Does God have a God? Explaining John 20:17 in Defense of the Trinity.

[-57]

No, WE need to explain how God can abandon Himself.

Would you rather have God abandon you? Do you not understand the penalty for sin?

And WE need to explain why Jesus distinguishes Himself from God, thus freaking out Matthew and causing him to change "Good teacher" to "teacher" and "Why do you call me good?" to "Why do you ask me about what is good?" to remove the unacceptable Christological implication.

"Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus said to him: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God (Mark 10:17-18)."
"Teacher, what good deed must I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him: "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good (Matthew 19:16-17)."

You do understand that Jesus was addressing the guy as a teacher would answer the question.

Jesus believes His goodness derives from God, not from Himself. Posters always duck THE offense taken by Matthew whenever it is pointed out.

Which takes us back to my original question....

Do we need to discuss the kenosis and the role Jesus played during His incarnation? Phil 2:7ish

 

[Jack Terrence]

It may not be worded 'exactly' as I have offered it but I didn't quote Him, I merely stated what He said in my own words.

I know which statements of Jesus you are talking about and I expect that your "own words" will be a misrepresentation of what he said.

So what if I can clearly 'show you' that you are 'wrong'. Will you admit it as openly as I have stated what I've stated?

I have been through it with non-Trinitarians a thousand times. Their explanations have been unconvincing each time. But you can try to convince me.

 

[Deadworm]

57: "Would you rather have God abandon you? Do you not understand the penalty for sin?
Jesus' vicarious atonement is irrelevant to the issue: i. e. How is it even meaningful to claim that God abandons God?



Y57: You do understand that Jesus was addressing the guy as a teacher would answer the question.

Again you entirely miss the point: Jesus distinguishes Himself from God in Mark 10:17-18. Matthew 19:16-17 takes offense and alters the text to remove this implication. In Mark Jesus is NOT fishing for acknowledgement of His divinity here; and so, the subject of Jesus' identity is not brought up in this context. Why are ducking the obvious issue that is well recognized by good academic commentaries?




Which takes us back to my original question....

Do we need to discuss the kenosis and the role Jesus played during His incarnation? Phil 2:7ish[/QUOTE]

 

[-57]

57: "Would you rather have God abandon you? Do you not understand the penalty for sin?
Jesus' vicarious atonement is irrelevant to the issue: i. e. How is it even meaningful to claim that God abandons God?



Y57: You do understand that Jesus was addressing the guy as a teacher would answer the question.

Again you entirely miss the point: Jesus distinguishes Himself from God in Mark 10:17-18. Matthew 19:16-17 takes offense and alters the text to remove this implication. In Mark Jesus is NOT fishing for acknowledgement of His divinity here; and so, the subject of Jesus' identity is not brought up in this context. Why are ducking the obvious issue that is well recognized by good academic commentaries?




Which takes us back to my original question....

Do we need to discuss the kenosis and the role Jesus played during His incarnation? Phil 2:7ish

[/QUOTE]

Wrong. Jesus replied back as a man to a man. Christ has a hypostatic union between man and God. Jesus was fully man and fully God.

Do we need to discuss the kenosis and the role Jesus played during His incarnation? Phil 2:7ish

 

[-57]

If Jesus WAS: God in the flesh, all one needs to do to prove it is explain this:

"My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?"

Not some 'run around in circles' explanation. Just a simply explanation of how 'God in the flesh' was asking God why He had been abandoned. For you see, no explanation that can be offered makes 'any sense' from the perspective of Christ 'being God'. For how does God abandon Himself?

And furthermore, how does 'God in the flesh' DIE and still remain God?

Blessings,

MEC

Have you ever read Psalm 22:1?
Read some of the commentaries.

Let me ask you a question.....If Jesus was simply a man....how can something that was not eternal pay the price for something that is?

 

[Deadworm]

57: "Wrong. Jesus replied back as a man to a man. Christ has a hypostatic union between man and God. Jesus was fully man and fully God."

Right--and by replying "man to man," He clearly distinguishes Himself from "God." Matthew infers this, takes, offense, and rewords the text to escape this implication. You and other posters here are consistently ducking this point.

