The Holy Trinity and John 17:3

[Ingledsva]

Well, in that time period, a divine God-man was a savior -- that was the job of the God-man, so it's not surprising that Luke would refer to Jesus as such. The very fact that you're letting this misunderstood tidbit get in the way of the understanding of the general literary characteristics tells me that you don't understand nearly so much as you'd like us to believe.

And we are talking about a group from the HEBREW - where to call anyone else God - was blasphemy!

Thus the info that he WAS NOT GOD survived until the Nicene Councils put an end to it, - sort of - as we still have the understanding that Jesus was not God - to this day.

Where does he refer to Jesus as a God man???

The awaited Jewish - Messiah - which is the term used - was not a God.

*

 

[sojourner]

LOL! Yeah! Like Jesus wasn't God!

*

That's right. It didn't jibe with the apostles' teaching.

 

[sojourner]

And we are talking about a group from the HEBREW - where to call anyone else God - was blasphemy!

Nope. Luke was written for Gentiles -- not Hebrews.

Thus the info that he WAS NOT GOD survived until the Nicene Councils put an end to it, - sort of - as we still have the understanding that Jesus was not God - to this day.

Remember, the thought that Jesus was not really human also prevailed until Nicea. A heresy that still prevails, also. The important point is that the apostles' teaching agreed with the points developed at Nicea.

Where does he refer to Jesus as a God man???

In the birth narrative! I already explained this to you. But you don't understand the particular nature of the literature, so you don't get it why Luke put forth Jesus as Divine. You're giving the texts a cursory look, calling it "good," and pronouncing some kind of definitive statement that doesn't take many factors inherent to the texts under consideration. That's the main reason why I said that I couldn't help you save academic face here. You don't really know what you're talking about; you think you know, and you post as if you know, but you're really looking foolish here.

The awaited Jewish - Messiah - which is the term used - was not a God.

According to your cursory glance. Too bad that glance doesn't look at indicators inherent to the genre.

 

[Ingledsva]

That's right. It didn't jibe with the apostles' teaching.

Because they knew Jesus was not God in any sense of the word.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Nope. Luke was written for Gentiles -- not Hebrews.

I specifically said from the Hebrew. That is their background. These people knew perfectly well that the belief was that God was ONE, and any trinity, or Jesus as God ideas, were blasphemy.

Remember, the thought that Jesus was not really human also prevailed until Nicea. A heresy that still prevails, also. The important point is that the apostles' teaching agreed with the points developed at Nicea.

Actually the Bible writing do not say ANYWHERE that there is a trinity, - or the Jesus is somehow God. Does not say that!

In the birth narrative!

I already explained this to you. But you don't understand the particular nature of the literature, so you don't get it why Luke put forth Jesus as Divine. You're giving the texts a cursory look, calling it "good," and pronouncing some kind of definitive statement that doesn't take many factors inherent to the texts under consideration. That's the main reason why I said that I couldn't help you save academic face here. You don't really know what you're talking about; you think you know, and you post as if you know, but you're really looking foolish here.

According to your cursory glance. Too bad that glance doesn't look at indicators inherent to the genre.

And as has already been explained - first - the text does not say Jesus is God.

Second, - the birth text is false info taken from a misunderstood Tanakh text which was about Immanuel being born as a sign that God was with them -RIGHT THEN - in the war they were fighting.

It was written long after Jesus' death by people that obviously could not understand Tanakh texts.

In other words there IS NO PROPHECY of a future Immanuel that somehow got misnamed Jesus.

*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I specifically said from the Hebrew.

But you are using texts written originally in Greek, and you don't know either Hebrew or Greek.

or the Jesus is somehow God. Does not say that!

Hm. ἐγὼκαὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν John 10:30
(5.) τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, (6.) ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ Philippians 2:5-6
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Titus 2:13
etc. There are plenty of clear passages in the bible equating Jesus and God. Few are from the gospels (the prologue of John and other passages from John are an arguable exception), but you said "bible" and the later Christology represented in the later epistles and possibly (hence Philippians above) even in Paul! Not that Philippians is undisputed (indeed, the hymn is among the most debated portions of the Pauline corpus). See e.g.,

Byrne, B. (1997). Christ's pre-existence in Pauline soteriology. Theological Studies, 58(2), 308-330.
Martin, R. P. (1667). Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series). Cambridge University Press.
Martin, R. P. (1997). A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2: 5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. InterVarsity Press.
Wright, N. T. (1986). ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2: 5-11. The Journal of Theological Studies, 321-352.

 

[sojourner]

Because they knew Jesus was not God in any sense of the word.

*

Wait a minute. Who are you referring to as "they?" The apostles? Or the heretics? The apostles did have some sense of Jesus as Divine, or the gospels -- as well as the epistles -- (following in the apostles' teaching) wouldn't present Jesus as such. Jesus underwent resurrection, for Pete's sake, according to every biblical source, as well as extra-biblical Tradition, and only god-men, in that culture and mind set, were resurrected (and ascended, mind you). The heretics who believed Jesus was not divine usually denied that he actually died on the cross. The best history we can extrapolate tells us that that's simply not the case.

