Discussions about the divine, as we’ve seen can be problematic. To be honest, I’m not fond of non-biblical terms like “trinity” nor am I fully up to date about all the different opinions out there. I’ve already shown that I believe Jesus to be God, but I don’t believe Jesus to be the Father. Passages like Romans 8:9-11 help me see this:
“You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.” (Romans 8:9-11)
Who lives in us? Is it the Spirit? Christ? The Spirit of Christ? The Spirit of God? The Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead? The answer, of course, is YES. Jesus is God and lives in us. He’s not the Father; Paul seems to avoid such language. Yet, they are both God.
Romans 8 shows us that the Spirit is also in the equation. We also see that in other passages, like the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation. The letters are clearly from Jesus, yet each letter ends with an urge for the readers to hear what the Spirit had to say to the churches. Again, no New Testament writer would say that the Spirit had been crucified nor that the Spirit was the Father. Yet the Spirit is shown to be divine.
No, I can’t explain it. Not fully. I can’t explain God’s eternal nature either. I can’t explain how He can hear thousands of people praying to Him in dozens of different languages. I can’t explain lots of things about God. As I’ve said before, I like it that way. I want a God who is bigger than I. One I can’t completely wrap my thoughts around. That’s my God.
Tim said ;”The letters are clearly from Jesus, yet each letter ends with an urge for the readers to here what the Spirit had to say to the churches.”
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:
Tim, I am going to give you the same compliment, you generously gave me. “I know you are not stupid” so why do you insist on, saying the letters are from the lamb, (your book) when it is plainly stated the words are that of God/Spirit, given to Jesus to deliver, to others.
I don’t recall any place in scripture where Jesus Christ claimed to be “GOD” over this world, or the next. I do see where Jesus claimed to be a servant of God, and shall never cease to be.
Tim said, “No, I can’t explain it. Not fully.”
I understand why, as long as Tim insist on following the Pauline letters, instead of the words of Jesus he will come up short.
Jhn 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him].
Laymond,
Thank you very much for bringing this discussion to the proper place.
(1) Why do I claim that the letters are from Jesus? Because that’s what the Bible says. I take it that we’re allowed to read from Revelation? Hopefully, so I’ll base my arguments from that book. Look at 2:8 for example: “And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life.” (Revelation 2:8) Unless you’re ready to say that the Father died and came back to life, this letter claims to be spoken by Jesus… and by the Spirit. The next letter is similar: “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze.” (Revelation 2:18)
Look at how many times the letters reference God the Father… in the third person. For example: “He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.” (Revelation 3:5) Are we to say that the Father will acknowledge our name before the Father?
The letters are from the Lamb, the one who is worthy of praise and honor because he died on the cross.
(2) You’re looking for a scripture where Jesus claimed to be God over this world. Probably the closest you will find is where Jesus calls himself “I AM.” His original hearers sought to stone him for such blasphemy. Later, when he said, “I and my Father are one,” they again sought to stone him, because they understood what he was saying, that he was making himself equal with God. Two thousand years later, people don’t want to understand Jesus’ claims. In his day, people understood very well what he claimed about himself. He was charged with blasphemy numerous times.
(3) I expect this insult; the Jehovah’s Witnesses throw it around a lot. Yet when I ask them to explain different characteristics of God, they can’t fully explain them either. Are you willing to say that you can fully explain every aspect of God?
Please note the brackets in John 3:34. That means those words aren’t in the original text, not even the modified text the translators of the KJV used. Those words are bracketed because they are an attempt at interpretation by the translators, inserting words into the text. I’m sure you see some significance to quoting that verse; you might share that insight, since you understand Jesus so much better than Paul did. I would hesitate to place my understanding above that of an apostle of Jesus Christ, but you are apparently unconcerned about that.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, it seems to be convenient for your argument to skip the very first verse of the book, which you quote.
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Let’s look at the chain of evidence here, from God to Jesus, from Jesus to the angel, from the angel to John, who wrote the letters.
How come you picked a link in the middle of the chain to claim to be the author, (it makes a catcher title for a book). but it is inaccurate.
(Please note the brackets in John 3:34.) you might have a point there if I were dependent on that verse alone.
Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.
Jhn 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
Jhn 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.
Jhn 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
As any Judge will tell a jury, don’t just look at the words in evidence, look at the weight the words carry. If we get down to the letters themselves they were written by John. If we consider the message of the letters it originated with God.
Laymond,
Thanks for the comment. I actually skipped the vast majority of the verses contained in the book of Revelation, but have no problem in discussing any one of them. I resent the implication that I intentionally left out any verse. You skipped every verse that I referred to; I’ll discuss yours, then you can discuss the ones I presented.
Revelation begins by saying that it is of Jesus Christ. First statement in the book. Why did poor old John begin in the middle of the chain? Because he was only an inspired apostle who didn’t have Laymond there to tell him what’s what. This revelation was given to Jesus by God. Yet it is still called the Revelation of Jesus Christ. I’m guessing John wasn’t as smart as you are. When we get to heaven, you can tell him that he began his book wrong.
Now, the letters are presented as being from Jesus. I’m sorry that that doesn’t fit with the argument you are trying to make, but I’ve already shown that to be true. If the statement is wrong, it was stated wrong by John and your problem is with him. (You can straighten him out after you teach Paul a thing or two)
Thanks for the string of verses without context nor explanation. I’ve already shown you that John showed Jesus as portraying himself as God. Let’s not forget John’s words either. I know you’ve read John 1:1, what it says about the Word being God, then John 1:14 saying that the Word became flesh. John says that Jesus is God made flesh. If it’s not clear enough, John 1:18 says it straight out: “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (John 1:18)
John said Jesus was God. Jesus said He was God. Logical analysis of scripture shows that Jesus was God. Three in One. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
The One who says, “Besides me there is no savior,” calls Jesus the savior.
The One who will not share His glory with another, shares His glory with Jesus.
The One who sits enthroned above the heavens has another throne right beside his, for “one like a son of man.” Jesus’ favorite self-description? Son of Man.
Tim, I will try to answer a few questions that concern you. Since you said we would be discussing the book of Revelation, I thought it might be appropriate to start with the beginning, that states the reason for the book.
And yes I do believe the book is about Jesus’ revelation to the churches, and John, the revelation he was given by God. Jesus revealed this through an angel.
I don’t recall any mention of letters until the angel told John to write or not write.
As for the few examples of Jesus saying he spoke what God told him to speak.
My understanding was you rejected the first example I offered.
I have no doubt that the spirits or powers of God indwells the person of Jesus at his baptism, if Jesus was God from the beginning, why was this miracle necessary to show the powers of God.
Laymond,
No angel told John to write. Jesus told John to write. That’s because the letters themselves were from Jesus, as is made clear by the language of the letters themselves.
I wasn’t rejecting the first example. Unless you point out what you think you see in a verse, it’s hard to guess why you quote it. I just thought the words that the KJV translators had inserted might have confused you, so I pointed that out.
John the Baptist had the Spirit from birth; are we really to think that Jesus was inferior to him in that regard? No, the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove was a sign for John and those around. I think the account in John 1:32ff makes that clear.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Tim, I don’t recall to what extent John was filled with the spirit, or with what spirit he was filled. I believe there were others who were said to have been filled with the spirit, and that was the spirit of wisdom.
Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; (seems to me he got the full load)
For some reason I believe this refers to the spiritual filling of the man, Jesus at baptism. do you think this is only to point him out to the crowd.
Mat 12:16 And charged them that they should not make him known:
Laymond,
What spirit? God’s Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. John was filled with God’s Spirit from birth (Luke 1:15). The “spirit of wisdom” is never called “the Holy Spirit.”
““Who let the wild donkey go free? Who untied his ropes?” (Job 39:5) [I can also quote unrelated passages and make no attempt to connect them to the discussion]
John the Baptist was born into a priestly race by both parents; his father Zacharias, and his mother, Elisabeth. This seems to be his only authority.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
I find no where in Scriptures that John the Baptist performed any miracles or signs. However, it does say he was filled with the holy spirit from birth.
I don’t find anyplace where John received his holy spirit from anyone except his blameless parents. A far different situation of that claimed by Jesus, or foretold in Isaiah.
You were the one to bring up the comparison of John and Jesus, John said there was no similarity.
I thought the scriptures I quoted were relevant to the discussion. sorry you don’t agree.
But if as you say John received the holy spirit, and in the same way as Jesus, why then would he not be called God, they both came through a miraculous birth.?
