POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Elin]

We are debating who the Word is right now. You're too far ahead. Wait a moment.

Oops!. . .sorry.

 

[Elin]

I´m alone, friend. (If I´m not an offender, saying it that way)

The approval I need is from God and, whatever I lack (or lacked) in knowing Him, it´s up to Him, who does always the best and, His own Son, knows the robes well (Joh 6:44 No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me makes them want to come. But if they do come, I will raise them to life on the last day. )

You're a Catholic?

 

[oldhermit]

Yes, do continue. In agreement thus far.
(Currently fact checking and analysing, but will likely be done by your next post)

Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God", but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the same individual as "The God of the first clause."

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, Spirit, or plan of God” and nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, but just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” or "Spirit" of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an idea, or a plan in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.

John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement. It is the equivalent of saying, “My brain is with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which it could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet, John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by restating it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means that Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John's deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: The Word is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Do you have any question on any part of this? If you like we can take a little deeper look at the rest of the prologue as it connects with verse one.

 

[flob]

Nope. . .then it wouldn't be humanity, it would be deity.

To the contrary: they are mingled. In the God-man Jesus. That is what humanity is made for.
As Paul wrote: we have this treasure.............in earthen vessels. We're made to contain God.

Fully God and fully man, neither diminished nor altered.

'Mingling,' as the Bible uses that word (for example in Leviticus 2:4---which is a Type of Christ), does
not mean altered. But it does mean mingled. Permanently. Forever. As in:
he who is joined to the Lord...........is one spirit.
Another good example is conception. Mt 1:20; Lk 1:31.
I wouldn't dare call the Son 'diminished' by becoming a man. Since................that is what He wanted to do.

Yes, and it is still humanity, while his divinity is divine.
We will likewise be incorporated the same, for we will share his inheritance.

Yes. Of course. Though now He is mingling with us also in His humanity.
Since He as a man has been incorporated into the Holy Spirit.
The 2 natures are distinct..............but mingled

 

[oldhermit]

To the contrary, dear sir, I'm using the word 'organic' here in the sense of life. The eternal life is Christ,
and Christ is the eternal life. The life far transcending the natural realm. The life of God, the uncreated life.





Like I said, I use the word 'organic' purely in meaning 'life.' Not flesh or physical. Although now, Jesus' mortal body was saturated with His divine life. That is His transfigurative resurrection. In which He also became a life-giving Spirit. (The Greek New Testament word is 'zoe.') To give Himself to us as the eternal life. First to our spirit, then to our soul, and ultimately transfiguring our bodies

Then you are using the word incorrectly. The only bodily form that is attributed to any member of the triadic unity is always in connection to theophonic manifestations it the incarnation, not as God exists in heaven.

 

[Elin]

To the contrary: they are mingled. In the God-man Jesus. That is what humanity is made for.
As Paul wrote: we have this treasure.............in earthen vessels. We're made to contain God.




'Mingling,' as the Bible uses that word (for example in Leviticus 2:4---which is a Type of Christ), does
not mean altered. But it does mean mingled. Permanently. Forever. As in:
he who is joined to the Lord...........is one spirit.
Another good example is conception. Mt 1:20; Lk 1:31.
I wouldn't dare call the Son 'diminished' by becoming a man. Since................that is what He wanted to do.





Yes. Of course. Though now He is mingling with us also in His humanity.
Since He as a man has been incorporated into the Holy Spirit.
The 2 natures are distinct..............but mingled

Contradiction of terms.

Words have assigned meanings. . .that is what they mean, and not something else.

Organic means carbon based.

 

[SolidGround]

Now we see why John included the article in the prepositional phrase "προς τον θεον." He was being very specific. The Word is WITH a SPECIFIC being called "The God" (τον θεον). In the next clause, he then lets us know that the Word was completely EQUAL with "The God", but through the careful use of the articles, has clued us in that the Word is not the same individual as "The God of the first clause."

