Christ is God

[trofimus]

NWL:

1. I do not say that the Son is identical with the Father. I say that the Son is from the Father and so united with Him that they can be called "God" together (with the Holy Spirit). That they must be seen as one (from our point of view).

2. Even though there are so called gods (like satan), they are not the original creators and their power is limited. Notice the difference between them and Jesus (who created everything and who has all the power in the heaven and on the earth). Being the creator of everything and having all the power is a distinction between real God and various powerful beings like angels or advanced aliens.

3. J 1:1 is saying it quite completely - Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father) from the beginning and is so united with the God (i.e. with Father) - in his bossom - that the Logos is God.

 

[JChesney]

Furthermore, the Greek of the text lacks the definite article before the second usage of theos, thus grammatically, the verse as other alternative renderings which are not contradictory as the one you quoted is, such as "the word was a god/divine".

Authors of the New Testament texts did not always observe the rules of using the article and often deviated from these grammatical rules of the Greek language. With the word "θεος" for example: Lk 20:38, Jn 8:54, Rom 1:7, 8:33 and other.

 

[NWL]

1. I do not say that the Son is identical with the Father. I say that the Son is from the Father and so united with Him that they can be called "God" together (with the Holy Spirit). That they must be seen as one (from our point of view).

Where do we find such an idea in the Bible. Yes we have a scripture that has Jesus stating "I am from the father" but such a statement can be interpreted many ways, how was he from the father? From the father in trinity? From the father by means of creation? From the father by presence? Could not angels not say I have come from the Father, could not Adam have said I am from the Father? (All questions rhetoric). The point I'm making is that Jesus being from the father doesn't imply he is from the Father in the sense of deity, such an idea can only be assumed and is not found in scripture. By all means, if you can, show me.

2. Even though there are so called gods (like satan), they are not the original creators and their power is limited. Notice the difference between them and Jesus (who created everything and who has all the power in the heaven and on the earth). Being the creator of everything and having all the power is a distinction between real God and various powerful beings like angels or advanced aliens.

But Jesus himself did not create everything, scripture clearly shows that the father is creator and Jesus merely the agent through which God the father created all things. In fact the scripture go as far to say that Jesus very own life itself comes from the Father. See the following scriptures:

(1 Cor 8:6) "...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

(Hebrews 1:1,2) "..God...in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.."

As we can see all things have come FROM the father (including Jesus), the father then used Jesus as the person through all other things were made.

(John 6:57) "..[Jesus said] Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.."

3. J 1:1 is saying it quite completely - Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father) from the beginning and is so united with the God (i.e. with Father) - in his bossom - that the Logos is God.

You say "Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father)" but where in the context does it say the first theos was referring to the Father? This again, is another assumption. Nowhere do we find in the first book of John any identification that the God who Jesus was with was the Father, all the verse states is that the "Word was with the God (ho thoes) and the word was god (theos).

To a trinitarian, "God = The Father/Son/Holy spirit" unless context says otherwise, again, you assume "God" in John 1v1 is referring to the father but that's not what the text says, the text says either Jesus was with the trinity or Jesus was with himself. Anything more than that and your beliefs are based on assumptions.

 

[NWL]

Authors of the New Testament texts did not always observe the rules of using the article and often deviated from these grammatical rules of the Greek language. With the word "θεος" for example: Lk 20:38, Jn 8:54, Rom 1:7, 8:33 and other.

You're quite right, its not an absolute rule that when a definite article is lacking before theos/God that its always uncapatilised. However, when a bible writer purposely leaves the definite article out in such a verse like John 1:1, where it's mentioning two different persons, and on one hand its calls one person "the God" (with the definite article) and the other person God (WITHOUT the definite article) it HAS to mean something, the fact cannot just be brushed aside.

Moreover, as I mentioned to troflmus, the logos being with God and yet also God is a contextual contradiction.

No modern scholar would deny that "the word was a god" is 100% grammatically accurate.

 

[trofimus]

Where do we find such an idea in the Bible...

Yes we have a scripture that has Jesus stating "I am from the father" but such a statement can be interpreted many ways...

... but where in the context does it say the first theos was referring to the Father? This again, is another assumption....

I think the problem is that you isolate every verse and think about all possible readings of the verse, asking "why should I believe that this one way of reading is correct".

If you let one verse interpret the other, it will start to work.

 

[NWL]

I think the problem is that you isolate every verse and think about all possible readings of the verse, asking "why should I believe that this one way of reading is correct".

