Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Earnest,

  I found the parallelism you drew between the Jesus-Thomas dialogue in John 20 and the Jesus-Peter dialogue in the Synoptics (Mark 8//, but especially Matthew 16) quite insightful and enlightening actually. There is a contrast indeed -- in the Synoptics Peter confesses Jesus as Christ (Mark), Son of the living God (Matthew), Christ of God (Luke) without any hard evidence. Hence in Matthew he is blessed, because his faith doesn't derive from material evidence or common opinion (flesh and blood) but from an intimate revelation from the Father (v. 17). Otoh in John Thomas comes to a confession (of possibly higher content, but let's leave it aside at this point) only after he has seen a (literally) "flesh-and-blood" evidence. Consequently who is blessed is not he but those who will come to the same confession without the evidence (cf. 17:20). If this parallelism has any validity (and I see it as quite likely, as the Fourth Gospel very often "responds" to the synoptic tradition in a sort of "contrapunctic" way), it inclines to take "Thomas"' statement as a weighty confession (of Johannine faith of course) rather than a casual expression of surprise.

  Perhaps I should have explained a bit more about the "inclusio". It means a reference at the end of a unit (pericope, section, or the entire work) to the beginning. For instance, in the final redaction of Matthew "I am with you (egô meth'humôn) all days till the end of the age" (28:20) seems to echo the Emmanuel reference, interpreted as "God with us" (theos meth'hèmôn, 1:23). I think it is quite possible that at a certain stage of development of the Fourth Gospel (after the addition of the Prologue but before the addition of the first conclusion, chapter 21 and the second conclusion) Thomas' confession (20:28) similarly echoes the Prologue (1:1), but this is not so apparent now because it didn't remain the "last word" of the book so to say.

  As I said earlier I don't think the Thomas-Jesus dialogue (or most of the dialogues in the Fourth Gospel for that matter) needs to derive from any "historical" situation, or even earlier tradition. To put things bluntly (but this is absolutely not pejorative in my mind) it can be "just made up". To take another famous example, I don't think the Nicodemus-Jesus dialogue in chapter 3 with its central Greek pun on being born "again / from above" (from the twofold sense of anôthen, which has no equivalent in Aramaic or Hebrew and is quite difficult to translate in most languages) and the misunderstanding which follows and is essential to the argument would have derived from any "real" Palestinian situation.

  The Gospel of John certainly looked "heretical" to many in the 2nd century. In fact the earliest attestations of its use are found among Gnostics (Valentinus, Heracleon, Basilides). It made it into the "orthodox" canon (after many editorial additions) in spite of the rejection of its leading Gnostic interpreters because it was loved and treasured by important sections of the early church. The irony is precisely that there is quite a bit of "heresy" in what many "orthodox" Christians celebrate as "the spiritual Gospel".
• 

  solafide

  Earnest,

  "For example, do you think he was suggesting that Jesus was the same God as the one whom Jesus had just referred to as "my God" to whom he was ascending?"

  Yes, with a Trinitarian understanding it is absolutely possible. This question just beggs the question against the Trinitarian position, which dates back to the early church fathers. Beliving Jesus is Michael does not. Remember, there is distincion of persons and complete unity of persons (unto one person symiltaneously) within the Godhead.

  "If so, then do you also think that Jesus is the Father whom Jesus linked with "my God" in the same sentence?"

  Of course not. Like I've said multiple times, and have evidenced with Scripture, Jesus and the Father are distinct. In other words, I'm not a Modalist!

  And why do you think that he concluded the chapter by saying that Jesus is the Son of God after such a bombshell?

  Because the 'Son of God' is a Messianic title, hence Jesus acting like the Messiah by performing signs in front of His desciples (stated just prior in verse 30). This only beggs the question. Is the Christ, the Messiah, God? I would challenge you from the OT and the NT that He is. But we can start that on another thread. Yet, I have already shown some passages which inadvertently demonstrate this, i.e. Rom 10:11-13, and John 12:41.

  "As you have provided your own answer to the question about a definite article (that it would depend on the context), I am not going to indulge in trading proof-texts. However, if you wish to share your thoughts on the whole of John 20 (and the questions I posed) I would be interested to hear."

  Let me simply say this of the Greek in John 20. Looking strictly at the text itself, and if this was all we had to look at at the momment, we would have MORE reason to believe that Jesus was God in this passage than the Father! This is because in verse 17, Jesus literally says "I ascend to the father of me and the father of you, the god of me and the god of you". There are NO definite articles here. The same way that JW twist other texts which lack a definite article of Christ, could be used by some cults about John 20:17 towards the Father and remain logically consistent in doing so with how JW interpret John 1:1 for example.

  Luckily I don't come to those conclusions because I have the totality of Scripture to work with.

  Further, looking at the context with the interaction wtih Thomas, Thomas was not questioning Jesus' divinity, but was questioning Him having raised from the dead. He simply calls Jesus "the God of me" in response to his proof.
• 

  sacolton

  I wonder which is worse ...