57: "Do we need to discuss the kenosis and the role Jesus played during His incarnation? Phil 2:7ish"

I guess you don't grasp that either. So let me ask you the key relevant question:
"Emptied Himself" of what? His divine prerogatives, of course!
I acknowledge Jesus as God incarnate. But how can Jesus be "FULLY divine: when, as the NT teaches:
(1) He is limited is wisdom, knowledge, power, and divine favor.
(2) He can do no miracles until He receives the Spirit at His baptism.
[His divine nature is not enough.]
Thus, His family recognizes His limitations and don't buy His claims during His public ministry (Mark 3:19-21, 31-35; 6:3-4; John 7:5).
(3) He believes He is ascending to "my God" and feels abandoned by "God" on the cross.
ssays He is ascending to "my God."

 

[hedrick]

If Jesus WAS: God in the flesh, all one needs to do to prove it is explain this:

"My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?"

Col refers to Jesus as the image of God.
John talks of him as the Word made flesh.
Romans calls him descended from David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the Spirit.

All of these imply that Jesus can be viewed in two ways. He is a human being. As such he is depending upon his Father. But he is also God’s presence with us.

Think of a printed word. Viewed in one way it’s just a bunch of carbon. Viewed in another it’s someone’s way of communicating. Similarly, Jesus, viewed in one way is a human being. But he is also God’s Word, God’s self-communication.

 

[hedrick]

You know hedrick, in the past you and I have had little agreement. But in this subject, you are actually 'closer' than anyone else is in presenting valid discussion.

You might want to try reading some modern theology. Today people typically speak of Jesus' union with God as functional rather than ontological. That's because the way we look at the world today is different. The 4th Cent tried to understand the NT picture of Jesus using the metaphysics of the time. Today we don't tend to find physis and hypstasis very useful in describing the world. So we try to get the equivalent using current concepts.

Here's a good sample, from N T Wright. http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_JIG.htm. It's not necessarily the only reasonable modern approach, but it's the easiest to find online.

Note that I'm Trinitarian, as are most modern theologians.

It's worth noting that recent work has show pretty convincingly that Jesus was in some sense worshipped as early back as we can trace: no more than 20 years after his death. Similarly, concepts of his preexistence go back very early. However the same sources that show this also show that Jesus was still regarded as a human being who was in some way God's own presence.

 

[YSam44]

You say you are amazed at what you hear others offer. I assure you, you are no more amazed than I am that so few that profess 'trinity' actually 'know' ANYTHING about it.

God did not become 'flesh'. God sent His Son to 'take on' the flesh. Where did you find 'that' in the Bible? Since you didn't, you obviously either 'make it up' or simply 'took on the made up beliefs' of some other man or men. Show us the scripture that states, "God became flesh". If you can't, then admit that it doesn't exist. Otherwise your comments are pretty moot aren't they?

MEC

Well, unless you are of the hard of reading group it should be obvious.

Jn 1.14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

So the Word which was a spirit being emptied himself of that glory and became flesh.

And unless you forgot. Jn 1.1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

 

[YSam44]

I know, we do not believe in the same God.
You admitted to me that the Holy Spirit is not a person and the Holy Spirit is not God.
This is contrary to what Scripture teaches.

All three persons of the Godhead or Trinity are God.
The Father is a person and is God.
The Son is a person and is God.
The Holy Spirit is a person and is God.
They all exist distinctly different from each other yet they also exist as only one God.

...

Would have to disagree here...The Holy Spirit emanates from God but is not a personage. Do you wish to elaborate?

Also, are you saying we will be gods in the sense that we will have the same substance, essence, and power as God?
Are you saying the spirit part of Christ who existed at the foundation of the world was created at some point?

As for Jesus being Michael the Archangel: Yeah, that is not true. It would not make sense for Jesus to take on the identity of an angel. I can see Christ putting on an empty outer shell, temple, or soul-less body that is like that of angels so as to house his Almighty being or essence as God Almighty (Because there are many passages in the Old Testament showing how Christ went under the title called the "Angel of the Lord"), but for Him to declare He is an angel by another name is just silly. Jesus is God. Jesus is eternal. Jesus is uncreated. Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity. Jesus is not an angel (like other angels) or a created being.


