ROFL...I love it with pasta with a good parmesan.
Metis, you don't know how I hope we can have a cup of coffee together before we leave this earth !!!!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
ROFL...I love it with pasta with a good parmesan.
This post is intended to address a subject which has been argued a number of times. I have read some and briefly engaged some of those who reject the deity of Christ because they say that the Bible does not state the words “Jesus is God”. I believe this argument is fallacious, violating the word-concept fallacy. Also it demonstrates a presupposed bias when so many Scriptures identify Christ as divine, attributing to Him many of the divine names given to God. I do not intend to deal with the many New Testament texts ascribing Old Testament references of Jehovah to Jesus Christ. Nor the many references equating Him as Lord in the N.T. with Kurios (Lord) in the Septuagint. I will only use the Apostle John in this post in whose writings reveal the Deity of Christ.
Revelation 19:13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
This section in Revelation is dealing with the coming of Christ. The Apostle John assigns a descriptive name to Jesus “The Word of God” (Gr. ho logos ho theos). This identifying Christ as “Logos”, the “Word”, is also used by John in the Prologue to his Gospel: John 1:1-18
John 1:1-18 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
The Witness John
6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
The Word Made Flesh
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John *testified about Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’” 16 For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace. 17 For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
Note verse 1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. The verb “was” (Gr: en, imperfect of eimi). The continuous action in the past of the imperfect tense of the verb indicates to us that whenever the “beginning” was, the Word was already in existence. “and the Word was with God…the Logos has been in communion and communication with God for eternity as well. The verb is the same as the first clause, and the preposition pros (“with”) pictures for us face-to-face communication. The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. We have the same situation in 1.1c.The Greek reads, kai theos en ho logos. Notice that the term Logos has the article ho while the term theos does not. This tells us that the subject of the clause is the Logos. Hence, we could not translate the phrase “and God was the Word” for that would make the wrong term the subject of the clause. Hence, the term “God” is the predicate nominative, the nature of the Logos is the nature of God, just as the nature of God in 1 John 4:8 was that of love. Now, John does emphasize the term “God” by placing it first in the clause – this is not just a “divine nature” as in something like the angels have – rather, it is truly the nature of Deity that is in view here (hence my translation as “Deity”). Dr. Kenneth Wuest, long time professor of Greek at Moody Bible Institute rendered the phrase, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute Deity.”
What he wishes to emphasize here is the personal existence of the Logos in some sense of distinction from “God” (i.e., the Father). The Logos is not the Father nor vice-versa – there are two persons under discussion here.
John 1:1 tells us some extremely important things. First, we see that the Logos is eternal, uncreated. Secondly, we see that there are two Divine Persons in view in John’s mind – the Father and the Logos. Thirdly, there is eternal communication and relationship between the Father and the Logos. Finally, we see that the Logos shares the nature of God.
John goes on to gives to Jesus another descriptive name: “The Light”, the “True Light”, the “Light of the world”.
Verse 14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
The Word did not eternally exist in the form of flesh; rather, at a particular point in time He became flesh. This is the incarnation.
Verse 18: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. NASB
He first asserts that no one has “seen God at any time.” Now, the Old Testament tells us that men have indeed seen God in the past – Isaiah saw God on His throne in Isaiah 6; Abraham walked with Yahweh in Genesis 18. So what does John mean? He defines for us that the one he is speaking of here is the Father – that is, no one has seen the Father at any time. OK, then who was it that was seen by Isaiah or by Abraham?
John tells us – the unique God. Here the phrase is monogenes theos. There is a textual variant here. Many manuscripts have monogenes huios (unique Son) – and the KJV follows this tradition. But the strongest reading is “unique God.” How are we to understand this?
The term “monogenes” is used only of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Jesus is here described as the “unique God” – John is not asserting a separate deity from the Father. Rather, this ‘unique God” is the one who is eternally in fellowship with the Father. Even when discussing the “separateness” of the Father and the Son as persons, John is quick to emphasize the unity of the divine Persons in their eternal fellowship together. Here John teaches, again, the eternal and central fact of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The unique God makes the Father known – He “explains’ Him. What we know of the Father we know because of the revelation of the Son. We know what the Father is like because we know what Jesus Is like. Here the Son’s function as the revelator of the Father is clearly set forth, and this is directly in line with the usage of the term Logos in the Prologue. Other New Testament writers use the same theme – for Paul Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” and for the writer of Hebrews Jesus is ‘the express image of His (the Father’s) person…” Both writers (or maybe just one writer if Paul indeed wrote Hebrews) are emphasizing the role of Jesus as the revealer of the Father. In the same way, this answers the above question regarding who it was, in John’s opinion, that was seen of Abraham and Isaiah. We have already had occasion to note that John will directly assert that Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus in the person of Yahweh (12:39ff), and could it be that this is the explanation for Jesus’ statement in John 8:56? Did Abraham “see the day of Jesus” when he walked with Him by the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1)?