 

[sojourner]

I specifically said from the Hebrew. That is their background.

Not. Luke. Luke was Gentile. His audience was Gentile. Hebrew was not his background.

These people knew perfectly well that the belief was that God was ONE, and any trinity, or Jesus as God ideas, were blasphemy.

Even if that were the case (which it isn't), resurrection is, itself, blasphemous. Since the bible explicitly details Jesus' resurrection, there was already some compromise in their minds that, even though God is One, that "One" contained both Father and Son, since the Son would have to be Divine in order for resurrection to happen.

Actually the Bible writing do not say ANYWHERE that there is a trinity, - or the Jesus is somehow God. Does not say that!

It is heavily implied through the genres of the writing and the events that happened to and with Jesus.

And as has already been explained - first - the text does not say Jesus is God.

Since the text does lay out a miraculous birth for Jesus -- one account of which is a direct plagiarism of Augustus, who was considered to be divine -- and since the text does insist that Jesus was resurrected and ascended -- and that Jesus was transfigured (also an indication of divinity), the text does, in fact, indicate that Jesus is Divine.

Second, - the birth text is false info taken from a misunderstood Tanakh text which was about Immanuel being born as a sign that God was with them -RIGHT THEN - in the war they were fighting.

Oh, I see. So, you take as gospel truth the "fact" that "the bible doesn't mention anywhere that Jesus is God," but when the accounts paint Jesus as Divine, they're somehow, magically "mistaken." This is a HUGE argumentative fallacy. Either the bible is an authority, or it's not. Either the bible presents Jesus as Divine or it doesn't. Unfortunately for you, even though the fleshed-out doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly detailed in the texts, the texts do present Jesus as Divine.

In other words there IS NO PROPHECY of a future Immanuel that somehow got misnamed Jesus.

We're not talking about "prophecy." This is a red herring. We're talking about the fact that the miraculous birth narratives, resurrection accounts, and ascension stories are present in the texts -- in fact, are central themes in the texts, and that such accounts, in ancient, Near East literature always indicate divinity.

Which sucks for your position.

 

[Muffled]

The source of the Bible is man’s desire to find meaning, purpose and direction in life.

I don't believe there is any proof of this.

 

[Muffled]

Explain

Lord
mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

The "now all this came to pass" refers to the previous statements. That indicates context. He is saying in affect that Jesus is the fulfillment of "God with us."

 

[Muffled]

Okay, but what does "in Jesus" mean? And in plain English. That is, without using terms that need further explanation.

I believe we use "in" many ways. We say God is in us because He is everywhere but that is not what Jesus is saying. For instance I can say I am in the USA but that does not imply that I am in NH although being in NH implies that I am in the USA.

I believe Jesus is using "in" to say that the Spirit of God is resident in Him. I believe that a spirit can be attached to the body so that they act as one soul. In this way God isnot just present but actively present in determining what will be said and done by the connection to the body.

 

[roger1440]

Lord
mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

The "now all this came to pass" refers to the previous statements. That indicates context. He is saying in affect that Jesus is the fulfillment of "God with us."

Didn’t King Ahaz see this fulfilled nearly 700 years earlier? The Isaiah episode happens around the year 732 BC. Jesus was born around the year 4 BC. That is a gap of over 700 years.

 

[Muffled]

Didn’t King Ahaz see this fulfilled nearly 700 years earlier? The Isaiah episode happens around the year 732 BC. Jesus was born around the year 4 BC. That is a gap of over 700 years.

I believe he did not see a virgin give birth. Some things God fills early and some after more time.

 

[Ingledsva]

But you are using texts written originally in Greek, and you don't know either Hebrew or Greek.


Hm. ἐγὼκαὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν John 10:30
(5.) τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, (6.) ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ Philippians 2:5-6
τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ Titus 2:13
etc. There are plenty of clear passages in the bible equating Jesus and God. Few are from the gospels (the prologue of John and other passages from John are an arguable exception), but you said "bible" and the later Christology represented in the later epistles and possibly (hence Philippians above) even in Paul! Not that Philippians is undisputed (indeed, the hymn is among the most debated portions of the Pauline corpus). See e.g.,

Byrne, B. (1997). Christ's pre-existence in Pauline soteriology. Theological Studies, 58(2), 308-330.
Martin, R. P. (1667). Carmen Christi: Philippians 2.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series). Cambridge University Press.
Martin, R. P. (1997). A Hymn of Christ: Philippians 2: 5-11 in Recent Interpretation & in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. InterVarsity Press.
Wright, N. T. (1986). ἁρπαγμός and the Meaning of Philippians 2: 5-11. The Journal of Theological Studies, 321-352.

You took that "Hebrew" out of context. I was talking about their Hebrew God understanding.

Baloney, they do not - in the original languages - say Jesus is God - or part of any trinity. The trinity idea was added much later.

It is very obvious from # 5 (Thus let this mindset/sentiment,) - that - morphe - here in # 6 is - nature of.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus is God, or part of any trinity.


