions as being most sincere (which they are), and thank you for answering them free from the defensivenes that is usually present during these conversations.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 17 2007,14:08) Isaiah, I have come to respect you a great deal my brother.
Thanks. The feeling is mutual.Quote Please tell me something, if you know that Thomas is a faithful Jewish man, and you know that the only God Thomas knows is the Father alone….how can you stretch this passage in John to mean that Thomas understood the Trinity?
Well to be honest I don't think I have stretched the passage at all. Thomas' declaration was explicit and left no room for an alternative interpretation. And John 20:28 is not a verse in isolation. There are many, many others that testify to Yeshua's deity. I think Thomas had at that time accomodated Yeshua in his concept of monotheism, but his understanding may not have developed completely until after the ascention, as the Holy Spirit guilded him to “all truth” (John 14:26, 16:12-13). It's quite clear to me that Yeshua facilitated a paradigm shift in the thinking of His disciples. All of a sudden this man Yeshua was front and centre of their faith. He was the very object of it. In their writings they extolled Him with the HIGHEST virtues, qualities, attributes, titles. They assigned to Him divine status (e.g. John 1:1, Col 2:9) and equated His substance/essence/nature with the Father's (e.g. Heb 1:3, Phil 2:6). They applied to Him OT quotations that exclusively reference YHWH (e.g. Heb 1:10). All of this is overt blasphemy if they were still operating within the framework of monarchial monotheism.Quote It's true that the disciple were slow to learn, however in John 17 (Jesus' prayer to God), Jesus was sure that they knew who he was and that he was sent by God. Do you believe that the disciples were sure of the Trinity before Jesus went to be with the Father?
I am sure that they considered Yeshua to be YHWH, but not the person of the Father. I am sure that they considered the Holy Spirit to be “God”, a person but neither Father and Son. I am sure that they continued to have only One God above them.Quote PS – thanks for taking my questions as being most sincere (which they are), and thank you for answering them free from the defensivenes that is usually present during these conversations.
No problem.Blessings
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2007,16:52) I am sure that they considered Yeshua to be YHWH, but not the person of the Father. I am sure that they considered the Holy Spirit to be “God”, a person but neither Father and Son. I am sure that they continued to have only One God above them.
I don't follow you.They believed God to be the Father only. To say that in addition to them believing that Jesus was God – that they also believed that Jesus was not the “person” of the Father is indeed a stretch, I'm sorry.
We are not given another definition of God in the NT. Paul does not give us another definition of God. He says that for US (you and me) there is but one God and that is the Father. This is true for Thomas and John as well.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2007,16:52) It's quite clear to me that Yeshua facilitated a paradigm shift in the thinking of His disciples.
Jesus facilitated no such “shift.”Jesus pointed to his Father as God in all situations and circumstances. Even after he was raised from the dead he said to Mary, “….I go to my Father and to yours. To my God and to your God….”
There is no shift here.
God is still the Father.
God is still the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is still the Son of God.
There is no shift to God the Son that I can see.
Hi Not3in1
How do you think the Jews understood the following about their God?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Quote (Cult Buster @ June 17 2007,18:03) Hi Not3in1 How do you think the Jews understood the following about their God?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Hi CB,It is my understanding that the Jews looked for their Messiah to be born among them – a man.
It stands to reason then, when they read this passage that they understood it to mean that the Messiah would be King and bring order and peace. This is exactly what they thought of Jesus. The disciples even asked Jesus when he was going to bring peace. They did not understand the master plan.
They understood that a child would be born…..
Not3,
It seems to me like you have made your mind up about Yeshua and you don't really want to face up to any biblical facts that conflict with your creature-Jesus supposition. He did invoke a paradigm shift in the minds of his followers. Their writings bear this out.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2007,16:52) It's quite clear to me that Yeshua facilitated a paradigm shift in the thinking of His disciples. All of a sudden this man Yeshua was front and centre of their faith. He was the very object of it. In their writings they extolled Him with the HIGHEST virtues, qualities, attributes, titles. They assigned to Him divine status (e.g. John 1:1, Col 2:9) and equated His substance/essence/nature with the Father's (e.g. Heb 1:3, Phil 2:6). They applied to Him OT quotations that exclusively reference YHWH (e.g. Heb 1:10). All of this is overt blasphemy if they were still operating within the framework of monarchial monotheism.
Prove me wrong.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2007,21:17) Not3,
It seems to me like you have made your mind up about Yeshua and you don't really want to face up to any biblical facts that conflict with your creature-Jesus supposition. He did invoke a paradigm shift in the minds of his followers. Their writings bear this out.
Isaiah,The “facts” that are presented are a matter of debate. If they were indeed “facts” then we would have one world-wide religion.
The “shift” that you are promoting is one that makes Jesus the second person of the Trinity; you say that this “shift” was evident to Jesus' follower's and the whole of the NT reflects this “paradigm shift in the minds of his followers.” I do not believe this.
Tell me how the NT writers below support your “shift” in believer's minds regarding the One true God, who is the Father only:
Additional emphasis mine, obviously.
