It is wrong to say Jesus was… “only a representative of God” – Jesus was THE representative, the final representative of God.
NO it doesn’t… you are simply reading that punctuated according to a biased theory.
This is simply a record of Thomas’ confession… that doesn’t mean Thomas meant such according to the ontological inference you are reading into it.
Again the punctuation can read “His” as God’s “own time” i.e., what the Father alone determined etc, something Jesus himself in the gospels confessed ignorance of.
Again it is poor form just to assume “Lord of lords and King of Kings” equates to Jesus being God… you are arbitrarily reading too much INTO the text.
No they weren’t… THAT’S what you are asserting through reading INTO the text, but that’s different!
Davo, I don’t think I am reading anything into the text. To me, it’s pretty plain and clear in saying what it says.
Deuteronomy 10:17 says this: “For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome.”
We know that the Lamb is speaking of Jesus. When it says that the Lamb is Lord of lords and King of kings then yes, they are stating that Jesus is the great God Almighty. To me, Lord of all other lords and God of all other gods can only be God the Father.
It seems to me that whoever wrote these verses firmly believed that Jesus was the one and only true God. To them there was no other, and I believe the same. As I mentioned before, I suppose that each one of us must decide for ourselves who Jesus is.
There are two different meanings of the word “God” in the New Testament. Indeed both meanings are used in a single verse (John 1:1)
In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God…
In this part of the sentence, “God” refers to “The only true God,” as Jesus addressed Him (as recorded in John 17:3). Jesus also referred to Himself in John 17:3 as Someone other than “the only true God.” Also, in the first part of John 1:1 quoted above, the word for “God” is preceded by the article as it usually is in reference to the one God. It could be translated as “… and the Logos was with the God.” Indeed, “God” with the article is the most frequent use of the word “God” in the New Testament, and if there is no other modifier it ALWAYS refers to the Father. “The God” in the nominative case (ο θεος) occurs 244 times in the New Testament and in the accusative case (τον θεον) 111 times.
Also the word “with” doesn’t seem to mean physically with God, but “with” Him in the sense of having the same mind, the same LOVE, the same purpose, etc. Even among people, “with” is sometimes used in that way. If Sam makes a statement and Joe agrees, Joe might say, “I’m with you, Sam.”
“… and the Logos was God.” Here the word “God” is not used in reference to “the God” (the only true God.) Unlike the first use of the word “God” it does NOT have an article. Also, the word “God” precedes the phrase verb “was,” so that it doesn’t read “The Logos was God” but “God was the Logos.” At first sight, we might think this is the same thing. But this reversal of the order of the words gives the clause a special meaning. This reversal is also used in 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16 that literally reads “The God love is.” Placing “love” before “is” indicates that “love” is the kind of thing that God is, that God is the essence of love. The same reversal is used in John 17:17 that literally reads “The word of you reality is.” Thus by placing “reality” before “is” indicates that reality (or “truth” if you will) is the kind of thing that God’s word is, that God’s word is the essence of reality.
So how does this apply to John 1:1? By placing “God” before “was” it is indicated that “God” (or Divinity) is the kind of thing that the Logos was, that God is the essence of the Logos. Why is “God” or “Divinity” the essence of the Logos, the Son of God? Because He was the only-begotten Son of God, “begotten before all ages” as the early Christians affirmed, and as was stated even in the original Nicene Creed. Just as a human being begets a human being, so God begat a Divine Being, and He begat only One. Thus the Son was unique in the sense of being the only Son whom God begat. This also explains the sense in which the early Christians referred to Christ as “God,” but never as “THE God.”
The NASB puts it this way (reddening mine):
…that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.
How can “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” be Jesus, when He is one “whom no man has seen or can see”? Many people had seen Jesus while He walked the earth, some had seen Him after God raised Him from the dead, and many shall see Him when they are raised from the dead.
This verse indeed seems to refer to “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ” as one and the same Person, especially since there is no “our” before “Savior” in the Greek. The ASV has distinguished “our God” from the Saviour by inserting “the” before Savior, that is, “our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ.” The King James does it by placing “our” before “Savior” instead of before “God”: " the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." However, most translations render it exactly as it is in Greek, “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” This is the best verse I know that appears to support your position, LLC.
HOWEVER! I just discovered this minute that the Diaglot translates the phrase as “the God of us and a savior Jesus Anointed.”
The Diaglot has not inserted the indefinite article “a” illegitimately. There is only one article in Greek, and that is “the.” When there is no article before a noun, it is often correct to insert the indefinite article “a”. So I cannot fault the Diaglot translation; it seems to be correct. Here are three other verses in which “Savior” does not have the article before it, in which all translations render it as “a Savior”:
Luke 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.
Acts 13:23 Of this man’s offspring God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised.
Philippians 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Until I looked at the Diaglot at this very moment, I thought there was no way to translate the phrase that could grammatically indicate “God” and “Savior” as two different Individuals. But now I see that the verse doesn’t contradict all the other passages that refer to the Father and the Son as two Individual divine Persons. So, my present translation of 2 Peter 1:1 is a follows:
Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to the ones having obtained equally precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and a Savior Jesus Christ.
