Does God have eyes?

[cjab]

At face value this is a correct statement, though I can't be certain what you mean by it. There are two identities that are distinguished from each other, yet both are called God.

I've told you many times that I don't have enough information to say. In other words, I don't think we can know.

I think we can know that Jesus changed position with respect to God, as contrasted with the Word in heaven. He said he was "sent." This has significance. It clearly disapplies John 1:1b. I think you are being disingenuous with the truth.

I don't ignore the grammar, and I don't ignore the article. The article is most likely used to distinguish the subject from the fronted predicate nominative.

The article is used for many other things also. To suggest that the only use for the Greek article is to distinguish subhect and object/predicate is wrong. For someone who claims to read Greek, your lack of ability to reason here is noteworthy.

To claim that I've ignored the grammar when you've already been given this explanation is dishonest. How many grammars agree with the general assertion that you've made that the presence of the article with "theos" denotes "the Father"?

Here is part of a trinitarian version of what I have been saying (Cambridge bible Commentary for Schools and Colleges). I'm not agreeing with the use of all the words - I profoundly disagree with the use of "equal" here - this is not implied at all - and I would prefer it if it said that the Logos was in the "form" of God per Phil 2:6.

However one thing is clear: it is that this "trinitarian" profoundly disagrees with your sabellian slant on John 1:1.

"the Word was God] i.e. the Word partook of the Divine Nature, not was identical with the Divine Person. The verse may be thus paraphrased, ‘the Logos existed from all eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father.’ Comp. ‘neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.’"

 

[Newbirth]

I do believe there is one God.

Who do you believe is that one God

No. The way YOU understand what I wrote is to ASSUME that this means that are two Gods.

If not two Gods then Jesus is his own father.

I don't know enough about what God can and cannot do to rule out the possibility that a single God can exist as two distinct identities in two distinct places in spacetime (both these statements from our perspective).

Since you don't know, why are you arguing about what you don't know? In any scenario, a single God existing as two distinct identities(Gods) means existing as two Gods. To assume such a thing would mean that you don't actually believe there is one God.

Your assumption has prematurely closed you off to other possibilities.

I believe there is one God and that closes me off from the possibility of believing that one God could be two distinct Gods.

 

[Newbirth]

You spirit, by the way, the same spirit of Genesis 3, denys what GOD said of His Son JESUS Christ, it's because your soul was dragged by him, I mean you were dragged by the red Dragon, this is the name of Devil in this current time of Apocalypse.

Since God has a son who is Jesus Christ it follows that God's son Jesus Christ is not God.

 

[John Milton]

I think we can know that Jesus changed position with respect to God, as contrasted with the Word in heaven.

It's not that simple. There's the question of what you mean when you refer to Jesus? Are you referring to his earthly existence or to Jesus after his resurrection? Then there is the question concerning the nature of this change in position. Was it a total divestment of his deity or the assumption of a human nature along with his divine nature? Was it ontological or economical? Any answer to these questions appears to be speculation to me.

He said he was "sent." This has significance.

It has no significance at all. Sending can be done by people who are ontological equals.

It clearly disapplies John 1:1b. I think you are being disingenuous with the truth.

No, because however you look at it Jesus is referred to as God after his resurrection. The only real question is regarding his nature during his earthly tenure.

The article is used for many other things also.

I never said it wasn't.

To suggest that the only use for the Greek article is to distinguish subhect and object/predicate is wrong.

What is wrong is for you to imply that I said that the only use for the Greek article was for this purpose. Why are you making false statements about what I've said?

For someone who claims to read Greek, your lack of ability to reason here is noteworthy.

Reason about what? The text is clearly calling two different referents "God". You act as though this straightforward text is some great puzzle. It's not.

Here is part of a trinitarian version of what I have been saying (Cambridge bible Commentary for Schools and Colleges). I'm not agreeing with the use of all the words - I profoundly disagree with the use of "equal" here - this is not implied at all - and I would prefer it if it said that the Logos was in the "form" of God per Phil 2:6.

However one thing is clear: it is that this "trinitarian" profoundly disagrees with your sabellian slant on John 1:1.

"the Word was God] i.e. the Word partook of the Divine Nature, not was identical with the Divine Person. The verse may be thus paraphrased, ‘the Logos existed from all eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father.’ Comp. ‘neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.’"

This source agrees with my remarks about "the Word" and "the Father". I can't fathom why you imagine otherwise.

 

[Our Lord's God]

I apologize for the mix-up. I conflated Thomas and Philip. The point that I was trying to make was that Thomas had seen the Father and had known the Father, but even though he had seen Jesus he still didn't believe in Jesus.

