Posted on 12/23/2013 5:14:49 AM PST by Kevmo
Amen, and a very Merry Christmas to you and your family. May your days be blessed!
“Again you have to manipulate the lexicon to draw a different conclusion. What Bible version are you using? I ask because “theos” is not in the OT Hebrew.”
It’s a Septuagint translation of the Hebrew “Elohim”
“When Thomas said “My Lord and my God” it was not ‘my Lord and one of the gods; or a god.” To apply your example, it would result in Thomas calling Jesus “his” ‘god’ therefore going against the knowledge Thomas had of the Law which says there is only “One True God.” So you have to change the Hebrew and Greek lexicons everywhere else in Scriptures to fit your excuse that Thomas did not mean God, but “gods.”
More accurately, using “theos” in correct context here Thomas was saying my Lord and master, person of authority, so he would not be going against his “One True God” belief.
As Michaelis a Trinitarian even acknowledged, regarding Thomas:
“I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only “whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree”…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense” (Concessions of Trinitarians, pp. 23-25,)”
Incorrect. Nowhere is "theos" used as Master. When he said "Lord" that was the affirmation of "Master." When "Lord" is used it is kyrios in Greek. So Thomas was not saying "My Lord and my Lord." No, "theos" has only the following meanings: God; a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. So at least choose one of the above and not try to replace the lexicon used.
So within the context of the passage and original language your choices are above. Lord and Master was covered in the very first portion of Thomas' statement.
The opinion of Michaelis is just that an opinion. An opinion where the lexicon says different and translators over the centuries refute.
I will ask again. What Bible translation are you using to come to your conclusions?
From Vines:
1 Strong's Number: g2316 Greek: theos God:
(A) in the polytheism of the Greeks, denoted "a god or deity," e.g., Act 14:11; 19:26; 28:6; 1Cr 8:5; Gal 4:8. (B)
(a) Hence the word was appropriated by Jews and retained by Christians to denote "the one true God." In the Sept. theos translates (with few exceptions) the Hebrew words Elohim and Jehovah, the former indicating His power and preeminence, the latter His unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained existence.
In the NT, these and all the other Divine attributes are predicated of Him. To Him are ascribed, e.g., His unity, or monism, e.g., Mar 12:29; 1Ti 2:5; self-existence, Jhn 5:26; immutability, Jam 1:17; eternity, Rom 1:20; universality, Mat 10:29; Act 17:26-28; almighty power, Mat 19:26; infinite knowledge, Act 2:23; 15:18; Rom 11:33; creative power, Rom 11:36; 1Cr 8:6; Eph 3:9; Rev 4:11; 10:6; absolute holiness, 1Pe 1:15; 1Jo 1:5; righteousness, Jhn 17:25; faithfulness, 1Cr 1:9; 10:13; 1Th 5:24; 2Th 3:3; 1Jo 1:9; love, 1Jo 4:8, 16; mercy, Rom 9:15, 18; truthfulness, Tts 1:2; Hbr 6:18. See GOOD, No. 1 (b).
In no way can “theos” be translated “master”. The Greek word “theos” or a form of it is used over 1300 times in the new Testament and not once is it translated Lord or Master nor can it be thought to mean Lord or Master.
Amen. And the Divine Christ is both Master and Lord, for He is I AM. (Jn. 13:13) To the glory of God the Father.
John 8:
[51] Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
[52] Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
[53] Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
[54] Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
[55] Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
[56] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
[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.
This scripture is actually a powerful argument against the Trinity and is describing Christ’s Godly behavior and appearance, not Christ being God. The word “form” in the term “form of God” derived from the Greek word “morphe” is simply describing Christ’s outward appearance of God. Otherwise the scripture would simply say “Christ Jesus, who, though he was God”. Christ obeyed God, did God’s will and behaved in a Godly manner. The scripture clearly shows here that Christ has no intention of trying to grasp being equal to God, but instead humbled himself as God’s Son and faithful servant.
That is not correct.
The Kenosis of Jesus Christ: Does Philippians 2:5-8 State Christ Emptied Himself of His Deity?
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”Phil 2:5-8 NASB1995
What happened in the Incarnation of Christ? Did He empty Himself of deity and become a mere man who was previously God, man minus God, a man-God? Did He continue as both fully God and fully man, a God-man?
