God raised God from the dead?

[DavidinWichita]

Follow this:
1. The Word was God - John 1:1
2. The Word (God) was made flesh (Jesus birth) - John 1:14
3. God raised the Word (Jesus & God) from the dead - Acts 13:30
4. The Word was God - John 1:1

Therefore,
The Word (God) raised the Word (Jesus) from the dead.

How could the Word raise himself from the dead? And why was Jesus praying in agony in the garden? When I picture that in my head, I just want to say, "Hey Jesus...why are you crying!? You are the Word, God! You are going to rise from the dead, just like you told the disciples, right? So why are you agonizing over this decision? You and God are one, and it has already been determined that God will raise you from the dead!"

Thanks for your help,
David in Wichita

[Paidion]

The problem lies in the first premise:

1. The Word was God - John 1:1

This is often interpreted as if it said that the Word was the Father. If that were the meaning, there would have been an article before "God" in Greek. Also the word for "God" comes BEFORE the verb.. If "God" had come after the verb, then it would have meant "The Word was a god" as in the New World Translation. But the sentence actually says, (to put it crudely) "The Word was God-stuff". The same order and lack of article occurs in the following scripture:

1. God is love. (I John 4:8,16)
Love is the kind of thing God is.

2. Your word is truth. (John 17:17)
Truth is the kind of thing His word is.

3. The Logos was God.
God [material] is the kind of thing the Logos is.

Another question could be asked. Does God have a God?

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’

Revelation 3:12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

[Pierac]

The problem lies in the first premise:

1. The Word was God - John 1:1

This is often interpreted as if it said that the Word was the Father. If that were the meaning, there would have been an article before "God" in Greek. Also the word for "God" comes BEFORE the verb.. If "God" had come after the verb, then it would have meant "The Word was a god" as in the New World Translation. But the sentence actually says, (to put it crudely) "The Word was God-stuff". The same order and lack of article occurs in the following scripture:

1. God is love. (I John 4:8,16)
Love is the kind of thing God is.

2. Your word is truth. (John 17:17)
Truth is the kind of thing His word is.

3. The Logos was God.
God [material] is the kind of thing the Logos is.

Another question could be asked. Does God have a God?

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”’

Revelation 3:12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

Your getting close brother,

Now go read my John 1 post.

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 860#p32860


Paul

[Paidion]

I had already read your post. I respect you and your thoughts. Yet, from earliest Christian times, the Logos was understood to be the personal Son of God. I agree. There's no contradiction in this understanding, unless one thinks that John 1:1 is affirming that the Logos was the Father Himself.

[Pierac]

I had already read your post. I respect you and your thoughts. Yet, from earliest Christian times, the Logos was understood to be the personal Son of God. I agree. There's no contradiction in this understanding, unless one thinks that John 1:1 is affirming that the Logos was the Father Himself.

Well we can agree that John wrote his Gospel to show us...

Joh 20:31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

John never wrote a single word to teach us Jesus was God, but that He was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, not God Himself!

Actually, in Greek. Logos was considered to be God...

Info taken from...From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heraclitus
The writing of Heraclitus (ca. 535–475 BCE) was the first place where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy.[4] Though Heraclitus "quite deliberately plays on the various meanings of logos",[5] there is no compelling reason to suppose that he used it in a special technical sense, significantly different from the way it was used in ordinary Greek of his time.[6]

This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (Diels-Kranz 22B1)

For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (Diels-Kranz 22B2)

Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one. (Diels-Kranz 22B50)[7]

Notice any similar beliefs about the Logos written hundreds of years before Jesus came to this earth?

The Stoics
In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BCE, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos") or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos.[8]

Can you see a Greek world view being formulated around John 1:1 yet, considering John's own reason for writing his Gospel? John 20:31

Now add in the early Church Fathers...

AUGUSTINE: CONFESSIONS
Book 7 CHAPTER IX
13. And first of all, willing to show me how thou dost "resist the proud, but give grace to the humble,"[184] and how mercifully thou hast made known to men the way of humility in that thy Word "was made flesh and dwelt among men,"[185] thou didst procure for me, through one inflated with the most monstrous pride, certain books of the Platonists, translated from Greek into Latin.[186] And therein I found, not indeed in the same words, but to the selfsame effect, enforced by many and various reasons that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." That which was made by him is "life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." Furthermore, I read that the soul of man, though it "bears witness to the light," yet itself "is not the light; but the Word of God, being God, is that true light that lights every man who comes into the world." And further, that "he was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."[187] But that "he came unto his own, and his own received him not. And as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name"[188]--this I did not find there.

Our views have been affected by Men who came before us! What you read above is taught in Bible schools across the country, but with out the source of where these beliefs came about. It's taught as Biblical fact when it really originated out of Hellenistic beliefs systems, not Hebrew.