Matt. 1:18-21
This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. His mother Mary…..because what is conceived in her……she will give birth to a son…..”Matt. 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”Matt. 4:3
The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”Matt. 6:6
When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.Matt. 6:8
…..for your Father knows what you need before you ask him [does the Father only know these things or does Jesus also get to know these things as the “second person” of God? Just a side question here.]….This is how you should pray [obviously to the first person in the Trinity – the Father] “Our Father in heaven……”Matt.6:18
….so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father……Matt. 6:24
….You cannot serve both God [here “God” is still the Father only – no “shift” seen] and money.Matt. 6:26
Look at the birds of the air…..yet your heavenly Father feeds them.”Matt. 6:30
If that is how God [still only the Father is God] clothes the grass…”Matt. 6:32
For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father [still only the Father is God] knows that you need them.Matt. 7:11
If you, then…know how to give gifts…how muchmore will your Father in heaven [still only the Father is God] give good gifts…”Matt. 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father [still on the Father is God] who is in heaven.Matt. 7:28,29
When Jesus had finished saying these things [about his Father who is God], the crowds were amazed at this teaching because he taught as one who had authority [not as God himself]…Matt. 8:8,9
The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. but just say the word…….for Imyself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me [recognizing that Jesus had authority and likened it under his authority of others – he did not see Jesus as the second person of the Trinity – “shift” noted in peoples minds here either].Matt. 10:20
[In sending out the twelve]….for it will not be you speaking, but the spirit of your Father [who to the twelve is still God] speaking through you.Matt. 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell………your Father's will [the Father is still God here to the Jewish men following the Lord – no shift.]Matt. 10:32, 33
Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father [who is God] in heaven……I will disown him before my Father [who is God] in heaven.Matt. 10:40
…he who receives you….receives me receives the one who sent me [the Father sends the Son and the Father is God *still*].Matt. 11:25-27
….I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth [God], because you have hidden these things….and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father [God], for this was your good pleasure. All things have been *committed* to me by my Father [who is God]. No one knows the Son [literal conceived and born son] except the Father [God]….Still Matthew shows no shift in thinking of the Father who is God, and his Son Jesus who is the Messiah. The Messiah has a job to do which was committed to him by God. From here on out, Jesus steps up to the plate of his new responsibilities. He is “in charge” and begins to give deeper teachings as to his ministry. No thinking of Jesus as a second person of God here. No Trinity teaching what-so-ever. Only a Son who is (for lack of a better way to put this), taking over the Father's business temporarily (1 Cor. 15:20-28) .
Matt. 12:8
For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. [not the second person of God].Matt 12:18-21 [in ref to Isaiah 42:1-4 speaking of the Servant]
Here is my servant whom I hav chosen….I will put my spirit on him….he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope. [no shift to believing Jesus is the second person in a foreign Triune God – he is the servant who has the spirit of God ON him].********************************
I will stop my look at Matthew here and continue later today. I'd like to take each book of the NT and see if indeed there has been [as Isaiah suggests] a “paradigm shift in the minds of Jesus' followers.” I don't believe there has been. I don't believe that ANYONE in the NT believed that Jesus was the “second person in a Triune God.” I believe that that concept is a pagen idea and did not enter Jews and God-fearing Gentiles minds. A look at each book may show us at one point this “shift” happened – if it happened at all.
I contend that the faithful Jews and Gentiles continued to only believe in one God – who is the Father. And they learned to put their trust and hope in the man, Jesus who is the Christ (not the second person in a triune God.)
Whoever is interested in adding to this thread of looking at each book of the NT to see if there is a “shift” in the NT believers hearts and minds to believe that Jesus is God – the second person of the Trinity – feel free to contribute on the NEW TOPIC thread: The New Testament, Book by Book.
Let's stick to Matthew and work our way to Rev. I believe this is a worthwhile study and I hope others will join me. I'll post as I work my way through the NT.
It's easy to cut and paste a theology, but when you start from the beginning, it's easy to see if there is a change in the thoughts of Jesus or his followers. We should be able to “track” the “shift” of believing in the one true God – who is the Father – to the belief that Jesus is the second person of a triune God. Right? Maybe I am wishful thinking. Anyway, it can't hurt to try.
Hi Is 1.18,
You say
“They assigned to Him divine status (e.g. John 1:1, Col 2:9)”Col 2.9 is not a good example for what you are trying to prove.
Col 2
“8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.9For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. “
CF
2Cor 5
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.God was IN CHRIST.
Christ was not that Deity that was IN HIM.Quote (Not3in1 @ June 15 2007,09:31) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 14 2007,18:54) You are reading the most trusted and sure record there is that Jews believed that Jesus is God and yet not the Father.
WJ,
Humor me, just for a moment.Because there is no other record in the Bible of a Jew believing anyone else but the Father is God….and because Thomas supposedly called Jesus God (which no one else did), can you for certain (100% sure), tell me that there is no other way to interpret what Thomas said?
not3Not true. There is plenty record in the Bible that the Followers of Christ believed Jesus is God.
John, Paul, Thomas, Luke, Peter, the writer of Hebrews, and many early church Fathers like Ignatius believed Jesus is God, One with the Father and the Spirit.
I reiterarate again. You can accept the scriptures litterally as they say, or you can put a twist on thiem or just ignore them.
Its up to you.
In answer to your question I believe 100% there is no other way to interpret John 20:28.
So here it is again!
The problem that you have is Thomas didnt say…
“MY LORD AND MY FATHER”, did he?
Listen again…
Jn 20:
28 And Thomas answered and *said unto him*, My Lord and my God.This passage seems to be so distressing to the Unitarians and Henotheist and Arians.
If I was one I would be stressed to.
Blessings.
Quote (Not3in1 @ June 17 2007,17:29) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 17 2007,16:52) I am sure that they considered Yeshua to be YHWH, but not the person of the Father. I am sure that they considered the Holy Spirit to be “God”, a person but neither Father and Son. I am sure that they continued to have only One God above them.
I don't follow you.They believed God to be the Father only. To say that in addition to them believing that Jesus was God – that they also believed that Jesus was not the “person” of the Father is indeed a stretch, I'm sorry.
We are not given another definition of God in the NT. Paul does not give us another definition of God. He says that for US (you and me) there is but one God and that is the Father. This is true for Thomas and John as well.
not3No. They didnt believe God to only believe the Father.
That is the point.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
