God walks into His Temple.

Towerwatchman

Active member
I suggest Psalm 8:5 is a considerable and clear summary of Genesis 1:26-27.
“Context rules”. Meaning “that which goes with the text.” When you interpret Scripture it must always be considered in light of the surrounding verses and chapters, the book in which it is found, and the entire word of God, in such order.

Interpreting vs 26 while ignoring vs 27 is bad scholarship.

Notice what God said, "Us make..." " Our image", " Our likeness". If God was speaking to the angles then God would have created man in the image of God and angles, whether or not it was God alone or with the angels. Vs.27 states that God created man in His image and likeness alone. Whoever "Us" is, is the one that man was made in the image and likeness of. vs27 =YHWH alone.

Vs 26 creation is a future event by X , in the image and likeness of X. Vs 27 creation is a past event, man is made in the image and likeness of X. Who is X by name? Elohim.

You can define who "Us" is by the immediate text, but you cannot interpret the immediate text by your idea of who "Us" is.
There is a principle that states that what one does through others he does by himself. Julius Caesar said "I came, I saw, I conquered" an English translation of the Latin veni, vidi, vici. We also say a particular architect built a famous building. One of my ancestors was a stone mason building St Paul's Cathedral. Yahweh made/created Adam and Eve.

Kind regards
Trevor
God said let Us, and Our. For your explanation to be relevant God should have said Let I, My.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
Greetings shnarkle,

I appreciate your response, but I am not sure if you are supporting Towerwatchman's Trinitarian perspective on this or a different view. Yes, Jesus is the embodiment of the Word in John 1:14 and he is the way, the truth and the life John 14:6. Not sure what you are claiming in your comment about inheritance. Signing off- after 11pm Australian EST.

Kind regards
Trevor
Please define "Word", In other words, "When John wrote his gospel, he identified Jesus as the 'Logos". Who is or what is 'Logos".
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
I find your explanation obscure. I am not much good at English or explanation, but way, truth, life are qualities that are in some way embodied in Jesus. In the word "way", we need to follow him as he leads the way of life even unto salvation, in the word "truth", he always speaks what is true and right (and other aspects), and "life" ultimately is everlasting life, but also every aspect of what a believer should absorb. Yes Jesus needed to deny himself because he was a human, and needed to suppress the lusts of the flesh and overcome them with his understanding and meditation on the Word of God, for example his quotation of Deuteronomy three times in his trials in the wilderness.
You are writing your own religion.

What makes Jesus far superior to anyone who claims any relation to the divine is not only did He teach His message He was identical to it. Paul wrote, “In Him, dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” “I am” is “deity loaded” whenever used by Jesus. Jesus’ listeners would have related any “I am” statements to Exodus 3:14. “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:”

Jesus did not just teach the truth. He said, “I am the truth.” He did not just show the way. He said, “I am the Way.” He did not just open up the door. He said, “I am the door.” “I am the good Shepherd.” “I am the resurrection and the life.” Jesus just doesn’t offer bread, He is the bread.

The teachings of Jesus are not an intro to a religion or a way of life, but an introduction to the truth about reality as God alone knows it.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Son.
You keep asking for something that is not recorded in the Bible, "God the Son", even though we have several verses that state explicitly the Jesus is God. Titus 2:13, 2 Pe 1:1, which you argue away. How do we conclude that either your view or my view is correct? We should look at things that were recorded closes to the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers. They are either a disciple of an Apostle or a disciple of a disciple. If you are correct we should not find anything stating that Jesus is God.

Note the following ECF and what they wrote about Jesus being God.


Ignatius (105 AD): "Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God."
ibid: "I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ."


Aristides (125 AD): "The Christians trace the beginning of their religion to Jesus the Messiah. He is called the Son of the Most High God. It is said that God came down from heaven. He assumed flesh and clothed Himself with it from a Hebrew virgin."


Diognetus (c.125-200 AD): "God did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, angel, or ruler.... Rather He sent the very Creator and Fashioner of all things - by whom He made the heavens.... As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so God sent Him. He sent Him as God."

Second Clement (c.150 AD): Brethren, it is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God - as the Judge of the living and the dead."

Justin Martyr (c.160 AD): "The Word...He is Divine."

ibid: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the First-Begotten Word of God, is even God."

ibid: "For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel, and Man."

ibid: "He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ."

ibid: "David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the
Father's will. He made Him known, being Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped."

ibid: "The Son ministered to the will of the Father. Yet, nevertheless, He is God, in that He is the First-Begotten of all creatures."

ibid: "If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the Only, Unbegottten, Unuttterable God."

Melito (c.170 AD): "God was put to death, the Kiing of Israel slain."

Athenagoras (c.175 AD): "There is the one God and the Logos proceeding from Him, the Son. We understand that the Son is inseparable from Him."

Irenaeus (c.180 AD): "For He fulfills the bountiful and comprehensive will of His Father, inasmuch as He is Himself the Savior of those who are saved, and the Lord of those who are under authority, and the God of all those things that have been formed, the Only-Begotten of the Father."

ibid: "I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord. But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word.... He is the Holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God."

Note what was being taught in the early church.

ibid: "Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem.... God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us.

ibid: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indcates this."

ibid: "Christ Himself, therfore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers."

ibid: "Or how shall man pass into God, unless God has first passed into man?"

ibid: "It is plain that He was Himself the Word of God, who was made the son of man. He received from the Father the power of remission of sins. He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us."
,
Note what was being taught in the early church.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
I am not sure what it is actually called, but I consider that in John 1:1 "The Word" is a quality of God, not a person, similar to "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8. Two passages that I consider prepare the way for the language of John 1 in addition to Proverbs 8 are:
In the beginning was wisdom, and wisdom was with God and wisdom was God. Does that make sense? Its important to know the setting in which X is written, otherwise one would come to wrong concluisions.

The Greek’s believed that everything pre existed as a thought and then came into existence. Logos was that divine reason or thought which created the physical world and causes the natural world to grow. John comes along and says that he knows the Logos and that it is not a thought but a person. That for the Logos thought to exist it had to have a thinker and that thinker was Jesus. This would have caught the attention of every Hellenistic thinker in his bishopric. Not only does he identify the “Logos” to them but in the following verses John gives the “logos” a name, human qualities and affections making Jesus conceivable to them. If we substitute John’s interpretation of Logos for Word in John 1:1 we read the following. “In the beginning was “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought”, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was with God, and “The Divine Thinker of The Divine Thought” was God. Just as Paul connected the “Unknown God” on Mars Hill in Athens with Jehovah God, John connects the Greek “Logos” with Jesus Christ as God. According to the Greeks “Logos” is not a quality but the origin of creation. Logos does not fit into your interpretation of John 1:1.
 

