The Narrow Path Ministries

Darinhouston>>>It's not the difficulty of it but the nonsensical illogic of the discussion and the irreconcilable positions in support of it.<<<

Hi Darin, would you please elaborate on this statement for me. I do apologize for asking you to do this because I'm sure if I studied your previous posts I could work out the details of your understanding of the ontology of God. I do not consider that views of the ontology of God that are different than mine are nonsensical “illogic,” just that they are built upon faulty presuppositions. In my own journey down this particular path I discovered that it was my own faulty presuppositions that were the problem I was having. It wasn't the conflicting views of others that troubled me, it was that I was seeing things differently than God.

I am now reconciled with God about this issue, and, therefore, find myself in that position where reconciliation waits patiently.

Darinhouston>>>Can't and shouldn't are also two different things. Even if true. There are no doubt many things that are true that aren't necessary to be believed or agreed upon to be foundational dogma to our faith. This is not one of them - if it were, it would be taught plainly and clearly even if it is done in a way that is unfathomable to us.<<<

I agree. This miraculous and amazing Person, Jesus Christ, IS the Foundation of our Faith. No other foundation can be laid in the deepest depth of each of our personal beings. He is “what” we NEED, and nothing else can even fit in that place in us where what salvation really is...happens. We need what we have always needed to be what we really are...the Personal Presence of God for, and in, each of us. This unconditional LOVE that He IS meets each of us where we each are and faithfully walks with us (even picking us up and carrying us when necessary) so that we can stay on that narrow path that
leads to all TRUTH.

As far as “The Trinity” goes, well...God is, OBJECTIVELY, triune, or He is not. So, it is exceedingly (critically) important to get this right because the implications are exceedingly weighty. I, for one, see the implications of the weightiness of this issue in the failure of the unity of the Body of Christ. It is in the stunning unity and diversity of the Godhead that we will finally find the LOVE (for each other) that we so obviously need to fulfill our calling (John 17:21).

Love in Jesus.

We have looked at this before, but it's such an amazing event, that I would like to look at it again. Thomas did not believe that Jesus Himself had actually risen from the dead, even though the other disciples had witnessed Jesus miraculously appearing to them inside of a locked room. John 20:19-29 Apparently Thomas was not with them on that occasion. The other disciples told Thomas that Jesus had shown them His hands and His side, i.e. the holes that the nails left in His hands and the hole that the spear left in His side. Thomas told them that if he did see in Jesus' hands the print of the nails and put his finger into the print of the nails, and put his hand into His side, that he would not believe that it was actually Jesus.

So eight days later, they were again inside a locked room, when Jesus appeared to them again. Immediately Jesus told Thomas to look at His hands and to put his hand into His side and not to be unbelieving, but believing.

Thomas said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus answered him and said, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Thomas realized and proclaimed that Jesus was His Lord and His God.

If Jesus wanted to let him, his disciples and all future readers of the book of John, to know that Thomas was mistaken in calling Him God, He could have corrected him right then and there. BUT HE DIDN'T! In fact He actually acknowledged that what he just stated was not only believing, but believing a fact, that JESUS WAS HIS LORD AND HIS GOD!

It is mind-boggling that deniers of Jesus being God could actually twist this and pervert it for their own devious purposes.

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 10:51 am

It is mind-boggling that deniers of Jesus being God could actually twist this and pervert it for their own devious purposes.

It is even more mind-boggling to think that this would have been so obvious to Thomas and those around him and yet it wasn't addressed at all as a controversy with the EXTREMELY and UNIQUELY monotheistic jews.

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:06 pm

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 10:51 am

It is mind-boggling that deniers of Jesus being God could actually twist this and pervert it for their own devious purposes.

It is even more mind-boggling to think that this would have been so obvious to Thomas and those around him and yet it wasn't addressed at all as a controversy with the EXTREMELY and UNIQUELY monotheistic jews.

Thomas had just seen Jesus being crucified, after being brutally flogged, then nailed to a cross, and finally a soldier ran a spear into His side, and then He died. Not only did Thomas see Him ALIVE again just a short time later, but He still had the nail and spear wounds and He now had the ability to appear in a locked room without going through the door. No man had ever been seen coming back from the dead in an immortal body in all of history, nor has that happened since then. Jesus ate in front of them and yet He had the ability to appear or disappear at will. And you think that it wouldn't have been obvious to Thomas and those around him that Jesus was not only their Lord but their God?

