The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Is Jesus God or What?

Theology Christology
#204

I wasn’t born here but got here as quick as I could…
Love this thread in particular. I thought … no - I KNEW I am a heretic, but at LEAST you guys are discussing the things that I can’t get anyone to listen to without the smell of overheated oil… ouch!

I scanned the thread for discussion of the given name… Philippians 2:8-9, picking up from His death: “even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name…”.
I am by no means a Greek scholar but I have asked a lot of questions over the years… My understanding is that the definite article is definite “the” “Name”. When was this NAME bestowed? There is no hint in this passage about Jesus’s earthly origin, rather, the bestowal of The NAME coincides with his glorification. “Today I have begotten you”. Hebrews 1, picking up in verse 3: *"…**When *He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,
“YOU ARE MY SON,
TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”?

It seems to me quite clear from these two passages that, having purified the ‘race of man’ of Sin, and having been gloriously raised not only from the grave but into the Heaven, the sphere of YHWH’s own throne, THE NAME was bestowed upon Jesus. He had a given name [via the angel] at birth, but these passages speak of The Name bestowed at glorification, as He is the “Firstborn from the Dead”, the adam of a new race/creation/man. That name is the name of His Father - YHWH, the name of THE God whom the Hebrews worshipped and honored [at least sometimes], but oddly the name which they also banned. With my limited human understanding, the way I grasp or apprehend this concept is in Regal terms: Caesar begets Caesar. King Alfred begets King Alfred [actually… blessed Alfred didn’t have an Alfred, did he?]. Psalm 2: YHWH installs “my King upon Zion” who wears the mantle and name, and bears the ring of YHWH.

For me personally, I do not expect in this life to ever really grasp in a comprehensive way what manner of being our Lord is, nor will I fully comprehend the triune relation of Father, His Son the firstborn of the dead, and the Holy Spirit, but for now I see them most clearly in a hierarchical Trinity, and in due time, all glory and honor and all value, all that is so far as this terrarium we know as the Universe is concerned, it will all be lain at the feet of the Father whom we are commanded to worship, to pray to, and to place our hope in. That said… I gotta lotta questions -

And, on another point altogether, I’m disturbed a little by the ‘accidental modalism’ I see all around me in the church. Doctrinaire Trinitarians who are practical modalists… :question: This is a big point in the source article. We humans follow convention and are more easily swayed by the ‘pop’ than by truth.

#205

Hello and welcome, Claudius!

A lot of folks here have been labeled “heretic”! Do you believe in the salvation of all?

I suspect there are a lot of people who think they are Trinitarian who are really Modalists. I distinctly recall my 4th grade teacher in a Presbyterian school trying to describe the Trinity by explaining how she was all at the same time a “Mother,” “Daughter,” and “Teacher” – 3 persons in 1.

Then there are people who would describe the Trinity in theologically correct trinitarian terms, but their real modalist belief comes out in various ways, for instance a prayer beginning, “Dear Jesus, Thank you for sending your Son …”

Is this the kind of thing you have in mind?

I notice these things, but I don’t really find myself troubled by them. Do you think there are reasons to be disturbed? Would people be better Christians if they understood the Trinity better?

Sonia

#206

Claudius,

Welcome to the board! I just completed a class on N.T. views of Jesus with Larry Hurtado, who believes Jesus’ divinity was affirmed in the earliest days after his resurrection. But he agrees with most scholars that the name now given to Jesus in Hebrews 1 is “Son.” And that the name now given to him in Phil. 2 is “Lord.” E.g. the NIV study note says “Reference is doubtless to the office or rank conferred on Jesus–his glorious position (“Lord” vs. 11), not his proper name.” I am not seeing where it indicates that the Father is giving him his personal name of YHWH.

#207

Abraham addressed as “Yahweh” the “angel” who remained to talk with him while the other two went on to Sodom.

Then in Genesis 19:24, we read:

Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.

Two different individuals in one verse, each of whom is called “Yahweh”.

There was Yahweh on earth who spoke with Abraham, whom I believe to be the Son of God, and there was Yahweh in heaven. The One on earth was the agent through whom the one in heaven rained sulfur and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Yes, I have no doubt that the Father and the Son share the name “Yahweh”.

#208

If the Greek Septuagint has anything to say of it; they do share the name.

Eimi is used in the famous “I AM that I AM” verse in the Septuagint as well as in the verse where Jesus says “before Abraham was, I am” when the Pharisees took up stones to stone him for saying he is God.

#209

Hi Lefein,

In the other thread I disputed the claim that Jesus and YHWH “share the same name” based on the LXX (Is God More Than One Person?). My remarks on Ex. 3:14 and Jn. 8:48 are about midway down. In a nutshell, ego eimi (much less eimi by itself) is not the shortened form of the divine name YHWH in Ex 3:14 but rather ho ōn. In the LXX, God never used the expression ego eimi by itself as a means of self-designation. What Jesus would’ve needed to say to identify himself as YHWH is either egō eimi ho ōn or simply ho ōn.

