So then why say FOUR times (John) that no one has seen GOD? You think he is devoid of being able to qualify his statements? TWICE he says GOD with NO distinction, and twice as the Father. This is BECAUSE for John God is the Father only. Radical, huh? Must come to a new POV, Beta....
1) you are starting off by assuming that only the Father is God. Then you go on to say that John's belief is that Christ is not God, and you go on to state your beliefs about why John wrote "no one has seen God", thinking this is defintive proof on your side, when it is not at all.
I can do the same thing, along with the NASB translation of John 1:18, I can deduce that the God, prior mentioned, is the Father, where as the Begotten God, one with the Father in substance, is the one who has revealed him. I can also state that the fact that Jesus in the NT is worshipped clearly points to his deity.
1)You worship God only,
2)Jesus was worshipped,
3)Jesus accepted worship,
4)Jesus rightfully recieves worship,
5)Therefore Jesus is God.
To again address John 1:18, you have no proof that the manuscripts, which are older, were corrupted. Therefore by going with the NASB, you've already acknowledge that it leads people, due to the text in John 1:18, that Jesus is God.
Interesting how you should mention that no one "had" seen God, ho theos, a title that can be used for the Father, however, God is also Lord, Jesus is Lord, Jesus is God.
Nt writers did this in order to assign both deity to The Father and the Son, but not to confuse people as to say the Son is the Father in personage, in addition to being. Hence Jesus is called "Lord", and Thomas also calls him, "God". As for no man having seen ho theos, that refers to no man having seen God, the Father in the Past, not that they never saw God, the Son.
My next point is critical, and you ought to address it:
People, while not seeing ho theos, as to say The Father, they did see God.
you HAVE to rationalize the 71 times Jesus is juxtaposed with God in the same verse as 'Lord.' See my other thread.
Problem: all knew LORD to not necessarily denote divinity at all. Sarah called Abraham 'lord.' Abraham called the three strangers 'lord,' at least one of them. David was 'lord.' Does not by itself mean Deity unless it refers to YHWH Elohim INSTEAD of His name, 'YHWH.'
I rationalize Jesus as Lord, to be God, because the rest of scripture testifies to his deity. Why wouldnt I worship "The LORD" Jesus Christ?
Others did, they believed he was God in the Flesh, "God with us".
While you offer a different view, that in no way refutes the truth that Jesus, who is Lord, is God. Because the Lord, is God. At most you've done nothing but offer a second view.
The weight of the evidence declares Jesus to be the worshipped Lord. "You shall worship the Lord your God".
MATT 22:
41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
42What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He? They said to Him,
The son of David.
43He said to them,
Then how does David in the Spirit call Him Lord, saying,
44THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET?
45If David then calls Him Lord, how is He his son?
46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.
David calls Jesus Lord. Who is David's Lord?
David's Lord, is the triune God.
Yeah, I GOT that part of your rationale. You HAVE to see this as it is probably your only rational 'out.' But the OT view was that God was TOO poignant to be seen and live. ()So Jesus is less than this? And if the OT view changed among disciples, how did they not address this issue?
Prove it... and quit asserting your scriptureless presuppositions.
Your arguement is that I'm merely SO desperate as I have to tell myself that the trinitarian monotheistic view is right... in order to view the trinitarian monotheistic view is right. I could do the same thing,
using no scripture as you have in the above example.
Futhermore, the passages I've provided, such as this one, do make it clear that one can see God, and live:
Then Manoah said to the Angel of the Lord, What is Your name, that when Your words come to pass we may honor You? And the Angel of the Lord said to him, Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful? So Manoah took the young goat with the grain offering, and offered it upon the rock to the Lord. And He did a wondrous thing while Manoah and his wife looked on it happened as the flame went up toward heaven from the altarthe Angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar! When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground. When the Angel of the Lord appeared no more to Manoah and his wife, then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the Lord. And Manoah said to his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God! But his wife said to him, If the Lord had desired to kill us, He would not have accepted a burnt offering and a grain offering from our hands, nor would He have shown us all these things, nor would He have told us such things as these at this time. (Judges 13:17-23 NKJV)
You're claim has been refuted. God was seen, but not the Father.
God, the Word, God, The Son.
Then Moses went up, also Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank. (Exodus 24:9-11 NKJV)
They saw a REPRESENTATION of YHWH Elohim. What do you think 'as it were' means? OR this could be a exclusion to the general rule...either way. John said the Son 'saw' the Father, this may be true. What is true is the fact that NORMALLY no one can see God and live, but they NORMALLY saw Jesus every day, eating drinking and heading to the outhouse for that matter.
Otherwise again, why mention it? John says it four times.
The scriptures
do not say, "they saw a representation of the God of Israel, but not God himself". At most we can deduce that God the Father, is the one not seen, as said by John.
Here is my way of exegesis:
We read the OT first... and make note of the claims.
Claim #1: God was seen. Established fact.
Now we read the NT, John says,
John 1:
1In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and
the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God.
3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Deity of the worshipped Christ, the Word, is reaffirmed.
The trinitarian monotheistic view has the answer to this, the unitarian view must contort, and struggle, even making the claims that such scriptues have been corrupted. The trinitarian monotheist makes no such claims regarding his position. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (ho theos), and the word was God. Both the Father and the Son are God, of the same substance.
The trinitarian monotheistic view remains unrefuted.
If you goal is merely to tell us your "interpretation" of scripture, you have done so. However, you have not shown the trinitarian monotheistic view to be even slightly unsound.
Secondly, after taking note of two facts:
1) God was seen in the OT
2) God is one being, with multiple points of self consciousness, as with the trinitarian monothesitic view
Onto John 1:18
http://biblehub.com/john/1-18.htm
We already know from the OT, that God was seen, but which person of God, can this refer to?
The text does not make it certain that the Son is not God, but rather, states that the begotten God, who is Jesus Christ, the Word, has explained him.
We must ask the question, who was seen in the OT, which person of God, was seen?
We know from the texts that it was the Father who was not seen.
However, that must mean another was seen, who was also God.
Jesus Christ, the worshipped God, YHWH, the LORD.
My next point from John:
John 1:
22Then they said to him, Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?
23He said, I am
A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS,
MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD, as
Isaiah the prophet said.
Make straight the way of the Lord.
John was preparing the way for, "THE LORD".
First of all:
Isaiah 9:
6For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And
His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
7There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.
If we are to say this is a prophecy of Jesus, surely we can call Jesus...
MIGHTY GOD.
Secondly:
Isaiah 40:
3A voice is calling,
Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
4Let every valley be lifted up,
And every mountain and hill be made low;
And let the rough ground become a plain,
And the rugged terrain a broad valley;
5Then the glory of
the LORD will be revealed,
And all flesh will see
it together;
For the mouth of
the LORD has spoken.
Jesus is The Lord, being refered to. John The Baptist, was pronouncing a clearing of the way, for the arrival of "The Lord", mentioned in Isaiah 40:3.
The Lord, in Isaiah 40:3, is God. The Lord, of the NT, the one who "walking on the way made clear for the Lord", was The Lord himself, Jesus Christ, the Lord of Isaiah 40:3, the person of Isaiah 9:6, Mighty God.
For these reasons and more it is more than coherent to believe that Jesus is "The Lord" God of Israel, who was seen.