If it wasn't obvious, then why did he say, "My Lord and my God"? Regarding the monotheism of the Jews, the Jewish apostles and disciples of Jesus had no problem at all with Jesus being God in the flesh. Several of them actually wrote about it in the New Testament. So, apparently you're right, there was no controversy. Rather, through the life and teaching of Jesus, they were able to learn a little more about who their One God is and about His very essence, just like those of us who never held the Jewish belief. Jesus being God in the flesh is still a monotheistic view. Christians who hold to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as comprising the Godhead ARE monotheistic.

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:54 pm

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:06 pm

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 10:51 am

It is mind-boggling that deniers of Jesus being God could actually twist this and pervert it for their own devious purposes.

It is even more mind-boggling to think that this would have been so obvious to Thomas and those around him and yet it wasn't addressed at all as a controversy with the EXTREMELY and UNIQUELY monotheistic jews.

Thomas had just seen Jesus being crucified, after being brutally flogged, then nailed to a cross, and finally a soldier ran a spear into His side, and then He died. Not only did Thomas see Him ALIVE again just a short time later, but He still had the nail and spear wounds and He now had the ability to appear in a locked room without going through the door. No man had ever been seen coming back from the dead in an immortal body in all of history, nor has that happened since then. Jesus ate in front of them and yet He had the ability to appear or disappear at will. And you think that it wouldn't have been obvious to Thomas and those around him that Jesus was not only their Lord but their God?

If it wasn't obvious, then why did he say, "My Lord and my God"? Regarding the monotheism of the Jews, the Jewish apostles and disciples of Jesus had no problem at all with Jesus being God in the flesh. Several of them actually wrote about it in the New Testament. So, apparently you're right, there was no controversy. Rather, through the life and teaching of Jesus, they were able to learn a little more about who their One God is and about His very essence, just like those of us who never held the Jewish belief. Jesus being God in the flesh is still a monotheistic view. Christians who hold to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as comprising the Godhead ARE monotheistic.

Because he meant something by it besides Yahweh, eternal uncreated Creator - the one and true God of the universe - the being who just is.

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:06 pm

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 10:51 am

It is mind-boggling that deniers of Jesus being God could actually twist this and pervert it for their own devious purposes.

It is even more mind-boggling to think that this would have been so obvious to Thomas and those around him and yet it wasn't addressed at all as a controversy with the EXTREMELY and UNIQUELY monotheistic jews.

The term monotheism does not appear until maybe a thousand years beyond Jesus' era. I think the thought is that Jews held to henotheism. But that does not sound accurate. Anyhow, just wanted to share that there was apparent debate on the issue of two powers of heaven. I think this is where God is seen seen in plurality, like in creation, or where the divine manifestation on earth calls upon God. I'm not really making an argument here but the book is:
Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Baylor University Press, 2012. (Or Brill Academic, 2002)
https://archive.org/details/TwoPowersIn ... lyRabSegal

mikew wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 4:32 pm

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:06 pm

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 10:51 am

It is mind-boggling that deniers of Jesus being God could actually twist this and pervert it for their own devious purposes.

It is even more mind-boggling to think that this would have been so obvious to Thomas and those around him and yet it wasn't addressed at all as a controversy with the EXTREMELY and UNIQUELY monotheistic jews.

The term monotheism does not appear until maybe a thousand years beyond Jesus' era. I think the thought is that Jews held to henotheism. But that does not sound accurate. Anyhow, just wanted to share that there was apparent debate on the issue of two powers of heaven. I think this is where God is seen seen in plurality, like in creation, or where the divine manifestation on earth calls upon God. I'm not really making an argument here but the book is:
Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Baylor University Press, 2012. (Or Brill Academic, 2002)
https://archive.org/details/TwoPowersIn ... lyRabSegal

I don't believe henotheism is a reasonable position - there I no biblical or historical sense I'm aware of that would support this at least in orthodox ancient Judaism. The God of the Bible which the Jews believed in was in no way seen as "their pick" among many in a pantheon of gods or anything sort of even approaching that. The one unique thing (no matter what it's called) that is proclaimed more clearly than anything else in the our scriptures is that there is only ONE GOD that is unique and sovereign, known by a name representative of the fact that he is uniquely the only unbegotten and uncreated and simply existing one that depends on and shares that pre-existence with no other. There may have been a view that there were other "false gods" or even other heavenly hosts (of his creation) which share aspects of derivative authority or power. But, that is quite different than what I understand henotheism to entail.