The conclusion is obvious throughout these few verses:
If Jesus is The Word. Rev.19:13
And if that same Word is God. Jn.1:1-18
Then Jesus is God.
Special thanks to James R White
That would be great, however my wife would kill me as she's deathly afraid of internet contacts as she had two cousins who left their wives to meet and eventually marry internet friends that became more than just friends.Metis, you don't know how I hope we can have a cup of coffee together before we leave this earth !!!!
"God" is made up of "the Father" and "the Son". The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Both make up God. It is just like if there is a man whose last name is Jones and he has a son whose last mane is also Jones. They are two separate people but they are both Jones. God is like a last name. Father and Son are both God but are separate persons.
Nothing that you wrote there actually says Jesus is God. Jesus was a Jew, - teaching Tanakh, - and would never have split YHVH into a pagan threesome.
And why the WRONG translation of John1:18?
You have this -
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
The standard is -
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
There is no second God in that verse. There is a word for son/child of.
Also the word translated only begotten - means one/or first of a kind. The awaited Messiah would be such, without being a God.
*
*
I really do not need any theory, philosophy, explanations, Bible stuff, Philippians, Corinthians, whatever ians, spiritual noise, justifications or anything of the sort. That can come later, if requested, which is not, at the moment.
Just a simple yes/no/maybe. The same bit I would give you if you asked me a direct question about what I know.
Yes, no or... maybe.
Still waiting....
Ciao
- viole
P.S. If I do not get a clear cut one liner answer to that question, i will make the safe assumption that you guys do not know either.
You are mistaken in asserting that it is a wrong translation. Monogenes Theos (only begotten God; or the only Son, who is God) is in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore I believe it is the prefered rendering. While monogenes huios is in the Majority text, textual criticism has rightly explained the variant as a later scribal error due to the near identical Greek words.
Your assertion that the coming Messiah would not be God flies in the face of the Prophet Isaiah as recorded by the Apostle Matthew 1:23:
"Behold, the Virgin will be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, God with us."
Thank you for your response. Although it is somewhat rambling and consists of disjointed suppositions, you did, at least, attempt to address a couple of statements in my opening post. But I must correct one of your deductions.
You state: "In it the Logos (translated the word) was life, and that life was the light of men..."Then deduce: "So John here says Jesus is in the Logos, but not that he is the Logos", deriving your assertion from a mistranslation.
I don't know from what version you derived that quote. You offer no substantiation. The text, again, states: "In Him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:4
To base your whole unsupported, misrepresenting argument upon an unverified, and by all accounts, false translation of the proposed Biblical texts is self-refuting.
What? Latest version of Kettle calling the Teapot black?
We have shown many time here that there are actually no verses calling Jesus God, when taken in context, and culture.
*
You appear to imply that Daniels' vision is about himself and not Jesus. If so, that is quite an aberrant interpretation.
You ask "Who gave the glory".
Great!
Now I'll ask "Who gave His glory to another"?
Please review the following scripture prior to your answer:
"I am the Lord; that is My name. And My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to graven images" (Isaiah 42:8}
So that's how non-Trinitarians do it...they look for the "exception to the rule"!
I'm sure this rule, that 'there is always an exception to every rule', is based on scripture.
Can you quote it for us please? For starters could you kindly quote the exception to each of the 10 commandments?
You are mistaken in asserting that it is a wrong translation. Monogenes Theos (only begotten God; or the only Son, who is God) is in the earliest manuscripts. Therefore I believe it is the prefered rendering. While monogenes huios is in the Majority text, textual criticism has rightly explained the variant as a later scribal error due to the near identical Greek words.
Pure baloney. Look the words up. Here it is with the Strong's numbers for you.
