Jesus is God

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
dwight92070
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by dwight92070 » Sat May 29, 2021 6:41 pm

darinhouston wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 9:06 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 7:02 pm

Dwight - Obviously the passage was altered, because the two versions are miles apart. So, right off the bat, someone is doing the devil's work, by changing it. That work dishonors God. One version favors your interpretation, the other version favors my interpretation. I believe my interpretation agrees with the rest of scripture because Jesus said, "I and the Father are one. If you've seen Me you've seen the Father" So to call Jesus "Eternal Father" makes perfect sense. The "mighty God" part also makes perfect sense. John said that Jesus made Himself equal with God and that the Word WAS God. Thomas called Jesus God. Titus called Jesus God. The Father called the Son "God".

What I find interesting about that version is that it makes "sense" (regardless of your theory).
In fact, the Tanakh is actually more consistent with the Trinity

Dwight - That's a stretch. The Jews beliefs are consistent with the Trinity?

- so, I think you're a bit off base there (and your eagerness to show corruption sure seems selective).

Dwight - Of course, I "select" the person(s) who removed words from the scripture as being corrupt and from the devil.

It does, however, remove it as a proof-text.

Dwight You love removing scripture that doesn't agree with you, don't you? Sorry, but the Bible says to not add to or take away from His word. You have to deal with it. What needs to be removed is the translation that has been tampered with, not the whole verse.

Identity of the child with the Father either requires a different perspective on "eternal father"

Dwight - The Bible perspective is sufficient. John 1 clearly identifies the child with the Father - The Word was God (The Father) and the Word became flesh (The baby Jesus).

or requires this translation

Dwight - Nothing requires this altered translation. You act as if no foul play took place and therefore, you must accept the altered translation.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5280
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Jesus is God

Post by Paidion » Sat May 29, 2021 7:24 pm

Do what you want, Dwight. Believe what you want. Believe in a trinity. Or believe in binity. Or believe in a quadrinity.

In the end, reality will prevail, and you will know the truth—the truth that will set you free.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Sat May 29, 2021 9:03 pm

Dwight, the only thing worthy of reply is to point out what you seem to be missing - I am not talking about the missing text. I'm talking about the text that's there but worded differently. The omitted text is a completely different topic. I don't know enough about this variant's history to discuss it really and this is the first time I've ever been aware there was a textual variant there. We can disagree on this, but your personal affronts are really starting to add up.

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Jesus is God

Post by commonsense » Sun May 30, 2021 1:58 am

darinhouston wrote:
Fri May 28, 2021 11:11 am

In the culture of the Bible, anyone who began anything or was very important to something was called its “father.”
Darin, I agree completely. It was not just in Biblical culture, but we commonly use this expression even today. People don't seem to want to consider this.
When they say that Jesus was the "seed " of Abraham, and those who belong to Christ are Abraham's "seed" they're not talking about his literal children.
Just as John Calvin is the father of Calvinism, those who follow his teachings are his "seed",people who are like minded in word and deed.
Now, John Calvin may not have even believed or taught what others claim to be teaching in his name. I believe that this was the case in Israel, the people of the Levitical law claiming to be Abraham's seed.This is why all the warnings about false prophets. There can't be two Israels.

I think Jesus would be a father in some sense. When we are mature, we are no longer the child, but we become the leader, ruler ,teacher, role model etc.

dwight92070
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by dwight92070 » Sun May 30, 2021 8:51 am

darinhouston wrote:
Sat May 29, 2021 9:03 pm
Dwight, the only thing worthy of reply is to point out what you seem to be missing - I am not talking about the missing text. I'm talking about the text that's there but worded differently. The omitted text is a completely different topic. I don't know enough about this variant's history to discuss it really and this is the first time I've ever been aware there was a textual variant there. We can disagree on this, but your personal affronts are really starting to add up.
Dwight - First take the log out of your own eye ...

dwight92070
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by dwight92070 » Sun May 30, 2021 9:52 am

Paidion wrote:
Sat May 29, 2021 7:24 pm
Do what you want, Dwight. Believe what you want. Believe in a trinity. Or believe in binity. Or believe in a quadrinity.

In the end, reality will prevail, and you will know the truth—the truth that will set you free.
Dwight - I believe God's word, not whatever I want to believe. Wikipedia states the following:

Modern scholarship holds that the Septuagint was written from the 3rd through the 1st centuries BCE, but nearly all attempts at dating specific books (except for the Pentateuch, early- to mid-3rd century BCE) are tentative. Later Jewish revisions and recensions of the Greek against the Hebrew are well-attested.