TrevorL

Well-known member
Greetings again Towerwatchman,

We seem to be going over old ground.
I understand this to say that Jesus is NOW sustaining all things by the word of his power, and the "all things" is an allusion or quotation of Psalm 8:6 which have been "put under his feet".
The "all things" is the all things of Psalm 8:6 which speaks of the fact that God has raised up a descendant of Adam, the Son of Man, who is also the Son of God to be in control of the New Creation including those things of the Edenic Creation. Moses was not able to uphold or bear all things in his day, but Jesus has been able and will bear the "all things".
You have reverted to the question as to what happened to the universe when Jesus was dead for three days in the following.
Now follow the logic: If Jesus was sustaining the universe when He purged our sins, [at His crucifixion and death], and the universe continued to exist and function for the next three days and nights; how did Jesus, who is just a man, sustain and uphold the universe when He [Jesus} was dead and buried?
Actually I do not accept that it is talking about the universe, but the all things of Psalm 8, and this is progressive and given to him even then in prospect when he was exalted to sit at God's right hand.
Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Vs 33 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy. In the interaction there is something that Jesus said or did that the Jews understood to be a claim of deity. What would that be? Answer is in vs 36. Paraphrase "You say that I am blaspheming because I said "I am the Son of God."
Notice its not a rejection but questioning.
No, it is a rejection of their claim of blasphemy based upon Jesus' answers in John 10:32-36.
How can a created man be able to consider anything, especially before conception.
Philippians 2 is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus as a youth and before and during his ministry.
You have a contradiction. Your deity cannot be god, because he will become a different what or who he wants to become. If your deity cannot be immutable, an attribute of God your deity is not god.
No, God is the Creator and the Father and what is created reveals the Father and eventually the earth will be filled with the glory of God Numbers 14:12 and God will be all in all 1 Corinthians 15:28. When we have a child as a father, we do not change and become someone else.
Vs.27 states that God created man in His image and likeness alone. Whoever "Us" is, is the one that man was made in the image and likeness of. vs27 =YHWH alone.
No, it says that man was created in the image of God. The word alone does not exist here. "I came, I saw, I conquered".
Jesus’ listeners would have related any “I am” statements to Exodus 3:14. “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM:”
I accept the translation "I will be". The Name speaks of activity, not existence.
Note what was being taught in the early church.
I prefer to accept what was taught in the Bible, not the corrupt Church.
Logos does not fit into your interpretation of John 1:1.
I like Psalm 33:6,9 and Isaiah 55:8-11.

Kind regards
Trevor
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
How can a created man be able to consider anything, especially before conception.
This assumes that it is the created man who is making these considerations. The gospel narratives begin and end with self denial or self sacrifice. Once one has become aware that there really is no point in identifying with oneself (i.e. one's self), then it becomes evident that one is not this abstract construction of the mind to begin with.

The Word is eternal, and while the word never ceases to be the Word, the incarnation in the flesh still has a beginning and an end. The Word may identify with the flesh, but the Word isn't the flesh it identifies with. As closely related as identification is to identity, identification is not identity.

Here's an analogy:

When one is dreaming, they may be doing all sorts of things in their dreams. Anything from flying to falling down the side of a mountain to dancing in a tuxedo at a wedding. All of this is being sustained while one is within the dream itself, and it is the dreamer who is doing the sustaining. The dreamer enters into the dream. They are dreamed into existence within the dream. They do things within the dream and they think all sorts of things within the dream, and yet it is they who are sustaining everything within the dream. It is not a mutually exclusive proposition.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
I will let you attempt to do that when you stand before God at the end of the age and then will see how that goes OK?
Wrong, that spirit which you listen to is not YHWH. And how do I know that? The Author of the Bible would not contradict Himself when inspiring, as that spirit which talks to you does.
LOL, yes God told Israel who were all sinners not to make any image of him to worship as being him but that commandment wasn't given to God himself and the image of himself that he gave unto us was not given in place of himself like it would have been if the people had made it.
Again, where does it say that? You can't have it both ways. Jesus is a created man, and is also the image of the invisible God. Following your logic to a reasonable conclusion, I a created man, as Jesus is a created man, am the image of the invisible God.
LOL, he will not give his glory as being Yahweh God to another but the Bible is clear that he does give glory even to the church and it is the glory that he gave Jesus and which Jesus shares with the believer.
John 17: 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
Really. Let's discuss worship.

Ex 20:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.

God states adamantly, that there shall be no “other” besides Him. Worship is His alone, there shall be no worship of other gods with Him, before Him, or inferior to Him.

Ex 34:14 for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
Ho 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 savior besides Me.

The OT clearly teaches that only God is to be worshiped.

Notice what Jesus said.

Lk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”
Jn 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

But Jesus, who you claim to be a mere man is also worshiped. Notice, it is not recorded in the scriptures that Jesus stopped them.

Matthew 14:33 — Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
Matthew 28:17 — When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
John 9:38 — Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.

Notice Jesus demands the same honor that is shown to the Father.

John 5:23 — that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Note that it is God, who declares that He alone is to be worshiped, commanding the angels to worship Jesus.

Hebrews 1:6 — But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

So how is this possible if God does not share His Glory?

For Jesus here makes it quite obvious that the glory that he was speaking of in John 17:5 is not that of his being God, otherwise you have him giving his glory as Yahweh and which Yahweh gave him even unto his church.
Since your brought Jn 17:5 up lets read it.
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together [a]with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Notice Jesus held this glory before the world was. World translates from kosmos. And the only one that existed before creation was God alone.
Reconcile.
LOL, first off Jesus never broke the Sabbath and which should have been obvious to you by now being the Sabbath Law was written to free men up one day of the week from their secular jobs and work in order that they might worship and serve God instead and this is what Jesus and his disciples were doing on the Sabbath, they were worshiping and serving God and not their jobs and secular work.
King of the strawman argument, and lack of reading comprehension. I am not discussing work, but Jesus claiming deity by claiming that God was His Father. Try to follow the logic. The Jews considered any claim of being the Son of God as a claim to deity. That is how first century Palestinian culture operated.

Jn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Jn 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to [a]our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”

John 10:31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Vs 33 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy. In the interaction there is something that Jesus said or did that the Jews understood to be a claim of deity. What would that be? Answer is in vs 36. Paraphrase "You say that I am blaspheming because I said "I am the Son of God."
Therefore both accusations were false and there wasn't a bit of truth in either of them.
BTW. You cannot claim that you disproved A and B when you only argued A.
John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Then later, Jesus finally went on to reveal unto them that they were getting these false ideas and accusations against Jesus from their real Father the Devil and who he made sure to mention was a liar and murderer from the very beginning and that no truth was in him.
Notice your problem. Jesus never mentions that the accusations were false.
This just reveals even more of your own ignorance about these things, for in Daniel 7:13-14 Jesus receives that dominion from the Ancient of Days to bring that judgment on the beast and his Kingdom and God doesn't need to receive dominion and judgment from another, for he by default already has it and from everlasting to everlasting also.
Da 7:20-22 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up…I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High…

Its not polite to call someone ignorant, as you display your.
Let me simplify it for you. The difference between Daniel’s and John’s vision is that in Daniel’s vision there are two distinct individuals “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days.” And in Daniel’s vision the “Ancient of Days” intervenes for the saints and judges the beast and his followers. In Rev 19:11-14 we have the same account and its Jesus who intervenes and passes judgement.
You better believe I am sure about it, for Jesus said it.
Again, and read your post slowly. "he was one God with the Father"

Read your post, "He" is referring to Jesus. You are stating that Jesus is one God.
Are you sure?
 

Yahweh will increase

Well-known member
Wrong, that spirit which you listen to is not YHWH. And how do I know that? The Author of the Bible would not contradict Himself when inspiring, as that spirit which talks to you does.
First off, I have no need of covering everything on this post, for that would be a waste of my time but I will only cover a few issues here.