What?! There is no reason to believe Thomas didn't believe in Jesus in John 14. Whether he did, or didn't, is not under discussion.

After Jesus had died, Thomas didn't believe the disciples' report that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Thomas called Jesus "God" not "man".

No, he didn't.

You are ducking this major point.

Your utter confusion does not amount to my error.

Nothing about your remarks there was factual.

All the points I am making are Scriptural facts.

The text affirms, as I have maintained all along, that Thomas had already seen the Father.

Yes he did.

John 14:7 "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” Neither of the passages discuss Thomas's disbelief in God. He constantly believed in God. The growth that Thomas experienced from 14 to 20 is that he finally recognized who Jesus is.

Why have you resorted to this mess?

1. Jesus taught Thomas that to know Jesus is to know the Father and to see Jesus is to see the Father.

2. Jesus died and was dead.

3. Thomas did not believe the report that Jesus had risen from the dead and would not believe until he had seen him for himself.

4. When Thomas seen him he confessed that it was really Jesus whom he saw by saying, "My Lord and my God" which is to say exactly what Jesus had taught him, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." There was no one else on earth to whom Thomas could say this but Jesus and so Thomas thereby confirmed this was in fact Jesus.

 

[John Milton]

Who do you believe is that one God

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit appear to be. I'm not sure how this works.

If not two Gods then Jesus is his own father.

I'm not going to argue with you over your jejune worldview. I've already addressed this above.

Since you don't know, why are you arguing about what you don't know?

I know that Jesus and the Father are both referred to as God. That is the fact that you guys seem unwilling to acknowledge. The rest is irrelevant.

In any scenario, a single God existing as two distinct identities(Gods) means existing as two Gods. To assume such a thing would mean that you don't actually believe there is one God.

You mean "in any scenario" you can conceive of. That is your self-imposed(?) limit.

I believe there is one God and that closes me off from the possibility of believing that one God could be two distinct Gods.

Good for you. So does that mean you deny certain parts of scripture or that you interpret it against the plain sense?

 

[John Milton]

What?! There is no reason to believe Thomas didn't believe in Jesus in John 14. Whether he did, or didn't, is not under discussion.

He didn't fully believe in Jesus. That is clear from his response after his crucifixion.

After Jesus had died, Thomas didn't believe the disciples' report that Jesus had risen from the dead.

That means that he didn't believe Jesus since Jesus had told him he would rise from the dead.

No, he didn't.

John 20:28. He called Jesus "God". "Man" isn't there.

Your utter confusion does not amount to my error.

Your claiming that Thomas didn't call Jesus "God" in John 20:28 is a huge error.

All the points I am making are Scriptural facts.

Nope.

Yes he did.

We've established that he had, in fact, laid eyeballs on his. I'm glad you at least agree with that.

Why have you resorted to this mess?

1. Jesus taught Thomas that to know Jesus is to know the Father and to see Jesus is to see the Father.

2. Jesus died and was dead.

3. Thomas did not believe the report that Jesus had risen from the dead and would not believe until he had seen him for himself.

4. When Thomas seen him he confessed that it was really Jesus whom he saw by saying, "My Lord and my God" which is to say exactly what Jesus had taught him, "He who has seen me has seen the Father." There was no one else on earth to whom Thomas could say this but Jesus and so Thomas thereby confirmed this was in fact Jesus.

Thomas knew the Father. He didn't know Jesus. By finally acknowledging Jesus as God, Thomas recognizes their equity. All of you (cjab, TRJM, Newbirth, you, etc.) disregard and reinterpret the 2 clear affirmations in John stating that Jesus/the Word is God because, apparently, of your inability to conceive of a God outside the limits of your human experiences.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Thomas knew the Father. He didn't know Jesus. By finally acknowledging Jesus as God, Thomas recognizes their equity. All of you (cjab, TRJM, Newbirth, you, etc.) disregard and reinterpret the 2 clear affirmations in John stating that Jesus/the Word is God because, apparently, of your inability to conceive of a God outside the limits of your human experiences.

Bizarre.

 

[John Milton]

Bizarre.

Sure, in isolation. But the statement wasn't made in isolation. But I suppose you'll focus on anything other than the few words you'll do eisegetical gymnastics to avoid.

 

[Newbirth]

The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit appear to be.

Appear to be what? And Where?

I'm not sure how this works.

Who told you it works?

I'm not going to argue with you over your jejune worldview. I've already addressed this above.

Because you cannot.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I know that Jesus and the Father are both referred to as God.

No, you don't know that. You assume that because you said you believe that there is one God. Jesus said The father is his God.

That is the fact that you guys seem unwilling to acknowledge. The rest is irrelevant.