#210

Yahweh has connection to the LXX Ἐγώ εἰμι, or the full phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν; the translated rendering of the Hebrew “ehyeh asher ehyeh”, the divine phrase from which the name Yahweh is drawn.

Yahweh is the name-form of “ehyeh asher ehyeh”, which in the Greek is shown as Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. [size=120]ὤ[/size]ν is the conjugated form of εἰμι. Yahweh (or LORD; as the Hebrews would have replaced YHWH with Adonai) is by no means detached from the use of the phrase “I AM” in as far as Ἐγώ εἰμι is used in divine context, any more than LORD (adonai) is detached from the Greek use of Κύριος.

That Jesus says Ἐγώ εἰμι, which brings about the reaction of being stoned, albeit poorly, as they didn’t succeed.

That “ehyeh asher ehyeh” is directly rendered as Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν; should necessitate that both mean a similar enough thing to be used in synonymy with one another. If “ehyeh asher ehyeh” means, in tantamount something along the lines of “I am that I am” or “I be, that I be”; then so too does Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν - and that Yahweh is the name-form of that phrase (as any respectable rabbi, priest, or theologian will tell you), necessitates that Yahweh be linkable with the Greek phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, just as it is linkable with “ehyeh asher ehyeh”. If then, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν is expressed in the name Yahweh, then the abbreviation of that same phrase Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, or “ehyeh asher ehyeh” as “I AM” or ὁ ὤν must have linkability with the Hebrew abbreviation “ehyeh”. And so what we have is “ehyeh” or “I AM” being the the same on both the Ἐγώ εἰμι side, and the ὁ ὤν side. And so when Jesus says; Ἐγώ εἰμι (for which the people attempt to stone him for) he is saying in Hebrew; “ehyeh”, which is what God said in Exodus 3:14. And in saying Ἐγώ εἰμι, which is him also saying “ehyeh”, he is also saying ὁ ὤν. The equivalency in the context of the divine use of such phrases, cannot be fruitfully neglected.

“Ehyeh” shelachani aleichem. “I AM” has sent you. Or as the Greek puts it; Ὁ ὢν (The εἰμι) ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς

Ἐγώ εἰμι = Ehyeh = Ὁ ὢν — because “ehyeh asher ehyeh” = Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν

When Jesus, and God, refer to themselves in the “I AM” context, they share the name Yahweh by reason of Yahweh being the name-form of both phrases; “ehyeh asher ehyeh” and by translation Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, which includes both portions of the phrase.

#211

Rev 1:8 ᾿Εγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.
Rev 4:8 καὶ τὰ τέσσαρα ζῷα, ἓν καθ᾿ ἓν αὐτῶν ἔχων ἀνὰ πτέρυγας ἕξ, κυκλόθεν καὶ ἔσωθεν γέμουσιν ὀφθαλμῶν, καὶ ἀνάπαυσιν οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς λέγοντες· ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Though, Christ is referred to also as “ὁ ὢν” too. :smiley: So Christ refers to himself, or has at least been referred to, as both ᾿Εγώ εἰμι and ὁ ὢν.

Both God, and Jesus, are referred to in context of “Lord God Almighty” and “ὁ ὢν”.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord [God], “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” -ESV
Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!” -ESV

#212

I don’t think it was because Jesus said, “εγω ειμι” that the Jews picked up stones to stone Him. I think it was because He indicated that He existed before Abraham. No mere man could have existed before Abraham.

“εγω ειμι” is simply the subject “I” of a sentence with the “I” emphasized. Here are a number of examples in which clearly Jesus is not using “εγω ειμι” in a claim to be the supreme God:

Matthew 14:27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I (εγω ειμι)Do not be afraid.”

Luke 22:70 So they all said, “Are you the Son of God, then?” And he said to them, “You say that I am (“εγω ειμι”).”

Luke 24:39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself (“εγω ειμι”). Touch me, and see.

John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am (“εγω ειμι”) the bread of life;

John 8:18 I am (“εγω ειμι”) the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.”

John 10:9 I am (“εγω ειμι”) the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

John 10:11 I am (“εγω ειμι”)the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John 18:4,5 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?”
They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am (“εγω ειμι”) he.”

#213

As both myself and Paidion have pointed out, the phrase ἐγὼ εἰμι did not by itself identity a person as YHWH. Jesus used this same expression several times before without eliciting the same violent reaction from the Jews. Even the blind man who Jesus healed repeatedly used this very expression (John 9:9) - and of course, no one thought he was claiming to be YHWH. Moreover, if John was translating Jesus’ words from the Hebrew hâyâh into Greek and understood Jesus to be using the abbreviated form of the divine name, he almost certainly would’ve translated it as ὁ ὤν given the LXX translation of Ex 3:14 rather than ἐγὼ εἰμι (which, again, was a common way of designating oneself, and did not in itself express the radical idea that one was YHWH).

