Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God? (page 9)

oompa

YES!........if i saw jesus write an article with his finger in solid stone.......it would definitely do it for me.............oompa

daniel-p

I mean Paul certainly had MANY chance to say, in plain Greek - Jesus is YHWH, he didn't, he said Jesus is all that YHWH is, he is of the same substance, God only begotten son, etc, etc, but never once did he say Jesus is YHWH, did he?

Maybe he didn't say it outright because he didn't want to "oversell" it. By sneaking it in through all sorts of similes and metaphors, Jesus indirectly took on godlike proportions. But to the Jews that would especially be distasteful, to hear someone pronouncing that this guy was Yahweh. Maybe Paul was trying, in his small way, to be politically correct?

Earnest

solafide : Your logical conclusion is, any mention with a definite article towards Christ can be brushed aside. I'm affraid it doesn't work that way. Perhaps that might inconvenience you however.

Hi solafide, I was not brushing anything aside but just attempting to help you reason out the answer to your question for yourself. I said in my original post that John makes a clear distinction between "the only true God" and Jesus Christ (at 17:3) so the presence or absence of the definite article will not change that.

However, I must admit that Thomas' statement (at 20:28) has always quite puzzled me. We don't know a great deal about Thomas and his main claim to fame is that he is known as "doubting Thomas" and is used as an example of one who doubts. But as an apostle he was certainly a Jew and probably a Galilean. What happened is described in John 20 which recounts Jesus' resurrection. He first appears to Mary and says to her "I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God". So we know whether Jesus thought he was God. He then appeared in the midst of his disciples who were gathered in a locked room and showed them his hands and his side. They were convinced of his resurrection but there is no suggestion that anyone concluded he must be God. All it says is that the disciples rejoiced (v.20). And Jesus told them that just as the Father had sent him he was now sending them.

But Thomas wasn't with them. And when they told him he said if I don't see it for myself I won't believe it. What is it he will not believe? Whether Jesus is God or not? The context simply indicates he is talking about Jesus' resurrection. So here we have a Jew who believes the Messiah has arrived. Although we know very little about him I think we can assume he is monotheistic and hasn't had the luxury of three hundred years of Greek philosophy to grasp the idea that Jesus is fully God and fully man. So then Jesus appears again in a locked room and shows Thomas his wounds. Thomas responds to him "My Lord and my God" and Jesus says "Happy/blessed are those who do not see and yet believe". My understanding is that Jesus is still talking about his resurrection. That those who believe in his resurrection without physically seeing the proof for themselves are blessed.

So it puzzles me just what Thomas was thinking. I don't believe he was stating a doctrine, I think he was simply amazed. But as Jesus had already made clear that their God was his God too there does not seem much more to be said on the matter. Only that the writer concluded that section by saying (v.31) it was written down "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God".

Narkissos

Earnest,

Imo psychologising Thomas, or actually any character in the Fourth Gospel (from the blind man or the Samaritan woman to Nicodemus, the high priest or Pilate) is a dead end track which rests on a mistake about the literary genre of the work. It is definitely not a book to be approached from the standpoint of historical verisimilitude. Characters, situations and dialogues are clearly set up to make the author's theological point; whether they make sense in the mouth of a "Jew," a "high priest" or a Roman prefect doesn't matter at all. And from this perspective the inclusio of 20:28 (which was the end of the book at some point, prior to the addition of the first conclusion, chapter 21 and the second conclusion) with the Prologue doesn't incline me to take "Thomas"' confession lightly.

More important in my view is the theology of the author. And it is neither "Trinitarian" nor "Arian". It is certainly monotheistic, but not of a static and exclusive kind of monotheism. The phrase "my Father and your Father, my God and your God" on the lips of the resurrected Christ sums up the dynamic and inclusive theology which has been developed throughout the book (especially in chapters 14 and 17). The Son / Christ is the Father / God's revelation to the disciples. Everything that has been said of the Father / Son relationship will apply to the disciples and through them to those who "have not seen" ("those who will believe through their word," 17:20). The deity doesn't stay confined in a one-, two- or three-persons unity, it irresistibly extends, through the Son, to countless others. And the revealer is a perfect revealer because he is nothing in himself (does not do anything by himself, etc.). The famous statement "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (14:9) should be just as embarrassing to Trinitarians as to Arians when you come think of it. Jesus is not the Father.

From the perspective of Trinitarians or (neo-)Arians who share a static and exclusive definition of monotheism (either one is "God" or is not), the book is a mass of contradictions, where each party picks its prooftexts and tries to explain away the counter-prooftexts. It doesn't make any global sense. When you step out of this debate and open yourself to a dynamically inclusive understanding of monotheism it becomes very clear. And, should I add, beautiful.

Satanus

'The deity doesn't stay confined in a one-, two- or three-persons unity, it irresistibly extends, through the Son, to countless others.'

Yes, a beautiful image. In pantheism, 'deity' of each person animal, plant and bug is a seen as a starting point point . We forget, of course, our divine origin, just to make the trip that much more interesting, i guess. And so outside influence needs be sought only until the inner god is found

S

Narkissos

Satanus

What imo distinguishes Johannism (as an early form of Gnosticism) from pantheism is precisely the dynamic part. "Everything is God" is also a static affirmation (unless qualified otherwise, by a measure of becoming in that "being"). It is pantheism in the horizon -- the same could be said of Paulinism btw: that God may be(come) all in all.

The theme of deity existing in everyone although forgotten (which will become dominant in later Gnosticism) is not absent from the Fourth Gospel: cf. the Prologue: "What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people." "The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.") The elect are already God's own, they are not of this world, they are the shepherd's sheep who know his voice, and whom he knows by name before he calls them. They are "God's dispersed children". But the (apparently opposite) dynamic is present also: the believers become children of God.

Satanus

I have never thought of john in that way, although, i like the first verse. Interesting.

S

glenster

There are a number of scriptures that can be interpreted as pantheistic, but
the stance that the pantheist view of Jesus was the one that was meant
originally and that the mainstream view* came later from outside sources, etc.,
is like a JWs leaders' stance--it uses the same arguments and use of the
research material.

*basically, God's wisdom/logos personified and sent to people

designs

S, DD

Check the Aid Book and the Insight on the Scriptures Book Vol.II under Jesus Christ and you will find their views on his prehuman life, human life and death, and resurrection and current state/nature. Dead to them means dead, no intermediate states. The appeal then is to Ro.10:9 where God does his part.

As to whether it has gaps in the story line, well that's for each person to decide. All theology has gaps.

I doubt all of the technical wrangling really matters that much. We have our work cut out for us making sure we pass this beautiful earth on to our grandchildren and their grandchildrren and on and on....

Spike Tassel

and making sure our future is not snuffed out by our beliefs and actions. Love casts out all fear and all doubt.

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

Share this