There are two basic views Bible scholars have of the Philippians passage. The first is the Kenotic Theory, and states that Christ emptied Himself of the relative attributes of Omnipotence[1], Omniscience[2], and Omnipresence[3], which only deity possesses. This view clearly denies the Biblical doctrine of the Immutability[4] of Christ as found in Hebrews 13:8.[5]
The Kenotic Theory was first scientifically formulated by Thomasius in Germany, [6](1860 to 1880) and later by theologians in England (1890 to 1910). Prior to that no recognized teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of Greek, thought that "emptied himself" in Philippians 2:7 meant the Son of God gave up some of his divine attributes.
The Philippians passage does not say that Christ "emptied himself of some powers" or "emptied himself of divine attributes" or anything like that. The words “of His deity” simply are not in the passage. The Kenotic Theory is based on an assumption regarding what “emptied” means and references, not upon what the Bible actually says.
Regarding verse 7, the UBS Handbook Series states, “The verb "to empty" has given rise to the so-called "kenotic" theory of incarnation. Undue theological exploitations have cast a heavy shadow on its meaning. It should be said at the outset that the verb must be understood metaphorically, not metaphysically. It says nothing about Christ stripping himself of his divine attributes as has sometimes been suggested.”
AND
”The verb ‘to empty’ is used elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles four times (Rom 4:14; 1 Cor. l:17; 9:15; 9:3), and in each instance it is used metaphorically in the sense of ‘to bring to nothing,’ ‘to make worthless,’ or ‘to empty of significance.’ (from the UBS Handbook Series. Copyright (c) 1961-1997, by United Bible Societies)
The second view is known as the Hypostatic Union, and states Christ continued in the Incarnation as fully God and became fully man.
The Hypostatic Union is and has been the orthodox view received by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant New Testament scholars throughout the ages, and later by those in the Restoration Movement. This is confirmed in the creeds and writings of the early church fathers. While the churches of Christ and Christian Churches do not accept human creeds as having the authority of Scripture, the majority of Restoration scholars do accept the creedal statements as faithfully reflecting the Bible. See Creeds
In contrast to the Kenotic view, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus most certainly claimed to be God while on earth. (cf. John 3:13; 5:18; 10:33; 17:5). “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58 Here Jesus declared Himself to be Yahweh, i.e., the God of the Old Testament. I AM, is one of the names of God, and also states Christ is present in eternity outside of time. It was recognized by the Jews as a title of deity (see Ex. 3:14; cf. Isa. 44:6; 47:8). The high priest's reaction to Jesus' use of the title, in Mark 14:61-63, suggests that he considered Jesus' utterance of it as being a blasphemous claim to deity.
Explicit statements of the NT indicate that Jesus retained his divine nature and attributes (Matt.1:23; 11:27; Mark 1:1; John 3:13 AV; 14:9; Rom. 1:4). Examples of Jesus manifesting divine attributes include: omniscience (John 4:16-19; 2:24,25; 6:64; Luke 5:4-6), omnipresence (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13), and omnipotence (Luke 4:39; 8:54-55; Matt. 8:26,27).
"To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity. Of course, references to His deity abound in Scripture (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Col. 2:9; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 1:8). And by the way, this is not only affirmed by the Bible, it's clearly affirmed by the creeds." Hank Hannagraf, CRI Perspective CP1207
Critical to a correct understanding of the kenosis passage is a proper exegesis of verse 6. “Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained,” The Amplified Bible
The Greek has two words for form, morphē and schēma. Paul connects the stronger morphē with theou (God) in verse 6. Morphē is the essential form, which never alters; schēma is the outward form which changes. Some versions translate schēma as fashion. The essential morphē of a human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schēma is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphē of humanity, but the outward schēma changes all the time.[7] The essential morphē of Christ’s deity never changed. Likewise, Hebrews 13:8 (NIV) states, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” These confirm the doctrine of the immutability of God, and makes a literal emptying inconceivable.
The schēma of Jesus’ humanity did change starting at the Incarnation, at His birth, later as He grew physically, at the crucifixion, and finally when he received His glorified body at the resurrection.