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 4:01 pm

dwight92070 wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:54 pm

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 3:06 pm

It is even more mind-boggling to think that this would have been so obvious to Thomas and those around him and yet it wasn't addressed at all as a controversy with the EXTREMELY and UNIQUELY monotheistic jews.

Thomas had just seen Jesus being crucified, after being brutally flogged, then nailed to a cross, and finally a soldier ran a spear into His side, and then He died. Not only did Thomas see Him ALIVE again just a short time later, but He still had the nail and spear wounds and He now had the ability to appear in a locked room without going through the door. No man had ever been seen coming back from the dead in an immortal body in all of history, nor has that happened since then. Jesus ate in front of them and yet He had the ability to appear or disappear at will. And you think that it wouldn't have been obvious to Thomas and those around him that Jesus was not only their Lord but their God?

If it wasn't obvious, then why did he say, "My Lord and my God"? Regarding the monotheism of the Jews, the Jewish apostles and disciples of Jesus had no problem at all with Jesus being God in the flesh. Several of them actually wrote about it in the New Testament. So, apparently you're right, there was no controversy. Rather, through the life and teaching of Jesus, they were able to learn a little more about who their One God is and about His very essence, just like those of us who never held the Jewish belief. Jesus being God in the flesh is still a monotheistic view. Christians who hold to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as comprising the Godhead ARE monotheistic.

Because he meant something by it besides Yahweh, eternal uncreated Creator - the one and true God of the universe - the being who just is.

You have to read that into the passage. There's no evidence whatsoever that He meant anything but what He said - That Jesus was His Lord and His God. Even if he meant something else, which I totally reject, you would have to be a mind reader to know that.

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 9:23 pm

I don't believe henotheism is a reasonable position - there I no biblical or historical sense I'm aware of that would support this at least in orthodox ancient Judaism. The God of the Bible which the Jews believed in was in no way seen as "their pick" among many in a pantheon of gods or anything sort of even approaching that. The one unique thing (no matter what it's called) that is proclaimed more clearly than anything else in the our scriptures is that there is only ONE GOD that is unique and sovereign, known by a name representative of the fact that he is uniquely the only unbegotten and uncreated and simply existing one that depends on and shares that pre-existence with no other. There may have been a view that there were other "false gods" or even other heavenly hosts (of his creation) which share aspects of derivative authority or power. But, that is quite different than what I understand henotheism to entail.

I was not introducing henotheism as a reasonable assumption of reasonable Jewish belief. But the idea of two powers of heaven appears to have been a concept already in discussion in Judaism by the first century. And of course the whole discussion here is that there is only one God. That is how the trinity doctrine came about. Anyhow, I was just suggesting that book -- if you wanted to check it out.

..

mikew wrote: ↑

Mon May 08, 2023 12:44 am

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Sun May 07, 2023 9:23 pm

I don't believe henotheism is a reasonable position - there I no biblical or historical sense I'm aware of that would support this at least in orthodox ancient Judaism. The God of the Bible which the Jews believed in was in no way seen as "their pick" among many in a pantheon of gods or anything sort of even approaching that. The one unique thing (no matter what it's called) that is proclaimed more clearly than anything else in the our scriptures is that there is only ONE GOD that is unique and sovereign, known by a name representative of the fact that he is uniquely the only unbegotten and uncreated and simply existing one that depends on and shares that pre-existence with no other. There may have been a view that there were other "false gods" or even other heavenly hosts (of his creation) which share aspects of derivative authority or power. But, that is quite different than what I understand henotheism to entail.

I was not introducing henotheism as a reasonable assumption of reasonable Jewish belief. But the idea of two powers of heaven appears to have been a concept already in discussion in Judaism by the first century. And of course the whole discussion here is that there is only one God. That is how the trinity doctrine came about. Anyhow, I was just suggesting that book -- if you wanted to check it out.

..

I did not think you were suggesting it was reasonable - I should have been more explicit in my declarative statement - what follows meant to explain that what I reject is that it is a reasonable suggestion as to Jewish belief leading up to the apostle's teaching. There was every form of conjecture about virtually every aspect of God beginning in the first century after the Christian movement began and Jewish life was placed in turmoil from the Messianic reality and the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple. Personally, I think those Jews who rejected Christ could well have been on all sorts of pagan and demonic tangents. That should not be in any way supportive of what the Jewish mindset was at the time of the New Testament writings or before. As such, they are of very little probative value for scriptural exegesis.