That is not a fact. The person(Jesus) you are calling God says he has a God, his God is the only true God.

You mean "in any scenario" you can conceive of. That is your self-imposed(?) limit.

What scenario can you conceive that has two or three Gods that make one God?
is this the scenario you are conceiving?
If all the seas were one sea*,
What a great sea that would be!
And if all the trees were one tree,
What a great tree that would be!
And if all the axes were one axe,
What a great axe that would be!
And if all the men were one man,
What a great man he would be!
And if the great man took the great axe,
And cut down the great tree,
And let it fall into the great sea,
What a splish splash that would be!

Good for you. So does that mean you deny certain parts of scripture or that you interpret it against the plain sense?

I deny your interpretation of certain parts of the bible because they go against plain sense. You claim to believe there is one God yet you believe that it takes many Gods to make that one God.

 

[John Milton]

Jesus said The father is his God.

He also lived in Nazareth. When you grasp the significance of this last sentence as it pertains to what I just quoted from you, maybe it'll be productive talking to you.

 

[Caroljeen]

I apologize for the mix-up. I conflated Thomas and Philip. The point that I was trying to make was that Thomas had seen the Father and had known the Father, but even though he had seen Jesus he still didn't believe in Jesus.

What do you mean by Thomas didn't believe in Jesus? I thought John 20:28 had to do with believing that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead.

 

[Caroljeen]

It's not that simple. There's the question of what you mean when you refer to Jesus? Are you referring to his earthly existence or to Jesus after his resurrection? Then there is the question concerning the nature of this change in position. Was it a total divestment of his deity or the assumption of a human nature along with his divine nature? Was it ontological or economical? Any answer to these questions appears to be speculation to me.

Why is it speculation if you believe that Thomas was correct in calling Jesus his Lord and God?

No, because however you look at it Jesus is referred to as God after his resurrection. The only real question is regarding his nature during his earthly tenure.

Same question. Why question his nature on earth if you believe that Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and God?

 

[John Milton]

I thought John 20:28 had to do with believing that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead.

I don't think that goes deep enough.
John 16:29-32 "His disciples said, 'Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech! Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.' Jesus answered them, 'Do you now believe? Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.'"

The disciples here express a belief that Jesus "knows all things" but they apparently conceive of Jesus as a prophet through which God reveals his knowledge rather than the source of that knowledge. Likewise, the disciples acknowledge that Jesus came from God, yet they still do not see him as being one with God. Jesus questions their belief here on the basis of their future response to his death (they scatter and leave him alone). If they truly believed that he was one with God, then they could not believe that he spoke falsely. Disbelief in the resurrection was, therefore, evidence of total disbelief. And still is according to Paul.
I Cor. 15:13-15 "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised."
I Thess. 4:14 "For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep."

 

[Oseas]

Is this what you always do to yourself when people present you with facts?

The battle is against the messengers of Devil, or ministers of Satan. The battle is against three unclean spirits like frogs.- Revelation 13:v.13-15.

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS?

THREE UNCLEAN SPIRITS LIKE FROGS - WHY FROGS? Revelation 16:v.13 to 16 1 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the False Prophet. 14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which...

purebibleforum.com

 

[John Milton]

Why is it speculation if you believe that Thomas was correct in calling Jesus his Lord and God?

Because Jesus may or may not have had a different ontology during his incarnation than before or after it. As far as I know, Jesus isn't called God during his earthly sojourn, but he is before and after.

Same question. Why question his nature on earth if you believe that Thomas was calling Jesus his Lord and God?

I think I answered this above. If not, I'll try again if need be.

 

[Oseas]

The confirmation bias method eh?

The true believers stand against the wiles of the Devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in high places, lest Satan should get an advantage of us the true believers: we are not ignorant of his satanic devices.

 

[Our Lord's God]

The true believers stand against the wiles of the Devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness in high places, lest Satan should get an advantage of us the true believers: we are not ignorant of his satanic devices.

I'll take that as a resounding "yes"

 

[Oseas]

You are a child of the devil, an imp of satan. Likely, you are mentally disturbed, likely you are unemployed. Shocking that you should be allowed to infest this forum all day to spew out your satanic garbage.

What matters and prevails is the Word of GOD. I work with the Word of GOD. The Word is GOD, understand?
By the way, the legion of demons that came out from the man of Gadarah around 2000 years ago went into a herd of swine, and the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea and died in the waters, but the legion of demons no, as can it be seen by your posts.

 

[Oseas]

Since God has a son who is Jesus Christ it follows that God's son Jesus Christ is not God.

The Word was GOD, GOD was made flesh and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth..
But you are blind, guided by the blind, and are destined to the ditch, for if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch..