Trinity.

[Paidion]

Perhaps John needed Greek lessons? !

SHOCKING!!!

Or perhaps he didn't need Greek lessons. I know you wrote that sentence tongue-in-cheek, Homer. But John may have been using "theos" in the same sense he used in in the second instance in John 1:1, as the divine essence. "The Logos was with the God, and the Logos was Divine Essence" (John 1:1). Surely John didn't mean that no one had seen THE God, since the OT records many instances of people having seen God—Moses even saw his "back parts" (Ex 33:23 AV) .

Here is a possible rendering of John 1:18 :

No one has ever seen Divine Essence; the only-begotten God (the One in the Father’s bosom), that One has unfolded [it]. (John 1:18)

The very Person of the Son, being of the same Divine Essence as the Father from whom He was begotten before all ages, was able to unfold or reveal that Essence by his very presence. He [the Son] is the exact imprint of his [the Father's] essence. (Heb 1:3).

This is also born out by John's calling the Son of God "The Logos". In John 1, "logos" is not merely a phonetic element. Greek has a different word for that. Even in English we say, "George is now going to give a word," meaning that George is not going to express himself. Thus Jesus was the Logos of the Father, i.e. the Expression of the Father, that is Jesus in his life and teachings, expressed the Father as He really is. Prior to Jesus, the Father was known only in part.

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

I see you have your engineer's cap on again. I don't think this conversation is all that esoteric myself. It merely hinges on what the mental dynamic was regarding "the Word" that the 1st century Jews had, as well as what the Greeks would have thought of this concept, and how John best adapted the Gospel to meet that need. How is this complicated?

Was Paul lying, or was he telling the truth when he said that he was there to preach about "an Unknown God" that the Athenians raised an alter to? Was the alter really to YHWH, or was it just a "catch-all" alter just in case they left any Gods out? Wasn't Paul using their fear of deities as a way to present the Gospel? Why is it so hard to think that John used the Hebrew concept of Logos to address an issue in preaching to Greeks? What is it about non-trinitarians that threatens you so much? Is Jesus going to not become the savior to men of all sorts if your cherished notion doesn't reign supreme? If so, the Father and Jesus did a really poor job in drawing men of all sorts to the Son. I prefer to think human dogma is at falt, and not that God doesn't know how to provide for the salvation of men in a simple fashion.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

Surely John didn't mean that no one had seen THE God, since the OT records many instances of people having seen God—Moses even saw his "back parts (Paidion)

Nobody has seen God 'because God is invisible and God is Spirit' Paidion. God must then manifest a physical created visual Theophany so God can interact with men. When God walked and talked and wrestled with those in scripture, God would of had had to manifest a visible form (a created form). Do u really believe a mortal man could at look at or see God? (and live?)

How is this complicated? (Brenden)

Not for us: 'the Word was God' this is not complicated.

I think you might be reading past me. I have stated here years ago, and always have, that the NT writers very much appealed to the Greek foundation of the Hellenistic philosophers and Greek Theology and reasoning. The unmoved mover, first causes, and being etc. Paul too i have argued was familiar with Plato as his letters often reflect Plato’s Apology and reasoning. I have a large drawing on the wall of my home of Paul in Athens reflecting on the unknown God statue, because it reminded me of my own evangelism trips. Never the less, God has already made the case for monotheism, in opposition to all forms of idolatry, gods, deities, divinities and powers similar to God of any and all other beliefs and religions, not just the Gnostics.

What is it about non-trinitarians that threatens you so much? (Brenden)

Have you not read The first of the Commandments? Nobody is threatening me. I am not the one making a big deal out of Gods unique, unparalleled, incomparable nature in relation to all other things in existence. It is not me that makes a big deal out of it: God does. I am just pointing this out. Do you even consider Mormonism or Islam to be wrong? Why?

All other ideas turn Jesus into an essence (Paidion above) a power, another Deity, another god, or something, there is no getting around it. Are you saying Jesus was like God, but He is not God? Is that what you are saying? Jesus was exactly like the Father in way too many ways. Only God can be like God. All else is blasphemy. It is idolatry to have anything equal or assume anything is close to being like God. Calling Him 'the Son' does not make it OK, unless He truly is God, because there were many many many sons of gods already in existence. Why do we know the other sons of god were not gods? Because ‘we’ believe Only God is like God, or can be. There is nothing like God, or close. God said so Himself.

You make this point as if it is trivial. Of course it is not trivial. God made a HUGE deal out of Gods Oneness and uniqueness. I fear God, and I would greatly fear assuming Divinity, likeness, or following anyone who claims to be like our God.

[TheEditor]

Have you not read The first of the Commandments?

