Does God have eyes?

John did not call the word "Jesus."
You are attempting to play games with words. John identified the word as Jesus as I said.
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?
It's simple: that is what the text says, unless one supposes that the Jews thought that "God" could refer to someone other than the Father.
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.
If Jesus is God and he has a God, then God has a God. All of this is what John records.
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 don't know how you reached this summary based on my remarks above. I gave several scenarios that the text would support, none of which has anything to do with the totality of statements you've attributed to me here.
Jesus has the Father for his God, even as the Word in heaven (Jn 1:1b).
The word in heaven isn't said to have had a God. The text says the word was with God. It's obvious that what you see in the text depends on what you want to see there, rather than what the text actually says.
 
You are attempting to play games with words. John identified the word as Jesus as I said.
Again, it is your Sabellian bent that causes you to refuse to distinguish Jesus the man from the Word in heaven. Even if they refers to the same "person", those persons exist in different jurisdictions.

It's simple: that is what the text says, unless one supposes that the Jews thought that "God" could refer to someone other than the Father.
Absolutely so. They never believed that Jesus was the Father. Rather they saw him as asserting the authority of God, which in Old Testament parlance, entitled one to the epithet of "God," or to be seen as equal to God: John 5:18.

If Jesus is God and he has a God, then God has a God. All of this is what John records.
God does not have a God, and Jesus is not God in NT apostolic doctrine.

I don't know how you reached this summary based on my remarks above. I gave several scenarios that the text would support, none of which has anything to do with the totality of statements you've attributed to me here.
You said "It does not follow that [Jesus] must be ontologically different from the Father if he submits himself to his will."

If as you seem to maintain, Jesus is ontologically the same as his Father, then again I view that as the classic Sabellian position.

The word in heaven isn't said to have had a God. The text says the word was with God.
There is only one God, who is God of all.

Per the bible, "One God above all, the Father."

It's obvious that what you see in the text depends on what you want to see there, rather than what the text actually says.
Your trouble is that you want to articulate the Sabellian position but refuse to be labelled a Sabellian. That isn't allowable and intellectually dishonest. If the Word has no God, and the Word is "God above all" and ontologically the same as the Father, then by my reckoning, you are a Sabellian.
 
Last edited:
Again, it is your Sabellian bent that causes you to refuse to distinguish Jesus the man from the Word in heaven. Even if they refers to the same "person", those persons exist in different jurisdictions.
They are distinct forms of the same entity. The form that one takes does not necessarily change one's ontology. That is why God can appear in different forms to individuals on earth (which is to say a different "jurisdiction" using your terminology) in the Hebrew Bible without ceasing to be God. The forms do not allow the fullness of God to be visible to those to whom he appears.
Absolutely so. They never believed that Jesus was the Father. Rather they saw him as asserting the authority of God, which in Old Testament parlance, entitled one to the epithet of "God," or to be seen as equal to God: John 5:18.
The text says that they thought he was making himself "God," not that he was "asserting the authority of God". This is clearly a different idea than making himself equal to God.
God does not have a God, and Jesus is not God in NT apostolic doctrine.
John 20 says that Jesus had/has a God and that he was also God. That is in the New Testament, and you ignore it because you don't like what it means.
You said "It does not follow that [Jesus] must be ontologically different from the Father if he submits himself to his will."

If as you seem to maintain, Jesus is ontologically the same as his Father, then again I view that as the classic Sabellian position.
I am on record in many places saying that I don't believe we have enough information to know the precise nature of God and his relationship to Jesus. I don't think it matters. What is 100% wrong is to deny that Jesus is called God, as you do, when that is exactly what the text says.
There is only one God, who is God of all.

Per the bible, "One God above all, the Father."
And, again, if God is used in to refer to the totality of persons who are said to be God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) then it would be a mistake to say that "the Father" is the totality of God. This is true even in your conception of God where the Son somehow depends upon God. If you exclude that portion of divinity which the Son possesses from consideration with "the Father," he isn't "God" in a full sense either since a portion of his divinity abides in Jesus. You don't seem to grasp the intricacies of this. However, this does not forbid one from calling "the Father" or Jesus or the Holy Spirit God, for the New Testament does this very thing as I have pointed out to you.
Your trouble is that you want to articulate the Sabellian position but refuse to be labelled a Sabellian. That isn't allowable and intellectually dishonest. If the Word has no God, and the Word is "God above all" and ontologically the same as the Father, then by my reckoning, you are a Sabellian.
The trouble seems to be that you aren't able to see the flaws in your reasoning, and you aren't able to understand what I've told you about my own views. In every case, your shortcomings are the problem.
 