One cannot be 25%, 50%, or even 99.9% God. To be anything less than all that God has declared Himself to be, is to not be God. In John 5:18, “Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” NIV The Greek word for “equal” defines things that are exactly the same in size, quantity, quality, character, and number. (Bauer’s lexicon) In every sense, Jesus is equal to God and constantly claimed to be so during His earthly ministry (cf. John 5:18; 10:33, 38; 14:9; 20:28; Heb. 1:1–3).
The text does describe what Jesus did in this "emptying": he did not do it by divesting himself of any of his attributes but rather by " taking the very form (morphē) of a servant," that is, coming to live as a man, and "being found in human form (schēma), he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross (Phil. 2:8). Thus, the context itself interprets this "emptying" as equivalent to "humbling himself" and taking on a lowly status and position. Thus, the NIV, instead of translating the phrase, “He emptied himself," translates it, "but made himself nothing" (Phil. 2:7 NIV). The emptying includes change of role and status, not essential attributes or nature.
Rather than asserting the right to enjoy a glorious visage (i.e., as in the transfiguration), Jesus rather knew that the objective of the Father called for his humbling. And that, indeed, for us to be able to interact with him, the humbling would be needed. It was for US that Jesus took on this schēma.
Obviously, a man who was God (man-God), and one who is both fully God and fully man (God-man) at the same time are two different beings. Furthermore, the Kenotic Jesus does not speak with the same authority to his followers as the Christ of the Bible. One is fallible and voices his ideas and opinion, whereas the Christ of the Bible speaks to His followers with absolute certainty.
Considering the evidence, should we base our eternal destiny on clear explicit statements in the Bible or our assumptions?
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Mic 5:2). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
Of course, since God had foreknowledge of his Son’s creation.
“Explicit statements of the NT indicate that Jesus retained his divine nature and attributes”
Also available to the Saints in the body of Christ, which doesn’t make them God: Quoting John 14:12:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.”
Regarding Christ’s return:
Mark 13:32
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
And then:
1 Corinthians 15:28:
“And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
Hardly a Co-Equal, Triune Godhead as Trintarian dogma states.
Trinity - False doctrine nonsense started by Constantine.
Jesus Christ is not a son of God in the same sense as others. He is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God, as we read in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9. The Greek is monogenes, which is mono (one) and genes (kind). Jesus is the UNIQUE Son of God, deity from deity.
“Incorrect. Nowhere is “theos” used as Master”
Master was used here in conjunction with “Lord”
“No, “theos” has only the following meanings: God; a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. So at least choose one of the above and not try to replace the lexicon used.”
Strongs translating New Testiment Theos:
Theos
theh’-os
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with G3588) the supreme Divinity; figuratively a magistrate; by Hebraism very: - X exceeding, God, god [-ly, -ward].
Notice god is also in lower case, or god [-ly]. It was pointed out that theos was also used to describe Satin. Does that mean he’s the Supreme God?
The term is also used to describe persons of authority.
Example: John 10:34 when Jesus uses “theos”
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”
John 17:3:
“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”
“Jesus Christ is not a son of God in the same sense as others. He is the ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son of God”
Yep, the Son, Lord, Messiah.
Of course, since God had foreknowledge of his Son’s creation.
You have taken the passage completely out of context. "I AM" is both His Name and attribute as God in the past, present, and future.
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.”
You misquoted Jesus by not including the next two verses.
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Jn 14:12–14). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
You just destroyed your evidence used in this passage against Jesus not being God. The comma between "only true God" and "Jesus Christ" does not exist in the Greek. Jesus Christ's name is linked as an equal with "only true God" in the original.
I’ll point this out again as I did a long time ago on the Mormon threads.
They also like to claim that Jesus is not God Himself but rather a separate entity from God the Father.
However, following that line of reasoning, that Jesus is not God Himself, forces the one believing into the position of breaking the first commandment found in Exodus 20.... I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.
If Jesus is not God Incarnate, but rather a separate entity, them to claim that to get to the Father through Jesus Christ puts another god between, or before, the Father.
If Jesus IS God Incarnate, God with us, then the first commandment remains unbroken.
So those who deny the deity of Christ are in effect demanding and teaching others to break the first commandment.
I don’t think that’s going to work out so well for them.
Ping to post 77
Great point.
Here are the words exactly from the Greek.
"This moreover is eternal life that they should know you the only true God and whom you have sent Jesus Christ".
It couldn’t be more plain than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.