I am still looking to find where Jesus called himself God.
Laymond,
John received the Holy Spirit from birth because of a miraculous promise from God. That’s why he was to live as a Nazirite. John was born of human parents, however; Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Are you now going to blaspheme Jesus’ birth as well?
John performed no miraculous signs. That is stated clearly in the Bible. Being filled with the Spirit is not the same as being able to perform miracles.
Laymond, when you quote a passage with no comment, I can guess at what you mean, but nothing more than that! Were you saying that his baptism couldn’t have been a public sign because Jesus didn’t want the demons announcing who he was? The Father himself announced Jesus’ identity at the baptism; does that sound like he was trying to keep it a secret? Let’s not get so argumentative that we lose sight of common sense. The baptism of Jesus was a public announcement of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah… proclaimed by the voice of the Father himself!
If you can’t find where Jesus called himself God, what more can I do for you? In John’s gospel John calls Jesus God, Jesus describes himself as being God, Thomas calls him God… maybe I’m quoting from the parts where you think John was wrong, like you think he was confused in Revelation. I’ve shown you the passages. If you choose not to see, it’s only because of your choice, not because they aren’t there.
I know that you take great pride in being able to disagree with others about basic things of faith: Jesus’ identity, the Holy Spirit, Paul’s inspiration, etc. As you warned men in the oilfield, I’m warning you now: the urge to disagree can lead you to disaster. Is it really worth it just to be able to argue with others?
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
I see the Christianity is coming out in you, judging and accusing, others of blasphemy
in other words condemning others to hell. Please don’t ever speak to me again, if you are a Christian, I don’t want to be one.
Laymond,
I didn’t accuse you of blasphemy, although I admit that my use of “as well” could have made it seem that way. I will apologize for that bit of unclear writing.
Though if you are willing to affirm that Jesus’ birth was no different than other miraculous births in the Bible, then yes I do consider that blasphemy.
I do not condemn you to hell. I have no such power. I have even stood up for you when others have sought to do so.
My intent was not to offend but to warn. However, should you choose that I not speak to you again, well, just remember whose blog you’re posting on.
Grace and peace,
Tim Archer
Laymond,
you consistently and unapologetically accuse Trinitarian Christians of idolatry. I can’t count how many times you’ve told me that because I worship Jesus, I’m committing idolatry. You believe it – you consider it a warning. Fair enough.
But don’t turn around and get all wrapped around the axle when someone else decides that their beliefs require them to warn you.
What’s good for the missionary ought to be good for the oilman.
Just something for you to think about.
all of one origin
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
NIV
Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.
ESV
For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,
RSV For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
How can Jesus be without origin, if the Hebrews writer knew what he was talking about. ?
So, we’re going to skip the things you couldn’t answer and go to this. That’s okay, for now.
I guess you realize that your King James, in this case, has a very literal reading. Family/source/origin are interpretations, trying to fill in a word they feel is implied in the original. Feel free to explain what you feel is the point, then we can discuss it.
The Word was with God. The Word was God. The Word became flesh. John’s explanation fits my understanding of what Hebrews 2 is talking about.
Tim said; “I guess you realize that your King James, in this case, has a very literal reading. Family/source/origin are interpretations, trying to fill in a word they feel is implied in the original.”
Tim that is the very reason I gave three other versions.
Tim, I wouldn’t place all my marbles in a pocket that might have holes in it. The fourth gospel has had doubts swirling around as to who the author really was since the church fathers, and remains a discussion even today in biblical scholars discussions. Jay Guinn brought up the subject not to long ago, some place the authorship date as late as 190 which would mean the apostle would be over 200 at the date of writing.
OK, good, Laymond. You gave up the Hebrews 2:11 foolishness and decided to switch to a different passage. You do that a lot, don’t you? I’ve refuted every argument you’ve raised and you’ve dealt with none of mine.
And yes, I’ve long known that when you can’t deal with what the Bible says you question the authenticity. Have fun with that. At some point you’ll run out of proof texts and have to deal with God’s Word.
Want to talk about Romans 8? Revelation? Or are we going to keep switching topics?
(As for “all my marbles,” take the time to read the posts in this series. More marbles there than you’ve begun to deal with. And few from the gospel of John)
We could also discuss the fact that the oldest known fragment of New Testament text is from the Gospel of John, but you’re not really into textual criticism, are you?