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.
I used English...Are you seeing something different on your screen? Please try google translate.
 
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.
How does that help your argument about Thomas thinking Jesus is God
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).
If it suggests that it is wrong since the passage show two persons ...the God of me and the Lord of me...One person is God the father and one person is Lord Jesus
Divine status = from God.
"God status" = God.
You just made up that nonsense...What does divine mean?
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.
No, Jesus is identified as Lord in the passage.
So what application is Stephen using here...
Acts 7...
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
 
Palestinians spoke English in the 1st century?
I am not a Palestinian...neither am I in the first century...I am using English in 2022. I think you have the wrong poster...
Lee Magee said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You, like cjab and TRJM, are conflating "God" and "the Father".
That is the same person God is 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.
Then you have two Gods because Jesus' Father is also God. Unless you are saying Jesus is his own Father.
Your logic is flawed. Your identity and that of your wife is what is distinct.
Just as the identity of God and his son are distinct.
You are both human beings, though you maintain a separate identity.
But God says we are one.
So it is with "the Father" and "Jesus". Both can properly be called "God" even though they have separate identities.
No, they cannot if they are then you have two Gods. Jesus calls the father his God and bows down to him...where did God bow down to Jesus and call him God?
John recorded that Jesus is God in his gospel in the places I noted above, and I trust that his account is reliable.
No, he did not record Jesus is God. If he did then we would see those words...
My assumption is that John's account is accurate.
Therefore your understanding is inaccurate because you are yet to show the text saying "Jesus is God" which you claimed was recorded by John.
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).
That is not the topic of the discussion.
Do you think he didn't?
That has no bearing on the discussion.
Do you see the flaw in your logic,
I never made those assertions, and they don't show any flaws in my logic. You claimed that John recorded Jesus is God. where is the text that says Jesus is God that John recorded?
Why would John mean Jesus is God and then tell us he wrote for us to believe Jesus is the son of God?
So here is what John says to you....
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
and the weakness of your position relative to mine?
How is my position weak when the scriptures support my position?
 
That is the same person God is the Father.
That's not what the text says. In John 1:1 where there is "God" with whom the word was and the word, who is also "God". "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (the word was with God), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (God was the word).
Then you have two Gods because Jesus' Father is also God. Unless you are saying Jesus is his own Father.
Your complaint is with the author of the gospel, not with me. That's clearly what the author wrote in John 1:1.
Just as the identity of God and his son are distinct.
That's what I just said.
But God says we are one.
He did no such thing. He spoke about husbands and wives as generally, not about you and you wife specifically. And, even then, he didn't deny the individuality of a husband and a wife by doing so.
No, they cannot if they are then you have two Gods. Jesus calls the father his God and bows down to him...where did God bow down to Jesus and call him God?
This claim presupposes that you understand what God is and all that he is capable of. Surely you aren't foolish enough to claim certainty here, right?
No, he did not record Jesus is God. If he did then we would see those words...
Unless you didn't read my post, you should've seen those very words. I even underlined them for you. Your denial doesn't change the facts.
Therefore your understanding is inaccurate because you are yet to show the text saying "Jesus is God" which you claimed was recorded by John.
No. You are guilty of the same logical failing I pointed out above. You don't have to have the exact words "Jesus is God" to say that "Jesus is God". This failing seems to go hand in hand with your ilk. You deny what is plainly in the text, and you deny the truths that can accurately be derived from the text.
That is not the topic of the discussion.
It was relevant, and it remains so since you are still making claims for which you have no evidence. If your position were consistent, you would be able to answer the question. You are ducking the question, because you know it proves my point. I'm truly stunned by your willingness to put yourself to open shame like this.
That has no bearing on the discussion.
It very much does. If you are going to deny one premise on the grounds of no word-for-word scriptural evidence, then to be consistent you should deny all of them. But you don't want to do that, because you know that means that it is permissible to transmit information with a high probability of being true without having word-for-word confirmation.
I never made those assertions,
Why are you wasting our time by implying that I attributed those assertions to you? I didn't. Read more carefully in the future.
and they don't show any flaws in my logic.
They do, but it's even worse for you now. You've been given extra remediation in the hopes that you'll understand it the third time, and you probably still won't.
You claimed that John recorded Jesus is God. where is the text that says Jesus is God that John recorded?
I've shown you, and explained it to you. If you don't grasp it this time, you can grope around in the dark on your own.
Why would John mean Jesus is God and then tell us he wrote for us to believe Jesus is the son of God?
So here is what John says to you....
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
I assume that the author hoped that his readers would understand more than the unbelieving Jews of Jesus's day who were content with a worldly Messiah and a worldly kingdom. Even then, I would expect those Jews to understand that life can only be granted from God, so if Jesus can give life through his (not God's) name...he would be God just like the author claimed in the very first verse.
How is my position weak when the scriptures support my position?
It is logically weak as I've explained above and not supported by scripture as you imagine.
 