Dwight - Did you get that? LATER JEWISH REVISIONS (ALTERATIONS) AND RECENSIONS OF THE GREEK AGAINST THE HEBREW ARE WELL-ATTESTED.

Dwight - Therefore, it is a well-attested FACT that the JEWS altered some of the original Septuagint translation. So whenever there is a discrepancy between today's copies of the Septuagint and the other oldest Hebrew manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, I think we MUST go with the Dead Sea Scrolls. If the discrepancy is a major one, such as Isaiah 9:6, I think we can safely assume that the Jews altered the text, to make it more agreeable with their beliefs, i.e. their rejection of Jesus as being their Messiah, or their Mighty God, or their Eternal Father.

Dwight - As I have been saying, there was, obviously, foul play. This statement from Wikipedia confirms that foul play and who was guilty of that foul play. I suspected it was the Jews, in which Darin thought I was too quick in making that judgment, but this confirms that it was, in fact, the Jews, who altered the original.

Dwight - Reading on in the Wikipedia article, there was an UNCONFIRMED report that the 70 (or 72?) original translators for the Septuagint pronounced a CURSE on anyone who would later add to, change, OR OMIT, any words that they had translated. IF this is true, and it is very likely true, since they were dealing with the word of God, then it is clear that anyone who violated that would be DOING THE WORK OF THE DEVIL, just as I said earlier.

Dwight - It is no wonder, then, that most modern preachers and teachers do NOT quote much, if at all, from the Septuagent. In my 50 years of attending Christian churches, I don't think I've heard the Septuagint even referred to more than 3 or 4 times, and out of those, none of them ACTUALLY quoted it. Leave it to Paidon, a NON-Trinitarian, to be the first! ONLY NOW I KNOW WHY. BECAUSE IT'S UNRELIABLE! IT'S BEEN TAMPERED WITH!

Dwight - Paidon, I have just presented THE TRUTH! MAY IT SET YOU FREE!

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2822
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Jesus is God

Post by Homer » Sun May 30, 2021 6:57 pm

Darin,

I'm trying to catch up a bit. Earlier you wrote:
Homer wrote:
9 For in him the whole fullness of deity (theotetos) dwells bodily,
I don't deny that Jesus was "divine" or "deity" in some sense, as that term is also used of others.
I am not sure of what you mean here. What others are you thinking of and what circumstances? Do you think they were deity, or thought to be deity, in the same sense as Christians think of Jesus as Deity?
But, assuming "being deity" is the same as ontologically existing as God, does it actually say in this instance that "He was the whole fullness of deity?" No. It says his body housed or contained (etc.) the fullness of deity.
This statement seems to be a quibble over words, a distinction without a difference. Pleroma (fullness) refers to His essence, the totality of attributes and powers. The Greek Spiros Zodhiates comments that it "means that in the body of Christ as it was constituted God was in His fullness and not simply His manifestation."
So, he was the vessel, not the contents. He was the "Temple" of the fullness of the Holy Spirit - much as we are said to be, for example, in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (if in part compared to his fullness). His sinlessness permitted him to be that dwelling --
I would say He was the vessel and the contents, although the vessel was a human body. Truly "God with us". Do you mean His sinlessness permitted Him to "become" that dwelling or "remain" that dwelling? Seems to me He was that dwelling "from the get go". We do not become the temple of the Holy Spirit until certain conditions are met and remain the temple only if "Faithful until death".

commonsense
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 11:25 pm

Re: Jesus is God

Post by commonsense » Sun May 30, 2021 8:37 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 9:52 am
Dwight - I believe God's word,
Dwight, there's only one word of God, that is to Love God and love others as ourselves. Jesus fulfilled this word and we are to do the same.

User avatar
StevenD
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 2:25 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by StevenD » Sun May 30, 2021 8:57 pm

Hi Darin,

The following is a clip from something you posted:
The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.
It is true that a man "acting" under "God's authority" is on rare occasion referred to as God (Moses: Exod. 4:16; 7:1). Though it's most likely that less than 1% of the ~2500 uses of the terms אל (El) and אלהים (Elohim) refer exclusively to a man or men.

Further, it is also true that the Hebrew language observes no distinction between upper and lower-case letters. The writer's first two points are valid, but they appear to have slipped on the third point.

