Jesus is God

[darinhouston]

I simply stated what I think the verse means. Note that I deliberately did not put it in quotes, knowing that those are not the original words. Haven't you ever done that?

I guess we can want things to say whatever we want them to say. But, we were talking about what it actually says.

[dwight92070]

When our saved loved ones die, and go to heaven, we have no way of communicating with them or they with us. We cannot influence them in any way, nor can they influence us in any way. But Jesus, having died and gone on to heaven, can and does still influence us. He imparts His grace to us. Not just to us, but also to probably millions of believers now on earth.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Even a godly man, gone on to heaven, can't do that. This is something that only God can do.
By the way, did you notice the reference to the Trinity here?

[darinhouston]

When our saved loved ones die, and go to heaven, we have no way of communicating with them or they with us. We cannot influence them in any way, nor can they influence us in any way. But Jesus, having died and gone on to heaven, can and does still influence us. He imparts His grace to us. Not just to us, but also to probably millions of believers now on earth.
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all." Even a godly man, gone on to heaven, can't do that. This is something that only God can do.
By the way, did you notice the reference to the Trinity here?

I agree with most of what you wrote except for the presupposition that you can't prove (namely, that "only God can do that" -- God granted Jesus that place and authority as the unique Son of God.)

[dwight92070]

John 1:18 in the NASB says: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Even though some versions translate it "the only begotten Son", the Greek interlinear confirms that Jesus is indeed called "the only begotten God". The Greek word is "theos", which means the true God.

[darinhouston]

John 1:18 in the NASB says: "No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Even though some versions translate it "the only begotten Son", the Greek interlinear confirms that Jesus is indeed called "the only begotten God". The Greek word is "theos", which means the true God.

Greek Interlinears are a clumsy (even if sometimes useful) tool for knowing what the conventionally understood greek is, but they usually focus on one manuscript and don't even note variants. As to the translation benefits of using an interlinear, the translation provided usually just happens to be one convenient one for reference - not in any way meant to be authoritative as a translation.

I think Son is much more likely - we've discussed this before and I think I've shared the below with you before as well, but it is a fairly concise and rational look at this topic. Even if it's theos, however, that is quite frequently used to mean other than the "true God" - particularly when it is anarthrous and lacks "the article" (more like "the God"). So, even if it is monogenes theos, the context of that verse and the rest of scripture would lean towards something more adjectival - (e.g., the one uniquely divine one) or something. But, again, I disagree that theos is the most likely in this case.

-----

“only begotten son.” There is a huge controversy about the original reading of this verse. As it stands, some Greek texts read “God” and some read “Son.” At some point in time the Greek text was changed, and either “Son” or “God” is original. The manuscript evidence is divided. Much has been written on this subject, and readers are invited to read some of the more scholarly books and commentaries that go deeply into the arguments.

When totaled, the evidence indicates that the reading, “only begotten son” is more likely original than “only begotten God.” A brief summary of some of the most important arguments is: first, a study of the scope of Scripture reveals that Jesus is not God. That is the plain reading of dozens of verses of Scripture. There is no description of the Trinity anywhere in Scripture, or of the “hypostatic union,” or of the “incarnation,” and the fact is that every single “Trinity proof text” can be explained from the position that Jesus is the Son of God, not God. In contrast, there are dozens of points of logic that cannot be explained if the Trinity is true, such as why, after his resurrection, Jesus spoke of having a “God.” God does not have a God—He is God.

Second, and very importantly, there is no other reference anywhere in the Bible to the “only begotten God,” while there are other Johannine references to the “only begotten son” (John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). To fully understand that argument we must recognize that John 3:16, 18, and 1 John 4:9 have “son,” not “God” and there is no textual disagreement. So while the Bible has only begotten “Son” three times (four including John 1:18), the reading “unique God” in John 1:18 would be the only occurrence of that reading in the Bible, which makes it very unlikely.

Also, going along with the point just stated above is the fact that the Gospel of John closes with, “these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and so that by believing you will have life in his name” (John 20:31). It would be strange indeed if John chapter one said Jesus was God, but the Gospel of John closed by saying it showed that Jesus was the Son of God. That would be even more strange—frankly too strange for us to believe—if Jesus were God and a person had to believe he was God to be saved. In that case, the Gospel of John should have plainly said that “these are written so that you believe that Jesus is God and so that by believing you will have life in his name.” If a person cannot be saved by just believing that Jesus is the “Son” of God, then John 20:31 should not have said so.

