Posts by solafide

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Narkissos,

My point in verse 17 was that God is not referred to with a definite article. That was the major contetion. We look at other verses to know that the Father is God, especially by seeing definite articles. So John's overarching notion is to "overflow the boundaries of God into mankind"? Did John call you up and tell you this? John is one of the most heavily laden books in the NT which testifies to the deity of Christ (in the sense of Him being God).

Earnest,

"And since, as Narkissos explained, John inextricably tied the God with the Father (similar to Paul's statement about "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") I don't understand how you can take verse 17 and say Jesus is the God but not the Father."

No, I said that cults who like to act as clever counterfiets could attempt to say that. My position is the Trinitarian one, where both Jesus and the Father are God. The definite article before the first mention of "Father" may or may not apply to the mention of God. In 20:28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God), but not in 20:17 (only before the first mention of Father, and none after). I know I should study Greek more, however.

The point is this : if John wanted us to conclude that Jesus is God by including Thomas' expression why does he make it quite clear that Jesus is not God in verse 17.

John makes it clear that there is distinguishment between them. That's the Trinitarian position though. Where does he say "Jesus is not God". I understand that's your theology, but where does it say that? I have shown you were it DOES say that Jesus is God, because He is called God.

I am not suggesting there is an easy answer. Maybe Narkissos is right that, in effect, everyone can be God (in John's theology). But unless you can account for the context of Thomas' statement I would be cautious about using it as a proof-text.

Where are Narkissos and you getting this leap in interpretation of John that "everyone can be God"? There's not much to the context in that passage! You are making the context more confusing and in depth then what is presented. Like I said, Thomas simply wants proof that Jesus rose, not that He is God. He calls Him God after the proof. I think you're trying to fit in this non-existent confusion into Thomas' mind, as though too much was going on for him and he didn't have his inhaler with him thus started spouting off weird things like calling Jesus God. Oh, but on the other hand, Jesus never denounces his statement!

Further, there are 5 other places where Jesus in referred to in the NT with a definite article as being God, and a couple of them aren't possesive. Also, it's funny how no one has dealt with "Johannine" (now I feel more authentic) theology that Jesus is God, especially in 12:41 where Isaiah saw Jesus' glory as referenced from Isaiah 6 where Isaiah sees Yahweh's glory!

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

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.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

glenster,

"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."

Trinitarianism is monotheistic. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk, but frankly if one states that Trinitariantism isn't monotheism, then they don't understand orthodox Trinitarianism.

"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."

In Hebrew thought, a Father and son were considered one in nature in a sense. Even when it comes to offspring, hence why Heb says that Levi tithed to Milchizadek through Abraham! Obviously Levi didn't directly tithe to him because he was born many years later, yet is said to have tithed to Milchizadek. So even if humans in Hebrew thought can interact with a person yet be interacting with different person in another sense, how much more with God if He is one person while also 3 persons?

Within Trinitarian understanding, John 14:9 is perfectly harmoneous with Jesus' statement! You say that looking at Scripture as a whole is beautiful. I'm right there with you. The Father and Son are clearly distinct in the NT yet they are bothed referred to as God! Thus, in what sense ought we conclude that seeing Jesus is also seeing the Father? In the Modalistic sense? Not if they're also shown in the NT to be distinct! Thus, we could sufficiently conclude that seeing Jesus is also seeing the Father in the sense that they are of the same nature (John 1:1) (as one in being and nature yet distinct).

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Reniaa,

"It's okay to say John 1:1 is nature and qualative but it's then the assumption that God is a nature completely? so we as humans are by nature humans but then how can the bible say there can only be One true God if god is just a nature like being human? So making Jesus a god among a race of gods by nature."

No God is not a nature completely. The phrase "kai theos en ho logos" is describing what the Logos is in essence (the Logos was with (the) God and God was the Logos). In other words, what God is (in nature and essence), the Logos is (in nature and essence). If John would have put a definite article here, then the Logos may not be said to be a distinct member of God, thus you would be left with Modalism (which would be weird given what John just previously says, that "the logos was with God", thus it would say "God was with God (Himself) and would make no sense. You have to try and understand what John is saying about the logos. 1. it's eternal, 2. distinct and relational within/with God, and 3. is by nature God.

Second, Christ was not merely human. The Logos became sarx (flesh), and Phil 2 says that Jesus Christ, being in nature God... humbled Himself and became man. If God is omnipotent then He has the power to willfully limit Himself and enter into His own creation. This is in fact the idea behind the Jewish understanding of the Shekenah of God, or the part of God which comes forth and interacts with His own creation, hence the angel of the Lord in the OT and God speaking from a human perspective in the OT ("if you do this, I will do..."), etc.

"then of course you have the issue of john 1:1 also used to call Jesus the one true God by identity.