Concerning the above, I will let your own words be your judge on that day, for your doctrines are shot through with many contradictions and one such contradiction in your doctrine revolves around 17:3 and 1 John 5:20.

For while you insist that 1 John 5:20 reveals Jesus as "The True God and Eternal Life" you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that John speaks of two persons here, the one he calls "Him who is True" and the other "His Son or The Son of Him who is True".

Then you are also ignorant of the precedent and context of 1 John 1:1-3 where John speaks of those same two referents and even identifies Jesus as "The Eternal Life that is with the Father", and which cuts your false doctrine down to the bone.
Again, where does it say that? You can't have it both ways. Jesus is a created man, and is also the image of the invisible God. Following your logic to a reasonable conclusion, I a created man, as Jesus is a created man, am the image of the invisible God.

LOL and where does it every say specifically and with clear words that exists as three persons and by the way all flesh is created flesh, for God doesn't isn't flesh but Spirit and therefore I don't have to have a specific Bible verse to prove this.


Romans 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Do you even know what the word "mortal" means?

It means something that can suffer and die, that is what it means and that is what you have done with God's Divine nature in your fabricated doctrine that God became a man in Christ Jesus, and by the way, this is what the Bible is speaking of when it speaks of "The image of the Beast".

It is the image that the majority in your churches are being conformed to in place of the image of the true Jesus of the NT.
Really. Let's discuss worship.

Ex 20:2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.

God states adamantly, that there shall be no “other” besides Him. Worship is His alone, there shall be no worship of other gods with Him, before Him, or inferior to Him.

Ex 34:14 for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God,
Is 42:8 I am the Lord, that is My name; And My glory I will not give to another, Nor My praise to carved images.
Ho 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 savior besides Me.

The OT clearly teaches that only God is to be worshiped.

Notice what Jesus said.

Lk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ ”
Jn 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.

But Jesus, who you claim to be a mere man is also worshiped. Notice, it is not recorded in the scriptures that Jesus stopped them.

Matthew 14:33 — Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, “Truly You are the Son of God.”
Matthew 28:17 — When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
John 9:38 — Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.

Notice Jesus demands the same honor that is shown to the Father.

John 5:23 — that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

Note that it is God, who declares that He alone is to be worshiped, commanding the angels to worship Jesus.

Hebrews 1:6 — But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

So how is this possible if God does not share His Glory?


Since your brought Jn 17:5 up lets read it.
5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together [a]with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Notice Jesus held this glory before the world was. World translates from kosmos. And the only one that existed before creation was God alone.
Reconcile.

King of the strawman argument, and lack of reading comprehension. I am not discussing work, but Jesus claiming deity by claiming that God was His Father. Try to follow the logic. The Jews considered any claim of being the Son of God as a claim to deity. That is how first century Palestinian culture operated.

Jn 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
Jn 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to [a]our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God.”

John 10:31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Vs 33 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy. In the interaction there is something that Jesus said or did that the Jews understood to be a claim of deity. What would that be? Answer is in vs 36. Paraphrase "You say that I am blaspheming because I said "I am the Son of God."

BTW. You cannot claim that you disproved A and B when you only argued A.

You are one totally mesmerized and confused by false doctrine individual and just like the Jews were who you are listening to for support for your false doctrine.

God was saying that you can't have another that you worship as being The God in place of himself and he was never saying that you cannot bow down in reverence to the Kings of the countries that you belong to and which God has ordained to rule over you as long as you don't view them as being The God or in place of Yahweh The God.

By the way, the same exact Hebrew words for "worship" of Yahweh God are used in the OT to speak of reverence to Kings or those in appointed By God authority and they were in the case of David and Joseph also.

Oh and Jesus did most certainly reveal to them that their accusations were false and he did so in John 10 when it quoted their own OT scriptures back to them where God himself called them gods and which incidentally Jesus never called himself but only The Son of God or that God was his Father.

Notice your problem. Jesus never mentions that the accusations were false.

Da 7:20-22 and the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up…I was watching; and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High…

Its not polite to call someone ignorant, as you display your.
Let me simplify it for you. The difference between Daniel’s and John’s vision is that in Daniel’s vision there are two distinct individuals “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days.” And in Daniel’s vision the “Ancient of Days” intervenes for the saints and judges the beast and his followers. In Rev 19:11-14 we have the same account and its Jesus who intervenes and passes judgement.

That is laughable, for John also mentions two persons in the book of Revelation and he reveals a distinction between them in his words also.
Again, and read your post slowly. "he was one God with the Father"

Read your post, "He" is referring to Jesus. You are stating that Jesus is one God.
Are you sure?
I haven't a clue what you are talking about, for I never said that Jesus "is one God".

Furthermore, where does Jesus say in John 10:30 or anywhere else that he is "One God with The Father".

Sorry but I very clearly proved that when he said "I and my Father are one" he was never meaning that he was "one God with the Father" and the proof is given by the same author also in John 17:11 and 20-23, where Jesus prays three times that his sheep will be one the same way that he and the Father are one.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
This may be the case, but then this would mean that what the Pharisees believed was true. Do we know this is the case?
I think the problem with this verse is that one can interpret John to be saying that what the Pharisees understood was true, or he is simply reporting the reason they had for wanting to kill him. Reporting why they believed they should kill Jesus doesn't necessarily mean that John agrees with their reason, or that their reason is accurate. We have numerous examples of the Pharisee's teachings being viewed as false, e.g. "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" etc.
Again, this is clearly their perspective.
That raises a good question. Is the accusation raised by the Pharisees against Jesus true? Did Jesus claim deity when He said He was the Son of God? Jn 5:18, 19:7.

John 10:31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Vs 33 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy. In the interaction there is something that Jesus said or did that the Jews understood to be a claim of deity. What would that be? Answer is in vs 36. Paraphrase "You say that I am blaspheming because I said "I am the Son of God."

Notice nowhere in the immediate passage, the gospel or the NT do we find anything recording that Jesus or NT author clarifying this.

At the trial
62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

What would constitute blasphemy, claiming to be the Christ [which the Jews believed would be a man] or the Son of God?

Let's see what the ECF wrote about "The Son Of God."
Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was an Christian apologist of the second century.
And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.


Origen (AD 185-254) was another early Christian theologian. He writes
And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.

Keep in mind that my objective is to point out that at the time, in that culture, claiming to be the Son of God was claiming deity.

At least according to the Pharisees, or rather their interpretation of Christ's claims. Nowhere in the texts does he actually claim 'I am God".
It would be great, but not necessary. If I said that I graduated from boot camp at Paris Island but never said I am a Marine. Would it be reasonable to conclude that I am a Marine?
We have multiple accounts of Jesus claiming deity.
Multiple accounts of the Jews accusing Jesus of claiming deity.
We have Thomas saying to Jesus "My Lord and My God".
We Paul and Peter under the inspiration of God wrote explicitly that Jesus is God.
Multiple ECF wrote that Jesus is God.
Pliny the younger, a magistrate of that time wrote that "Christians" believed that Jesus is God.
Inapplicable. Jesus isn't using God's name at all.
Which is showing a great disrespect to God or something holy. Falsely claiming to be equal with God is disrespectful to God.
This is assumed, but never claimed by Daniel. Jesus not only doesn't appear, he isn't even given the name until eight days after he's born.
Not able to follow, you would have to elaborate.
Is there some reason why we must confine this to the immediate text?
Let's look at YWI's post.
In fact when Jesus said "have I been so long with you and yet you still don't know me Philip, he was speaking for Yahweh and not for himself when he said this

Would you agree that statement to be true? Without explicit evidence I do not. Why? Reading the narrative we can see it is Jesus speaking and not the Father.

