Does God have eyes?

[Newbirth]

Plainly the "God of Thomas" was Jesus, in Thomas's view, but the true God of Jesus and Thomas was the Father, per Jesus.

So how many Gods does Thomas have?

 

[cjab]

So how many Gods does Thomas have?

One, because Thomas recognized that Christ and his Father were one. Divine status was not afforded to Christ independently of his Father. His statement affirmed Christ as God's representative or ambassador (or God's son).

 

[cjab]

In John 1:1 the word/Jesus is called "θεός" not " υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ". In John 10 the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be "θεός". I've dealt with this claim before, and you haven't added anything new here. You've just given more assertions that don't address what I've said.

This is obfuscation, and it also untrue, as Jesus said "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"

Ok. I never claimed you have.

The terminology doesn't fit for the reasons I've already given.

"o theos" is not an exclusive reference to "the Father", so no "usurpation" is involved. John called the word/Jesus "theos" and "o theos" in his Gospel. You just don't like the implications.

This is again untrue, and the implications were stated by Jesus which I accept. However your implications are Sabellian, and heretical.

Why do you think this definition fits the context in these passages better than "God"?

For the obvious reason that Jesus defers to the Father as true God in John 20:17 and John 17:3, see also 1 John 5:20.

You've raised no points worth further debate. Time to cease this pointless discussion.

 

[John Milton]

This is obfuscation, and it also untrue, as Jesus said "Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?"

You are incorrect. Here it is from the mouth of the accusers.
"ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν."
Translated so you can read it:
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

This is again untrue,

There's nothing untrue there. Any reader can see for themselves that what I wrote is accurate.
John 1:1 "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"
John 20:28 "ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου."

and the implications were stated by Jesus which I accept. However your implications are Sabellian, and heretical.

This is not an argument. You are essentially saying that you hold an opinion and are implying that I should accept your premise even though I have given reasons why your assumption is flawed that you are unable to answer.

For the obvious reason that Jesus defers to the Father as true God in John 20:17 and John 17:3, see also 1 John 5:20.

You've raised no points worth further debate. Time to cease this pointless discussion.

And I've already explained to you that deference does not denote a different ontology when you raised this point from Paul's remarks earlier. You ignored it then, too.

Distinction, yes. But there isn't enough evidence to claim that it is an ontological distinction. You omitted the reference to man being the head of woman in I Cor. 11:3, but it shows that the distinction isn't necessarily ontological, whether between Christ and God or Christ and man.

 

[cjab]

You are incorrect. Here it is from the mouth of the accusers.
"ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν."
Translated so you can read it:
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Clearly the Jews were slandering him, just as you slander Jesus on the same account.

There's nothing untrue there. Any reader can see for themselves that what I wrote is accurate.
John 1:1 "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"
John 20:28 "ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου."

This is not an argument, and relies on your profound inability to understand Greek.

This is not an argument. You are essentially saying that you hold an opinion and are implying that I should accept your premise even though I have given reasons why your assumption is flawed that you are unable to answer.

Since you slander Christ by pretending he went around asserting he was God, then we are not of the same religion.

And I've already explained to you that deference does not denote a different ontology when you raised this point from Paul's remarks earlier. You ignored it then, too.

 

[Newbirth]

One, because Thomas recognized that Christ and his Father were one.

One what?
cjab said:
Plainly the "God of Thomas" was Jesus, in Thomas's view,
If that is the case then you think that Thomas believes Jesus is his own father.

Divine status was not afforded to Christ independently of his Father.

You are the one affording God status to Jesus. If Jesus is God and his Father is God unless they are one person it means Jesus is his own father. Those are your two options.

His statement affirmed Christ as God's representative or ambassador (or God's son).

Then his statement affirmed that Jesus is not God.

 

[John Milton]

Clearly the Jews were slandering him, just as you slander Jesus on the same account.

You cherry pick what was said, as I've consistently demonstrated. John has already told us that Jesus is God. When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" that is when the Jews picked up stones. The reader wonders how Jesus, who we know to be God, is going to handle this situation while remaining true to his mission.

This is not an argument, and relies on your profound inability to understand Greek.

It destroys your position while showing your profound unwillingness to acknowledge indisputable facts.

Since you slander Christ by pretending he went around asserting he was God, then we are not of the same religion.

We are clearly not of the same religion. You promote falsehoods while slandering and attacking people. My religion has no part of that. You slander me here by alleging that I have claimed that Jesus "went around asserting that he was God". I've never claimed this. Jesus's mission was to reveal and glorify the Father. That is what he did on earth. He chose not to glorify himself on earth, and refrained from revealing the fullness of who he was. He left it to the faith of those hearing him to determine who he was. After his resurrection, when people understood for the first time who he truly was, he did not deny the truth of what was said about him. That's what happens with Thomas.

 

[Lee Magee]

Are you assuming that God cannot see?

This to do with the language, not the characters.