If you’re really interested in the subject, you’re right, Jay has posted some good material recently, pretty much proving that John dates from about A.D. 90 http://oneinjesus.info/2014/05/apologetics-how-we-got-the-bible-part-3-the-oldest-manuscripts/
Tim as you know you can’t build a building from one brick. You say you refuted the KJ version of Hebrews 2:11 but you said nothing about the three later versions I quoted.
As for Revelation, that is the most disputed of all books attributed to Apostle John not only is the time the book was written disputed greatly, the style of the author is described as profoundly different. Most of the early church fathers can’t agree on who authored it.
What strikes me as strange in Revelation is the fact that God would be agreeable to live in a city of gold that would fit within the boundaries of Texas when the universe wasn’t big enough to contain him. That is not the only thing that raises my curiosity as to the author .
Laymond,
Each of the other versions of Hebrews 2:11 chose a word to try and interpret the Greek (which doesn’t have a noun there, just says they were all of the same ____). One used the word “origin,” which apparently confused you into thinking that it was saying that Jesus was not eternal. Read the context if you’re still confused. It talks about Jesus taking on a humanity that wasn’t his before the incarnation.
Seriously, Laymond, you need to get over this habit of questioning any book in the Bible that doesn’t say what you want it to. No wonder you feel free to make up any doctrine you want to. “Most of the early church fathers can’t agree on who authored it.” And the vast majority accepted it as canonical, even if there was some confusion as to which John wrote it. But that point doesn’t matter, since it doesn’t support your arguments, right?
I’m trying to keep score:
I remember that you discounted Luke’s version of the last supper since he wasn’t present; I’m not sure what else you reject out of the synoptic gospels. You throw out the whole Gospel of John. You think Paul’s writings are inferior. And now you want to leave out Revelation. What did I miss?
I don’t remember ever saying there was nothing to glean from The Gospel of John, or from Revelation. I simply said why place all your faith in a writer or writers that no one seems certain who he was. Unless you can back it up with other writers of the time.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Jesus placed great value on witness.
Jhn 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
Jhn 5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
As for Luke he said himself all he wrote ,was what he believed, what he had heard or read. That is exactly how you and I write today, not what we know, but what we believe.
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luke sticks pretty close to the other synoptic writers, he did tend to embellish in some places where it would have been more convincing if he had not. a couple of examples are Luk 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. But as Luke was a follower of Paul it is easy to see where he came by what he said.1Co 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
It just seems to me that if this were a command from Jesus, there would have been at least one of the apostles who was present at that meal who would have passed it along.
I don’t know who wrote the gospel of John or Revelation, but the problem is, neither does anyone else. If you have proof it was the apostle John, please render it to the public.
Tim, I don’t believe I am the confused on Hebrews 2:11 I don’t believe I have ever said the spirit of Jesus did not exist before it was assigned to Jesus, can you prove your spirit did not live before it came to live in you? Can you prove your spirit will not live again on earth after it leaves your dead body. Is there a scripture that disproves reincarnation ?
Why do you keep talking about me putting all my faith in a writer? First off, my faith is in God and his power to preserve his Word for his people.
Secondly, I’ll remind you that it certainly isn’t just John who speaks of the divinity of Jesus. There’s plenty of indirect statements, like what I’ve referred to in Revelation. But we have direct statements as well. Here’s the list I gave you a few years ago:
May God bless you today and always.
Laymond,
It’s hard to give you a scripture on anything, for you’ll merely say, “We have no proof who wrote that book.” For that’s true for every book of the Bible.
Was Jesus spirit before he was born? Certainly. He says it himself (John 4:24).
God became flesh and came to live among us.
Tim said “Secondly, I’ll remind you that it certainly isn’t just John who speaks of the divinity of Jesus. There’s plenty of indirect statements,”
Tim how about some direct statements that say he was not. and as for your direct statements most are not in the original writings. as for Thomas statement Jesus was his lord and god, just as Moses was made god over pharaoh .
Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Why would the angels be mentioned, if the one spoken of were not an angel, a servant of God.
If we pay close attention we have evidence as to who Jesus was before his devoted work on earth.