...

Definately agree... Jesus is not Michael... Some teach that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers.... LOL the sound of that is stupid and the logic of it makes no sense...

 

[YSam44]

And let me offer this: "I'm not going to 'imply' that Christ was 'created', I'm simply going to offer scripture that 'states' Christ was 'created' by God. It is not something that 'I' have 'made up'. I have simply read the scriptures and accept them 'as offered'. So, anyone that is interested, just ask and ye shall receive.

Blessings,

MEC

Well?

 

[YSam44]

You say you are amazed at what you hear others offer. I assure you, you are no more amazed than I am that so few that profess 'trinity' actually 'know' ANYTHING about it.


And so far as you trying to use John 1 to prove 'trinity'? Oh my. Let me ask you this: When God said, "Let there be light". What that God or His Son speaking those words? What it Christ, or simply, "God's word"? For the Bible states that "God" said. There is absolutely NO indication of Christ in this 'statement'.

MEC

I guess you mis read... I never mentioned the trinity...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Would have to disagree here...The Holy Spirit emanates from God but is not a personage. Do you wish to elaborate?

I provided a link with many verses that show that this is not true. The Holy Spirit is a person.


...

 

[YSam44]

I stated,
The word "us" is plural and God translated from "Elohim" in hebrew can stand as plural or singular depending on context. Now as the verse reads, "let US make man in OUR image" certainly dispels your first statement. "US" and "OUR" are plural in meaning and content.

You stated,

Blessings,
No, it doesn't. A Father can say to His Son: "Let us go hunting" and it in no manner indicates a 'plurality' of 'Fathers' or 'Sons'. It is merely indicative of 'more than one': 'entity'. Not two of the 'same entities'.

MEC

Really? This is the direction you took it?

Us and Our denotes more than one... It can be a father and a son such as the example you gave. It can be two female women. It can be two Gods. It can be a brother and a sister. It can be two persons... It can be two or more entities... It can be two individuals...

Now lets be rational.. You wouldnt say to your dog, lets go hunting and expect that your dog understands you right? I talk to my wife I say lets go to the mall. She understands that I want to go to the mall. See she is human just like me. I can say to my friend, let go to the beach.. he understands he is human as well.. maybe my mom, or my son or my sister...
Now anyone that I mentioned is not me, why? because we are two different individuals, two different persons, two different entities but of the same kind.. we are human... OH noooooo..

My son and I are not the same entity, not the same person, not the same individual but we are of the same family, we are of the same kind, we are both human.

This could help you: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity

Y

 

[YSam44]

I provided a link with many verses that show that this is not true. The Holy Spirit is a person.


...

You might re paste it... I jump in here somewhere in the middle and have not seen it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You might re paste it... I jump in here somewhere in the middle and have not seen it.

My apologies. It was a link to someone I was talking with by PM within this thread.

Anyways, as for denying that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God:

Well, here is a good article that has tons of verses showing that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-holy-spirit-personality-deity.htm


...

 

[-57]

Nope. Nor any other 'words' that men created in contradiction to what we are offered in 'scripture'. Unless, of course, you can show me the word: kenosis in the Bible. Otherwise I care not to address such fiction created and instituted by 'men'.

Blessings,

MEC

No problem. Click here.

 

[Der Alte]

These statements are actually 'contrary' to the idea that God is three persons in 'one God'. You have offered scripture that states Christ did NOT consider Himself to be 'equal' with God. They state that Christ realized that 'equality' wasn't something that He could even 'grasp'.