Paidion, Isaiah 43:11 says this: " I, even I, am the Lord, and there is no savior besides Me."
Hosea 13:4 " Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt, and you shall know no God but Me; for there is no savoir besides Me."
Is God the Father the savior or is Jesus the savior? From these verses I would say there is only one God that can be the savior.
I’m not sure what verse it is, but Jesus says somewhere that those who see Him, have seen the Father.
1 Kings 8:23 says this: “O LORD, the God of Israel, there is no God like You in heaven above or on earth beneath.”
Exodus 9:14 “so that you may know that there is no one like Me in all the earth.”
1 Chronicles “O Lord, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You.”
Jeremiah 10:6 “There is none like You, O Lord.”
Isaiah 46:9 “For I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is no one like Me.”
These verses say that the one true God is unique, and there is no one else like Him in heaven or on earth. So for the writers of the New Testament to say that Jesus is the EXACT imprint of the one true God( the Father) implies that Jesus is the one and only true God.
“I am Yahweh, and there is no Savior besides Me.”
I have no problem with that statement. The Father and the Son share the name “Yahweh.”
Two different Individuals in one verse, each of which is called “Yahweh.” The One on earth, with whom Abraham was talking, was the One through whom the sulfur and fire rained upon the cities, but the source of the sulfur and fire was the One in heaven. There was One in heaven called “Yahweh” from whom the sulfur and fire originated, and One on earth called “Yahweh” by whom the fire and brimstone rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Both are so united in character, purpose, etc. that they may be called “One.” That’s what Jesus meant when He said, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30). He didn’t mean They were the same Individual. If that were the case, then Jesus would have been talking to Himself when He prayed to the Father.
I don’t think it implies that at all! If you make an exact imprint of something, you have two entities, not just one. For example, if you have a piece of paper with a drawing of a horse on it, and you make an exact imprint of that horse, then you have two drawings of that horse.
I’m sure you are referring to the following passage:
*Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? (John 14:8,9)*
You probably think this clinches your view. But consider the following scenario:
I have two photos of myself, one in the left pocket (A), and one in the right (B). But they look EXACTLY the same, for they were made from the same negative. Thus if you have seen A, then you won’t see anything different if you look at B. Or you could say, “Whoever has seen A, has seen B.”
Now let’s say, I show you photo A, holding it in my left hand. Then I say, "I’m going to show you another photo. I take B out of my right pocket and show it to you, holding it in my right hand.
“That’s the same photo!” you exclaim.
“No, it isn’t.” I reply. I have one photo in my left hand and another in my right; that makes two."
So why do you say they are the same photo? Simply because B is the exact imprint, the exact image of A. But that doesn’t make them a single entity.
They are one in appearance, but two in number.
So the Son of God is the exact image of his Father. They have the same attributes, the same purpose, the same intention, the same Love. They alike in every way. Yet there is not just one of them, but two.
Paidion, No two things in this world are exactly the same, and yet we are supposed to believe that there are two Gods that are exactly the same. this goes against all that we see in the world around us. Each and every thing has it’s own uniqueness, something that gives it individuality. In the photograph example that you mentioned, yes, there may be two pictures exactly the same, however the picture is of one individual. There is but one you. If one were to make a copy of the Mona Lisa, for example, it would not be the original and would be considered a fake.
As Jesus Himself says in Mark 10:18, God alone is the only perfectly perfect being. For in order to be perfectly perfect, one would have to have all knowledge. From what I understand, God the Father is the only one who knows all things. If this is true then Jesus was not as perfectly perfect as everyone makes Him out to be. He would have had to err at some point.
Again, from what I understand, God the Father is the supreme authority over all. When it comes down to either what Jesus says verses what Yahweh says, who do we follow? When it comes down to what we ourselves say or what another person says verses what Jesus says, who do we follow? I suppose what Jesus says would then be the supreme authority.
Is God the Father exactly like Jesus, or is Jesus exactly like God the Father?
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(Jesus) is the radiance of His(the Father) glory and the exact representation of His nature(the Father), and upholds all things by the word of His power.(Jesus)
Hi Paidion… I think there’s a strong probability you are reading more into this than the text allows.
There is not two distinct i.e., different Yahweh’s (the LORD is one) in this text… “out of the heavens” (Heb pl.) references from whence came the fiery blast, not from whom –– “the Lord” being twice mentioned makes the from whom singularly self-evident and thus obvious.
Maybe backwards a little? The teaching is that, looking at Jesus, we can be certain the Father is like that.
Is that begging the question? Depends on your epistemology which, in this case and many others, is a choice. All a man can do is choose what to believe.
This is the importance of the scriptures. I believe it because it is written. I also believe it because it has been revealed to be in the Holy Spirit, the Teacher who leads us into all truth. Beyond that, the revelation of Jesus Christ crucified itself testifies to the divine nature - and as DaveB said, at a certain point we either believe it or we dont, but the testimony is what it is- whether we choose to believe or are chosen to believe.