 

[cjab]

edit

No, perhaps I should have clarified that the reason for the God of Thomas being Jesus was because Thomas saw that the true God was in Jesus.

edit

No such thing as "God status" as God is not an adjective in Greek.

edit

I didn't say "Jesus is God." Thomas said to Jesus, "The God of Me" which Jesus himself understood as denoting belief in himself as the Son of God.

edit

 

[Newbirth]

This to do with the language, not the characters.

Then your headline is misleading.

 

[cjab]

You cherry pick what was said, as I've consistently demonstrated. John has already told us that Jesus is God.

John has not told us that.

When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" that is when the Jews picked up stones. The reader wonders how Jesus, who we know to be God, is going to handle this situation while remaining true to his mission.

It destroys your position while showing your profound unwillingness to acknowledge indisputable facts.

"indisputable facts" that arise on your own inability to understand what is written.

We are clearly not of the same religion. You promote falsehoods while slandering and attacking people. My religion has no part of that. You slander me here by alleging that I have claimed that Jesus "went around asserting that he was God". I've never claimed this.

Certainly you did. For you said this "In John 10 the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be "θεός"" which is the same thing as saying that Jesus was claiming to be God.

Jesus's mission was to reveal and glorify the Father. That is what he did on earth. He chose not to glorify himself on earth, and refrained from revealing the fullness of who he was. He left it to the faith of those hearing him to determine who he was. After his resurrection, when people understood for the first time who he truly was, he did not deny the truth of what was said about him. That's what happens with Thomas.

Unfortunately for your ingenious theory, it is not so - see John 20:17.

 

[Newbirth]

No, perhaps I should have clarified that the reason for the God of Thomas being Jesus was because Thomas say that the true God was in Jesus.

Your explanation does not clarify anything. God being in Jesus does not make Jesus God. If it did then God in us would make us God also.

No such thing as "God status" as God is not an adjective in Greek.

You said Divine status. What exactly do you mean by Divine status if not God status? You said Jesus was the God of Thomas therefore you gave Jesus God status.

I didn't say "Jesus is God." Thomas said to Jesus, "The God of Me"

Actually, it says the God of me and the Lord of me referring to two persons...Jesus is not two persons, is he? Which person in the passage is Jesus? The God or the Lord?
Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

which Jesus himself understood as denoting belief in himself as the Son of God.

You cannot make that claim for Jesus.

 

[Newbirth]

You cherry pick what was said, as I've consistently demonstrated. John has already told us that Jesus is God.

Where?

When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" that is when the Jews picked up stones.

That is not to say Jesus is God. I and my wife are one, but that does not mean I am my wife.

The reader wonders how Jesus, who we know to be God, is going to handle this situation while remaining true to his mission.

You are assuming that Jesus is God, but Jesus never said he is God.

 

[Newbirth]

You are incorrect. Here it is from the mouth of the accusers.
"ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι· περὶ καλοῦ ἔργου οὐ λιθάζομέν σε ἀλλὰ περὶ βλασφημίας, καὶ ὅτι σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν."
Translated so you can read it:
The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Now you have to show where Jesus made himself God. It was the accusers who made that claim...here is the discourse...
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

According to your argument if saying I am the son of God is blasphemy then we who say we are a son of God are blaspheming

 

[John Milton]

John has not told us that.

In John 1 he called the word God and identified the word as Jesus. He did tell us that.

"indisputable facts" that arise on your own inability to understand what is written.

I both understand what is written and accept it. You do neither.

Certainly you did. For you said this "In John 10 the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be "θεός"" which is the same thing as saying that Jesus was claiming to be God.

There is nothing in that to support your slanderous accusation. The Jews understood Jesus to mean that but it doesn't follow that I have claimed that Jesus went about making that claim ("I am God", etc.) or that he was claiming that he was "the Father" even if he had claimed to be God. It should be clear from the context of the passage that Jesus wasn't conflating his identity with that of the Father since Jesus distinguished himself from "the Father". The error you perceive is the result of your conflation of the term "theos" with "the Father". Now that you should understand your mistake, I am due an apology.

Unfortunately for your ingenious theory, it is not so - see John 20:17.

No one called Jesus God in John 20:17, so this statement is not relevant.

However, I assume you mean to point out that Jesus refers to "my God" as though this is a major difficulty for my position. It's not. Jesus says plainly that he has not yet ascended to the Father. This may account for the statement as may the awareness that Jesus had, as I believe you have said somewhere*, "a God" while he was on earth and could reference that relationship even if it were no longer true in that same fashion. Even if it were still true in the same sense it had been while Jesus was ministering, it does not follow that he must be ontologically different from the Father if he submits himself to his will. I have explained all this to you before.


*I'm only talking about your wording of the specific phrase "a God" as in the thought Jesus had "a God" that I believe you have expressed. Feel free to clarify this if my memory failed me.

 

[Lee Magee]

Your explanation does not clarify anything. God being in Jesus does not make Jesus God. If it did then God in us would make us God also.

