- Jul 18, 2021
- 9
- 4
- 72
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
He referred to his God many times- care for me to post them?
He referred to his God many times- care for me to post them?
He referred to his God many times- care for me to post them?
He referred to his God many times- care for me to post them?
...
There is only one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
...
...
Matt 28:19 in THREE Persons
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
...
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
' ... we know ... there is no God but one,
For although there may be many 'gods' and many 'lords' -
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.'
the user name could be a little less suspect, but in response to some of the other posts in this thread:
Paul in verse 7 continues: "Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge...". This is not an easy thing. We all have access to the scripture so if we just pick it up and read it, do we suddenly have whatever he's talking about in verses 4-6? I would argue, no, we don't, necessarily. In my reading of Paul, he teaches of a process of transformation which includes a "renewing of the mind". That implies changes in perspective.
When the apostles say something like "to us there is but one God, the Father", they were not overlooking a contradiction of the beliefs of the author of John 1:1. These were men well aware of the benefit of being united to Christ, and they changed the world because of that fact. There's only one way to the Father, through Christ, the door. What happens when you enter a place? Do you have the same view?
The problem doesn't arise because of a contradiction, it arises because of an inadequate understanding of faith and of the interior man -- these are first century Jews, following their religion, under no obligation to think in ways we modern Westerners feel comfortable with, and what's more, frankly they were at another level, unless anyone can demonstrate that they can do the things they were said to have done.
Good points; 1 Corinthians 8:4 is Paul's direct reference to the Shema Israel from Deuteronomy 6:4–9 (which was also personal Eureka moment for Mark Nanos Mark Nanos - A "Paul within Judaism" Perspective). And immediately following that, he identifies that one God (YHWH) to be the Father.
When Jesus is the means/door to which we come to the God the Father (John 14:6, Ephesians 2:18), and of course also the visible image of God (John 14:9, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:3); God himself being invisible (John 1:18, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 John 4:12).
So what does it mean we get to that place (the Father)? We become one in purpose, in mind-set, in action and in words, and are fully reconciled with and serving Him. At least that would be my humble way of phrasing an answer.
The word 'god' (Greek 'theos') can be used both in identity and functional sense. When John the Apostle was writing John 1:1, he cannot have meant that Jesus literally was the one God in the sense of identity, because that would directly violate his own writing in John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12: no one has ever seen God at any time. Jesus clearly has been seen by many people before John wrote his Gospel and letter, so John didn't mean Jesus literally was the one-and-only God in the identity sense.
The Greek for John 1:1 at the end has something like ' .. and god was the word' ( '.. kai theos en ho logos'). So the definitive article (the 'the') for the qualifier 'god' is missing here, while it is present for 'the word'. Church fathers like Origines and Justin already commented on this issue. But without having or seeking an affiliation with the Jehovah's Witnesses, one could translate this passage with '.. and divine was the word' (the Greek does not distinguish between upper or lower case characters; all of it used Uncials Uncial script - Wikipedia). When taking in all of John to me it makes most sense he uses the term 'god' here in a functional sense; otherwise the mess interpretation-wise would be complete.
In John 20:28 Thomas confronted with Jesus' scarred hands and side exclaims to Jesus: 'My lord and my god!'. At first sight one might jump the gun and conclude: Jesus must the the literal one-and-only God in the identity sense. But again that would be incompatible with John's own writing in two occasions (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12) that: no one has ever seen God at any time, so something else must be going on here. My propositions, John could have meant either, or both of these:
- Thomas is seeing the invisible God the Father through/by the visible Jesus, because in John 14:9 Jesus says: ' .. he who has seen Me has seen the Father .. '.
- Thomas is using the term 'god' in a functional sense, similar to John 1:1c, and similar to how Jesus uses the term in John 10:34: .. 'Is it not written in your Law, "I said, you are gods?"'
Both these interpretative options for John 20:28 pose the least problems when trying to harmonise all that is being said of God the Father and his one-and-only Son Jesus, who pre-existed and came down from heaven.
...
By fulfilling the law and the prophets, through the many examples the gospel writers recorded (implying they thought these were important), He was identified as the Word. All one has to do is read to see the Word of God speaks as God, with all authority. Everything about the early christian faith is prophetic -- true fulfillment of prophecy is the operation of God's power, hence the title Word of the Father's power.
My only contention is the tendency to shoehorn the apostles' doctrine concerning their personal, internal spirituality into arianism. I believe that this is the result of foreign logical constraints or ways of thinking, being imposed upon a more ancient spirituality, and a "god" is conceptually something like a superman, but that doesn't sufficiently describe the Word of the Father's power. In short, in my view the Father and Word are distinct, yet operate together as one. Homoousion.
With all respect: I realise that statement is derived from the 6th-century co-called 'Athaniasian' creed; but no Bible verse exists that directly states the above. When someone might ask: 'Who is the one-and-only God', I would be inclined to just refer to the next couple of verses (all in ESV English Standard Version - Wikipedia translation):
John 17:3
'And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,'
I wouldn't advocate Arianism (=Jesus is created); and it's not just the Father and the Word/Jesus are distinct (by definition any utterance from a being is different from that being). Jesus, John and Paul make a sharp distinction between God and Jesus. The whole 'Homoousion' debate is a bit beyond me as this is non-Biblical terminology; I don't feel I should or could make a qualified call on that. Jesus has been 'begotten' or 'generated' by the Father somehow, that's sufficient for me.
The original Nicene creed (325) also clearly states that there is one God: the Father. And furthermore declares Jesus to be god of god, etc. But still the one God is only the Father in this creed. I think that is also found in all those verses I quoted. Jesus is sub-ordinate to the God the Father; so not equal in rank. Jesus is at the right hand of God, not 'God the Father'.
1 Corinthians 15:27
For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.
Philippians 2:9
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.We can see in both verses God (= the Father) is the one make makes everything subject to Jesus, and God (= the Father) gives Jesus a name above every name. God is distinct here from Jesus, and the name of God (YHWH) is distinct from the name of Jesus. The name that is the subject of Philippians 2:9 is not YHWH, and Jesus is not the new name for God - every Jew would know that. Jesus is the name of the son of YHWH.
Yet we see YHWH through and in Jesus, and Jesus has been given all power in heaven and on earth (by God the Father), hence he is our Lord (= Master), and everything he does and says is God speaking and acting through Him.
Phrased like this - it is wonderfully straightforward to understand and less contradictory than the traditional 6th-century 'Athanasian' way of thinking. In my humble opinion that 6th creed has ruined the 4th century Nicene one when it comes to logical consistency.