That is exactly how I interpret scripture, by allowing scripture to interpret scripture. You’ve isolated a single part of our entire -yet short- discussion and decided that ‘I’ overly interpret individual verses. You completely missed my point. ‘You’ were the one who made an assumption about John 16:28, believing a statement somehow implies Jesus as deity when it in no ways expresses such a thing. To counteract this ‘argument of assumption’ I listed various other interpretations off the top of my head to highlight how flawed it is to believe that a verse shows something when it’s based on an assumption and not on other scripture.

In our discussion about types of gods I used Psalms 8:5, psalms 82:1, John 10:34, 2 Cor 4:4. You replied and I further used 1 Cor 8:6, Hebrews 1:1,2 and John 6:57, how exactly is this me isolating verses and thinking of too many interpretations? A clear example of how I interpret scripture with scripture.

In relation to your question of Phil 2:6 I used John 4:24, Col 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1,2, how is this me isolating verses and thinking of too many interpretations? Another clear example of how I interpret scripture with scripture.

If you let one verse interpret the other, it will start to work.

Start to work? Are you actually being serious? You haven't highlighted a single flaw or crack in my reasoning I posed, if you have then please show it?

My reasoning is sound and in line with scripture. If you just opened your mind and read scripture taking it for what it actually says you might actually start understanding basic truths.

 

[trofimus]

You haven't highlighted a single flaw in my reasoning I posed...

...If you just opened your mind and read scripture taking it for what it actually says you might actually start understanding basic truths.

Like I said, I think that what you mean by "opening my mind" is simply "isolate verses and say for example "We cannot know if J 1:1 is about Father, because we will ignore all other verses saying that Jesus came from Father". And similar.

This is your flaw. A missing article is more significant for you than context.

 

[JChesney]

You're quite right, its not an absolute rule that when a definite article is lacking before theos/God that its always uncapatilised. However, when a bible writer purposely leaves the definite article out in such a verse like John 1:1, where it's mentioning two different persons, and on one hand its calls one person "the God" (with the definite article) and the other person God (WITHOUT the definite article) it HAS to mean something, the fact cannot just be brushed aside.

Moreover, as I mentioned to troflmus, the logos being with God and yet also God is a contextual contradiction.

No modern scholar would deny that "the word was a god" is 100% grammatically accurate.

I can not agree with you, because the phrase is constructed in such a way that there is ambiguity in it (most likely this ambiguity is the author's intention). Θεος ην ο Λογος, literally "God was Word", is traditionally understood as "The Word was God" (in sense "what God was, the Word was"). But with the same success this phrase can be translated "God was a word", a similar interpretation (with the article or without the article) could serve as a ground for Sabellianism. We see two words in nominative and can only guess which one has the role of subject and predicate. It is considered that in this place "God (emphasized predicate nominative) was the Word (subject), "The Word" is the subject because "Word" is preceded by the definite article "the". All this is based on assumptions. In reality, relying on the use of the article here it is difficult to find a reliable grammatical basis for some unambiguous understanding. By the way, some sources of the Greek text (L=019; W=032; quote in Gregory of Nyssa) have a reading with the article: "ο Θεος ην ο Λογος". Where is the subject and predicate? both can be.

 

[trofimus]

"Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God, demiurge of the world. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son. Being the mind of the Eternal, Logos is imperishable.He is neither uncreated as God is, nor created as men are, but occupies a middle position. He has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Logos

We must have in mind that John wrote his introduction about Logos in the era of this philosophy. Of course, John is not saying Philo is 100% correct, but he is obviously using Philo's theme and vocabulary.

Maybe thats why the definite article for God is missing in "Theos én ho Logos". The Logos is not the God (Father), but the Logos is God.

 

[GodisONE]

you state the Father is the CREATOR of ALL THINGS.

but Paul disagrees with you.

these verses are specifically about Yeshua:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

and if Yeshua was not Almighty God, why would He create ALL THINGS for HIMSELF?

 

[NWL]

I can not agree with you, because the phrase is constructed in such a way that there is ambiguity in it (most likely this ambiguity is the author's intention). Θεος ην ο Λογος, literally "God was Word", is traditionally understood as "The Word was God" (in sense "what God was, the Word was").

And I'll have to disagree with you, since you used the term"God" with the capitalised G in your statement. You'll be hard pressed to find a scholar that agree with you that a literal translation of the verse renders the text "the word was God" over "the word was god". It has been noted by many reputable trinitarian new testament scholars that a literal grammatical translation is "the word was god". Dispute only arises when viewing the verse both contextually and grammatically. This is widely known and not commonly disputed.