1Jo 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
NIV
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
People use the following as proof of Jesus diety, or godness.
Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
What man on earth would not be satisfied to be an angel seated at the right hand of God?
God said he was going to send his servant, to serve man. Jesus did just that and when he had finished he asked to be returned to his former position with God. He did not ask for a raise.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under [him, it is] manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
If we are to be both as angels of God, and like Jesus, what would that say about his being.
I will be proud to be an angel of God, and take my orders from Jesus Christ.
Laymond,
I guess you realize that you offered ZERO direct statements about Jesus not being God. There’s a difference between indirect and direct statements.
Now, as for the texts I offered, I’d appreciate more than a wave of your hand in dismissing the lot. Your assertion that “most are not in the original writings” needs some proof.
I offer the following article for your consideration: https://bible.org/article/jesus-θεός-scriptural-fact-or-scribal-fantasy
This article at times supports your assertion that the texts weren’t original and at times supports them as being original. Basically, he sees four texts that certainly call Jesus “God” and four that almost certainly do. A number of others are doubtful.
The article ends by saying:
Grace and peace,
Tim
Tim, I will use this example you furnished as positive proof, that Jesus most surely was god.
NIV
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:
KJV
2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
ASV
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:
WEB
Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ:
I haven’t checked the original manuscript, but if the words “and our” or “and the” are there this most certainly refers to two beings.
Let me ask one question why would Jesus say what he did to JTB at his baptism if he were god would he not already be righteous. ?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
If you notice Jesus said “US” not you or them. Yes I believe Peter was speaking of the righteousness of two beings not one.
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
Tim, are you saying we will all be gods, I believe Jesus said we would all be angels, like him, and would share in his glory.
No, I’m not saying we will be gods. And we won’t be angels, either. Note that Jesus said we would be like angels as regards marriage, just as God said that humans were like him in other ways. (Genesis 3:22)
Blessings,
Tim
Jesus didn’t say, “This will make us righteous.” He said that the act was part of fulfilling righteousness. Jesus fulfilled prophecy. He fulfilled the Law. He fulfilled righteousness.
Grace and peace,
Tim
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
This says nothing about Jesus, it speaks of the word of God.
this is what A. Campbell said about John 1;1
The relation that was before the christian era,
……….. was not that of a son and a father,
……….. terms which always imply disparity;
……….. but it was that expressed by John in the sentence under consideration.
……….. ……….. The relation was that of God,
……….. ……….. and the “word of God.”
Alexander Campbell
http://www.piney.com/HsACTrin.html
Jhn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
If Thomas calling Jesus god, proves him god, then surely if God called Moses god, Moses is god as well.
Exo 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Exo 7:2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee: and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land.
I believe this explains my thinking on all four of your definite proof scriptures.
Laymond,
I’d like to propose that we read John 1:1 as being a part of the pericope that includes verses 1-18. If you have a reason to believe that verse is completely isolated from its context, I’d be happy to hear that reasoning. Otherwise, I don’t see how we can read this section and not see that it speaks about Jesus. Or was there another incarnation of the Word (verse 14)?
Yes, Campbell saw that there was no disparity between Jesus and God. You disagree with him, so it’s interesting that you quote him. Or do you now agree with him?
So you think that Thomas was exclaiming that Jesus was analogous to God as Moses was analogous to God in Exodus 7? That makes little sense. Feel free to explain exactly how you see that working in each of the eight passages. Don’t just paste in quotes from the KJV. There’s nothing helpful about that, unless you have a specific point to make when you paste them in.
Tim, if you were to read the following completely you would see why no preacher would get up before a congregation and try to explain the nature of the relationship between God and the savior of mankind the word of God.
http://www.piney.com/HsACTrin.html
I never thought to see anyone but Kenneth Sublett quote piney.org as an authority on anything. Congratulations on surprising me.
Now, if you’ll read that page carefully, you’ll see what I mentioned before: Campbell equates Jesus with God. (And he rejects the term Arian, though apparently Sublett couldn’t understand that). Barton Stone did not equate Jesus with God. Campbell did, equating Father-Son-Spirit, though he rejected the term “trinity” as unbiblical. (If you’re seriously interested in studying Campbell’s views, download John Mark Hicks’ paper on the subject: http://dsntl8idqsx2o.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2008/04/trinity-as-necessary-fact1.doc)
The statement “This agrees with the view of the early church fathers who all speak in terms of God, His ideas presented in Words and His Mind or Holy Spirit making the Words powerful” is laughable. Does Sublett truly want to lead his readers to believe that the early church fathers were unanimous in rejectiving Jesus’ divinity? Here’s a decent source for reading some quotes: http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
From p. 128
The Writings of Alexander Campbell, from The Millennial Harbinger, edited by H.W. Morris M.D.