He says that he only says what is given to him to say from the father. He only does what he sees the father doing. He also says that when you have seen the son, you have seen the father.
Jn 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
That is not what it says. The passage is about unity. Jesus gives two proofs of this unity. Jesus has authority from the Father to speak and the Father working through Him.

He who has seen the image of God has seen God. Christ is the image of God according to Paul so there's really no other way to see the father except by looking at his one and only image. There is no other. You quite simply can never see God unless you are looking at God himself, and Christ is God personified.
Let's clarify image.
Heb 1:3 who [Jesus] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person…
If Jesus was only 'image', the idea of an image stamped, burned or engraved into a surface. Rather, Jesus is the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON (χαρακτήρ=ὁ= ὑπόστασις = αὐτός). Jesus is the very image (charaker) of God's substance (hupostsis). The primary sense of ὑπόστασις substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so, assurance itself. How can a created being [therefore limited in many respects] be the very image of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, holy, and immutable being? How does a mere man become God?

5287 ὑπόστασις [hupostasis] Five occurrences; AV translates as “confidence” twice, “confident” once, “person” once, and “substance” once. 1 a setting or placing under. 1a thing put under, substructure, foundation. 2 that which has foundation, is firm. 2a that which has actual existence. 2a1 a substance, real being. 2b the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing. 2c the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution. 2c1 confidence, firm trust, assurance. [Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
That raises a good question. Is the accusation raised by the Pharisees against Jesus true? Did Jesus claim deity when He said He was the Son of God? Jn 5:18, 19:7.

John 10:31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.
This is their claim.
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”
Is that true? Are they gods? More importantly, it they are not gods then Jesus is merely making the same claim for himself that God made for them.
’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Compare this to what he says in John 7:23
36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Vs 33 The Jews accuse Jesus of blasphemy. In the interaction there is something that Jesus said or did that the Jews understood to be a claim of deity. What would that be? Answer is in vs 36. Paraphrase "You say that I am blaspheming because I said "I am the Son of God."
They also (falsely!) understood that Jesus' disciples were violating the Sabbath by picking grain on the Sabbath. They also (Falsely!) understood that Jesus' disciples were violating the law by not undergoing their ritualistic washing before eating lunch. Over and over again, John's readers see them presenting false teachings, but for some reason, you are now claiming that John's reporting of these events depicts or expresses his own claim that they are presenting the truth this time. He's just reporting what their claim is. He's just presenting what Jesus says to them, but you don't seem to be paying attention to what he's actually saying. Again, are those to whom God addressed god? Who was God actually addressing, and who is Jesus referring to?
Notice nowhere in the immediate passage, the gospel or the NT do we find anything recording that Jesus or NT author clarifying this.
I don't see why it needs to be clarified. This is common throughout the entire bible. Abraham marries his sister. Lot has sexual relations with his own daughters. Jacob deceives his own father. Tamara engages in prostitution with her father in law. The bible is silent on all of these. There is nothing clarifying whether these acts are condoned or condemned. The authors simply report what happened.

It is YOUR job to clarify if Jesus really means to point out that we're all gods. Is that what he's saying? If so, then it isn't blasphemy at all. If not, then your argument collapses in on itself.
At the trial
62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

What would constitute blasphemy, claiming to be the Christ [which the Jews believed would be a man] or the Son of God?
Neither. Plenty of people within Jewish families will claim that their son is a son of God.
Let's see what the ECF wrote about "The Son Of God."
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Keep in mind that my objective is to point out that at the time, in that culture, claiming to be the Son of God was claiming deity.
Fair enough, but then that was what pagans believed. It was quite common for emperors to be deified after they died. These pagan influences can be seen throughout Christianity to this day.
It would be great, but not necessary. If I said that I graduated from boot camp at Paris Island but never said I am a Marine. Would it be reasonable to conclude that I am a Marine?
No. Those who are dishonorably discharged are not marines.
We have multiple accounts of Jesus claiming deity.
No. We have multiple posts of you claiming Jesus is God.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Multiple accounts of the Jews accusing Jesus of claiming deity.
Yep, and those accusations are repeatedly refuted by Christ himself. It is God who grants authority to Christ. Christ doesn't grant it to himself.
We have Thomas saying to Jesus "My Lord and My God".
Grammatically, he is saying no such thing. That claim has been debunked so frequently, I don't know why people still bother presenting it.
We Paul and Peter under the inspiration of God wrote explicitly that Jesus is God.
No. They most certainly did not.
Multiple ECF wrote that Jesus is God.
Pliny the younger, a magistrate of that time wrote that "Christians" believed that Jesus is God.
They still do, and yet that doesn't make it so.
Which is showing a great disrespect to God or something holy. Falsely claiming to be equal with God is disrespectful to God.
And yet it is the Pharisees who are making this claim.
Not able to follow, you would have to elaborate.
Not sure why you can't follow.
Let's look at YWI's post.
In fact when Jesus said "have I been so long with you and yet you still don't know me Philip, he was speaking for Yahweh and not for himself when he said this

Would you agree that statement to be true?
Yes, and no. Jesus began his ministry by enjoining his listeners to "deny yourself". Presumably, he followed this advice as well, no? In other words, Christ personifies self denial or self sacrifice. He is not speaking for himself because there is no self for him to speak for anymore.
Without explicit evidence I do not. Why? Reading the narrative we can see it is Jesus speaking and not the Father.
Within John's gospel it is the word of God personified who is speaking. The word of God affirms that he comes from God, but whatever comes from God is not God. What comes from God manifests God or God's will.
Jn 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
That is not what it says.
Perhaps you might want to point out why you're posting scripture which you believe doesn't say what it clearly says.
The passage is about unity.
It clearly distinguishes between the two.
Jesus gives two proofs of this unity. Jesus has authority from the Father to speak and the Father working through Him.
Yes, and they are both clearly distinguished.
Let's clarify image.
Heb 1:3 who [Jesus] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person…
A person is what is objectively presented to the world. The term comes from "persona" and is defined as "a mask; what is presented to the world". Jesus is what is presented to the world. He is the mask that must be removed to reveal the father. The father can never be objectively presented to the world except in, with, and through Christ.
If Jesus was only 'image', the idea of an image stamped, burned or engraved into a surface. Rather, Jesus is the EXPRESS IMAGE OF HIS PERSON (χαρακτήρ=ὁ= ὑπόστασις = αὐτός). Jesus is the very image (charaker) of God's substance (hupostsis).
These are distinctions with no effective difference. I am not denying the fact that Christ is the very icon of God himself. He is God himself, but God is not what objectively exists. Idols objectively exist and are worshipped as gods. Paul refers to Christ as an icon which should never be conflated with an idol. Idols are worshipped as gods while icons are representations. By definition, representations or representatives are not what or who they represent.

