Trinities podcast

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by darinhouston » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:21 pm

Seballius, thanks for that -- I'll review

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by darinhouston » Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:22 pm

Seballius wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:06 pm
Walter Martin had a different view. I believe his frequent debates with JWs pushed him to this stance.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JzldbHs4I-w


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Smart man - I think he was on to something.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4901
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by Paidion » Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:01 pm

Hi Darin, you wrote:1. Trinitarians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:

Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.” [1]

2. The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be”—John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.
Thank you, Darin. I had intended to present the same argument in reply to the objection that I was sure Brother Alan would make.

However, I do not agree that this is sufficient to show that Jesus is not divine. He is divine because He is the Son of God, begotten by God before all ages. He is the "Word of God" the divine Logos of God because He expressed God as He truly is! That is the sense in which John proclaimed Him to BE God in John 1:1. In that passage the second use of "theos" is used as a characteristic of the Logos. The grammatical form is the same as used for "love" in the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16)or as the word for "truth" in "Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

Also, when Thomas addressed the risen Christ as "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), Jesus didn't reply, "Yes, I am you Lord, but not your God."
Rather Jesus replies as follows:

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


Thus Jesus agreed that He was both Thomas's Lord and his God.
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 81.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by darinhouston » Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:23 pm

Paidion wrote:
Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:01 pm
Also, when Thomas addressed the risen Christ as "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), Jesus didn't reply, "Yes, I am you Lord, but not your God."
Rather Jesus replies as follows:

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


Thus Jesus agreed that He was both Thomas's Lord and his God.
I guess I don't find this phrase particularly compelling to be quite the same thing as saying he was both Tomas's Lord and also "the" one true God, Yahweh, the maker and sustainer of all things, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Great I Am. Though I recognize that your concept of divinity described above also doesn't go quite that far, either, and is consistent with a good number of non-Trinitarians who would acknowledge divinity in a sense but still deny that Jesus is an eternal member of the godhead (i.e., God the Son in the same manner as God the Father).

People find it unfathomable that Jews who were so monotheistic still referred to people as "gods" or "their gods" apart from references to Yahweh without detracting from their monotheism. But, it does appear to be the case.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by Homer » Fri Jun 14, 2019 5:03 pm

For what it is worth my "New Testament from Aramaic" has:

Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by darinhouston » Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:26 pm

I listened to a lecture on this where the teacher took the position that this referred separately to both Jesus and to the Father. At first, I wasn’t buying it. But he pointed out two points that are at least worth considering. I need to review the text again. But here’s the basic position as I understood it.

First, the grammatical construction in Greek uses two articles and two possessives, as in “the Lord of me and the God of me.” If this isn’t simply an emphatic reference to Jesus, therefore, it is also not meant to be two descriptives for the one man, Jesus. This is contrasted by places where a single article is used with clear reference to a single individual.

Second, this is consistent with the context of the entirety of the preceding teaching Jesus made to Thomas about seeing the Father working in Him and if you’ve seen Him you’ve seen the Father.

This teaching, then, and seeing the scars etc led Thomas to realize the truth of what Jesus has been trying to tell him and realized that Jesus was his Lord and also that he was truly seeing the Father (God) in and through Jesus and his work.

On other words, “wow, Jesus is right. I see both my Lord Jesus here and now understand I also see my God, His Father in Him as well.”

At least a viable position, I would think.

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by Seballius » Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:48 pm

Darin, this very point/verse was debated or came out in the debate within the last few years.

James White debated a man from “Ni Iglesia” or something like that - the other man was Filipino.

If I remember correctly, White went into the Greek and showed the error of that view.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 4901
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by Paidion » Sun Jun 16, 2019 12:19 pm

Well... I don't think the Greek is contrary to the interpretation that Darin places on the expression.

Then there's Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation to consider:
Thomas was simply using slang language, just as someone today might exclaim in response to an unexpected event, "My Lord!" or "Oh, my God!"
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 81.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 2141
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by darinhouston » Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:00 pm

Paidion wrote:Well... I don't think the Greek is contrary to the interpretation that Darin places on the expression.

Then there's Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation to consider:
Thomas was simply using slang language, just as someone today might exclaim in response to an unexpected event, "My Lord!" or "Oh, my God!"
James White is so intellectually dishonest and so blinded by his own advocacy that his opinion doesn’t go very far with me. But I do intend to listen to that debate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
Seballius
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Trinities podcast

Post by Seballius » Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:15 pm

Paidion wrote:Well... I don't think the Greek is contrary to the interpretation that Darin places on the expression.

Then there's Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation to consider:
Thomas was simply using slang language, just as someone today might exclaim in response to an unexpected event, "My Lord!" or "Oh, my God!"
Hello Paidion

Have you seen examples of this in the literature of this time? I have not. Although I am sure you have read more than me.

I think it is unlikely that Thomas would use such an expression. As sensitive as the Jews were, such an expression via that manner of exclamation would probably be disrespectful if not blasphemous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”