The Forceful Kingdom. Support for the reconciliation of all?

[Guest]

There are those that argue that in John 2:19 Jesus is not talking about taking his life back from the Father (an active role) but receiving it (a passive one.) Go here to see why.

I skimmed over the argument through the link you gave, and it brings nothing new to the discussion. The main argument put forth is:

Since John 2 is the only verse in the NT that says Jesus would raise His body, and the others say "God"(assuming the writer meant "Father" every time he wrote "God"), then it logically follows that God the Father raised Jesus, thus Jesus isn't God.

The above is a paraphrase of what I thought the article was saying. But again, I think such an argument can't deal with all the scriptures on the subject, rather it has to pick and choose.

[Guest]

I knew someone was going to post that one. It is the only verse in the whole New Testament that could be interpreted as saying that Jesus would raise himself from the dead..

For that reason, I think that interpretation is incorrect.

I think in that passage Jesus was prophesying. The Father was speaking through him, and uttering those words, saying that he (The Father) would raise up Jesus if someone destroyed Jesus' "temple" (his body).

Are you saying that John got it wrong?

Michelle, I fail to see how you (and others) can come to this conclusion.
In what way might I be saying that John got it wrong? Got what wrong?
John merely quoted what Jesus said. He did not interpret it.

I stand by my understanding that Jesus spoke those words prophetically, that is, the Father spoke the words through him. Many times I have heard prophecy uttered in the first person through a prophesying brother or sister, for example:

"I will be with you and comfort you in your sorrow."

When we heard these words, in never entered our minds to think the brother or sister was saying that he (or she) would be with us and comfort us in our sorrow. Rather we understood that God was speaking through him (or her).

If God was, in fact, speaking through Jesus and saying, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," then how would accepting this indicate that "John got it wrong"????

[Guest]

Michelle, I fail to see how you (and others) can come to this conclusion.
In what way might I be saying that John got it wrong? Got what wrong?
John merely quoted what Jesus said. He did not interpret it.

Thats not entirely accurate Paidion. John quoted what Jesus said, which was "Jhn 2:19
Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." This is the statement of Jesus, not John.
John knew that Jesus wasn't speaking of the literal temple, so he goes onto interpret Jesus' words in the following:
Jhn 2:21
But He was speaking of the temple of His body.

I stand by my understanding that Jesus spoke those words prophetically, that is, the Father spoke the words through him. Many times I have heard prophecy uttered in the first person through a prophesying brother or sister, for example

:

Thats fine, but John 2 doesn't say such, it says that Jesus raised himself.

When we heard these words, in never entered our minds to think the brother or sister was saying that he (or she) would be with us and comfort us in our sorrow. Rather we understood that God was speaking through him (or her).

If God was, in fact, speaking through Jesus and saying, "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up," then how would accepting this indicate that "John got it wrong"????

I can accept the above and still maintain that Jesus raised himself. For the scriptures in John make it clear that Jesus and the Father are one and that the Son only does what He has seen the Father do.

Now what do you do about the scriptures affirming that the Holy Spirit also raised Jesus from the dead? Romans 8?

[Guest]

Paidion,

I agree with what Brody said, but since you addressed your remarks to me, I thought it would be polite to answer.

I stand by my understanding that Jesus spoke those words prophetically, that is, the Father spoke the words through him. Many times I have heard prophecy uttered in the first person through a prophesying brother or sister, for example:

"I will be with you and comfort you in your sorrow."

When we heard these words, in never entered our minds to think the brother or sister was saying that he (or she) would be with us and comfort us in our sorrow. Rather we understood that God was speaking through him (or her).

Maybe I'm at a disadvantage because I was raised as a cessationist and haven't heard all that many prophecies uttered. So, tell me, if someone is known to have a prophetic gift, do you consider everything they say in the first person to be God speaking through him or her? Or instead is there some sort of indication that this person is now speaking prophetically? Perhaps I've missed many prophetic utterances because I thought the person was just speaking about himself. For instance, your example about comfort in sorrow...if someone just said that and nothing more, yes I would expect that person to drop by and spend time with me.

Do you take every time that Jesus spoke in the first person to be an example of God speaking through him? Like..."I am the way, the truth, and the life," "I am the good shepherd," "Abide in me and I in you,"
"No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."

[Guest]

Steve, Brody, & TK,

Where you guys been? Now we know you haven't read all this thread; I brought up John 10:18 and the trinitarian implications some time back and Paidion attempted to rebut me.

[Guest]

Steve, Brody, & TK,

Where you guys been? Now we know you haven't read all this thread; I brought up John 10:18 and the trinitarian implications some time back and Paidion attempted to rebut me.