However, when it comes to transcendence, only the icon actually exists. There is only God's persona, image, icon, mediator, door, window, way, truth, life, etc. God is the origin of all while Christ is the means. Apart from Christ, God doesn't exist. John doesn't begin his introduction with: "in the beginning was god" because God is the origin of existence itself while Christ is the means by which everything comes into creation. He is the means by which all are one within him.
The primary sense of ὑπόστασις substance is something which stands underneath;
This is only with respect to the Genitive case. With the Accusative case it denotes the place from which such action extends or is expressed. Regardless it denotes the means which should never be conflated with the origin. Christ is the foundation of reality. Christ is slaughtered from the foundation of the world. The world cannot come into existence without Christ emptying himself. Self sacrifice is what brings the world into existence. It is how Christ enters into the world. It is how Christ is seen in the world. No one can see Christ without self sacrifice.

The self, or persona or identity which we all present is nothing more than an abstract construction of the mind. It is a mask which must be removed in order to see clearly, not just who we really are, but who everyone else truly is.

Christ manifests the kingdom of God where there is no place to hide behind masks or separate identities. All are one in Christ who is the only true identity.

Until one can see that no matter how closely identification may be related to identity, identification is not identity. When one's identity is in Christ, "it is no longer I, but Christ in me...etc." as Paul points out.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
The essence of a triangle cannot be captured as Plato, and Euclid have both documented with their arguments and proofs.
This falls under appealing to authority. I can post others that disagree with Plato or/and Euclid. Would rather read your argument using and/or explaining how Plato or/and Euclid apply.
Yes. I just reread my response, and must retract my claim. What a thing is, is not how it is described or defined. What something IS should never be conflated with what it MEANS any more than a word should be conflated with its meaning or definition.

The essence of anything cannot be in its meaning unless its essence is epistemological rather than ontological which would make intelligibility the essence of everything rather than its very existence or being. Epistemologies are not fundamental. They do not trump ontological reality.
With respect to physical things, wooden triangles, essence is a composition of math and form. When I understand what I made with the three boards, a wooden triangle, I understand what the boards formed, a triangle. There is a difference when studying geometry which is abstract, vs wooden triangles which is concrete. I can't ignore the material structure of a rock, animal etc. when studying geology or biology. Why? Because the essence of a square =4 equal sides, four 90* angles, triangles three sides, circle 360* is captured in the material thing. When I grasp the essence of physical or material triangles, I grasp what is universal , what is perfect to which I can judge if X is a perfect or less perfect but still a triangle.
It most certainly is, and this is explicitly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:6

"there is but one God, the Father, FROM WHOM all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH WHOM all things came and THROUGH whom we live."

"From" denotes origin while "through" denotes the means. Likewise, the Father also denotes the origin of the Son. Christ affirms this when he points out that he came from the father as well.
You are writing theology based on your interpretation of one verse. But let's put this to the test.

Is it "I am who I am" =eternal existence, or "I am through whom all things came through" = gives more the sense that the outcome is the product of God.
When it comes to God we have to transcend 'every possible world' because God is the Creator and Sustainer of all. The best I can come up with is 'Possibility".

True of False = In every possibility we can think of, God is and has to be an eternally existing being? = True
True of False = In every possibility we can think of, God is and has to be the Creator and Sustainer of all? =False
Why? Because there can be one possibility where God chooses not to create.
Necessary being cannot not exist, and being is one, but not a certain or specific one. As soon as you create this god of yours, you cross into idolatry. As soon as you begin defining your gods, you create gods that are subject to definition, observation, etc. The biblical god transcends all definition, description, imagination, intelligibility, etc.
I am not creating any god, but reiterating what God has inspired the Biblical authors to write about Himself.
Again, you're simply ignoring Paul's claim while Begging the Question. John's introduction does not begin with "in the beginning was god" because it is not God who exists eternally, but the Word. Eternal being is attributed to God. Eternal being has no beginning or end, but this does not negate the fact that God is the origin of being.
You might have a point if the text read "In the beginning was the Logos only.." It reads: In the beginning was the Logos , and the Logos was with God. Who was in the beginning with the Logos, =God. Jon 1:1 if one is eternal [the Son] then the other is eternal [God].
Being or existence is necessarily eternal. It is a logical as well as empirical necessity. It is also a characteristic or attribute of God in that God is the origin of being.

Grammatically speaking, being belongs to God, therefore (with reference to God) being is more accurately the Genitive of Possession rather than the Verb to Be. Being is a possession of God rather than what God is.

God will be what God will be, but God cannot be anything because the Creator cannot be what is created, except in, with, and through Christ the Son who is the only means, medium, or mediator between the Creator and the creation. God's omnipotence is manifest in, with, and through Christ. What is potential in God is actualized through Christ. What will be in God is manifest through Christ.
According to scripture God is eternal, He is the first cause and the uncaused cause, who brought everything into existence, therefore a necessary being. Plus we can speak of God by analogy His creation is in some respect like God, but God is not like His creation. For example both exist. Such as a picture is like its subject but the subject is not like his picture. Created things are beings by participation because they receive and share in existence. Ontologically God is Being, not a being, and created things are beings. When describing who God is in relation to His creation, He is a necessary being.

False. Being is eternal. God is the origin of EVERYTHING including being or existence which must necessarily exist a priori in order for any thing to exist. The problem here is in not noting that the origin of being cannot BE without creating an infinite regression. In other words, being is not the origin of being. Some might say that becoming is the origin of being, but this creates more problems than it solves
The biblical authors solve the problem simply by pointing out that what will be (i.e. potential) will be manifest. Again, whatever exists cannot be God any more than what is created can be the creator. This is why it is so imperative to distinguish between the origin and means, but to note the logical necessity for both. There is no chronological order to either of them. They conceptually exist simultaneously, but the origin of existence cannot logically or empirically exist without violating the law of non-contradiction.
Since we are here and now we do not have an endless regress. So that idea might hold water in theory, it does not in reality. Origin and means only apply to 'caused things'. God is the uncaused cause and first cause, eternal. Being exist because God exist. Origin and meaning do not apply to God because God simply is, has always been, and will always be. How this works in the eternal, I do not know, but from scripture I know it does.
False. See Paul's claim in his letter to the Corinthians. Existence is not an act. Existence is not a verb. It just is.
ex·ist·ence
[iɡˈzistəns]

NOUN
  1. the fact or state of living or having objective reality:
Please share Paul's claim.
There is a definition for "nothing", and as I've already pointed out, the definition cannot be what it defines. Thanks for providing an excellent example to prove my point. The same holds true for God. There is no referent for the word "God". There is only the word itself. This is why Christ is the means which leaves only the origin which can only be manifest through Christ, e.g. "and the word was (i.e. manifests) God.
I did not ask for a definition, but your description of nothing.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
This falls under appealing to authority.
Not really. It is simply pointing out that abstract ideas don't actually exist.
I can post others that disagree with Plato or/and Euclid.
Be my guest. Perhaps you might have some ideas that you can produce that exist as anything other than abstract ideas.
Would rather read your argument using and/or explaining how Plato or/and Euclid apply.
See above. Breadthless length doesn't actually exist.
With respect to physical things, wooden triangles, essence is a composition of math and form. When I understand what I made with the three boards, a wooden triangle, I understand what the boards formed, a triangle.
And your understanding is not a triangle. The faculty of knowing is not what is known. You're conflating the two.
There is a difference when studying geometry which is abstract, vs wooden triangles which is concrete.
Yep and never the twain shall meet.
I can't ignore the material structure of a rock, animal etc. when studying geology or biology.
No one is asking you to. It's just important that you see the difference.
Why? Because the essence of a square =4 equal sides, four 90* angles, triangles three sides, circle 360* is captured in the material thing.
And yet it will never BE the material thing.
When I grasp the essence of physical or material triangles, I grasp what is universal ,
False. You simply grasp an idea with your mind, and again, ideas don't exist as anything other than ideas.
You are writing theology based on your interpretation of one verse.
Not really. I'm simply pointing out an aspect of your theology that you are intentionally ignoring.
But let's put this to the test.