Okay, LLC, I concede that the Father and the Son are not exactly the same. And as you have pointed out, only the Father is omniscient. Jesus Himself indicated that He did not know when the events He predicted (as recorded in Matthew 24) would take place:
But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36 ESV)
Even after his resurrection, Jesus did not know about the events that would soon take place, but the Father gave the revelation of those things to Him, and then He sent His angel to make it known to John.
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…
Now how can this be the case, LLC, if the Father and the Son are one and the same divine Individual?
Well, it is not I who am reading the text this way. Justin Martyr read it this way in his “Dialogue With Trypho.” The thought never occurred to me until I read it in Justin Martyr. But after having read it there, I agreed with him.
First, Justin indicates that it was “the Lord” who remained behind to talk to Abraham. He had also indicated that the Father could not appear on a small part of the earth since He fills all things. So He indicated that “the Lord” (or Yahweh) was the Son of God, who received the commission from “the Lord” who remained in heaven to bring destruction to Sodom.
Yes, the LORD (Yahweh) is one. However, that doesn’t necessarily imply one Person.
Jesus also said, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30 ESV) Did He mean that He and the Father were one Person? I don’t think so. In the immediately preceding verse, He said, “My Father, who has given them [my sheep] to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” He spoke of his Father as if He were a different Individual.
Jesus often prayed to his Father. He addressed Him as, “My God.” (Matthew 27:46) Was He praying to Himself? Was He his own God? If not, then when He said, “I and the Father are one,” He must not have meant that they were the same Person. He must have been referring to their total unity. I suggest that is where God said, “Yahweh is one,” He also meant that total unity, and not that there was no other divine Individual who shared the name “Yahweh” with Him.
Since Yahweh definess Himself as “I AM”, IMO He is defining Himself by the purity of His being, and shares His name with no one, (He is the One True God)but has bestowed the rights of His name upon His Son, who is the image of YHWH(For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in Him). The Son is the fulness od deity in bodily form…“If you have seen me you have seen the Father” does not mean He is the Father, it means He is the express image of the Father and the exact representation of the Father’s nature(Heb 1:3). “I and My Father are one” does not mean Jesus and His Father are the same person, it means they are in perfect unity, harmony, oneness of purpose, etc.
When Jesus prays that, “You may be one, even as I and the Father are one”(Jn 17) He is speaking of the same kind of unity- not making us out to be gods or a part of the godhead.
We are to be one in unity of purpose, in the sharing of the divine nature, in love for one another, that out “joy may be full” and that “the world will know you are my disciples” and that “the Father has loved you”…or in other words, just as He and the Father are one, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me and I am in you”.
But that’s exactly it… you do agree with him and you’re the one presenting that (his) position as being legit. With all due respect to Justin… like you and me Paidion he has NO justifiable claim to inspiration. His/yours is a proposition that is IMO unsustainable.
So… just because Justin cannot conceive nor countenance such a thing this makes his rendition therefore so? Really?
This I suggest is his proposition being driven 100% by his own presuppositions he brought to the text. Consider the logical flow of this (IMO absurd) machination… “the second man is the man from heaven” your “Yahweh Jesus” – but Yahweh from heaven was meant to be “the Father” NOT “the Son”. Further we now have by way of consistent application of said proposition “the second man from heaven” (Jesus) walking and conversing in the Garden with the “the first man of the earth” i.e., Adam; and yet conventional common sense has ALWAYS understood the Yahweh of Paradise to have been “the Farther” – held to any logical consistency what you are advocating turns this on its head.
I put it to you that Justin’s ‘2 Yahweh’ model is an invention borne from a mind not able to be lifted above its own wooden literalism… and as a result a cacophony of contradicting confusion results.
I agree… NO argument with any of that.
This here however is arguing from silence, i.e., there are NO texts of Scripture applying “Yahweh” to any other individual OTHER THAN the One in the Bible also declared to be “the Father”, period! That’s just a fact! It is a spurious interpretation by Justin that has invented his conclusion.
Still pondering some of the other questions that everyone has brought up.
Jesus does say in John 8:58 “I AM”. To me this means that He is the Father. Can anyone truly and accurately speak for another? For example, no one else can speak for Paidion, Davo or Eaglesway except for you yourself. I would say that the same thing goes for God. God is the only one that is able to speak Himself. Can someone else share a name? I think this would be considered identity theft.
So, when Yahweh says " vengeance is Mine" or when Jesus says “love your enemies” which nature of God are we to follow? I would say that this may be one reason God gave Himself a new name-Jesus.
Of course they can… God’s prophets did it all the time. Jesus, prophet par excellence did this all the time… “I only speak what I hear the Father say” etc. In the British Commonwealth the respective ‘Governors’ General’ in their official role speak and act ON BEHALF OF the Crown… when they speak/act the Queen speaks/acts, i.e., they carry Her authority and power.