*

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe he did not see a virgin give birth. Some things God fills early and some after more time.

That story took place at that time. Immanuel was born to them, back then. The whole story is there if anyone bothers to read the full text.

The only "virgin" in the story is a maiden that hasn't had sex, probably one of the Temple Virgins - as that is where he is told to go.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Didn’t King Ahaz see this fulfilled nearly 700 years earlier? The Isaiah episode happens around the year 732 BC. Jesus was born around the year 4 BC. That is a gap of over 700 years.

Yep! Them seem to refuse to actually read the whole text from beginning to end. If they did, they would realize this was all fulfilled during that time, - and it was no miracle "virgin" birth. He was told to go in to a Temple Virgin/Maiden, - she conceived, - and gave birth to Immanuel meaning "God is with us" a sign in the war they were fighting.

*

 

[sojourner]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus is God, or part of any trinity.

The literature and stories say exactly that.

 

[Ingledsva]

Lord
mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.

The "now all this came to pass" refers to the previous statements. That indicates context. He is saying in affect that Jesus is the fulfillment of "God with us."

The problem with this story is that it is false, and was added in many years after Jesus' death, by people that misunderstood the Isaiah and Immanuel story from Tanakh.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

The literature and stories say exactly that.

Baloney! You keep harping about original languages. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus is God, or part of any trinity - when read in the original languages.

They fudge meaning of the words to make it appear so. Such as - morphe - being taken out of context (Php 2:5 - 6) and being translated FORM - instead of NATURE - which is the proper translation, as proven by the surrounding text.

He tells them all to have this - and obviously they aren't all God, they are to have a Godly NATURE/Mindset.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Not. Luke. Luke was Gentile. His audience was Gentile. Hebrew was not his background.

1 - Even if that were the case (which it isn't), resurrection is, itself, blasphemous. Since the bible explicitly details Jesus' resurrection, there was already some compromise in their minds that, even though God is One, that "One" contained both Father and Son, since the Son would have to be Divine in order for resurrection to happen.

2 - It is heavily implied through the genres of the writing and the events that happened to and with Jesus.

3 - Since the text does lay out a miraculous birth for Jesus -- one account of which is a direct plagiarism of Augustus, who was considered to be divine -- and since the text does insist that Jesus was resurrected and ascended -- and that Jesus was transfigured (also an indication of divinity), the text does, in fact, indicate that Jesus is Divine.

4 - Oh, I see. So, you take as gospel truth the "fact" that "the bible doesn't mention anywhere that Jesus is God," but when the accounts paint Jesus as Divine, they're somehow, magically "mistaken." This is a HUGE argumentative fallacy. Either the bible is an authority, or it's not. Either the bible presents Jesus as Divine or it doesn't. Unfortunately for you, even though the fleshed-out doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly detailed in the texts, the texts do present Jesus as Divine.

5 - We're not talking about "prophecy." This is a red herring. We're talking about the fact that the miraculous birth narratives, resurrection accounts, and ascension stories are present in the texts -- in fact, are central themes in the texts, and that such accounts, in ancient, Near East literature always indicate divinity.

6 - Which sucks for your position.

1- Baloney. The Jewish Messiah - which Jesus was claiming to be, - was to bring the end, and final Judgment of ALL in Sheol. He is in that sense the first to rise (from Sheol) not some zombie land event.

2 - None of the stories were written when Jesus was alive - they are false stories written by much later people.

3 - People with an agenda, plagiarizing, - does not in any way prove Jesus was considered Divine. He claimed to be the awaited Jewish Messiah - who was not God - or a trinity part of God. The awaited Messiah comes from the Hebrew - and GOD is ONE. No blasphemous trinity.

4 - WHAT! There is no TRINITY in the Bible. NO Jesus as Divine. Again - he claimed only to be the awaited Jewish Messiah, a special HUMAN sent by God.

And when these stories are read correctly Jesus is the first to rise from SHEOL - Not a literal grave, - as that is where ALL await the Jewish Messiah - whom Jesus claimed to be. He did not rise from a grave and walk around with other dead people. The Messiah was to bring about the end, and Final Judgment of ALL those stuck in Sheol. Note in the stories - He goes to Sheol for three days - then rises! The first to rise from the grave/SHEOL. Those dead walking around stories, etc. are false stories made up years after Jesus' death by people with an agenda, or if we are kind - a deep misunderstanding.

Common street magicians of Jesus's time - healed the sick, used spit to heal eyes (we have ancient documents,) Etc.

5 - What a bunch of BULL! Books about Gods and Divine beings do not in any way prove those as divine beings in any sense of the word.

Plus - in this case - when you look at the actual Greek, - Jesus is NOT God - part of any trinity, - or Divine. He claims to be the Messiah - a special human. And again - these NT texts were written by later people that were not there when Jesus was alive. They are made up.

6 - How would this suck for my position? You cannot prove Jesus was God - trinity - or Divine - from the NT texts. They fudge a lot in the translations, but just read the originals languages in context - and prove them WRONG!

*