Is it "I am who I am" =eternal existence,
Most translators prefer "I will be what I will be", i .e. potential. By definition, potential doesn't exist.
or "I am through whom all things came through" = gives more the sense that the outcome is the product of God.
Strawman argument. Your quote is in reference to Christ, not God.
When it comes to God we have to transcend 'every possible world' because God is the Creator and Sustainer of all.
Not sure how you came to this conclusion. God is the origin of creation, but it is Christ who sustains creation. I don't see how it necessarily follows that God transcends any and all creations. I'm not denying God transcends the created world. I just don't see how that would be the reason.
The best I can come up with is 'Possibility".
I think potential or all potent is more accurate The bible points out, "I will be what I will" rather than "I will be whatever I can be"
True of False = In every possibility we can think of, God is and has to be an eternally existing being? = True
False. There are plenty of possibilities where one can think of God as anything from non-existent to well defined and limited. Moreover, as you've just pointed out, transcendence transcends any and all existing worlds which could possibly exist. To then assume that God can't transcend the one common denominator of everything that exists, i.e. existence itself creates a limited, and well defined god of one's own imagination, or at the very least someone else's imagination which the unimaginative can only borrow from.
True of False = In every possibility we can think of, God is and has to be the Creator and Sustainer of all? =False
Why? Because there can be one possibility where God chooses not to create.
There can also be the possibility that God is the origin of existence rather than the means by which everything comes into existence. This is what Paul points out in 1 Cor. 8:6
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I am not creating any god, but reiterating what God has inspired the Biblical authors to write about Himself.
No. You're presenting your interpretation which doesn't necessarily agree with what they're actually writing.
You might have a point if the text read "In the beginning was the Logos only.."
John needn't waste his time with redundancies.
It reads: In the beginning was the Logos , and the Logos was with God. Who was in the beginning with the Logos, =God. Jon 1:1 if one is eternal [the Son] then the other is eternal [God].
Not logically. The origin of existence cannot logically exist without creating an infinite regression.
According to scripture God is eternal,
And yet Paul clarifies that God is the origin of creation including the means by which everything comes into existence which can only be synonymous with existence.
He is the first cause and the uncaused cause, who brought everything into existence,
False. It is only in, with, and through Christ that everything comes into existence according to God's will by the power of his spirit.
therefore a necessary being.
More accurately, existence is necessary for anything to exist. A being or an existence places limitations within your definition that are unnecessary, and spotlight one's predisposition to idolatry.
Plus we can speak of God by analogy His creation is in some respect like God, but God is not like His creation. For example both exist. Such as a picture is like its subject but the subject is not like his picture. Created things are beings by participation because they receive and share in existence.
Agreed. You've just conceded my position.
Ontologically God is Being, not a being,
EXACTLY!!!
and created things are beings. When describing who God is in relation to His creation, He is a necessary being.
Nope. You just contradicted yourself. You've just placed your god within creation itself, making him a creation as well.
Since we are here and now we do not have an endless regress.
Please elaborate on this subtle argument you seem to think you just presented.
So that idea might hold water in theory, it does not in reality.
Please elaborate.
Origin and means only apply to 'caused things'. God is the uncaused cause and first cause, eternal.
There is no beginning or end to existence. This is a logical necessity. It doesn't then follow that God is existence itself, and Paul's observation points out that he is the origin of existence. In other words, existence is an attribute of (i.e. from) God rather than who God is. Grammatically speaking, existence is the Genitive of Possession rather than the Verb to Be. Existence belongs to God because he is the origin of existence.
Being exist because God exist.
Agreed!!! And this is due to the fact that God is the origin of existence. God does not exist because existence exists. See the difference? Do you see the theological dilemma you create by making God subject to or the product of existence?
Origin and meaning do not apply to God because God simply is, has always been, and will always be.
Your argument is with Paul then because he clearly distinguishes between God the father who is the origin of everything, and Christ the son who is the means by which everything comes into existence in, with, and through him. Origin is explicitly associated with God as I've documented with Paul's quote. Coming up with other interpretations of scripture places the burden of reconciling them upon you.
How this works in the eternal, I do not know, but from scripture I know it does.

Please share Paul's claim.
I have repeatedly, and along with the definition of the words he uses, it should be quite obvious by now that you're handwaving doesn't prove anything.
I did not ask for a definition, but your description of nothing.
A distinction with no effective difference. The fact is that by definition, nothing doesn't exist. There is only the concept itself which doesn't actually exist either. It takes the mind of an idolater to come up with descriptions for their gods. Likewise, the same holds true for those asking for a description of nothing. It is an incoherent request.

As I've pointed out earlier, the map is not the territory, descriptions cannot be what they describe. Definitions cannot be what they define. Names are not who they refer to, representatives or representations are not who or what they represent, symbols are not what or who they symbolize, and when it comes to transcendence, there is only the Metaphor, Symbol, Means, Way, Door, Icon, Image, Medium, Mediator, Word, Name, etc. etc. which cannot BE transcendent without redefining the term itself.

There is only the Word "God" which itself must be transcended, in, with, and through the Word, Way, etc.

Paul distinguishes between the two. You're conflating the two.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
It is reconciled by the fact that the image of God is not God. It's God's image. Jesus is the name of a man who sees that he is also not the name the world identifies him with. He does not identify with the name or persona, but instead with the life that animates the flesh. He goes so far as to point out that he 'IS the life", and the life should never be conflated with the body that is animated by the life. The flesh counts for nothing. (John 6:63).

Christ is literally sacrificed from the beginning of creation. The act of creation is itself an act of self sacrifice. Jesus' name means "God's salvation" and God's salvation comes through self sacrifice or self denial. Jesus begins his ministry with "deny yourself" and ends by illustrating it with the crucifixion, and the empty tomb. There isn't even a body left. It is a complete negation of self. That is the image of God. That is how God is revealed. That is how one sees God.
Co 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
The word image is used by NT authors to convey real and essential embodiment. Note how it is used in
Heb 10:1For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

Hebrews 1:3 explains it best and answers one of your previous post.


May 3, 2022
Some people might view this as saying that the person or persona is equal to God which isn't what you've presented at all.

What you've posted is accurate, but too many people don't understand that God is not equivalent to Himself, or the persona that is presented to the world. God is the origin of his own person or persona.

When we say "himself" we are necessarily referring to his self, and what is his is not who he is. Grammatically speaking, it's the difference between the Verb to Be and the Genitive of Possession. They cannot be equivalent.

However, there may be one exception if we look at being as an attribute rather than who one is. If being or existence is what belongs to God rather than who God is, then they are somewhat equivalent. The verb to be then becomes equivalent to the genitive of possession. It's a grammatical problem, but not a logical or mathematical problem.