The purpose of these scriptures is to show the difference between the one that DID believe equality COULD be 'grasped' or 'robbed' to the one that recognized that it can not be grasped or robbed

.* * * [The remaining heterodox nonsense omitted] * * *

As with all other heterodox followers you are simply twisting the English translation to make it fit your assumptions/presuppositions. The biggest mistake is trying to turn the noun "arpagmon" into a verb. This word is a noun mistakenly translated "robbery" in the KJV. There is no "believed" or "recognized" in Philip 2:6. For the correct translation of arpagmos see NIV and Hoover article below.
.....The Greek word translated "to be" in the KJV is "einai" it is the "present infinitive" of the verb "to be." It is correctly translated in the ASV as "the being." "The being equal with God" was a then and there present reality, not a future of subjunctive, not something Jesus considered and rejected.

ESV Php 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
NET Php 2:6 who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped,
ASV Php 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,
The Committee on Bible Translation worked at updating the New International Version of the Bible to be published in 2011.
In it's notes under "Progress in Scholarship" it discusses the following change:

When the NIV was first translated, the meaning of the rare Greek word αρπαγμον /harpagmos, rendered ‟something to be grasped,” in Philippians 2:6 was uncertain. But further study has shown that the word refers to something that a person has in their possession but chooses not to use to their own advantage. The updated NIV reflects this new information, making clear that Jesus really was equal with God when he determined to become a human for our sake: ‟[Christ Jesus], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.”
See full translators notes at: Bible Gateway NIV Translator’s Notes​

A short excerpt from the 25 page Harvard theological review article αρπαγμον /harpagmos, by Roy Hoover, referenced in the NIV.

‘O petros de arpagmon ton dia stavrou thanton epoieito dia tas soterious elpidas”
(And Peter considered death by means of the cross harpagmon on account of the hope of salvation, Comm in Luc 6)
“Tines…ton thanaton arpagma themenoi ten ton dussebon moxtherias”
(Since some regarded death as harpagma in comparison with the depravity of ungodly men. Hist. Eccl VCIII,12.2)
Not only are arpagma and arpagmos used synonymously in these two statements, but they are used synonymously by the same author in reference to the same object—death—and in expressions whose form precisely parallels that of the arpagmos remark in Phil 2:6.
What [Eusebius] wants to say, rather, is that because of the hope of salvation crucifixion was not a horror to be shunned, but an advantage to be seized.
“Arpagma” is used exactly this way in Hist. Eccl. VIII,12.2. At this point Eusebius is recounting the sufferings of Christians in periods of persecution. Some believers in order to escape torture threw themselves down from rooftops. There can be no suggestion of “robbery” or of violent self-assertion in this remark, nor can self-inflicted death under such circumstances be considered an unanticipated windfall.
Roy W. Hoover, Harvard Theological Review (1971) 95-119, pg. 108
Link to: Hoover Article​

 

[Der Alte]

Simple question that only requires a 'simple answer':
Has there ever been an entity that believed that it 'could' rob God of equality? An entity that DID consider 'equality to God' something to be 'grasped'?
And 'who' was this entity? What entity attempted to 'rob' God of equality. What entity attempted to 'grasp' equality from God?
See, we are suppose to compare 'every line of scripture' to 'all others' in order to form proper doctrine. And that takes continual 'studying' of scripture to even 'have a chance' at fulfilling what we are 'required' to 'do' in order to form 'proper doctrine'.
You have tried to offer 'ONE LINE' to 'prove something' without comparing it to 'any' other lines at all. Yet you offer it as having some sort of 'meaning'. It has 'no' meaning UNTIL it is compared to 'all other lines'.
Blessings,
MEC

Further distortion of Philippians 2:6 apparently for the purpose of supporting heterodox doctrine.

 

[Der Alte]

Would have to disagree here...The Holy Spirit emanates from God but is not a personage. Do you wish to elaborate? . . ..

The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, has a distinct will, a distinct mind, a distinct self, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear witness of Jesus (John 15:26).
.....Some false teaching religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., claim e.g. that the Holy Spirit is nothing but an impersonal force (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 406-407). This is totally false. If the Holy Spirit was merely an impersonal force or power, He could not speak (Acts 13:2); He could not be grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He would not have a will (1 Cor. 12:11), a self, (Jn 16:13), or a mind, (Rom 8:27).
.....There are, at least, seventy two (72) personal characteristics or attributes, listed in scripture for the Holy Spirit and He is a person the same as the Father and the Son are, within the Trinity.