First of all Tim, if the article is true what does it matter who published it ? I believed I was reading an article A. Campbell wrote in response to a request to do so.
If it was not an article that represented A. Campbell’s beliefs, then I have been lied to once more, not the first time.
What I understood what Mr. Campbell was saying was Jesus could not have been son and god at once.
“1. In the first place I object to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity
……….. for the same reasons they object to the Arians and Socinians.
They object to these, because their views derogate in their judgment from the eternal glory of the Founder of the christian religion.
They will not allow the Saviour to have been a creature, however exalted, because they conceive this character is unbecoming him, and contrary to the scriptural statements concerning him.
……….. They wish to give him more glory
……….. than they think the Arians are willing to do.
Now I object to their making him and calling him an “Eternal Son” because I think that if he were only the Son of God from all eternity, he is entitled to very little, if any more glory, than what the Arians give him.
I wish to give him more glory than the Calvinists give him. They are as far below his real glory, in my judgment, as the Arians are in their judgment.”
I believe Mr. Campbell was saying that if Jesus were god he didn’t deserve glory for doing what god does. But if Jesus were man he deserved more glory for rising above all other men. But I suppose you can not agree with him there because that would be to close to what I have been saying.
The key part of that statement is “if the article is true.” Or better said, if it’s accurate. And it’s not. It distorts the views of Campbell and the views of early church fathers.
I don’t know that Sublett means to lie. He just misinterprets Campbell’s thoughts and is overly selective. I’ve presented you with several quotes from Campbell that show you that his view wasn’t want piney.org says. I’ve also given you links to resources that show that more fully.
Campbell objects to calling Jesus “son” or even “Jesus” before the incarnation because, as you quoted, that shows a “disparity,” a lack of equality. And Campbell thought that was inaccurate, that we should not view Jesus as being inferior to his Father before the incarnation. As you well quoted, he objected to calling Jesus “Eternal Son,” because that places him below the Father throughout eternity. That was Campbell’s view.
In his writings, Campbell accurately depicts the difficulties of “defining” the godhead. Who is man to define God? Who is man to claim to fully understand God?
Tim so you think what was credited to Campbell. In The Christian Baptist 4, May 1827. Just didn’t happen. I will see if I can find it somewhere.
Laymond, I never questioned the accuracy of the quoted material. I questioned the accuracy of the interpretation, which completely twists Campbell’s views. That’s why the Piney.org source is insufficient. I’m trusting you took the time to read the materials I referenced to you, since I took the time to read a whole page of Piney.org at your request.
Here is how our buddy, Bobby Valentine wrote about the article, and what Barton Stone thought of it.
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/theology/alexander-campbell-christology/5/?wap2
Excellent, Laymond! I’m glad you found on your own an article that thoroughly refutes that piney.org nonsense. Bobby says succinctly what I was trying to explain.
Bobby makes a couple of points that bear repeating:
As I’ve said several times, you’d probably feel pretty comfortable with Stone’s views, while I’m much more in line with Campbell. Neither of us holds our views because of these men, we just agree with them.
Now can we get back to the Bible? Here’s my request from before:
So you think that Thomas was exclaiming that Jesus was analogous to God as Moses was analogous to God in Exodus 7? That makes little sense. Feel free to explain exactly how you see that working in each of the eight passages. Don’t just paste in quotes from the KJV. There’s nothing helpful about that, unless you have a specific point to make when you paste them in.
Yes I knew Stone, and Campbell disagreed on the subject, and yes I agree with Stone. I once wrote a post on my blog called Barton and I.
This is the part of the article that caught my eye.quotes of A. Campbell.
1. In the first place I object to the Calvinistic doctrine of the Trinity.
They object to these, because their views derogate in their judgment from the eternal glory of the Founder of the christian religion.