  To acknowledge Jesus as our God and give Him worship ... or ...

  To reject to worship Jesus as our God.

  All I know is I'm in good company. I, like Thomas, view Jesus as my Lord and my God.
• 

  Chalam

  Me too!

  Dude, I always like your posts :)

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  babel on

  something else that I think has been lost in all of this is the Word. The jews long before the first century had discontinued the utterance of the divine name. Its lost. the JWs claim to pronounce it correctly and they may but the point I am trying to make is this........I believe john was in fact refering to that very name or Word, John 1:1 in the begining was yahweh, and yahweh was with God and yahweh was God. He was in the begining with God. I know some will say how was Yahweh with Yahweh. a good ot example of this double talk can be found in zechariah 2:, I will use the new world translation here for the benifit of the JWs.

  8 And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 9 “The very hands of Ze·rub´ba·bel have laid the foundation of this house, and his own hands will finish [it]. And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to YOU people.

  so here jehovah says jehovah sent him???????

  and again in zechariah 10:8-12

  8 “‘I will whistle for them and collect them together; for I shall certainly redeem them, and they must become many, just like those who have become many. 9 And I shall scatter them like seed among the peoples, and in the distant places they will remember me; and they must revive with their sons and return. 10 And I must bring them back from the land of Egypt; and from As·syr´i·a I shall collect them together; and to the land of Gil´e·ad and Leb´a·non I shall bring them, and no [room] will be found for them. 11 And he must pass through the sea [with] distress; and in the sea he must strike down [the] waves, and all the depths of the Nile must dry up. And the pride of As·syr´i·a must be brought down, and the very scepter of Egypt will depart. 12 And I will make them superior in Jehovah, and in his name they will walk about,’ is the utterance of Jehovah.” Why is Jehovah speaking of himself as if he were someone else???

  what is lost here is that the name jehovah, yahweh means the I am. I am the wind that blows back the red sea for you to cross, I am your savior, I am the way ,the truth, the life, what reoccurs time and again thru the entire bible is there is just one. But he has three personages!

  Would Jehovahs Witnesses have us believe the first 500 or so pages of the bible is dedicated to One god who claims to have created the earth by himself alone as in Isaiah 44:24

  This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me? 25 [I am] frustrating the signs of the empty talkers, and [I am] the One that makes diviners themselves act crazily; the One turning wise men backwards, and the One that turns even their knowledge into foolishness;

  to another lessor god that was there and was the master worker...........I agree with the former post that relects Jesus's words.....But who do you say I am?

  ISAIAH 9:6

  6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7

  sorry no spell check
• 

  sacolton

  Let us not forget who Stephen prayed to before he was killed:

  Acts 7:59

  While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

  What? He didn't pray to Jehovah?

  No, Stephen knew very well who Jesus was.

  Ecclesiastes 12:7

  and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
• 

  Narkissos

  solafide,

  There is an article in 20:17 (not that it is theologically significant: it's simply the normal construction with the possessive). What should be noted though is that it is only one article instead of four, making the whole set as one title as it were: anabainô pros ton patera mou kai patera humôn kai theon mou kai theon humôn -- which could be rendered with slight exaggeration, "I am ascending to (the) 'my-Father-and-your-Father-and-my-God-and-your-God'". The point in Johannine Christology is crystal-clear: the disciples are henceforth included into the Father-Son relationship (chapters 14, 17, again).

  Let me repeat just once more: focusing on the anachronistic Trinitarian/Arian debate and its static ontology (who/what is the Father, who/what is the Son) makes you miss the whole movement of Johannine theology which does not stop at a definite number of "persons" but overflows the classical boundaries of "God" so as to extend in(to) mankind: incarnatio continua, as it were.
• 

  PSacramento

  deputy dog,

  I actually read my bible quite a bit, of course I do tend to focus on the NT and not the OT, being a Christian and all that, I tend to focus on the New Covenant and perhaps that is what makes a difference in my view, I also take lessons from past and current history and see what people do in "God's name" so when I see those things being done in the OT, I take them with a critical eye as I do with what else was done in Gods' name.
• 

  PSacramento

  John puts into perspective the role of Jesus in the new covenant, Jesus IS God, for all intents and purposes.

  He is the savour, the redeemer, the judge, all things that God was in the Old Covenant, Jesus is in the New one.

  Is Jesus YHWH?

  All the God is Jesus is, he is one with the father and no one has seen the father but those that have seen Jesus, it is in Jesus's name that all will be saved, God manifested himself completely in Jesus, Jesus is God for in hem, God dwells completely.

  Yet, Jesus is clear that God works through Him, all the was ask from God, we ask through Jesus, Jesus is nothing without the father, Stephen paryed to Jesus and commended hios spirit to Jesus and rightly so, but Jesus prayed and commended his spirit to Our Father, Thomas said that jesus was "the lord of me and the God of me", contridiction? or simply an understanding of Jesus's true role in the New covenant ?
• 

  designs

  Very Hindu sounding.