But with the same success this phrase can be translated "God was a word", a similar interpretation (with the article or without the article) could serve as a ground for Sabellianism. We see two words in nominative and can only guess which one has the role of subject and predicate. It is considered that in this place "God (emphasized predicate nominative) was the Word (subject), "The Word" is the subject because "Word" is preceded by the definite article "the". All this is based on assumptions. In reality, relying on the use of the article here it is difficult to find a reliable grammatical basis for some unambiguous understanding. By the way, some sources of the Greek text (L=019; W=032; quote in Gregory of Nyssa) have a reading with the article: "ο Θεος ην ο Λογος". Where is the subject and predicate? both can be.

This is why the Coptic language is of significance.The Sahidic Coptic translation of the new testament was translated in the a few centuries after they were written, before the firm establishment of the trinity doctrine was put in place. The Sahidic Coptic is similar to English and has indefinite articles unlike Greek. The Sahidic Coptic translators, being only a few centuries after the new testament was written, would have had a better understanding of the language than us today and also would have had the earliest, if not the original, manuscripts. When they translate John 1:1 they use the indefinite article with the rendering being "the Word was a god".

 

[NWL]

Like I said, I think that what you mean by "opening my mind" is simply "isolate verses and say for example "We cannot know if J 1:1 is about Father, because we will ignore all other verses saying that Jesus came from Father". And similar.

This is your flaw. A missing article is more significant for you than context.

You have yet to show me the context for such a claim to hold any weight.

And again, where does the context show that the father was the one being spoken of in John 1:1? I don't understand how just because Jesus was "sent by the father" and thus came "from the father" that this proves that the God whom the Logos was with was the Father when the context of John 1 never alludes to such statement, it seems you're cheery picking verses to fit an belief.

Are not all the Angels who appeared to man sent and have come from the father? Also, what's not to say that the God mentioned in John 1:1b isnt the Holy spirit according to your trinity doctrine.

The fact remains, the trinity teaches that God is one, Jesus is not God, nor the HS, nor the Father, all three persons are the one God. Thus, if Jesus was with God (God=Father/Son/HS) and yet was God, then Jesus is either the trinity or some type of modalistic God.

 

[trofimus]

You have yet to show me the context for such a claim to hold any weight.
And again, where does the context show that the father was the one being spoken of in John 1:1?
Are not all the Angels who appeared to man sent and have come from the father? Also, what's not to say that the God mentioned in John 1:1b isnt the Holy spirit according to your trinity doctrine.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was with the God in the beginning."
"...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
"...No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

The fact remains, the trinity teaches that God is one, Jesus is not God, nor the HS, nor the Father, all three persons are the one God. Thus, if Jesus was with God (God=Father/Son/HS) and yet was God, then Jesus is either the trinity or some type of modalistic God.

"God" is frequently used as a synonym for Father, in the NT. Again, if you will accept the context that Son was with Father, J 1:1 will make sense to you.

 

[JChesney]

And I'll have to disagree with you, since you used the term"God" with the capitalised G in your statement. You'll be hard pressed to find a scholar that agree with you that a literal translation of the verse renders the text "the word was God" over "the word was god". It has been noted by many reputable trinitarian new testament scholars that a literal grammatical translation is "the word was god". Dispute only arises when viewing the verse both contextually and grammatically. This is widely known and not commonly disputed.

it could be said without mentioning the reputable scholars because in Greek manuscripts the text is written in letters with a single form (in uncial script text was wih capital letters all text). And what do you suggest? In Greek ancient manuscripts there are no spaces between words or the first letter of the name of the person or city name is written as well as the rest of the letters, but we highlight them even with a literal translation. This is a conditional thing.

The Sahidic Coptic translators, being only a few centuries after the new testament was written, would have had a better understanding of the language than us today and also would have had the earliest, if not the original, manuscripts. When they translate John 1:1 they use the indefinite article with the rendering being "the Word was a god".

in this case we are dealing with how the Coptic Sahidic translater understood the Greek text, he could make the translation without an indefinite article (as we often meet in other cases in the Sahidic translation), but he could also use an indefinite article.
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/From QEOS to NOUTE.pdf
You exaggerate the role of the Coptic translator in his correct understanding of the Greek text, and it hardly matters whether he used copies ancient or recent, becouse Greek text in them was the same.