They will not allow the Saviour to have been a creature, however exalted.———————-.
Now I object to their making him and calling him an “Eternal Son” because I think that if he were only the Son of God from all eternity, he is entitled to very little, if any more glory, than what the Arians give him.
( it sounds like something I might have said)
It is very hard for me to read the bible and come up with the results A. Campbell finally came to. I can’t see where Jesus (the founder of Christian relegion) is refered to as God almighty, or where it is said we are saved by faith alone in Jesus alone.
Unless I am mistaken Jesus said he would not judge man, man would be judged by the “word of God”. The word God spoke through Jesus.
As for the Moses, Jesus compareson, I am not the first to do that.
What I was saying is, If Thomas in calling Jesus god, is proof that Jesus was god. Then surely if The Creator called Moses god, he too was god.
People use the following to say Jesus is god,
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
I can’t find anywhere in the bible where Jesus is referred to any of those names, except the example you give where Thomas makes the statement.
or where Jesus warns against calling him Prince of peace.
Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
If you know where Jesus is even called “Mighty God” please refer me to it.
You would have said that Jesus is much more than the Son? Really? Campbell’s point is that calling Jesus “son” creates a disparity between him and the Father, and Campbell believes there is none.
Laymond, that’s NOT what you believe unless you’ve radically changed your views.
Where you and Barton Stone diverge is that he was more than willing to let others hold to a different view. He could talk about other issues without continually raising the issue of Jesus’ identity. You don’t have to come around to my views; just stop disparaging those that disagree with you.
I’ve never said that Isaiah 9:6 proves the divinity of Jesus. I have given you a set of verses to respond to. If you’re serious about discussing what the Bible says about this issue, let’s please do so. And I’ll mention that those direct statements are only the beginning. There are lots of indirect teachings that point to the shared nature of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Let’s seriously address what you’ve said about John 20:28. That will only leave you seven direct statements to go. When God said to Moses, “I have made you a god…” I don’t think either of us believes that God was saying that Moses was deity. When Thomas said it, I think he was recognizing Jesus’ divinity. Do you think he was saying something else or do you believe he was mistaken? Beyond that, why do you think John chose to include those words? I think it was to teach something about Jesus’ identity. What do you believe?
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all called Jesus “the son of god” but Jesus it seems preferred to be called “the son of man” Jesus never said he was God almighty, or God the creator, or God the father. as far as I can see.
Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mar 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Jhn 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
And you are right to say we have the freedon to believe what ever we choose, but we don’t have the right to change the words of the bible.
Or as often is said today, we have the right to our own opinion, but not our own facts.
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
1Jo 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
If God said Jesus is his son, I don’t know how anyone who claims to believe in God could say different.
Waiting on this one:
Let’s seriously address what you’ve said about John 20:28. That will only leave you seven direct statements to go. When God said to Moses, “I have made you a god…” I don’t think either of us believes that God was saying that Moses was deity. When Thomas said it, I think he was recognizing Jesus’ divinity. Do you think he was saying something else or do you believe he was mistaken? Beyond that, why do you think John chose to include those words? I think it was to teach something about Jesus’ identity. What do you believe?
Tim, I don’t even pretend to know what Thomas meant when he said what he said, I don’t even know what I would have said if I had just been confronted with a man who had been dead and now proved he was alive and was who he said he was. I doubt Thomas was thinking clearly when he had doubted, and was faced with this miraculous proof.
No I don’t think God meant Moses was deity, I believe God said Pharaoh’s life depended on what Moses did. Through God Moses held that power over a Pharaoh. Which did in my opinion make Moses god over Pharaoh.
Thanks, Laymond. That’s helpful. I agree that there’s not much of a connection in meaning between the two passages.
You’ve commented before on 2 Peter 1:1. You might be interested to know that the original doesn’t support the KJV translation. Here’s commentary by A.T. Robertson:
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/view.cgi?bk=60&ch=1
The grammar doesn’t support your theory that this passage refers to separate beings. Just as Paul said in Titus 2:13, so Peter says, “our God and Savior Jesus Christ.” (And yes, I know the KJV changes the wording there as well)
Grace and peace,
Tim
2Pe 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
Tim, 2Pe 1:1 might possibly be open to misinterpretation, in some versions, but verse 2 is not, in any version I have read, Peter was speaking of two.