You said Divine status. What exactly do you mean by Divine status if not God status? You said Jesus was the God of Thomas therefore you gave Jesus God status.

Actually, it says the God of me and the Lord of me referring to two persons...Jesus is not two persons, is he? Which person in the passage is Jesus? The God or the Lord?
Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You cannot make that claim for Jesus.

The language that you use is not relevant to the 1st century, don't you need to have the mindset of a 1st century person living in Eastern Mediterranean to understand the New Testament.

 

[cjab]

Your explanation does not clarify anything. God being in Jesus does not make Jesus God. If it did then God in us would make us God also.

No, because when I say "in Jesus" I meant in the same way as Christ used the term in "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves." John 14:11, i.e. to the extent that he was given supernatural powers to work miracles.

You said Divine status. What exactly do you mean by Divine status if not God status? You said Jesus was the God of Thomas therefore you gave Jesus God status. Actually, it says the God of me and the Lord of me referring to two persons...Jesus is not two persons, is he? Which person in the passage is Jesus? The God or the Lord?

I said "Divine status was not afforded to Christ independently of his Father." That is to say, Thomas's words along with his use of the TSKTS (article - substantive - kai - article - substantive) construction suggests that the Father was being included in the attribution of divine status (i.e. "God of me" denotation).

Divine status = from God.
"God status" = God.

Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

You cannot make that claim for Jesus.

We''ve been discussing the ramification of Jesus's words in John 10:34-36, which derive from the Old Testament, to Jesus. My position is that Thomas was using an application of Old Testament terminology to denote Jesus as the Son of God in John 20:28, per John 10:34-36. JM disagrees with me.

 

[John Milton]

Where?

You, like cjab and TRJM, are conflating "God" and "the Father". The word is called "theos" in John 1:1. "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος". The word is identified as Jesus in the remainder of chapter 1. The author records, and therefore gives his stamp of approval to the idea that Jesus is God in John 20:28 "ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου" where he does not record the correction that Jesus would surely have given him if his statement were inaccurate.

That is not to say Jesus is God. I and my wife are one, but that does not mean I am my wife.

Your logic is flawed. Your identity and that of your wife is what is distinct. You are both human beings, though you maintain a separate identity. So it is with "the Father" and "Jesus". Both can properly be called "God" even though they have separate identities.

You are assuming that Jesus is God, but Jesus never said he is God.

John recorded that Jesus is God in his gospel in the places I noted above, and I trust that his account is reliable. My assumption is that John's account is accurate. You are the one assuming that lack of evidence is evidence. Jesus never claimed to have ten toes either (as far as the text tells us). Do you think he didn't? Do you see the flaw in your logic, and the weakness of your position relative to mine?

 

[cjab]

In John 1 he called the word God and identified the word as Jesus. He did tell us that.

John did not call the word "Jesus."

I both understand what is written and accept it. You do neither.

There is nothing in that to support your slanderous accusation. The Jews understood Jesus to mean that but it doesn't follow that I have claimed that Jesus went about making that claim ("I am God", etc.) or that he was claiming that he was "the Father" even if he had claimed to be God. It should be clear from the context of the passage that Jesus wasn't conflating his identity with that of the Father since Jesus distinguished himself from "the Father". The error you perceive is the result of your conflation of the term "theos" with "the Father". Now that you should understand your mistake, I am due an apology.

If Jesus distinguished himself from the Father, as he did, why are you claiming that the "Jews understood Jesus to mean that"? What is your rationale?

No one called Jesus God in John 20:17, so this statement is not relevant.

Of course the statement is relevant: for as God doesn't have a God, so Jesus was repudiating any idea that he was (true) God.

However, I assume you mean to point out that Jesus refers to "my God" as though this is a major difficulty for my position. It's not. Jesus says plainly that he has not yet ascended to the Father. This may account for the statement as may the awareness that Jesus had, as I believe you have said somewhere*, "a God" while he was on earth and could reference that relationship even if it were no longer true in that same fashion. Even if it were still true in the same sense it had been while Jesus was ministering, it does not follow that he must be ontologically different from the Father if he submits himself to his will. I have explained all this to you before.

You are articulating the classical Sabellian position, being that Jesus was a mode of God that, as man, acknowledged for a short while that he had "a God," and ceased having any "head" after his resurrection. Hence you repudiate 1 Cor 11:3 and many other passages,

*I'm only talking about your wording of the specific phrase "a God" as in the thought Jesus had "a God" that I believe you have expressed. Feel free to clarify this if my memory failed me.

Jesus has the Father for his God, even as the Word in heaven (Jn 1:1b).

 

[Lee Magee]

The reason Jesus cannot be God, is because he is called Jesus, which means “Διός ἠίθεος” (young man of God), this implies that the bearer of the name was a gift from God to his parents. A Similar Phoenician name is Johnathan “Διός δοτός” (given by God) or given to the parents as a Gift from God.