 

[NWL]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was with the God in the beginning."
"...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
"...No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

How does this dispute that Jesus isn't the the trinity as I mentioned before. Remember according to the trinity there is one God, Jehovah, who is three persons. Jesus is not God, nor the Father, nor the HS all three persons are God.

So when John 1:1 makes the statement “Jesus/logos was God” then how does this mean anything else other than Jesus was the trinity? Can your belief system really hold its weight without assumptions being necessary?

I ask you this, is it grammatically and contextually possible that Jesus was being referred her as a secondary type of god, as found in other scripture such as Psalms 8:5, Psalms 82:1, John 10:43, 2 Cor 4:4. Again I’m not asking if this is something you believe, I’m asking is it a possibility according to other text.

"God" is frequently used as a synonym for Father, in the NT. Again, if you will accept the context that Son was with Father, J 1:1 will make sense to you.

You have eyes but cannot see. Yes you are correct, "God" is used synonymously for the "father" in the NT, yet in light of scripture saying only the Father is the "one God" (see 1 Cor 8:6), and includes no one else in that category you still claim Jesus is also in that category despite there being other non-contradictory understandings of how Jesus is god much like, men, kings, angels and Satan are attributed the titles god.

 

[trofimus]

Remember according to the trinity there is one God, Jehovah, who is three persons. Jesus is not God, nor the Father, nor the HS all three persons are God.

No, you do not understand Trinity properly. In Trinity, Jesus is God, Father is God Holy Spirit is God:

I ask you this, is it grammatically and contextually possible that Jesus was being referred her as a secondary type of god, as found in other scripture such as Psalms 8:5, Psalms 82:1, John 10:43, 2 Cor 4:4.

Again, we must read NT in full context, not just isolate one verse and talk about various grammatical possibilites.

Jesus IS NOT the same type of god as in Psalms or as satan is a god of this world.
So there is no contextual possibility of that.

Jesus:
1. is in a special relationship with Father
2. Has all the power in the heavens and in the Earth
3. Has no beginning and no end.
4. Is so identical with Father that He could say "I and Father are one" or "Who sees me, sees Father".
5. Jesus is one-born, the only one Son of Father (J 3:16, J 1:18)

Yes you are correct, "God" is used synonymously for the "father" in the NT, yet in light of scripture saying only the Father is the "one God" (see 1 Cor 8:6), and includes no one else in that category you still claim Jesus is also in that category despite there being other non-contradictory understandings of how Jesus is god much like, men, kings, angels and Satan are attributed the titles god.

Jesus IS NOT the same type of god as in Psalms or as satan is a god of this world.
So there is no contextual possibility of that.

Jesus:
1. is in a special relationship with Father
2. Has all the power in the heavens and in the Earth
3. Has no beginning and no end.
4. Is so identical with Father that He could say "I and Father are one" or "Who sees me, sees Father".
5. Jesus is one-born, the only one Son of Father (J 3:16, J 1:18)

 

[posthuman]

If one wishes to describe the movement of any thing, it is necessary to give three pieces of information: its velocity, its position and a fixed point from which the other two values are measured relative to.

 

[NWL]

No, you do not understand Trinity properly. In Trinity, Jesus is God, Father is God Holy Spirit is God:

You don't even understand your own doctrine! None of the three persons who form the ONE God can individually be called the one God unless you understand it with the idea that each one is God in the sense of being of God. There is ONLY one God, to claim each individual can be called God equates three Gods, the trinity doctrine teaches that all three persons equate the One God, Jesus is not the one God, nor the Father, not the HS, but rather, the Father/Son/HS equals the one God.

Notice the picture you posted, even that agrees with me, we see all three persons equalling the one God, not one individual.

Again, we must read NT in full context, not just isolate one verse and talk about various grammatical possibilites.

Jesus IS NOT the same type of god as in Psalms or as satan is a god of this world. [Jesus IS NOT the same type of god as in Psalms or as satan is a god of this world.]
So there is no contextual possibility of that.

Jesus:
1. is in a special relationship with Father
2. Has all the power in the heavens and in the Earth
3. Has no beginning and no end.
4. Is so identical with Father that He could say "I and Father are one" or "Who sees me, sees Father".
5. Jesus is one-born, the only one Son of Father (J 3:16, J 1:18)

Lets look at each of your points individually.

Jesus:
1. is in a special relationship with Father

This neither proves or disproves the possibility that Jesus is a separate lesser god than God the Father.