With reference to Isaiah 9:6 (Heb: v. 5) the writer suggests that "mighty hero" or "divine hero" would better serve an English reader who presumably aims to understand what Isaiah (and God) meant. One need not spend time studying Hebrew to reach a more sensible conclusion. A few phrases from Isaiah's larger context are worthy of note:

Isaiah 7:14 "Behold, the young woman [virgin: LXX] will conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel." Immanuel is a compound name comprised of two words which translate to "with us + God" = God with us. (עִמָּנוּ אֵל = immanu + El). It may be worth bearing in mind that the immediate historical dynamics involved a Syro-Israelite coalition in league with Assyria that mounted a growing threat to the southern kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BC. God with us was not a reference to a flesh and blood "hero" deliverer; in fact, Judah was to believe God (not beef up security in the way of a military campaign) in order to be established (v. 9).

Isaiah 8:10 ..."for God is with us." Again, we have the phrase immanu + El. This time the phrase is worked into the fabric of Isaiah's appeal. The term for God is again simply אֵל (El). Again, Isaiah is not referring to a carnal warrior with bionic powers who will baffle the onlookers with a surprise victory for the Judeans. Though he does inform the aggressors that they will be crushed (v. 9), the reason that the schemes against Judah will fail is simply because "God" (אל) is with Judah (v. 10). Isaiah says that Yahweh of hosts is both a sanctuary and a stone, one the people are to fear (Isa. 10:13-14), so it looks like he's making a connection between the God who is with Judah and Yahweh of armies. [An interesting sidenote: This chapter is cited by Peter (1 Pet. 2:5-8) with reference to Christ as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" to those who reject him. Paul suggests something similar in Rom. 9:31-33.]

Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew v. 5) ..."the mighty God" (אֵל גִּבּוֹר--El gibbor)...The phrase mighty God also employs the two-letter reference to God (אל--El). The referent throughout these chapters seems to unequivocally point to God. Is there a valid hermeneutical reason to re-initialize the word to refer to a being of diminished glory and essence when the overall context of Isaiah's book has consistently referred to El as God?

Isaiah 10:21 ..."a remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God" (אֵל גִּבּוֹר--El gibbor). Isaiah reinforces his point by repeating the phrase again.

Isaiah caps this section off with a poem/song. The poem again refers to God as El. Interestingly, this segment of the poem/lyrical content is drawn from Exod. 15:2 which was first sung just after the exodus from Egypt. By echoing the lyrics here Isaiah effectively underscores God's additional works of deliverance, ultimately directing attention to Christ.

Isaiah 12:2 "Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust and not be afraid. For Yah-Yahweh is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation." God is again referred to as El (אל). The God that he refers to is identified with his salvation. Yahweh is also clearly identified with my salvation. The link between God (אל--El) and Yahweh appears to be established here as well. [Some people like to point out that the final phrase includes Jesus' Hebrew name, reading "he also is become for me Yeshua".]

Though this is a longer post than intended, I would highlight one additional point. The phrase "mighty God" that is under review appears in a couple other places in the Hebrew Bible. Both are written after Isaiah. Jeremiah the prophet uses the phrase "the great, the mighty God--Yahweh of hosts is his name" (הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ--32:18). Nehemiah employs a similar phrase when he refers to "Our God--the great, the mighty, the dreadful God" (אֱלֹהֵינוּ הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא). For my experience, these verses don't generally show up on the radar of the Watchtower Society, perhaps simply because the concept of the "mighty God" is embedded in the larger syntax of the string of adjectives comprising the phrase. Whatever the case may be with JWs, the biblical link between "mighty God" and Yahweh is a stable one.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2573
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Jesus is God

Post by darinhouston » Mon May 31, 2021 9:01 am

StevenD wrote:
Sun May 30, 2021 8:57 pm
Hi Darin,

The following is a clip from something you posted:
The phrase “Mighty God” can also be better translated. Although the word “God” in the Hebrew culture had a much wider range of application than it does in ours, the average reader does not know or understand that. Readers familiar with the Semitic languages know that a man who is acting with God’s authority can be called “god.” Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. A better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. (For more on the flexible use of “God,” see the notes on Heb. 1:8.
It is true that a man "acting" under "God's authority" is on rare occasion referred to as God (Moses: Exod. 4:16; 7:1). Though it's most likely that less than 1% of the ~2500 uses of the terms אל (El) and אלהים (Elohim) refer exclusively to a man or men.

Further, it is also true that the Hebrew language observes no distinction between upper and lower-case letters. The writer's first two points are valid, but they appear to have slipped on the third point.