I don't like the frame of reference of your question. There is nothing to indicate Thomas "thought Jesus was the Father."
Well, the father is God...If you think Thomas was calling Jesus God then he must believe Jesus is the father.
It's more complex than that, as the exclamation was uttered to Jesus in both cases.
So you think Thomas believes Jesus is both God and Lord?
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Exactly what I said.
Divine status = from God.
"God status" = God.
You did not say anything about what Divine means...You said... Divine status = from God. Now I am asking you what "Divine" means.
You're not saying anything I don't already know.
So you know this but ignores it?
 
That's not what the text says. In John 1:1 where there is "God" with whom the word was and the word, who is also "God". "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (the word was with God), καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (God was the word).
Are you saying the God here is not the Father?
Your complaint is with the author of the gospel, not with me. That's clearly what the author wrote in John 1:1.
No, my complaint is with your claim. You seem to be saying that Jesus was his Father. Jesus said he came out from God. If we take Jesus to his word then it means before he came out from God he was in God...I suppose that is what Jn 1:1 is saying.
That's what I just said.
No, it is not
He did no such thing. He spoke about husbands and wives as generally, not about you and you wife specifically. And, even then, he didn't deny the individuality of a husband and a wife by doing so.
Here it is God recognizing a man and his wife as one flesh. It applies to my wife and me.
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
This claim presupposes that you understand what God is and all that he is capable of. Surely you aren't foolish enough to claim certainty here, right?
I did not pre-suppose anything I said Jesus calls the father his God and bows down to him...where did God bow down to Jesus and call him God? you are presupposing that Jesus is his father.
Unless you didn't read my post, you should've seen those very words. I even underlined them for you. Your denial doesn't change the facts.
I read your post John did not record the words "Jesus is God"...
No. You are guilty of the same logical failing I pointed out above. You don't have to have the exact words "Jesus is God" to say that "Jesus is God". This failing seems to go hand in hand with your ilk. You deny what is plainly in the text, and you deny the truths that can accurately be derived from the text.
You said John recorded Jesus is God sir. If John recorded "Jesus is God" then I must see"Jesus is God" According to your logic Mary is the mother of God.
It was relevant, and it remains so since you are still making claims for which you have no evidence.
It is not relevant it is a rabbit trail. The scripture is my evidence. I support my claims with the scripture.
If your position were consistent, you would be able to answer the question.
My position is consistent...Jesus is not God, Jesus is the son of God.
You are ducking the question, because you know it proves my point. I'm truly stunned by your willingness to put yourself to open shame like this.
Your question has nothing to do with the topic. You are trying to derail the discussion.
It very much does. If you are going to deny one premise on the grounds of no word-for-word scriptural evidence, then to be consistent you should deny all of them.
If you are going to say John recorded something then you must show the exact words that John recorded to be that something John recorded...
But you don't want to do that, because you know that means that it is permissible to transmit information with a high probability of being true without having word-for-word confirmation.
Sir, you started by saying John recorded the words but you did not produce the words.
Why are you wasting our time by implying that I attributed those assertions to you? I didn't. Read more carefully in the future.
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?
So why ask me if I think he didn't? You keep making rabbit trails and when i don't follow them you are mad...That has nothing to do with the topic.
They do, but it's even worse for you now. You've been given extra remediation in the hopes that you'll understand it the third time, and you probably still won't.
That is your opinion. It has nothing to do with the topic
I've shown you, and explained it to you. If you don't grasp it this time, you can grope around in the dark on your own.
You have shown your opinion of what the text means... The text does not say Jesus is God.
I assume that the author hoped that his readers would understand more than the unbelieving Jews of Jesus's day who were content with a worldly Messiah and a worldly kingdom.
So why do you not understand?
Even then, I would expect those Jews to understand that life can only be granted from God, so if Jesus can give life through his (not God's) name...he would be God just like the author claimed in the very first verse.
No, he wouldn't be God...Jesus said God the father gave him to have life in himself..in vs 27 he tells us he is a man...
John 5
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
It is logically weak as I've explained above and not supported by scripture as you imagine.
that is your opinion John Milton you are trying your little tricks to go off on rabbit trails. but it won't work... Jn 5;25-27 blows a hole in your argument.
 