So why did the Jews try to stone Jesus if it wasn’t because they thought he was claiming to be YHWH? Answer: they understood him to be making a Messianic claim, and this claim alone infuriated them. It’s the same charge they brought against Jesus during his trial (i.e., that he claimed to be the Christ, the Son of God). Jesus was claiming to be the one of whom God had foretold and prophesied before “father Abraham” even existed, and thus to be greater than Abraham. A claim such as this was simply too much for them to take, as it was inconceivable to them that Jesus of Nazareth could be God’s Annointed One who had been foretold in their own sacred Scriptures as early as Gen 3:15. To them, he was not the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16), but an imposter.

It is Jesus’ God and Father (see Rev 1:6) who I believe is being quoted in v. 8 (the red-letter text of some translations notwithstanding!) and referred to in Rev 4:8. The entity “who was and who is and who is to come” (Jesus’ God, the Father) is even distinguished from Jesus in vv. 4-5. And we know it is Jesus’ God who is being referred to in 4:8 as “the Lord God Almighty” because this unipersonal entity sitting on a throne is later distinguished from Jesus (“a Lamb standing as though it had been slain” - 5:6) in the same vision (see v. 7). So I don’t think John is revealing Jesus to be the “Lord God Almighty” in either of these verses. It is true, however, that both Jesus’ God (Rev 1:8; 21:6) and Jesus himself (Rev 22:13) identify themselves as being “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” But their sharing this figurative title (which denotes not eternality or timelessness but rather that one is certain to bring to completion what one started) does not denote ontological or existential equivalence.

#214

Given the text, I don’t see how it can be anything but ontological or existential equivalence. Anything less would be, I believe, dishonesty on the part of Jesus for using the very phrase for himself. Jesus is referred to as ὁ ὢν - that in itself is enough for my sake to directly link him back to the ὁ ὢν of the LXX, not even counting the surrounding phrases where he states literally, for example, “I am the first and the last”, which the Lord God Almighty also states of Himself.

As for my argument from the Greek, it still stands, given that Ἐγώ εἰμι and ὁ ὤν are more or less mirrors off of each other in the same way that ehyeh mirrors off of the other ehyeh. Ἐγώ εἰμι (I be) ὁ ὤν (the be-ing).

To which then, Jesus is referred to as ‘the being’ in Revelation. I don’t see from the context how mere prophecy is being implied over both prophecy and existence, given the question given by the Jews before he says what he says; “You are not yet fifty!” and thus I believe he was stating that he was existent before Abraham, to me, unless Jesus is being dishonest, or some far lesser idea is true; that necessitates that Jesus by some manner of being preexisted the very patriarch of those who believe. He is then either God, some angel, or some other created spirit. That he is referred to as “the being” in Revelation by the use of ὁ ὤν, to me, necessitates that he be God, and in being God shares the name Yahweh.

It all boils down to a simple point. Will I believe Jesus is he that be; Ἐγώ εἰμι (I be) the ὁ ὤν (the being)? Or will I believe he does not be (Ἐγώ εἰμι) the being (ὁ ὤν)? If I believe he ‘be the being’, then I shall believe also that he is the I AM, and in being the I AM shares the name Yahweh with his father.

#215

Hi Lefein,

You wrote:

When you say that “Jesus is referred to as ὁ ὢν,” what verse are you referring to exactly? If it’s Rev 1:8, there’s no reason why Jesus’ God and Father can’t be understood as the one speaking. To merely assume that it’s Jesus speaking here is just that: an assumption. Also, there’s no reason why the appellation “the Alpha and the Omega” or “the beginning and the end” cannot be understood as applying to both Jesus and Jesus’ God. Jesus and God don’t have to be understood as ontologically or existentially equivalent to share these titles when the meaning of the titles are properly understood. God has all authority in heaven and on earth to bring to completion and fulfillment whatever he begins, and he gave this authority to Jesus when he raised him from the dead and made him “Lord.” It is in this sense that they may both identify themselves as “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” The shared title denotes shared authority, not ontological equivalence.

According to the LXX, ego eimi is the Greek equivalent of only the first part of the divine name in Hebrew. That is, it “mirrors” only one “ehyeh” in the expression “ehyeh asher ehyeh,” not both. Ego eimi was not understood by the Jews to be the Greek equivalent of the abbreviated form of the divine name, so I don’t think you can just plug “ego eimi” into the divine name wherever you want as if it’s some kind of formula that will ensure the correctness of your interpretation of John 8:58. If ego eimi was understood to be equivalent to both “ehyehs” in the divine name it would’ve, I think, been translated this way by those who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. But evidently, that’s not the case.