Paul

[RND]

John never wrote a single word to teach us Jesus was God, but that He was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, not God Himself!

Jesus said He was God, John simply recorded it.

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. 30 I and [my] Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God said = 'elohiym = plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

This is the same 'elohiym that said, Let US make man in OUR image."

I AM THAT I AM = hayah = a primitive root (compare 'hava'' (1933)); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

Jesus was saying, plainly, that He has always been and has always existed. God.

[Pierac]

John never wrote a single word to teach us Jesus was God, but that He was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God, not God Himself!

Jesus said He was God, John simply recorded it.

John 8:57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

John 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand. 30 I and [my] Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God said = 'elohiym = plural of ''elowahh' (433); gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

This is the same 'elohiym that said, Let US make man in OUR image."

I AM THAT I AM = hayah = a primitive root (compare 'hava'' (1933)); to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary):--beacon, X altogether, be(-come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-)self, require, X use.

Jesus was saying, plainly, that He has always been and has always existed. God.

I understand RND, just two years ago I believed the same. So how you you explain John 20:31?

Also can I move your questions to My Shema Yisrael thread and answer them there? It's easier of me to stay focused on the questions as it's not really related to this thread. I don't want to step on any toes.


Paul

[RND]

I understand RND, just two years ago I believed the same. So how you you explain John 20:31?

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Like this:

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].

Also can I move your questions to My Shema Yisrael thread and answer them there? It's easier of me to stay focused on the questions as it's not really related to this thread. I don't want to step on any toes.

I didn't ask any questions.

You seemed to be suggesting that because John didn't say Jesus was God that Jesus wasn't God. Jesus plainly said He was God. John recorded it.

[Pierac]

And why was Jesus praying in agony in the garden? When I picture that in my head, I just want to say, "Hey Jesus...why are you crying!? You are the Word, God! You are going to rise from the dead, just like you told the disciples, right? So why are you agonizing over this decision? You and God are one, and it has already been determined that God will raise you from the dead!"

Thanks for your help,
David in Wichita

Luk 22:43 [Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And in his anguish112 he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.]113

Net Commentary:

112 tn Grk "And being in anguish."

113 tc Several important Greek MSS (Ì75 א1 A B N T W 579 1071*) along with diverse and widespread versional witnesses lack Luk_22:43-44. In addition, the verses are placed after Mat_26:39 by Ë13. Floating texts typically suggest both spuriousness and early scribal impulses to regard the verses as historically authentic. These verses are included in א*,2 D L Θ Ψ 0171 Ë1 Ï lat Ju Ir Hipp Eus. However, a number of MSS mark the text with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating the scribe's assessment of the verses as inauthentic. At the same time, these verses generally fit Luke's style. Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus' humanity and an angel's help. But even if the verses are not literarily authentic, they are probably historically authentic. This is due to the fact that this text was well known in several different locales from a very early period. Since there are no synoptic parallels to this account and since there is no obvious reason for adding these words here, it is very likely that such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord. Nevertheless, because of the serious doubts as to these verses' authenticity, they have been put in brackets. For an important discussion of this problem, see B. D. Ehrman and M. A. Plunkett, "The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luk_22:43-44," CBQ 45 (1983): 401-16.

sn Angelic aid is noted elsewhere in the gospels: Mat_4:11 = Mar_1:13.


I have also found research that suggest that these two verses were added to counter the Gnostic belief that Jesus was not really a man but just a Spirit being. Some suggested that it was added to support the idea that Jesus was a Man and needed support during this trying time, as only a spirit being Jesus would not need the support. Bart Ehrman gives an excellent teaching on this in his book The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament Just note, this book was not written for the general public like his Misquoting Jesus book.

From my limited research, I do not believe Luke 22:43-44 to be part of scripture. I have noted that anytime in the history of biblical manuscripts you see verses like this placed in different locations within the scriptures, it's a classic sign of scribal additions.


Paul

[Pierac]

I didn't ask any questions.

You seemed to be suggesting that because John didn't say Jesus was God that Jesus wasn't God. Jesus plainly said He was God. John recorded it.

I'm sorry RND, you are correct. I only saw the questions because I know you don't understand the verses you quoted. The problem is you did not question what should have been questioned.

For example Jesus did not say “I AM” in John 8:57 and your understanding of “elohiym” does not fit the Hebraic meaning. You are reading the Hebrew scriptures through western eyes. Jesus and John were Jews, and you need to understand this when you comment on their statements.

I should have said, do you want me to educate you.

So let me apologize and ask again.

Can I move your post to my thread and educate you on their actual meaning within scripture.


Paul