2. Has all the power in the heavens and in the Earth

The bible description of Jesus receiving all power proves that he cannot be God. When on earth Jesus was apparently fully God and fully man. God cannot be God unless he has all power and authority, yet we see that Jesus did not posses this when on earth but rather had to be given it,
"All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth" (Matt 28:18). Jesus being given all power and authority proves that he was not almighty God since almighty God -by his very nature- always possess all power and authority.

3. Has no beginning and no end.

There is no verse in the bible that states Jesus had no beginning, only ones where people assume its referring to Jesus which I can demostrate if challenged. I agree that now, since he has attained immorality, he can no longer die.

However, the bible is clear that Jesus was part of creation as shown in Col 1:15 and other verses (Rev 3:14, Pro 8:22) proving that he is a secondary type of God as I earlier referred to.

(Colossians 1:15) "..He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.."

4. Is so identical with Father that He could say "I and Father are one" or "Who sees me, sees Father".

I agree with you regarding this one, Jesus is the very image of God the Father. The only difference in viewpoint I hold is that they are different in age, whilst the Father is eternal and has had no beginning, Jesus his son has. However I don't see how this proves Jesus isn't a secondary type of God to God himself. (See Col 1:15, Prov 8:22, Rev 3:14 and Mic 5:2 for Jesus creation references).

5. Jesus is one-born, the only one Son of Father (J 3:16, J 1:18)

I don't see how this proves Jesus isn't a secondary type of god to Almighty God the Father? The words only-begotten and Son when used in the bible always refers to persons who were created by the thing they were born or sons of, therefore the same understanding should be applied in relation to the Father and Son Jesus.

 

[Placid]

Hi,

I find this a very fascinating discussion, especially this page.

Trofimus said, in post 241:
Quote: I do not say that the Son is identical with the Father. I say that the Son is from the Father and so united with Him that they can be called "God" together (with the Holy Spirit). That they must be seen as one (from our point of view).
John 1:1 is saying it quite completely - Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father) from the beginning and is so united with the God (i.e. with Father) - in his bossom - that the Logos is God.

NWL said in post 243:
Quote: You say "Logos is not the God (who is obviously Father), but was with God (i.e. with Father)" but where in the context does it say the first theos was referring to the Father?

JChesney said in post 248:
Quote: (The Greek phrase meaning) literally "God was Word", is traditionally understood as "The Word was God" (in sense "what God was, the Word was"). But with the same success this phrase can be translated "God was a word", a similar interpretation (with the article or without the article).

Trofimus wrote in post 249:
Quote: Philo wrote that God created and governed the world through mediators. Logos is the chief among them, the next to God. Logos is immaterial, an adequate image of God, his shadow, his firstborn son. Being the mind of the Eternal, Logos is imperishable. He is neither uncreated as God is, nor created as men are, but occupies a middle position. He has no autonomous power, only an entrusted one."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Logos

We must have in mind that John wrote his introduction about Logos in the era of this philosophy. Of course, John is not saying Philo is 100% correct, but he is obviously using Philo's theme and vocabulary.
Maybe that’s why the definite article for God is missing in "Theos 茅n ho Logos". The Logos is not the God (Father), but the Logos is God.

Trofimus said in post 253:
Quote:"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. He was with the God in the beginning.""...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."...No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

In the Vondervan Bible Dictionary it says this of the “Logos”:
Quote: “Stoicism adopted the term for a dynamic principle of reason operating in the world, and forming a medium of communion between God and man. The later function becomes prominent in Philo, with whom the Logos is at once the Stoics’ active, intelligent, world principle, the thought in the divine mind, which was identical with the sum-total of Plato’s ‘Forms’ or ‘Ideas’ and a mediator between God and the matter of His creation. For Philo, as indeed for his predecessors, the Logos is neither personal nor impersonal. It was vaguely acquainted with God’s ‘utterance.’”

Therefore, the Logos, from the mystical middle position, is the Word, even the Word of Life, John 1:1, 4, 9, 14, 1 John 1:1. and also the true Light.

I don't want to take anything from this, but rather, add to it.

 

[NWL]

If one wishes to describe the movement of any thing, it is necessary to give three pieces of information: its velocity, its position and a fixed point from which the other two values are measured relative to.

But despite such a fact we do not see find the same concept in the bible as applied to God. We are images of God, therefore if God is trinity and we are images of him its goes without saying we should image him in some manner, despite this, nothing about a human shows that we a three wholly separate persons who is but one being.