As far as the statement made by the unbelieving Jews that Jesus was “not yet fifty years old,” I’m rather surprised that you see this as supporting your position, as their response is clearly yet another example of them misunderstanding what Jesus was actually saying (which is what I argued in the post in the other thread). Jesus declared, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” Do you really think Jesus was saying that Abraham saw Jesus alive before he died at age 175 and rejoiced that he got to see him? Because that’s what the response of the Jews implies they thought (or at least pretended to think) Jesus was saying when they mockingly answered with, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” They had misunderstood Jesus completely. He was talking about Abraham’s seeing the “day” of the Messiah by his faith in the promises of God to bless all the nations/families of the earth in his seed (Acts 3:25-26; Gal 3:8-9, etc.), not making the absurd claim to have been born before or while Abraham was still alive. Jesus’ next statement must be understood in light of what he said previously about Abraham’s seeing his day (i.e., by faith in God’s promise) and rejoicing. Not only is Jesus the one of whom God foretold while Abraham was alive, he is the one of whom God foretold before Abraham even existed. Before the foundation of the world, Jesus of Nazareth was central to, and held a superior place in, God’s redemptive plan for humanity (a fact which is expressed in the following words by Peter: “He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake” - 1 Pet 1:20).

#216

It sounds to me that your position attempts to make Jesus God, without actually allowing him to be God.

I’m pretty sure based on the context of the surrounding verses that it is Jesus in Revelation 1:8 being referred to.

As far as “authority” vs. “ontological equivalence” - I don’t see any reason why my position should not be so. If Jesus has the authority of God (in the very direct sense of which he has such authority), then he is God. The authority of God, the “do” of God, comes with the 'be" of God. For Jesus to have God’s authority, in the full sense of it, he must have the being of God.

I’d also state that If Jesus is using the same titles for himself, as God uses for himself; he is God, or he’d better be God. Anything other than that would be a stretch, or outright dishonesty on His part.

One doesn’t call oneself the titles of God, unless one is God…or a liar.

If Jesus has all the authority of God, shares the titles of God, and has the status he has as the Son of God, only begotten; if for all intents and purposes he is God, I see no reason to believe he is not God to the fullest extent of what it means for him to be God.

In summary; If he is “practically God”, he may as well be “existentially God”.

Ego eimi o on is the translation of ehyeh asher ehyeh. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is the phrase from which the Hebrews drew forth Yahweh. Therefore ego eimi o on can be linked to Yahweh, just as I AM that I AM in English can be linked to Yahweh, just as Ehyeh asher Ehyeh can be linked to Yahweh.

As for o on, Jesus Christ is clearly referred to under that term in Revelation. Unless one wants to stretch context at best, or at worst make Christ an Anti-Christ (an imposter) by reason of showing him being dishonest. Even apart from the ego eimi side of the argument, the o on argument still stands.

Jesus cannot be “the being”, if he is not in fact, “the being”, just as he cannot be Alpha and Omega, first and last, if he is not in fact those things. He is called “the being” in Revelation 1:8, just as he is called Alpha and Omega and first and last in other verses; I see no reason why these titles, especially “the being” should not refer to Jesus based on the context of the whole chapter, and I see no reason why Jesus should not in fact be the titles he claims to be. And if in fact, he be the “o on”, “the being”, then he is in fact, the I AM.

If he isn’t a mortal man, brought into existence only after the virgin birth; then he is either God, an Angel, a spirit of some sort that isn’t necessarily an angel. I don’t believe the context of the verse is merely a way of saying “I was foretold before Abraham was”. I believe he means what he means to say.

“Truly, before Abraham was, I be.”

I see no reason to accept a lesser interpretation than that.

#217

Hi Lefein,

You wrote:

I’m not sure how I’m attempting to make Jesus God. The one God, Yahweh, made a sinless man “Lord” (Acts 2:36; Rom 14:9), he gave a sinless man “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Mt. 28:18), he highly exalted a sinless man (Phil 2:9), and he bestowed on a sinless man a “name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God, the Father” (v. 10). Christ is the supreme derivative, dependent being; the only being to whom Christ is inferior is his God (the Father), who is neither derivative nor dependent. No authority has to be given to Jesus’ God; it is his inherently, by virtue of his nature and existence. But for any not-God being, “all authority in heaven and on earth” must be derived from God and given to them by God.

Based on the context it could easily refer to (and I think does refer to) Jesus’ God. The book opens with, “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.” While the revelation is “of Jesus Christ,” John makes it a point to say that it was God who gave this revelation to Jesus (because, of course, God alone knows everything; all not-God beings must derive their prophetic knowledge from him). And as is the case throughout Scripture, notice how John distinguishes “God” (not just “the Father”) from “Jesus Christ.” Who is this being referred to as “God” in Rev 1:1? Is this not the being called the “one God,” and the “only true God?” If so, then Jesus is neither the “one God” nor the “only true God.”

Moving on to vv. 4-5: “Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before the throne, AND from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.” Here again we have God - the “Supreme Being” - being differentiated from Jesus Christ. While Christ has been given God’s authority over all not-God beings, he is not ontologically identical to God. Jesus’ power and authority and Lordship is derived from God (and will one day, I think, be given back to God - 1 Cor 15:24, 28); it is not inherently his.