If we see that God is the origin of being rather than being itself, there is no problem anymore. Paul affirms this to be the case in 1 Corinthians 8:6
Heb 1:3 who [Jesus] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person…

Express image translates from:

χαρακτήρ [charakter] AV translates as “express image” once. 1 the instrument used for engraving or carving. 2 the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it. 2a a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression. 2b the exact expression - (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e. facsimile. [Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]

The image stamped on a coin, conveys the idea that if YHWH be represented under the concept of substance or being Jesus is the exact resemblance of Theos. [FORM]

Combined with "His person" translates from
5287 ὑπόστασις [hupostasis] Five occurrences; AV translates as “confidence” twice, “confident” once, “person” once, and “substance” once. 1 a setting or placing under. 1a thing put under, substructure, foundation. 2 that which has foundation, is firm. 2a that which has actual existence. 2a1 a substance, real being. 2b the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing. 2c the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution. 2c1 confidence, firm trust, assurance. [Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]

The express image of his person (χαρακτήρ=ὁ= ὑπόστασις = αὐτός). Rend. the very image (or impress) of his substance. The primary sense of ὑπόστασις substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so, assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties. [SUBSTANCE]

The author is using a hylemorphic argument to establish the deity of Jesus. He is using the physical to describe the spiritual.
Therefore, Jesus is the exact form and matter of God, = equal to God Himself.

So back to the original question you addressed.

Now if Jesus is not God but a mere man, we have a severe contradiction with Col. Paul wrote that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, that Jesus alone fully and exactly exhibits the very nature and glory of God. How can that be possible if Jesus is part of creation? God is incomparable, that is the reason why He prohibited the use of anything to represent Him. There is nothing He created that comes close to His glory or image.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
So you believe that Jesus broke the Sabbath? Jesus was a sinner? Sin was not just imputed to him, but he was an actual transgressor of God's law? So you're claiming that Jesus committed blasphemy?
What do you base this on? How do you come to such a conclusion?
The author presents them as liars. It's a pervasive theme. John doesn't present any caveats to that claim.
We are discussing Jn 5:18.
And neither does John present the Jews as liars. The Jews accused Jesus of working on the Sabbath based on their never ending rules and scenarios. Based on these scenarios the Jews composed a coherent accusation, whether or not it could hold up in court is another thing. And that was not my point. What I was pointing out is that the culture at that time considered anyone claiming to be "The Son of God" was claiming deity and equality with God.

Since you are addressing the Sabbath, Jesus established His deity when discussing the Sabbath.
Mt. 12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath!” 3 But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple [a]profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? 6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

His argument is unique. He does not argue against the accusation of breaking the Sabbath but clarifies the Sabbath with authority. He ask if it is better to be right or do good. Is it better to be right and not work on the Sabbath, or is it better to be good and work on the Sabbath?
Even though what the disciples did was contrary to the letter of the Law, Jesus has authority over the Law. He can dispense with its observation at certain times, and give a true and right interpretation of it, since He made it.
A mere man does not possess such authority, only God does. "Lord of the Sabbath" = deity. 'Son of Man' Messianic alluding to Daniel 7.

The chronological order places the incarnation, gestation, and birth before he was given the name Jesus. Therefore, it was not Jesus who was in the form of God, but as John says, "the word" which THEN BECAME the man named Jesus.
Read again.
Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it [b]robbery to be equal with God, 7 but [c]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

who = used to introduce a clause giving further information about a person or people previously mentioned.
Who was previously mentioned? = Jesus
What clause is being introduced to give further information about Jesus? =being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.

It's in chronological order, Jesus existed before incarnation, gestation, and birth in the exact form of God =equal to God.
Plus your argument is flawed. Just because the child was named Jesus does not negate that the center of consciousness known as Jesus is not the pre-incarnate Logos or/and Son of God.
This assumes that it is the created man who is making these considerations. The gospel narratives begin and end with self denial or self sacrifice. Once one has become aware that there really is no point in identifying with oneself (i.e. one's self), then it becomes evident that one is not this abstract construction of the mind to begin with.

The Word is eternal, and while the word never ceases to be the Word, the incarnation in the flesh still has a beginning and an end. The Word may identify with the flesh, but the Word isn't the flesh it identifies with. As closely related as identification is to identity, identification is not identity.

Here's an analogy:

When one is dreaming, they may be doing all sorts of things in their dreams. Anything from flying to falling down the side of a mountain to dancing in a tuxedo at a wedding. All of this is being sustained while one is within the dream itself, and it is the dreamer who is doing the sustaining. The dreamer enters into the dream. They are dreamed into existence within the dream. They do things within the dream and they think all sorts of things within the dream, and yet it is they who are sustaining everything within the dream. It is not a mutually exclusive proposition.
Out of context.
I will ask again.
Let's be clear, its the disposition of Jesus' mind before and after His birth. What is key is that Jesus 'considered' before He was an embryo in Mary's womb.
Simple question: = How can a created man be able to consider anything, especially before conception?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Co 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
The word image is used by NT authors to convey real and essential embodiment.
Paul doesn't use the word "idol", but instead uses the word "eikon" or "icon". The former refers to what is worshipped as god or gods while the latter is explicitly a representation. See the difference yet?
Note how it is used in
Heb 10:1For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

Hebrews 1:3 explains it best and answers one of your previous post.




Heb 1:3 who [Jesus] being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person…

Express image translates from:

χαρακτήρ [charakter] AV translates as “express image” once. 1 the instrument used for engraving or carving. 2 the mark stamped upon that instrument or wrought out on it. 2a a mark or figure burned in (Lev. 13:28) or stamped on, an impression. 2b the exact expression - (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e. facsimile. [Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]

The image stamped on a coin, conveys the idea that if YHWH be represented under the concept of substance or being Jesus is the exact resemblance of Theos. [FORM]
You're making my points for me. Ideas conveyed are not what those ideas refer to.
Combined with "His person" translates from
5287 ὑπόστασις [hupostasis] Five occurrences; AV translates as “confidence” twice, “confident” once, “person” once, and “substance” once. 1 a setting or placing under. 1a thing put under, substructure, foundation. 2 that which has foundation, is firm. 2a that which has actual existence. 2a1 a substance, real being. 2b the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing. 2c the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution. 2c1 confidence, firm trust, assurance. [Strong, James: The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible]

The express image of his person
Look in a mirror. What do you see? Do you see yourself? Do you see your image?
(χαρακτήρ=ὁ= ὑπόστασις = αὐτός). Rend. the very image (or impress) of his substance. The primary sense of ὑπόστασις substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so, assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties. [SUBSTANCE]

The author is using a hylemorphic argument to establish the deity of Jesus. He is using the physical to describe the spiritual.
And as John points out, "that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit".
Therefore, Jesus is the exact form and matter of God, = equal to God Himself.
He is God personified. He is the embodiment of God's will. This doesn't negate the fact that God is the origin of that person, body, spirit, etc.
So back to the original question you addressed.