Are you saying the God here is not the Father?
Yes. In John 1:1 you have two beings, both called "God" being distinguished from each other.
No, my complaint is with your claim. You seem to be saying that Jesus was his Father.
No, you've imagined this. I've never claimed that Jesus was his own Father or anything like that.
Jesus said he came out from God. If we take Jesus to his word then it means before he came out from God he was in God...I suppose that is what Jn 1:1 is saying.
John 1:1 says that the word was with God. It doesn't say he "came out from God" or that "he was in God". Your suppositions are wrong.
No, it is not
It is. See:
So it is with "the Father" and "Jesus". Both can properly be called "God" even though they have separate identities.
Stop making false statements.
Here it is God recognizing a man and his wife as one flesh. It applies to my wife and me.
Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
It applies generically to husbands and wives, as I said, and it doesn't deny the individual identities of either the husband or the wife, as I said. It pertains to you if you are a man who has a wife or a wife who has a husband because those are the groups that are addressed which is also...just as I said.
I did not pre-suppose anything I said Jesus calls the father his God and bows down to him...where did God bow down to Jesus and call him God? you are presupposing that Jesus is his father.
No, I'm not. I don't know where you arrived at this conclusion, but it came from your imagination.
I read your post John did not record the words "Jesus is God"...
I know. I addressed this. Just like I predicted that you'd be unable to grasp this simple matter. I was right.
You said John recorded Jesus is God sir. If John recorded "Jesus is God" then I must see"Jesus is God"
No. By very fact that he applied the term "God" to Jesus, he called him God. I've explained this to you already.
According to your logic Mary is the mother of God.
There is no correlation to anything I've said and this remark.
It is not relevant it is a rabbit trail. The scripture is my evidence. I support my claims with the scripture.
You have denied sound reasoning in favor of meritless assumptions and conclusions. You still mistakenly believe lack of evidence is evidence and word-for-word statements are the only way to convey meaning.
My position is consistent...Jesus is not God,
This goes against scripture in John 1:1 and John 20:28 where Jesus is identified as "God". This is indisputable.
Jesus is the son of God.
This at least is true.
Your question has nothing to do with the topic. You are trying to derail the discussion.
I showed you how ridiculous your position is. There is little doubt you must understand at least that much, because so you continue to dodge the question.
If you are going to say John recorded something then you must show the exact words that John recorded to be that something John recorded...
Sir, you started by saying John recorded the words but you did not produce the words.
I did. I even underlined them for you. Did the author use the word "God" in reference to Jesus? Yes, he did. That means the author called Jesus God.
So why ask me if I think he didn't? You keep making rabbit trails and when i don't follow them you are mad...That has nothing to do with the topic.
I'm not mad at you. I was trying to help you see how silly your position is. I feel sorry for you.
That is your opinion. It has nothing to do with the topic
You were given remediation. That was a fact. I thought you wouldn't grasp the remediation, that was my opinion. Now that you have shown that you didn't grasp the extra help, my former opinion is now fact. And all of that was relevant to our discussion. Your inability to understand why and how doesn't change that.
You have shown your opinion of what the text means... The text does not say Jesus is God.
It does, and I've told you why. The tactic that you are trying to use here is both logically unsound and intellectually dishonest. If I had been quoting what the text says, I would have put the passage in quotes and given it in Greek. Anything else is a paraphrase of the idea. You are trying to act as though my saying that John says that Jesus is God is the same as saying John said "Jesus is God".
So why do you not understand?
I do. You don't.
No, he wouldn't be God...Jesus said God the father gave him to have life in himself..in vs 27 he tells us he is a man...
John 5
25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
Ah yes, the old interpret-the-whole-book-by-isolated-passages-in-other-contexts technique. It is utterly ineffective when you are arguing that a word used to describe Jesus isn't used to describe Jesus. The word is there for anyone to see it for themselves.
that is your opinion John Milton you are trying your little tricks to go off on rabbit trails. but it won't work... Jn 5;25-27 blows a hole in your argument.
Whatever you say, Newbirth.
 
I am not American, that's for sure.
OK
Americans don't have an ancient culture of their own, so they steal the ancient culture of Palestine.
America is a melting pot of many people... The Native Americans have their ancient culture. The Europeans have their ancient culture, The Chinese have theirs, the Africans have theirs and so on, no one stole anything from Palestine. Some follow the old ways some create a mixture to make new ways.
 
Back
Top