Vv. 5-6: “To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” Notice how John repeatedly refers to (and distinguishes between) God and Jesus in these opening verses. Although this book is “the revelation of Jesus Christ,” Jesus’ God is never lost sight of. He is the one who gave Jesus his revelation and he is the one to whom we are “priests” because of Jesus’ redemptive work. It should not surprise us at all if this Supreme Being - the one God, who is the Father - were quoted at some point in this introduction. John has already referred to him several times in the context.

Notice how John then concludes v. 6 with a word of affirmation and approbation (“Amen!”) before providing us with what may be called his “thesis” in v. 7. He then concludes this “thesis” with an “Even so. Amen.” And as if to give the supreme stamp of approval to everything he has said thus far and everything he is about to say, he then quotes Jesus’ God himself: “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’” says the Lord God, “‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’” For John to quote Jesus’ God here is not only highly appropriate, but it fits the context quite well.

What do you mean by “in the very direct sense of which he has such authority” or “in the full sense of it?” Do you mean possessing it inherently, by virtue of his nature and existence? If so, do you think God - the “Supreme Being” - has to be given “all authority in heaven and on earth?” Does God - the “Supreme Being” - have to “become” superior to the angels and “inherit” a name that is more excellent than theirs (Heb 1:4)?

The following are, I think, just a few counterexamples:

God is referred to by the word “father.” Abraham is referred to as “father” repeatedly, even as the “father of us all” (Rom 4:16). Even Paul refers to himself as the “father” of the Corinthian believers (1 Cor 4:15). I guess their being referred to as “father” is “outright dishonest,” since God refers to himself using the word “father!”

God is also referred to as “King.” Is it your position that every person who refers to himself as (or accepts the title of) “king” either “is God” or had “better be God?”

God is also referred to by the word “shepherd” (Ps. 23:1; 80:1; 1 Pet 2:25; etc.). Does this mean any non-God beings who are referred to by the word “shepherd” (Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:2) either are God or had “better be God?” Are we to understand that Jesus is God because he is referred to as the “Chief Shepherd” when those to whom he is being compared are other human beings (i.e., leaders in the church - 1 Pet 5:4; cf. v. 2)?

The fact is that shared appellations/descriptions do not denote ontological equivalence unless the appellation/description can only refer to one person/being and no other. Only if “Alpha and Omega” or “beginning and the end” were appellations that were meant by John to convey the idea of “self-existence” or “Supreme Being” would my position be at all problematic. But I deny that they mean this or that they can be applied only to God, and would require proof to the contrary to change my opinion.

This would only be true if the appellation belonged exclusively to God and could not in any sense be applied to any not-God being. I deny that this is the case for the appellations “Alpha and Omega”/“beginning and the end” as they appear in Revelation.

Do you see anything wrong with the following “argument?” “Since Jesus was given all authority in heaven and on earth, I see no reason to believe he is not God. After all, God has always possessed this authority by virtue of his self-existent divine nature and his being the Supreme Being, and has never had to receive it from any being superior to himself. It is inherently his.”

I believe Scripture reveals that God has the authority to give authority over all that is not-God to a sinless man if he wants. You apparently disagree. That’s cool! :mrgreen: But I believe Jesus is Lord because he was made Lord, and don’t see him as the “Lord God.” I believe Jesus’ God is the “Lord God.” Jesus’ God does not derive his Lordship from anyone; he has his status by virtue of his self-existent divine nature. And the God of the Lord Jesus is necessarily Jesus’ Lord and “head” (1 Cor 11:13). So while I do believe Jesus is referred to by the title “God” as it is sometimes used in an inferior sense (e.g., in Heb 1:8; cf. Ex 4:14-16; 7:1; 21:5-6; 22:8-9; Ps. 82:1-8; Ez. 31:11; 32:21), I believe the Father alone is “the Lord God, the Almighty” and the “only true God.”

“Ego eimi” can only be “linked to Yahweh” insofar as the full and complete name is being translated into Greek (which, according to the LXX, necessarily includes ho ōn). Again, when translated into Greek, ego eimi only “mirrors” the first ehyeh in the original Hebrew. In the abbreviated form of the divine name translated into Greek, ego eimi is absent. But according to your argument, we should understand the (healed) blind man of John 9 to have been claiming to be Yahweh, since John tells us he kept saying, “ego eimi” (v. 9). But surely you don’t think this man was a “liar” or an “imposter!”

If Jesus’ God is the speaker in Rev 1:8 rather than Jesus, your argument collapses. I say it’s Jesus’ God being quoted, and don’t see any contextual reason why it can’t be Jesus’ God.

As stated previously, the exact meaning of what is being said when someone declared “ego eimi” is not necessarily inherent in the expression, but may need to be supplied by the listener or reader. That is, when someone used the Greek expression “ego eimi,” the listener (or reader) might have to “fill in the blank” to understand the claim that’s being made. This is evident from verses 24-25, where Jesus used the same expression (ego eimi), to which the Jews asked in response, “Who are you?” (and again, notice that they didn’t pick up stones and attempt to kill him in response to what Jesus said). Here, I believe the context allows us to interpret Jesus as saying, “I am he who was promised/foretold by God before Abraham existed.”