Yes.

Nobody is threatening me. I am not the one making a big deal out of Gods unique, unparalleled, incomparable nature in relation to all other things in existence.

By sheer volume of posts I would say you are.

It is not me that makes a big deal out of it: God does. I am just pointing this out.

God makes a "big deal" about bringing humanity into a reconciled relationship with Him as God, Father and Creator; He tells us that worship of other deities and idols is wrong. I am not sure He makes a "big deal" about a philosophical abstraction like the trinity.

Do you even consider Mormonism or Islam to be wrong? Why?

Islam; If Islam did not make a point of what appears to be a "parallel universe" of sorts with their religion (ie the embellishments and augmentations of the Abrahamic narrative), and for their insistence that there is another prophet (Mohamed) then I would view Islam much as I view modern-day Judaism. In fact, were in not for Mohamed, I would have to say that I would view modern day Islam in a slightly more favorable theological light than Orthodox modern-day Judaism in that, if you have ever listened to debates between Orthodox Jews and Christians, Orthodox Jews view Jesus as a false prophet (the "wailing wall" is there, so they say that 'stone was left upon a stone'), whereas Muslims believe Jesus to be a true prophet.

Mormonism I believe at best to be a cultic Christian sect; at worst a false religion. I say this because I believe that in even the wackiest of groups, if the unvarnished good news is presented at any time, true disciples will be drawn, and may in time leave the group. However, they will be true disciples while still in the group.

All other ideas turn Jesus into an essence (Paidion above) a power, another Deity, another god, or something, there is no getting around it. Are you saying Jesus was like God, but He is not God? Is that what you are saying? Jesus was exactly like the Father in way too many ways. Only God can be like God. All else is blasphemy. It is idolatry to have anything equal or assume anything is close to being like God. Calling Him 'the Son' does not make it OK, unless He truly is God, because there were many many many sons of gods already in existence. Why do we know the other sons of god were not gods? Because ‘we’ believe Only God is like God, or can be. There is nothing like God, or close. God said so Himself.

You can Johnny-one-note this all you want JR; you can quote blocks of Psalms and so forth and underline the portions that say "beside me there is no other", but all this does for me is show that you are either a) Fundamentally misunderstanding where some non-trinitarians are coming from or b) Fundamentally misunderstand the trinity dogma.

No one is saying that John does not say "What God was the Word was"; this is the most plain and non dogma-laden translation of John 1:1. John says that the Word is not just an emanation from God (as the Gnostics might say) nor a barrier to keep people from anthropomorphizing God (the way the Jews may have thought) but that He is of the same essence and nature. You are a Man. Your Son is a Man. You are not your son. "God" can be an identity (the Father) and "God" can be a substance (divinity). The Son is divine.

I would greatly fear assuming Divinity, likeness, or following anyone who claims to be like our God.

Why? It may surprise you JR, but Peter says that even you will share the divine nature:

"Through these things he has freely given us the precious and very grand promises, that through these YOU may become sharers in divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)

Hope Peter doesn't scare you too much.

Regards, Brenden.

[dizerner]

You don't think we partake of the divine nature the same way Christ did I hope? We partake by virtue of union with Christ, but Christ didn't need another source to become divine. It worries me that many cults gravitate into teaching that we become "little christs" rather than the Biblical description as part of his body, joined to the head.

[TheEditor]

Hi Dizerner,

To use common language to answer your quesion; no doubt about it, Jesus is our ticket in to this divine nature. But to run a little close to the edge; Paul does invite some interesting questions when he talks about "Christ":

For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. For truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of the Christ? The loaf which we break, is it not a sharing in the body of the Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, although many, are one body, for we are all partaking of that one loaf. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

"For this reason a man will leave [his] father and [his] mother and he will stick to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This sacred secret is great. Now I am speaking with respect to Christ and the congregation. (Ephesians 5:31-32)

I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for YOU, and I, in my turn, am filling up what is lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh on behalf of his body, which is the congregation. I became a minister of this [congregation] in accordance with the stewardship from God which was given me in YOUR interest to preach the word of God fully, the sacred secret that was hidden from the past systems of things and from the past generations. But now it has been made manifest to his holy ones, to whom God has been pleased to make known what are the glorious riches of this sacred secret among the nations. It is Christ in union with YOU, the hope of [his] glory. (Colossians 1:24-27)

Paul seems to blur the lines a little. In the 1 Cor. 12 passage he doesn't say "so also is the body of Christ", he says "So also is the Christ". Using terms such as "mini-Christs" I think is a turn-off for us because it smacks of New Ageism. But the concept that the church is Christ--so much an intregral part of him that expressions like Paul uses above seem hard to reckon. One more thing; the church is granted immortality--something the angels do not posess--but as of now only posessed by God and Christ.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

It worries me that many cults gravitate into teaching that we become "little christs"...