So which does John 1:1 mean.... God by nature or God by identity? one of these is saying WHAT he is the other statement is saying WHO he is. we are mixing qualitive with quantitative."

I would argue that it is mostly "what" Christ is, hence that He is the Logos (v. 14) and it is describing the nature of the Logos. This is very significant that Christ would be the Logos. The Logos was understood to be the eternal unknown source and derivative of creation, logic, rationality, moraity, and was that which held everything together, etc. The mind blowing thing about this is that John explains the already known concept of the logos to be Christ and that this logos, as Christ, became flesh and bone! This is the very foundation of God's grace to us sinners, thereby making Christ the perfect bridge builder between infinitely sinful humans and an infintely holy God!

"As witnesses accept Jesus has divine qualities by nature in fact many things from god are given divine application including man himself who is said to be 'image of God' but that still doesn't mean they are The God in the quantitative term, which the lack of definitive article on the logos means that it isn't applied to mean the logos is identified as The true God unlike the Father which in numerous places is.

17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "

basically trinity are trying to get two meanings out of John 1:1 for the price of one by false use of capatalising God to imply identity as well as the qualitive divine, the application of 'a' in English shows it is that he is divine nature and not to be confused with identifying him as the true God who John 1:1 itself clearly states the logos is 'WITH' which itself implies the logos isn't God."

I have no problem not getting a "quantatative" affirmation of Christ being the one true God from John 1:1. This is why I am an orthodox Christian and strive to consult the entire counsel of Scripture, not have a lunch line theology where I get to discard all the other verses which show that Christ is "quantatatively" the one true God, hence the 6 places in the NT where Christ is referred to with a definite article, which I laid out already. All the more, in John 1:1 we have the Logos not having a beginning in time, hence being eternal, which completely goes against JW beleifs. We have "En arche" in John 1:1 from the outset. "En" is imperfect and without a reference to beginning, while "arche" is a beginning at some given point" such as creation. It's like saying "While already existing as the beginning of time came about", similar to Gen 1:1 "in the begining (from eternity) God created". Further, John 1:3 makes the exclusive claim that "through Him (Christ) all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made", and since this statement is exclusive, it would have to include Jesus Himself. Thus Jesus was never made, but made all that ever has been made from eternity.

John 20:17 is perfectly harmoneous with Trinitarion theology. It is perfectly natural for Christ to refer to the Father as God, the Spirit as God, Himself as God, and all three as God. They all fully exhaust each other, yet in some way unknown to our finite pee brains, are distinct.

Earnest,

" 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."

I understand this. However, John also says that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. John 12:41 says, "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him."

The passage just referenced is Isaiah 6 where Isaiah saw Yahweh in His temple! So who's glory does John say Isaiah saw? In verse 41 it is Jesus' glory that he saw! Even the NWT has a reference in John 12:41 to Isaiah 6, so someone might have been sleeping on the translation commity.

Further, if you study Greek 101, a definite article is pointing to a specific person, place, or thing. Only an absence of a definite article can be 1. an indefinite article, thus a catagory of a thing, i.e. "an apple", not "the apple", and 2. it can be qualitative as some have already pointed out on this thread. Christ is not only referred to with a definite article in John 20:28, but 5 other places which I pointed out at the beginning of this thread. Also, I've seen so many people to gymnastics with John 20:28 that it only leads me to believe my position even more because their arguments are so bad! Instead of humbly submitting to the Word of God, one is left to submit to an organization's interperative authority over it, even though it doesn't comport with the whole of Scripture once closely examined.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Narkissos,

I believe John 1:1 is qualatiative as well (and God is the Logos). What God is... the Logos is. All the more why the Logos is outside of time, hence "en arche", and is with God too.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Earnest,

You're forgetting one other thing. Context determines whether god with a definite article is referring to the one true God. In 2 Cor 4:4, Satan is the god of this world. The context clarifies which god by virtue of what Satan is the god OF. On the contrary, Thomas calls Jesus "the God of me" in John 20:28, not "a god of me". Thomas is referring to Jesus being the one specific God of him, and Jesus never tells him to shut up.

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.

No Yahweh doesn't always refer to the Godhead as a whole, while it may. Context helps determine this. Which creed says that Yahweh always refers to the oneness of God? Psalm 110 doesn't really specify whether it's the Father or not, since adoni would have been understood to be Yahweh and we don't have the fuller revelation of the Trinity until the NT, just like the Jew wouldn't have known that the real temple was Christ's body until the NT.

But the aposlte Paul conects Jesus to Yahweh in Rom 10:11-13. That's the clear implication. We can further discuss that here or you can direct me to where it has been discussed before.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Chalam,

"As to the points you have raised about Jesus being "a God" I cannot agree. For me, Jesus is God, not "a god". I do not need to know every detail of koine greek to arrive at that conclusion, only read the rest of the bible!"