Also, many scholars concur with Bart Ehrman that the textual evidence supports the word “Son,” not “God” in John 1:18. Although the reading theos (God) appears in the Alexandrian texts, which are earlier than the Western and Byzantine texts and therefore most often considered by scholars to represent the original reading in disputed verses, there are times when the Alexandrian readings are not original. Many factors must be considered. For one thing, the Alexandrian readings are earlier because they survived in the sands of Egypt, whereas the early Western texts disintegrated in the climate and thus had to be copied more often. So the older age of the Alexandrian manuscripts does not, in and of itself, make the Alexandrian manuscripts more accurate. Other things have to be considered. Besides that, there are some Alexandrian texts that do read “Son.” Also, if “God” were the original reading, it seems, especially given the desire among third-century Christians to support the Trinity, that the Western, Cesarean, and Byzantine text families would have more than a few manuscripts that read “God,” after all, that is what those theologians believed, but the reading “God” is almost totally absent from those text families. Bart Ehrman writes:

“This is not simply a case of one reading supported by the earliest and best manuscripts and another supported by late and inferior one, but of one reading found almost exclusively in the Alexandrian tradition and another found sporadically there and virtually everywhere else.”a

Furthermore, “Son” predominates not only in the Greek manuscripts, but in the Latin and Syriac (Aramaic) manuscripts as well, and also is predominant in the writings of the Church Fathers (although some have “God” as well).

Another reason for believing that “Son” is original is the word monogenēs (“only begotten,” actually referring to “one of a kind,” some say “unique”). The fact is that monogenēs can mean “only begotten,” and that usage fits perfectly with Jesus Christ as the Son of God. There is a sense that the verse could read “unique Son,” but to what purpose? Just because a word can mean something does not mean that definition should be used. Occam’s razor, that simpler theories are the most satisfactory unless a more complex theory has greater explanatory power, applies here. Why create the difficult phrase “unique Son” when the translation “only begotten Son,” which occurs three other places in John’s writings, is understandable and biblical? Yes, Jesus was unique, but as the Son (not as “God,” because if Jesus, as part of the Trinity, was unique, then so are the Father and Holy Spirit, which would make three unique Gods, and defeat the purpose of using “unique” in the first place).

Another argument against the reading “God” in John 1:18 is the fact that there is no evidence that anyone in the culture of the time John was writing would have understood the concept of a “begotten God.” What would “monogenēs God” mean to the Jews and Greeks John was writing to? We should remember that, although John certainly wrote for Christians too, he was writing to unbelieving Jews and Greeks. We know this because John concludes his Gospel by saying, “But these are written so that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). So what would “monogenēs God” mean to those unbelieving Jews and Greeks? Certainly not “begotten.” What is a “begotten God?” But “unique” is no better. The Jews already had their One God (Deut. 6:4), who by definition would have been unique, and to the Greeks, every god or goddess was unique in some way. Thus, the concept of a “unique god” would not have made sense in the culture, but an “only begotten Son” of God would have made sense.

It is worth noting that by the time of the great Christological arguments and the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, there were ways that theologians could explain Jesus as a “unique God” but there is no reason to assume that when John wrote anyone would think that way. This adds to the evidence that “God” was the later addition, and “Son” was original.

Some modern Trinitarians skirt this issue by claiming that monogenēs inherently has the meaning of sonship (thus the NIV2011: “the one and only son, who is himself God”). The problem with that is that it is not a legitimate translation, but an interpretation due to bias. There is nothing inherently in the word monogenēs that demands sonship. It is used in Greek writings of both animate and inanimate objects. Translations such as the NIV2011 are only giving voice to their theology, not translating the text.

Other Trinitarian scholars try to claim that the phrases in John 1:18 are a series of appositions, which would read something like: “the unique one, God, who is in the bosom of the Father.” That translation also has problems. Again, how could Christ be “unique” and “God” at the same time? It would just mean that there were three unique Gods, which defeats the purpose of “unique.” It seems that theologians only suggest that the adjectives are substantives because they are trying to make the simple statement, that Jesus is the “only begotten Son,” fit with their theology that Jesus is God and there is a Trinity.

Another reason for favoring “Son” over “God” is that the verse is about God being revealed by Jesus (John 1:17), because the verse started with the phrase, that no one had ever seen “God.” To call Jesus in that context “the only begotten God” (or the “unique God”) would set up an inherent contradiction. If you cannot see God, how could you see “the unique God?” If, on the other hand, you could see “the unique God,” why could you not see “God” too (especially since, by the definition of “unique” being used, God the Father is unique too)? The simple answer in the verse is that the Son is not God, and so while we cannot see God, we can see the only begotten Son who has made God known. The fact is that the reading “the only begotten Son” is textually substantiated, fine from a translation standpoint, and makes perfect sense in the context, even to Trinitarians.

It has been argued that “God” is the likely reading because in trying to reconstruct the original text, scribes usually emended a harder reading so it read more easily. Thus, a scribe reading “God” would change it to “Son” because “Son” was the easier reading, and thus the reading “Son” was created. While the principle that the more difficult reading is usually original is often correct, in this case, that principle would not apply because scribes had a theological reason for changing “Son” to “God” and creating the more difficult reading—their belief in the Trinity. Verses were sometimes amended to support the Trinity, as almost all modern scholars admit happened to some manuscripts of 1 John 5:7-8, and may have purposely happened in 1 Timothy 3:16.