With reference to Isaiah 9:6 (Heb: v. 5) the writer suggests that "mighty hero" or "divine hero" would better serve an English reader who presumably aims to understand what Isaiah (and God) meant. One need not spend time studying Hebrew to reach a more sensible conclusion. A few phrases from Isaiah's larger context are worthy of note:

Isaiah 7:14 "Behold, the young woman [virgin: LXX] will conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel." Immanuel is a compound name comprised of two words which translate to "with us + God" = God with us. (עִמָּנוּ אֵל = immanu + El). It may be worth bearing in mind that the immediate historical dynamics involved a Syro-Israelite coalition in league with Assyria that mounted a growing threat to the southern kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BC. God with us was not a reference to a flesh and blood "hero" deliverer; in fact, Judah was to believe God (not beef up security in the way of a military campaign) in order to be established (v. 9).

Isaiah 8:10 ..."for God is with us." Again, we have the phrase immanu + El. This time the phrase is worked into the fabric of Isaiah's appeal. The term for God is again simply אֵל (El). Again, Isaiah is not referring to a carnal warrior with bionic powers who will baffle the onlookers with a surprise victory for the Judeans. Though he does inform the aggressors that they will be crushed (v. 9), the reason that the schemes against Judah will fail is simply because "God" (אל) is with Judah (v. 10). Isaiah says that Yahweh of hosts is both a sanctuary and a stone, one the people are to fear (Isa. 10:13-14), so it looks like he's making a connection between the God who is with Judah and Yahweh of armies. [An interesting sidenote: This chapter is cited by Peter (1 Pet. 2:5-8) with reference to Christ as "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" to those who reject him. Paul suggests something similar in Rom. 9:31-33.]

Isaiah 9:6 (Hebrew v. 5) ..."the mighty God" (אֵל גִּבּוֹר--El gibbor)...The phrase mighty God also employs the two-letter reference to God (אל--El). The referent throughout these chapters seems to unequivocally point to God. Is there a valid hermeneutical reason to re-initialize the word to refer to a being of diminished glory and essence when the overall context of Isaiah's book has consistently referred to El as God?

Isaiah 10:21 ..."a remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God" (אֵל גִּבּוֹר--El gibbor). Isaiah reinforces his point by repeating the phrase again.

Isaiah caps this section off with a poem/song. The poem again refers to God as El. Interestingly, this segment of the poem/lyrical content is drawn from Exod. 15:2 which was first sung just after the exodus from Egypt. By echoing the lyrics here Isaiah effectively underscores God's additional works of deliverance, ultimately directing attention to Christ.

Isaiah 12:2 "Behold, God is my salvation. I will trust and not be afraid. For Yah-Yahweh is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation." God is again referred to as El (אל). The God that he refers to is identified with his salvation. Yahweh is also clearly identified with my salvation. The link between God (אל--El) and Yahweh appears to be established here as well. [Some people like to point out that the final phrase includes Jesus' Hebrew name, reading "he also is become for me Yeshua".]

Though this is a longer post than intended, I would highlight one additional point. The phrase "mighty God" that is under review appears in a couple other places in the Hebrew Bible. Both are written after Isaiah. Jeremiah the prophet uses the phrase "the great, the mighty God--Yahweh of hosts is his name" (הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ--32:18). Nehemiah employs a similar phrase when he refers to "Our God--the great, the mighty, the dreadful God" (אֱלֹהֵינוּ הָאֵל הַגָּדוֹל הַגִּבּוֹר וְהַנּוֹרָא). For my experience, these verses don't generally show up on the radar of the Watchtower Society, perhaps simply because the concept of the "mighty God" is embedded in the larger syntax of the string of adjectives comprising the phrase. Whatever the case may be with JWs, the biblical link between "mighty God" and Yahweh is a stable one.
Thank you for this excellent and thoughtful post, focusing on exegesis of this particular passage and point. I have no problem with your interpretation and think it may well be a more faithful approach, though I do think Luther and Moffatt are pretty good company as it pertains to translation issues. Even so, however, I think the next question of how to apply it properly to Jesus has a myriad of possibilities. The question then is "in what sense" would Jesus be considered "mighty God" or "God with us." Clearly, there was an immediate context in the minds of the Jews that had no concept of God existentially being present as a human. For us, looking back and applying it forward, God was with them in a pillar of fire, or in the temple/holy of holies. Neither the ark itself nor the fire itself "was God" - so I'm not sure that gives us more than a representative or agentival or templar way of seeing God among us in Christ. But, your reasoning appears quite sound. I do think the Tanakh translation is interesting, however, in seeing the references not to the child but to the Father. Textual omissions otherwise notwisthanding, I'm wondering what you think about that translation of this particular text. It makes much more sense of the passage in isolation and is consistent both with Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian theologies.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”