Note that there is no second θεον, and υιος/son/child follows μονογενης/monogenēs.
Joh 1:18 θεονG2316 ουδειςG3762 εωρακενG3708 πωποτεG4455 οG3588 μονογενηςG3439 υιοςG5207 οG3588 ωνG1510 ειςG1519 τονG3588 κολπονG2859 τουG3588 πατροςG3962 εκεινοςG1565 εξηγησατοG1834
I hope the Greek shows up correctly, LOL.
Also, No "virgin" in Matthew 1:23. Jesus was obviously named Iesous, - not Immanuel. Isaiah tells us that YHVH said the MOTHER would name him Immanuel. So - Jesus/Iesous has the wrong name.
This NT misinformation is because they were writing after-the-fact - using Tanakh - trying to make Iesous/Jesus fit the Tanakh verses, while no longer understanding what they were reading.
Nowhere in the Bible is Jesus actually called God.
An example a few posts back mentions a Jones family. This is actually a great example but it was not used correctly. If John Jones is married to Sue Jones and they have a son named Joe Jones, you can say there is one Jones family. John is Jones and Sue is Jones and Joe is Jones. There is only one Jones family but three people in it. There is also only one God (family) but two people in it. The Father is God and the Son is God. Two separate persons but making up one God. Several separate Family members but making up one Jones.
Actually many people only believe in two persons, Father and Son. The Holy Spirit is God's power and ability and not a separate person. Anyway whether it is two or three, there is still only one God who is made up of more than one member just like the one Jones is made up of more than one member.
1. “I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols” Isaiah 42:8
2. “The glory belongs to God, forever and ever. Amen.” Galatians 1:5
3. “…in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” 1 Peter 4:11
4. “This is what the LORD says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.’” Isaiah 66:1
5. “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ But he said to them, “How can they say that the Christ is David's son? For David himself says in the Book of Psalms, David thus calls him Lord, so how is he his son?” Luke 20:41-44
6. “And behold, Jesus met them and said, ‘Greetings!’ And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.” Matthew 28:9
The Trinity is true. ...
Yet, the Bible also teaches that there are distinctions within the Godhead or that there is a plural nature to God.
Here are a couple of quick points:
#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24)....
The Trinity is true.
#1. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is both a singular and a plural noun.
#2. God refers to Himself in plural form (Genesis 1:26) (Genesis 3:22) (Genesis 11:7) (Isaiah 6:8).
#3. Plurality of God in New Testament (Matthew 28:19) (2 Corinthians 13:14) (John 14:16-20).
#4. Introductions to both the Son & Holy Spirit (Daniel 7:9,10,13,14) (John 14:16)
#5. Different persons of Godhead appear at one time (Luke 3:21-22)
#6. Distinctions of Wills (Luke 22:42).
#7. Conversations Between the Godhead (Psalm 2:1-12) (Psalm 45:6-7) (Psalm 110:1) (Matthew 11:27) (John 17:24).
...
I have already noted that there is no phrase in the Bible with the three word sentence "Jesus is God". However I have demonstrated that the Bible declares Jesus is God. See post #1, #116, #93.
....
Rick B. is correct as Brian J. Wright (who co-authored Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apochryphal Evidence with Daniel Wallace) points out. It is almost certain that Monogenes Theos is preferred over Monogenes Uios. There are roughly 13 textual variants at 1:18, but the earliest and best evidence is for θεός.
This is something that has always perplexed me about non-Trinitarians Ingeldvsa. Your statement that Jesus is not named Immanuel would be immediately challenged by any Trinitarian, but would be allowed to sit and fester by my non-Trinitarian Christian friends. In other words they would remain quiet even though you attack Jesus...their declared Savior...as fulfillment of Tanakh prophesy.
It's as if these "last day", post Millerite religions have been set up solely to attack the Trinity rather than to defend or reach concordance with New Testament scripture.
As such, when it comes to giving a defense for what they believe:
"...but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear:" (1 Peter 3:15)
they seem to fall down a bit on the job.
But to answer your question:
Jesus did not have to be named Immanuel. "God with us" is a reference to who Jesus is, not to what Jesus is named. It was also prophesied that Jesus would be cal "Wonderful Counselor" and "Mighty God", and if Mary had named him Immanuel I suspect there would be those wondering why she hadn't named him "Wonderful Counselor" instead.