One of the objections raised to the divinity of Jesus is that λογος means “the mind, wisdom, intelligence, Spirit, or plan of God” and nothing more. It is argued that λογος is NOT an individual, but just a way of describing the “mind” or “wisdom” or "Spirit" of God (this was a common philosophy of the Gnostics). Thus, the λογος was not an individual, but the wisdom of God. So Jesus was not a “God” made flesh, but the wisdom of God or the mind of God, made flesh. That means He did not exist prior to His birth (as God). Prior to his physical birth, He was merely an idea, or a plan in the MIND of God and that IDEA became a man.

John makes this interpretation completely absurd with the statement “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” (the Word was WITH God). Further, προς emphasizes AGREEMENT WITH, not necessarily location or proximity. You see, if the λογος is JUST the mind, intelligence, wisdom or plan of God, it can’t be anything OTHER than with Him. If the λογος is the intelligence of God, then by definition it HAS to be with Him, which makes “the Word was WITH God” a completely pointless statement. It is the equivalent of saying, “My brain is with me today.” Since, if you are alive, they can’t be anything other than with you, not only have you given no information, you have implied something that is not true. By making that statement, you are implying that there might be a situation in which it could be somewhere else other than with you. Yet, John makes it crystal clear that his choice of words was not an accident. He places extra emphasis on the fact that the λογος was WITH God by restating it in the second verse: “And this one was in the beginning WITH God.” ουτος references the subject of the previous sentence, which was λογος in all three clauses. Thus, John is making a statement that can ONLY be interpreted as meaning the λογος is an individual. Not only is this individual with God, He is also God Himself. That means that Jesus DID exist prior to His birth (as He reveals Himself in John 17:5) “Father, glorify me with yourself, with the glory I had with you before the world was.”

John's construction is so carefully crafted that it is often called the most concise theological statement ever made. With these seventeen words of verse one, he wrote a sentence that took me all of this space to explain. John's deliberate use of grammar leaves us only ONE possible conclusion: The Word is completely and totally God in every way that the Father is God, but is NOT the same individual as the Father.

Do you have any question on any part of this? If you like we can take a little deeper look at the rest of the prologue as it connects with verse one.

My first question would be about the noun for "God" in the phrase "the Word was God".
My secondary question would be about the relationship between the two entities of the Word and God.

I'm not sure how to phrase either question properly, but just throwing out those two parts as generally being questioned.

 

[oldhermit]

My first question would be about the noun for "God" in the phrase "the Word was God".
My secondary question would be about the relationship between the two entities of the Word and God.

I'm not sure how to phrase either question properly, but just throwing out those two parts as generally being questioned.

What do you want to know about the noun? Let's start with this.

 

[SolidGround]

What do you want to know about the noun? Let's start with this.

Actually, nothing. The reference I found that made me question it was horribly inaccurate.
Someone tried to make it seem like Theos could mean "of God" or "God stuff" or "in the essence of God",
but such definitions are out of place for such a context.

 

[SolidGround]

As for the relationship between the two,
if we can have the mind of Christ, then the body and mind are separable... unless you agree with transubstanciation.
God is not of flesh, making such divisions even less questionable.

 

[SolidGround]

Btw, I definitely do not question that Jesus is God made flesh.
It is more about the process/ ability to separate the Spirit from Christ, or Christ from Logos, or Logos from the Spirit.

 

[SolidGround]

I realize that some of this is baseline stuff. But it's stuff that I have never had to deal with before.
Been reading the Word for 50 years without questioning the Trinity.
But reading through the 2nd half of John made me reexamine my position.

 

[SolidGround]

Here is the first passage that shook me:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

If we take the oneness of Jesus with the Father to be the line of proof for the Trinity, then what we see here is Christ praying that the Church would join the Godhead.
Are we to become God? I struggled with this, until I began to ponder other understandings of unity.
My answer was the Spirit.
It unified Christ with the Father, and unifies us with Christ.