Are you a Christian, Dizerner? If so, you are a "little christ" already! The word "Christian" MEANS "little christ."

Just try googling "little christ". You will find many websites where it is affirmed that this is the meaning of "Christian".

[dizerner]

It worries me that many cults gravitate into teaching that we become "little christs"...

Are you a Christian, Dizerner? If so, you are a "little christ" already! The word "Christian" MEANS "little christ."

Just try googling "little christ". You will find many websites where it is affirmed that this is the meaning of "Christian".

Yes, I was aware of this. In my brevity I often realize I didn't clarify my points well enough. Of course the sense with which I'm using "little christ" is not "Christ-like" nor "conformed to Christ" nor even "Christ living in us." But that we each are our own christs, with power independent of Christ.

But the concept that the church is Christ--so much an intregral part of him that expressions like Paul uses above seem hard to reckon.

Sure, Christ said to Paul "Why do you persecute me?" when it was the Church Paul was persecuting. Does our being a part of Christ's body put us on par with Christ? Are we a vine unto ourselves as Christ is, a source of life and redemption? Have we worked a work as Christ has, perfect and complete? Are we Lord of Lords and King of Kings ourselves? Well, no, of course not. Being a part of Christ's body is to partake of his nature and life, and to be one Spirit with him, but it's not to literally be Christ, because we can be cut off from Christ and thus no longer a part of him. Thus I see no edginess in Paul's writings were he paints anything close to a fuzzy line about the difference between Christ and believers, and that maybe believers are going to become self-sustaining beings who have no need of a King and Head.

One more thing; the church is granted immortality--something the angels do not posess--but as of now only posessed by God and Christ.

You think angels cease existing or die?

[TheEditor]

One more thing; the church is granted immortality--something the angels do not posess--but as of now only posessed by God and Christ.

You think angels cease existing or die?

Hi Dizerner,

Good question, thanks for asking.

Immortality comes from athanasia and a negative of thanatos meaning death, hence "deathlessness". It is endless, incorruptable and indestructible. Jesus Christ was granted immortality upon his resurrection by God "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position." (Philippians 2:9) "For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more." (Romans 6:9)

"And it is still more abundantly clear that with a similarity to Melchiz′edek there arises another priest, who has become such, not according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh, but according to the power of an indestructible life, for in witness it is said: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchiz′edek.”(Hebrews 7:15-17)
"But he because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors. Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.(Hebrews 7:24-25)

Strong's defines the term akatalootos at Hebrews 7:16 as "indissoluble, that is, (figuratively) permanent: - endless." The word is an opposite (because of the "a") to kataloo'-o which is translated "throwing down" as in Jesus’ words about the Temple and it's "throwing down" (Mt 24:1, 2), and Paul’s reference to the "kataloo'-o"of the earthly "tent" of Believers--the destruction of their life in human flesh. (2Co 5:1) Strong's has it: "kataloo'-o from G2596 and G3089; to loosen down (disintegrate), that is, (by implication) to demolish." So then, this immortal life Jesus put on after his resurrection is not capable of dissolution, destruction or corruption of any kind.

Christians are promised a partaking in the likeness of Christ after his resurrection (Ro 6:5) So, they too are to receive this "incorruptible" life. "This which is mortal puts on immortality." (1Co 15:50-54) And it is apparently not just freedom from a natural death, but "power of an indestructible life" (Hebrews 7:16).

On the other hand, angels do not seem to be immune to death. Whether or not there are "dead angels" or "demons" out there, I can't say. It may be they are made of stuff that continues on for quite a long stretch even if they have unplugged from the source of life, God. But they are not immune to destruction, hence not immortal; "Jesus you Nazarene′? Did you come to destroy us? (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34) I believe that angels do not "die" if they stay connected to their source of life. But immortality means something beyond "not dying" as discussed above.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he will display at the proper time—he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (1 Tim 6:13-16 ESV)

This passage indicates that God alone has immortality. I think it means that God alone, because of who He is, intrinsically possesses immortality. But He can also GIVE immortality to whom He wishes.

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. (1Cor 15:53)

So perhaps God has also given immortality to some of the angels.

But I have a different question with regards to the passage from 1 Timothy. Paul stated that "the only Sovereign, etc" is One whom "no one has ever seen or can see." Yet Jesus said:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. (Matt 5:8 ESV)

Do Paul's words that no one has ever seen God or can see Him contradict the words of Jesus?