As far as my interpretation being a “lesser interpretation,” I disagree. I think it honours both the Lord Jesus and his/our God.

#218

Paidion and other distinguished brethren: I apologize for missing the discussion… I thought maybe I had been cut from the freshman class :frowning: …

I just have a question that is rooted in my diggings on the manuscripts from which the new testament emerged, the lost fragments and possibly whole works, languages, and translation. My prior understanding, for the last 20 years unrefuted, is that we [the collective of peaceful arguers, scholars, linguists, et al] do not know whether Jesus, or for that matter any of his contemporaries, actually uttered verbally the Tetragrammaton. Similarly, it is my understanding that it is unknowable whether the common daily language of our Lord and his followers was Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic. And ditto for the other canonical NT books: we simply can’t piece-together adequate evidence to nail down whether “the ban” was firmly in place during these years, whether the average observant Jew heeded the ban, whether luminaries like John, Jesus, and a handful of zealots/teachers/rebbes/mystics abstained from verbalizing The Name or not, and/or whether the silence extended to writing [which gets really complicated since the ‘authors’ of canonical sections weren’t necessarily the scribes thereof, redactors, editors, etc]. If there is better scholarship on this point I really want to grasp it because, while its not THE issue [as some hold], it IS a big issue that can shed light on many difficult passages.

All that said, I would assert again that the passages in Hebrews 1 and Phillipians 2, and some key passages in Acts, do reference a very early conviction that Jesus, while not confused as being the Father manifested in a modalistic sense, is “YHWH the Son, the Anointed of YHWH”, the last Adam and King over the kings of the race of man, the long-promised One. He is the one “installed” upon “Zion my holy Mountain”. That [as I would hold] the titular YHWH was bestowed at His resurrection Glorification, His “firstborn from the Dead” triumph, is a point I think worth striving to apprehend.
When He appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him just as He is, and everyone that has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself even as He is pure. We have now a new race, a new creation, a new Man into whom He has breathed His own unique new firstborn Life, that ‘Breathing’ authority having been granted Him as “The YHWH of Mankind”, if you will.

#219

This is an old thread; there has been 218 posts prior to this one. I’m resurrecting it, because I would like to address the original question.
I wrote the following long ago, and so it is not addressing any of the previous posts. It simply expresses my answer to the question:

Is Jesus God?

The question is meaningful only if the questioner explains what he means by the word “God”. In the New Testament the word most frequently denoted the Father. Indeed it always denotes the Father if, in Greek, it is prefixed with the article and no other qualifier.

If one is using the word “God” to denote the Father, then the question become “Is Jesus the Father?” or more precisely, “Are Jesus and the Father the same Individual?” For many, the answer is “Yes.” The Modalist or Monarchist affirms that God is a single Individual who expresses Himself in three modes or appearances, like an actor who appears in a play wearing three different masks (προσωπα), and thus playing the part of what seems to be three different individuals. Αn early form of modalism was called “Sabellianism” named after Sabellius, a theologian from the third century. Modern modalists include the United Pentecostal Church and various branches of the “Apostolic Church.”

Trinitarians believe God is a compound Being consisting of three Individuals: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. If God is so defined, then the question becomes, “Is Jesus the Trinity?” Yet when Trinitarians affirm that Jesus is God, they clearly do not mean that Jesus is the Trinity. Neither do they mean that Jesus is part of the Trinity, for they affirm that the Trinity is undivided. They seem to mean that Jesus is of the same essence of the Father. Now many non-Trinitarians, including myself, believe that Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. But I feel uncomfortable with the statement “God was born as a human being.” What does that mean? That the divine essence was born as a human being?
But the divine essence is not a person. Does that mean that God is not a person? I just can’t get my mind around this seeming contradiction.

John 1:1 does not teach that the Logos was God Himself.
How could the Logos be with God and also be God? That’s not what the text says.

The first “God” is prefixed with the article; thus “the God” (meaning the Father, whom Jesus addressed as “the only true God”). The second “God” has no article. So it does not refer to the Father.

Because of the lack of an article, some think the sentence should read “and the Logos was a god”. This is also an incorrect translation.

That would be the case if the subjective completion had been placed AFTER the copula verb.
If John had meant “The Word was a god”, then the Greek words would have been:

ὁ…λογος…ἠν…θεος
the…word…was a…god

But this is not what John wrote.

If John had meant that the Word was God the Father Himself (as Modalists affirm), then the Greek words would have been:

ὁ…λογος…ἠν …ὁ…θεος
the…Word…was…the…God

Prefixing the word “θεος” with the article “ὁ” (with no other modifiers) would indicate that God the Father is meant. But that is not what John wrote.