Yes Jesus in my Lord, and I am born again.

I think you have not read what I wrote. I said specifically that the JEWS said He was "a god"! Look at the Greek. There is no definite article when they say "you, a mere man, are making yourself out to be (a) god." It's in John 5 when they call Him "the God". If you have been following me on this thread, I have been arguing for the Deity of Christ this whole time. As a brother in Christ, please read carefully! I don't think John 10 which references Jesus as "a god" is the best argument for the Deity of Christ. The Jews there were basically mad that Jesus had authority to be more then human and do miracles. Jesus's arguemnt was that it was the same for OT judges, thus they have no reason to complain, and that He has every right because He and the Father are one.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Earnest,

you certainly wouldn't be an orthodox Christian. I'm not saying that as a pejorative either. But that's what I'm talking about when I say "Christian". If all JW's are Christians, then all Christians are JW's. That wouldn't make any sense and JW's wouldn't need to witness to "Christians" in that case.

" The question I intended to raise was whether the definite article in the expression "the God" (ho theos) is specifically used to refer to God the Father."

This depends on the context, such as in 2 Cor 4:4 which is referring to Satan.

And with John 17:3, by saying that it comports with Trinitarian theology is shorthand for saying it comports with Scripture as a whole. I aim to have the whole of Scripture teach me, not just use singule verses to come to conclusions when there are many verses to look at in regard to this issue.

Further, if Jesus is referred to as "the God" with definite articles, then it necessarily implies that He is the one true God as well. Thus, that is why Jesus can pray the way He does in John 17:3, and in fact we would expect Him to pray this way if that is the case!

Lastly, Jude 1:4 says that Jesus Christ is our only Lord. Yet Romans 10:11-13 show that we must call on the Lord's name to be saved (context referring to Christ), while the OT passage is in reference to Yahweh! So by your own logic, Yahweh can't be Lord, only Jesus can be, thus the Scripture contradicts itself. Yet, Trinitatian theology perfectly satisfies why Jesus is Lord in Rom 10:11-13 when Yahweh is also the Lord in this OT passage.

Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh. The aposltes demonstrate this with there interpretations of the OT, and because Jesus is refered to as "the God". I am not having anyone tell me this but Scripture.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

reniaa,

"Isn't the point that the definitive article isn't there"

To me this shows that the definite article is important in proving if Jesus is God. Otherwise, you would say "it doesn't matter because definite articles don't determine that". The definite article is there in reference to Jesus in Mat 1:23, John 20:28, Heb 1:8, Rev 22:6 (also consult v.16), and arguably 2 Pet 1:1, and Titus 2:13. Even the KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION (KIT) has these definite articles included.

Have you ever noticed this?

And John 17:3 perfectly comports with Trinitarian theology, not hinder it. If there are 3 distinct persons within the Godhead, and each person has a special role, then context would determine which persons would be mentioned, hence why not all three are mentioned together all the time. We do this even in our own language. If I add the color blue, I don't need to say I also added green and yellow (which together make up blue).

Earnest,

"Perhaps a related question to consider is whether the use of the definite article is specifically used to refer to God the Father."

There are many definite articles in reference to the Father. This is my point. If a definite article substantiates (given the context) that the Father is God, then it would be no different with the Son. And a Son in Hebrew understanding isn't referring to a biological order per se, but that one come forth from another or is part of another. This is why Jesus is our covenental head. He is able to represent us as a whole (as did Adam) by being man, and able to represent us before God, by also being God. In fact, even in Hebrew thought, a son and Father are very intricatlly connected, hence why Hebrews explains that Levi tithed to Melchizadek in a sence, because he did so through Abraham (as Levi came from Abraham's offspring many years later).

And Christ would be said to be the eternal logos who is eternally begotten by the Father in John 1. Hence why in John 1:1 it says "en arche". "En" is an imperfect verb without derivation to beginning, while "arche" does have a beginning in time.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Chalam,

Thank you, and I am on your "team" if you are a Christian. I don't mean to nit pick, but I think John 10 is more in reference to God and Jesus being one in the sense that God the Father is enabling Christ with Messianic abilitites, hence Christ making mention to his miracles in that passage. Also, I agree with many JW on this passage that the Jews do not refer to Christ as "the God", but "a god" here, since there is no definite article present when they say, "you a mere man are making yourself out to be (a) god". What they are saying is that Jesus is being more then human and they want to know by what authority He is doing miracles. Jesus's answer is that this isn't a foreign concept, hence judges in the OT were able to judge by God's authority. Thus, how much more Christ who is one with the Father?! However, in John 5, the Jews refer to Christ with a definite article, "you are making yourself equal with (the) God". Jesus never backs down from this, but says that He is to be honored JUST AS the Father in verse 23! :)