Names of the Spirit
1. God -Acts 5:3-4, Acts 28:25-27, Hebrews 3:7-11, Hebrews 10:15-17
2. Lord - 2 Corinthians 3:18
3. Spirit - 1 Corinthians 2:10
4. Spirit of God - 1 Corinthians 3:16
5. Spirit of Truth - John 15:26
6. Eternal Spirit - Hebrews 9:14
Attributes of (9)
7. Eternal -Hebrews 9:14
8. Omnipotent - Luke 1:35
9. Omnipresent - Psalms 139:710
10. Distinct Will from the father and the son– 1 Corinthians 12:11
11. Loves - Romans 15:30
12. Speaks - Acts 8:29; Acts 13:2
13. Distinct Mind from the father and the son – Romans 8:27
14. Distinct Self from the father and the son – John 16:13
15. Alive – John 14:17
Symbols of (3)
16. Dove - Matthew 3:15
17. Wind - John 3:5
18. Fire - Acts 2:3
Sins Against (6)
19. Blasphemy - Matthew 12:31
20. Resist (Unbelief) - Acts 7:51
21. Insult - Hebrews 10:29
22. Lied to - Acts 5:3
23. Grieved - Ephesians 4:30
24. Quench - 1 Thessalonians 5:19
Power in Christ's Life (6)
25. Conceived of - Matthew 1:18-20
26. Baptism - Matthew 3:15
27. Led by - Luke 4:1
28. Filled with Power - Luke 4:14,18
29. Witness of Jesus - John 15:26
30. Raised Jesus - Romans 8:11
The Works of the Holy Spirit (42)
1 Access to God - Ephesians 2:18
2 Anoints for Service - Luke 4:18
3 Assures - Romans 8:15-16; Galatians 4:6
4 Authors Scripture - 2 Peter 1:20-21
5 Baptizes - John 1:32-34; 1 Cor 12:13-14
6 Believers Born of - John 3:3-6
7 Calls and Commissions - Acts 13:24; Acts 20:28
8 Cleanses - 2 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Peter 1:2
9 Comforts - Act 9:31
10 Communion with believers – 2 Corinthians 13:14
11 Convicts of sin - John 16:9,14
12 Counsels - John 14:16
13 Creates - Genesis 1:2; Job 33:4
14 Empowers - 1 Thessalonians 1:5
15 Empowers Believers - Luke 24:49
16 Fellowship with believers – Philippians 2:1
17 Fills - Acts 2:4; Acts 4:29-31; Acts 5:18-20; Acts 9:17
18 Forbids action - Acts 16:6
19 Gives gifts - 1 Corinthians 12:8-11
20 Glorifies Christ - John 16:14
21 Guides in truth - John 16:13
22 Helps our weakness - Romans 8:26
23 Indwells believers - Romans 8:9-14; Galatians 4:6
24 Inspires prayer - Ephesians 6:18; Jude 20
25 Intercedes -Romans 8:26
26 Interprets Scripture - 1 Corinthians 2:1,14; Ephesians 1:17 27 Leads - Romans 8:14
28 Liberates - Romans 8:2
29 Molds Character - Galatians 5:22-23
30 Produces fruit - Galatians 5:22-23
31 Raises from the dead - Romans 8:11
32 Regenerates - Titus 3:5
33 Reveals – Luke 2:26
34 Sanctifies - Romans 15:16
35 Seals - Ephesians 1:13-14; Ephesians 4:30
36 Sends - Acts 13:4
37 Sent - Galatians 4:6; 1 Peter 1:12
38 Strengthens - Ephesians 3:16; Acts 1:8; 2:4; 1 Corinthians 2:4 39 Testifies of Jesus - John 15:26
40 Victory over flesh - Romans 8:2-4; Galatians 4:6 41 Warns – Acts 20:23
42 Worship helper - Philippians 3:3
[91] total verses.​

Sources Consulted:
CARM.org
DTL.org/Trinity