 

[oldhermit]

Actually, nothing. The reference I found that made me question it was horribly inaccurate.
Someone tried to make it seem like Theos could mean "of God" or "God stuff" or "in the essence of God",
but such definitions are out of place for such a context.

There are a number of declensions of the noun in the Greek all of which have a different spelling and must be understood in relationship to that particular spelling. For example,
θεῷ is dative masculine singular and generically means god whether it refers to the true God or to and idol.
Θεέ is the vocative form and is only found once in scripture. This would be used as an address - Oh God.
Θεοί is nominative masculine plural - gods
θεοῖς is dative masculine plural - gods
θεός is nominative masculine singular
θεόν is accusative masculine - your God
θεοῦ is genitive masculine - of God
θεοὺς is accusative masculine plural - gods

 

[oldhermit]

As for the relationship between the two,
if we can have the mind of Christ, then the body and mind are separable... unless you agree with transubstanciation.
God is not of flesh, making such divisions even less questionable.

No, I do not subscribe to transsubstantiation. When scripture speaks of Christians having the mind of Christ it is not talking about some type of supernatural transference to the Jesus' intellect into our minds. What it is talking about is Christians learning to think the way God thinks. This is what scripture is intended to do. Scripture is the representational form of the mind of God. It teaches to think the God thinks. This is the mind of Christ.

 

[oldhermit]

I realize that some of this is baseline stuff. But it's stuff that I have never had to deal with before.
Been reading the Word for 50 years without questioning the Trinity.
But reading through the 2nd half of John made me reexamine my position.

Yes, I went through must the same thing. What I determined to do was to examine the biblical text its self abandoning all appeals to commentators or other outside sources to see what I could find out from scripture alone. Over the past two centuries, four major theological theories have surfaced that have attempted to either explain the unity of one God or to refute or at least minimize the idea of triadic unity altogether. These are Monotheism (which is divided into two camps – Adoptionism and Modalism), Unitarianism, Tritheism, and Trinitarianism. To me, these terms are quite irrelevant and I have not regard for them. None of them seem to fully represent what the Bible says about God. It really is not important what difference or similarities may exist between these four theological theories. It is only important that we try to understanding how the Word of God represents God without regard to any human classifications. The difficulty I see is in trying to find a word in our theological lexicon that will somehow correspond to how scripture defines the nature of God. I am not sure this is even possible because of the limited nature of human intelligence and the limitations of human languages.

 

[oldhermit]

Here is the first passage that shook me:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.24 Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

If we take the oneness of Jesus with the Father to be the line of proof for the Trinity, then what we see here is Christ praying that the Church would join the Godhead.
Are we to become God? I struggled with this, until I began to ponder other understandings of unity.
My answer was the Spirit.
It unified Christ with the Father, and unifies us with Christ.

I think you are closer to the answer than you may believe. However, it is not the Spirit that unites Jesus with the Father, at least not in the way you are thinking. I would like to address this later on.

 

[SolidGround]

I think you are closer to the answer than you may believe. However, it is not the Spirit that unites Jesus with the Father, at least not in the way you are thinking. I would like to address this later on.

This is all surprisingly comforting; this post, and the others.
You have stuck to the facts and the Word thus far, and there is no argument that can sustain such power as the Word.
If you have more on the text, or on the subject, please continue.

 

[secularhermit]

Yes, but an elder must stand approved before the Assembly.

Well, I´m not young
and, before a stone
was blown...
I´d better be gone:

I´m banned!

 

[secularhermit]

I realize that some of this is baseline stuff. But it's stuff that I have never had to deal with before.
Been reading the Word for 50 years without questioning the Trinity.
But reading through the 2nd half of John made me reexamine my position.

Trinity?

If that was hugely important to be known (an saved), the Lord Jesus would have developed it at lenght (at least in one parable)

But I´m twisting what the RCC added (so briefly on MattMat_28:19 )

Isn´t it also rare He didn´t teach His disciples to pray "in those names" to, as the RCC teaches, making a cross on their head and foreheads?

RCC´s teachings also prevailed inside the "Protestant" Lutheralism.