Here is what John actually wrote:

θεος…ἠν… ὁ…λογος
God…was…the…Word

John placed the subjective completion BEFORE the copula verb! What did John mean? Did he mean that God the Father was the Word? No! If he had meant that, he would have prefixed the word “θεος” with the article “ὁ”. What then was his meaning? As a person who has studied Hellenistic Greek for several years and has even taught a self-devised beginner’s course to adults, I am going to propose a suggested translation, and then justify it by reference to other similar constructions in the New Testament.

A very crude translation could be “The Word was God-stuff”. However, this doesn’t sound very reverent. So I suggest “The Word was Divinity” or perhaps “The Word was divine”. He was divine because God begat Him before all ages as Another just like Himself! “God” or “Divinity” was the essence of the Word.

Let’s look at two more instances in the New Testament in which a subjective completion without a modifier is placed BEFORE a copula verb. In I John 4:8 and also in I John 4:16, we find the phrase:

ὁ…θεος… ἀγαπη…ἐστιν
the God…love…is

Here the subject is clearly the Father since the word “θεος” is prefixed with the article. But notice the subjective completion “ἀγαπη” occurs BEFORE the copula verb “ἐστιν”. The correct translation is: “God is love”. Love is the essence of God. This is analogous to saying in John 1:1 that Divinity is the essence of the Word.

One more example:

ὁ…λογος…ὁ…σος…ἀληθια…ἐστιν
the…word the [one]…of you reality…is

Translation: “Your word is reality”. God’s word is reality. There is never falsehood or unreality in what God says. Once again, the subjective completion “ἀληθια” comes BEFORE the copula verb “ἐστιν”. Reality is the essence of what God says.

Martin Luther, whatever else he may have been, had an excellent understanding of Greek. Concerning the phrase in John 1:1:

θεος…ἠν… ὁ…λογος
God…was…the…Word

Luther expressed quite succinctly what I have attempted to relate about the word order. He said:

“The lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.”

Sabellianism was a form of Modalism, that God is a single divine Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Today, Modalism is represented by the United Pentecostal Church as well as the various sects of the “Apostolic Church”.

Arianism was and is thought by many to have been a position whereby the Son was a lesser god, and thus the translation “The word was a god”. This position is represented today by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The New World Translation actually renders the Greek phrase as "The word was a god.”

So I suggest the following translations as a good approximation of what the writer had in mind:

In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine.

b]In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was Deity.

It appears that Jesus Himself did not believe He was “true God”. In His prayer to His Father, he said,
“…this is lasting life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Not only did Jesus address His Father as “the only true God” but by using that little word “and” before his reference to Himself, He indicated that He was something other than “the only true God”.

However, it is important to note that just as the offspring of a man is “man” human, so the unique offspring of God was “God” (divine). Thus in the earliest manuscripts of John 1:18, John refers to the Son of God as “the only-begotten God.” The second-century Christian writers made similar statements, adding that the Father was unbegotten.

#220

There is also the aspect that John is writing in a sort of metaphorical fugue. The interpretation of His words leave room for interpretation, but we get locked into certain perspectives by history and common belief- even among scholars.

For instance, in the orthodox trinitarian model(co-equal-consubstantial-co-eternal) there is really little room to move, but certain assumptions are essential to the model. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#mediaviewer/File:Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg

If you would bear with me I’ll express my view on it, having been involved at various times with Trinitarians, Modalists and Untiarians and coming out with no comfort in any orthodox system on the issue and no particular axe to grind LOL

If you were to view God as a giant sphere, and He looked within Himself and conceived of a seed of Himself, to plant within a creation of His own making, but to be made by/through the agency of the seed(theLogos).

Could the composite of Himself(seed) be held in His affections as dearly as we would hold a child of our own? Even so much so that the entire plan of the ages would revolve around that Son? Especially if the purpose, His kind intention(eudokia) is to create an eventual ocean of beings with whom to share His boundless glory in friendship and love?

So, God subjects the creation to futility/chaos/sin and then speaks into the void, “Let there be light” - Jesus, and the light of the world becomes the “first-born of many brothers” in a cadre of priests with a mission to bring the whole creation back into the oneness that Adam, because of God’s design, corrupted.

When I hear the words “in the beginning was the word”- i see Christ crucified, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, the image of God, the first principle, or foundation of creation.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.

When God speaks, his expressed thought, the icon of Himself, the kernel of His plan, is Christ crucified- the revelation of perfect love. Everything else comes through that seed.

In the beginning the seed is in God, is with God, and is God in essence in that God shares all that he is with His beloved- even us eventually, when we shall know as we are known, when He is all in all, when we shall be like Him for we will see Him as He is.

But in Colossians i think it explains this when it says, “For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in Him”, and “For in Him dwells all the fulness of deity in bodily form”. Also in 1 Corintihians 15:27 For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.’