Now if Jesus is not God but a mere man, we have a severe contradiction with Col.
No, we don't.
Paul wrote that Jesus is the image of the invisible God,
That which is invisible does not produce an image. Again, an icon is a representation, and BY DEFINITION representatives or representations are not what or who they represent.
that Jesus alone fully and exactly exhibits the very nature and glory of God.
And God's glory should never be conflated with the origin of that glory.
How can that be possible if Jesus is part of creation? God is incomparable,
And we can draw numerous comparisons with Jesus.
that is the reason why He prohibited the use of anything to represent Him. There is nothing He created that comes close to His glory or image.
Agreed. This is why Jesus begins his ministry by enjoining his listeners to "deny yourself." It is only through self denial or self sacrifice that the image of God can be seen.
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Paul doesn't use the word "idol", but instead uses the word "eikon" or "icon". The former refers to what is worshipped as god or gods while the latter is explicitly a representation. See the difference yet?

You're making my points for me. Ideas conveyed are not what those ideas refer to.

Look in a mirror. What do you see? Do you see yourself? Do you see your image?

And as John points out, "that which is flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is spirit".

He is God personified. He is the embodiment of God's will. This doesn't negate the fact that God is the origin of that person, body, spirit, etc.

No, we don't.

That which is invisible does not produce an image. Again, an icon is a representation, and BY DEFINITION representatives or representations are not what or who they represent.

And God's glory should never be conflated with the origin of that glory.

And we can draw numerous comparisons with Jesus.

Agreed. This is why Jesus begins his ministry by enjoining his listeners to "deny yourself." It is only through self denial or self sacrifice that the image of God can be seen.
Jesus Christ is The Son of God, NOT a representative of God.
God ALONE can radiate or exhibit God's glory as Paul discovered on the road to Damascus.
 

Towerwatchman

Active member
We seem to be going over old ground I understand this to say that Jesus is NOW sustaining all things by the word of his power, and the "all things" is an allusion or quotation of Psalm 8:6 which have been "put under his feet".
It is a topic that is being discussed. As long as it is being discussed it is not old ground. As to your response =
Fallacy of false analogy = just because the issues at hand are alike in trivial ways it does not make it relevant to the conclusion.
Just because the two verses comment on 'all things' the context of the passages are not relevant to your conclusion.
Ps 8:6 You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet,
Heb 1:3... and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Ps 8 is about Jesus having authority over all things. Note "under feet" = absolute authority
Heb 1:3 is about Jesus sustaining all things.

Also does the passage say "sustaining all things now"? No.
Is there anything implicitly being communicated that would lead to such a conclusion? No.
Is there another topic being communicated using 'sustaining all things"? Yes
"upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins"

You have reverted to the question as to what happened to the universe when Jesus was dead for three days in the following.
Actually I do not accept that it is talking about the universe, but the all things of Psalm 8, and this is progressive and given to him even then in prospect when he was exalted to sit at God's right hand.
Hebrews 2:5–9 (KJV): 5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Red Herring: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond.

Also irrelevant. Whether its the universe or 'all things' its only God who can sustain it. Plus the universe is included in "all things."
So back to the original question.

Heb 1:3... and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

It states that Jesus was sustaining the universe when He {Jesus} purged our sins.
Question: When did Jesus purge our sins?
1Pe 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose [a]stripes you were healed.
Now follow the logic: If Jesus was sustaining the universe when He purged our sins, [at His crucifixion and death], and the universe continued to exist and function for the next three days and nights; how did Jesus, who is just a man, sustain and uphold ALL THINGS when He [Jesus} was dead and buried?
No, it is a rejection of their claim of blasphemy based upon Jesus' answers in John 10:32-36.
I don't see it. Care to point it out?

Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?”
33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
Philippians 2 is speaking about the disposition of the mind of Jesus as a youth and before and during his ministry.
Its in chronological order. Jesus was in the form of God when He was considering His equality with God which took place before his incarnation.
1. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it [b]robbery to be equal with God,
2. but [c]made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
3. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
4. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given

So I will ask you again.
How can a created man be able to consider anything, especially before conception.
No, God is the Creator and the Father and what is created reveals the Father and eventually the earth will be filled with the glory of God Numbers 14:12 and God will be all in all 1 Corinthians 15:28. When we have a child as a father, we do not change and become someone else.
Irrelevant. Your idea of "I will be/become what/who I will be/become" is grammaticality structured to communicate that "I" changes. Your deity cannot be God because it changes, thus not immutable.
No, it says that man was created in the image of God. The word alone does not exist here. "I came, I saw, I conquered".
Your post = There is a principle that states that what one does through others he does by himself. Julius Caesar said "I came, I saw, I conquered"
Does not help you. Why? It's a bad analogy. Caesar used "I" = singular, when speaking of himself and his legions a plurality. In Gen 1:26 God uses Us/Our = plural when speaking of Himself singular.
It actually supports my argument. Caesar was using singular when speaking of a plurality. Same in Genesis God uses singularity in vs 27 when speaking of the plurality in vs 26.

I accept the translation "I will be". The Name speaks of activity, not existence.
"I will be" is incomplete. The words are with equal propriety rendered, I WILL BE WHAT I AM, or, I AM WHAT I WILL BE, or, I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. What is being communicated? That He is the God who has always been, am, and shall be: = immutable, eternal etc.
I prefer to accept what was taught in the Bible, not the corrupt Church.
The same early church that held, copied and compiled the Bible you now read? The ECF who were either a disciple of an Apostle or a disciple of a disciple? See the irony.
I like Psalm 33:6,9 and Isaiah 55:8-11.
Over what? John? The churches in John’s bishopric are the churches mention in Revelation, which were heavily influenced by Greek culture. John identifies the Greek concept of "Logos" as Jesus.
But let's address what you prefer.
You are applying the Jewish interpretation of “Logos” which is the word “dabar”. The word “dabar” occurs some 1455 times in various contexts in the Hebrew Bible. It is sometimes used in reference to the "Divine Word": "Dabar Yahweh" or “Ha-Dabar Elohim”. The Divine Word brings God's message to his people, especially to his prophets. The phrase appears for the first time in Genesis 15, in which the Word of Yahweh assures Abraham of his reward. The rabbinical schools at that time taught that the Word was the image and likeness of God, the universe was created by God through the Word, the Word was God’s first and oldest creation, the Word was a separate being from Elohim, the Word had not descended to Earth, or had the Word a need for a body of flesh. The problem with this idea is that “Dabar” is a creation of God and therefore on the wrong side of the razor’s edge.


What is the razor's edge.

In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχ͂ῃ ἦν)[en- ar•khay eimi].

If we are able to draw an imaginary line, on a razors edge, where one side there exist only God and the eternal, and the other exists the created and the temporal, this razors edge is what John is opening to. John does not open referring to the beginning of Genesis but prior to it, in fact prior to time itself. Note this imaginary line relates to the eternal and the temporal, and not to the Genesis account of creation, because creation is not mentioned until vs. 3. Notice where John places the Logos in reference to the beginning, because if the Logos is a created being then the Logos would be included in the ‘beginning’ or after. Using [ἦν eimi] “was”, which denotes absolute existence instead of [ἐγένετο, egeneto] “came into being”, or “began to be”, which is used in vs. 3, John is placing the Logos prior to the beginning. John is saying that the Logos absolutely existed prior to the beginning, and the only One who existed prior to the beginning is God in the eternal. Therefore the only logical conclusion for John 1:1 is “the Word was God”.
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1. {Strong, J. (1995)}
 
Top