[For more information on Jesus being the fully human Son of God and not being “God the Son,” see Appendix 6: “Jesus is the Son of God, Not God the Son.” For more on “the Holy Spirit” being one of the designations for God the Father and “the holy spirit” being the gift of God’s nature, see Appendix 7: “What is the Holy Spirit?” For more on many of the places where scribes changed the Greek text of the Bible to match their theology, see Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.]

[dwight92070]

Why would you give any credence to Bart Ehrman, a man who appears to have turned his back on God? The fool says there is no God. And what has Ehrman found to replace God? Nothing but a "ministry" to defy God. Isn't that alone what defines his life now?

[dwight92070]

Revelation 11:15 - " ... The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and HE will reign forever."

Who is HE that will reign forever? Obviously the answer is "our Lord ... and His Christ;"

So God the Father and Christ the Son are jointly referred to as "He".

Does that tell you anything?

Of course, they are ONE. They are God together. They are God individually.

[darinhouston]

Why would you give any credence to Bart Ehrman, a man who appears to have turned his back on God? The fool says there is no God. And what has Ehrman found to replace God? Nothing but a "ministry" to defy God. Isn't that alone what defines his life now?

What I shared did not depend on Ehrman's view - it just happened to share one of his viewpoints. In the end, when it comes to textual criticism he is a renowned world expert and respected by most evangelical scholars IN HIS FIELD - when he strays from that historic and manuscript expertise, he has little credibility. But, as I said, the position doesn't depend on his view.

[darinhouston]

Revelation 11:15 - " ... The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and HE will reign forever."

Who is HE that will reign forever? Obviously the answer is "our Lord ... and His Christ;"

So God the Father and Christ the Son are jointly referred to as "He".

Does that tell you anything?

Of course, they are ONE. They are God together. They are God individually.

They aren't both referred to as He. Actually, the way the greek is used, there is no word for "he" in the explicit text - it is implied by the form of the verb, but it is not being emphasized as having any import in the text. The reign itself is the thing and the likely consequence of that isn't that they are the same person (an irrational assumption from the text) but the context of Revelation being about Christ and the grammar of the sentence suggest it is "Christ's reign" that is being referred to by "he" (if at all) but that there is a co-regency of God and Messiah over the world, the Messiah having a delegated or derivative authority as suggested in Luke - being given the throne of David. I also believe that, coincidentally, Luke is the only other place in Scripture using the phrase in this sentence of the "reign."

I'm not so sure I agree with them, but I have also seen commentators suggest (in light of the connection between this and the prophecy in Luke) that the "Lord" here is a reference to Jesus and "his Christ" being a reference to David - since David had the throne and God gave it to Jesus. Interesting thought to consider - I haven't spent any time considering it, however.

[dwight92070]

Revelation 11:15 - " ... The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and HE will reign forever."

Who is HE that will reign forever? Obviously the answer is "our Lord ... and His Christ;"

So God the Father and Christ the Son are jointly referred to as "He".

Does that tell you anything?

Of course, they are ONE. They are God together. They are God individually.

They aren't both referred to as He. Actually, the way the greek is used, there is no word for "he" in the explicit text - it is implied by the form of the verb, but it is not being emphasized as having any import in the text. The reign itself is the thing and the likely consequence of that isn't that they are the same person (an irrational assumption from the text) but the context of Revelation being about Christ and the grammar of the sentence suggest it is "Christ's reign" that is being referred to by "he" (if at all) but that there is a co-regency of God and Messiah over the world, the Messiah having a delegated or derivative authority as suggested in Luke - being given the throne of David. I also believe that, coincidentally, Luke is the only other place in Scripture using the phrase in this sentence of the "reign."

I'm not so sure I agree with them, but I have also seen commentators suggest (in light of the connection between this and the prophecy in Luke) that the "Lord" here is a reference to Jesus and "his Christ" being a reference to David - since David had the throne and God gave it to Jesus. Interesting thought to consider - I haven't spent any time considering it, however.

Yes, they are both referred to as "He". That's the point. The translators knew that and translated it accordingly. "He" is more than implied. It wouldn't even make sense without it. Since when does the word of God need to emphasize certain words to give them more import? No, the Lord and His Christ are "the thing". There would be no reign without them. You are correct - being the same person is not the consequence of the reign. It's the other way around - the reign is the consequence of who the Lord and His Christ are. He -both the Lord and His Christ- will reign forever. Actually the text makes it very clear and rational to see that "He" is Both of them. The grammar makes no such suggestion that it is only Christ's reign. Just the opposite. It suggests that it is the reign of both of them, and yet refers to them as "He". There is no co-regency in the Godhead. There is only one God. We know God does not share His sovereignty with a man, so your interpretation cannot be correct.

The same sentence construction is used in Revelation 22:3:

"There will no longer be any curse; and the throne (only one throne here) of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His (both God and the Lamb's) bond-servants will serve Him (both God and the Lamb); they will see His (both God and the Lamb's) face, and His (both God and the Lamb's) name will be on their foreheads."