I personally reject that Jesus is equal to the Father other than as the Father has given Him all authority in heaven and earth. His equality is given, it is an executive equality…

A trinitarian says to me, “Then He isnt God”, to which I reply, “Says who?” Whence came these little circular logics anyway? God transcends our intellects for sure but the mind-set that presents the Trinity as a logical absolute bothers me. God can do and be as He wants. He can break off a piece(son) of Himself, create everything through it/him and redeem everything back into a universal family of children to be an eternal chorus/harmony/rainbw/sea of love if He wants to. “Who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor”?

I do not reject the Son being co-eternal out right, Because as yet I do not see absolute evidence either way, but I lean towards a genesis, a birth, because he is the Son.

I think “in the beginning” speaks of a starting point, not “eternity past flowing backwards”, so when I read “in the beginning was the word”, I see the conception of Jesus as the seed of the whole creation plan from Alpha(without form and void) to Omega(God is ALL IN ALL) within God, a small circle inside an immense sphere, but a circle that is a full composite of the larger one. To me, this in no way violates the language of scripture, and in fact- I think it is what the scripture is saying.

I do not reject consubstantial because the Son was definitely out of the Father- and perhaps moreso than as I am out of my father, in that He is the “radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His nature”. Jesus explained like this, “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me and I am in you” and prayed that “You may be one even as I and my Father are one that your joy may be full”.

How shall we be one even as Jesus and the Father are one in the orthodox Trinitarian or Modalist models? I don’t see how myself.

But to present the “Shield of the Trinity” as a logical and theological absolute, from which to stray is heresy- I find that to be intellectual tyranny rather than truth- and i am not even saying that it is absolutely wrong, I am just saying it isnt an absolute logically or scripturally.

When jesus said, "I and the Father are one- He wasnt drawing a theological diagram for us, He was speaking of His being the “radiance of the Father’s glory and the exact representation of His nature”(hebrews 1;1-3), imo and that slays the trintiarian and Modalist models for me, so whatever i am, I am neither of those.

I have hung out with Anthony Buzzard, a proponent of a view called Biblical Unitarianism, and while there are things to reccomend in His writings, especially as regards the Shema of Israel- I think he goes to far in some other directions, saying it is not possible Jesus pre-existed His incarnation on a conscious personal form, but that He existed only as the Logos- but I disagree with that because Jesus asked the father to “Glorify me with the glory I had with you before the foundation of the world” which to me clearly states that He was.

So to wrap up( I know we can all go on forever because whatever position we hold is the product of much thought and prayer)…

I think eternity is wrapped around time like a big bubble around a small bubble. God created the small bubble, time, the ages, the kosmos, with through Jesus. He allowed things inside the bubble to go to hell, and then he sent Jesus into the bubble, to blow a bubble of life into anyone who believed in Him and then on the cross, He popped the bubble of time, so we could all get out, each in his own order, into the original bubble, which is God, who becomes all in all in all us lil bubbles through Christs work.

Eli, Eli, Laba samachthani!

#221

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has the entry for ‘Trinity’ by Dale Tuggy. ESSENTIAL reading if you want to understand the issues and not just mouth platitudes. plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/

An excellent lecture on the lost history of early universalism by Dr. Tuggy: youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=8 … r_embedded

There are some excellent articles on this and other trinitarian questions at this blog: trinities.org/blog/

The essays I’ve read are neither trite nor irrelevant but, of course, I have not yet read them all.

If you’re up to it, philosophically, the many serious logical problems with the purported trinity have been addressed by Bill Vallicella (MavPhil). You can start with this post, and follow the various branches (be warned that the philosophical arguments in some of the posts are very intricate, subtle, and use a specialized vocabulary. If you have any training or reading in Aristotle, you will probably not have much problem) maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ … radox.html
To see all the posts, search ‘trinity’ in the search box, of all places :slight_smile:

#222

I watched the video you posted of Tuggy. Really very good, well presented, informative in a suggestive rather than declarative way, objective facts based in evidence for the most part and I appreciate that approach.

I read the web-site, and found it to be mostly a rehash of philosophical arguments I have seen for 35 years, with hardly a word of scripture for support anywhere. I think Aristotle stated some solid things on reasoning, but unless the logic is set within a paradigm defined by the scriptures, is just runs around in circles endlessly.

I did like what the author wrote about Mysterianism as a meta philosophy(philosophy about a philosophy) because I think any perspective that seeks to absolutely define the Godhead intrinsicly involves a little Mysterianism -because the nature of the relationship between the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit is a truth with some fuzzy edges, seen to some extent through a glass darkly(imo).

Mysterians just ask you to accept their viewpoint based on the holiness of their particular perspective and the history by which it ascended to predominance among their “initiated” LOL. I have no problem with this as long as they are not making everyone else an infidel or an idiot for not receiving by faith their mysterious declarations of assumptions.

I have a simple presentation on the Godhead, creation and the restoration of all things at this URL 1drv.ms/1yGLIXg

It is just my perspective in brief.

#223

I enjoyed your presentation very much. I’ll go over it again more slowly when I get a little more time. Thanks.