Paidon,
What about this passage:

Romans 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Interesting, Paul seems to think that one who has the Spirit can please God. But what Spirit? Paul says: the Spirit of God, then the Spirit of Christ, then "just" Christ, then the Spirit.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

So what Spirit raised Jesus from the dead?

Was it:
-The Spirit of God
-The Spirit of Christ
-Christ
-The Spirit

It would seem that Paul seamlessly blends these together and states that the same Spirit who raised Jesus is the one that dwells in us. That would be all of the above. If you disagree with "all of the above" then I don't know how you could disagree with verse 10 "And if Christ is in you" & "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you".

Seems like Jesus did raise Himself from the dead. Or was it just Christ, or the Spirit, or the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ??? Paul uses these terms interchangeably. Sounds like: "Three in unity"

[Guest]

Steve, Brody, & TK,

Where you guys been? Now we know you haven't read all this thread; I brought up John 10:18 and the trinitarian implications some time back and Paidion attempted to rebut me.

LOL. I will pay better attention next time...Forgive me.

[Guest]

Steve, Brody, & TK,

Where you guys been? Now we know you haven't read all this thread; I brought up John 10:18 and the trinitarian implications some time back and Paidion attempted to rebut me.

LOL. I will pay better attention next time...Forgive me.

Yeah, give me some credit too, I said what I said was somewhere in John. Doesn't that count?

[Guest]

Seems like Jesus did raise Himself from the dead. Or was it just Christ, or the Spirit, or the Spirit of God or the Spirit of Christ??? Paul uses these terms interchangeably. Sounds like: "Three in unity"

Sean, I'm going to start with your closing paragraph. I read all you wrote, but it doesn't "sound like: 'Three in unity'" at all. I think it "sounds like" that to you because you have already begun with the Trinity, and thus interpret what you read in the light of what you believe. A bit of eisegesis perhaps?

I suppose you could say the same for me. But remember I was once a Trinitarian. I changed my position because of the Scripture. I didn't go wading into Scripture with an already formulated view ... well, I did at first --- with the Trinitarian view. But I couldn't maintain this view, as it didn't harmonize with the many Scriptures I encountered.

The idea of a Single Compound God is found nowhere in Scripture. When the NT uses the Greek expression "ho theos" (the God) it refers to the Father alone, not to a "triune God".

Perhaps the best argument against Trinitarianism is the word of our Lord himself who prayed to his Father in these words:

"This is aeonion life, that they might believe in you, the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

If God were triune, Jesus would have included himself as part of the Triunity rather that addressing the Father as "the Only True God" and distinguishing himself as something other.

Now in order to understand my reply to your question about the scriptures you quoted, we will need to review the view I espouse, concerning the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit:

1. The Father is the "only true God". He is a divine Individual --- not a Triunity.

2. The Son was generated or begotten by the Father at the beginning of time. Thus there was never a time at which the Son did not exist (as in Arianism). He was the only-begotten Son and was fully divine. There were no other true Son of God. He was Another who was "the express image of God's essence". By living here on earth, Jesus the Only-begotten God (See John 1:18 NASB) revealed the Father to us. For his compassion on people, healing the sick, raising the dead, etc. reveals the character of the Father in a way that does not seem to have been revealed in the Old Testament.

Jesus and his Father were so unified that they shared the same spirit. So the scriptures speak of "the spirit of God" as well as "the spirit of Jesus".
But this spirit is not a "third divine Person" but their mind.

Who knows the things of man but the spirit of man which is in him? Likewise no one perceives the things of God except the spirit of God. I Corinthians 3:11

If God is a triune being, why could not the Father or the Son perceive the things of God also? As a matter of fact they do! For it is their mind or personality (or spirit) which perceives.

Jesus also said that he and his Father would make their dwelling in Jesus's disciples. But Jesus and his Father dwell in a special way in heaven. However, they can extend their personalities (or should I say "personality") to any point in the universe. So they can dwell by their spirit in the hearts of the faithful.

Paidon,
What about this passage:

Romans 8:8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Interesting, Paul seems to think that one who has the Spirit can please God. But what Spirit? Paul says: the Spirit of God, then the Spirit of Christ, then "just" Christ, then the Spirit.

That is because Christ and His Father share the same spirit. So it doesn't matter whether we say "the spirit of God" or "the spirit of Christ" or simply "the spirit". We have a problem only if we assume that God's spirit is a Third Divine Individual". In saying that it isn't, I am not "denying the divinity of the holy spirit". Of course the spirit is divine. We are talking about the "spirit of God"! Nor am I denying the personality of the spirit. For the spirit is the very Persons of the Father and the Son. What I am denying is that the spirit is a Third Divine Individual.

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

So what Spirit raised Jesus from the dead?

Was it:
-The Spirit of God
-The Spirit of Christ
-Christ
-The Spirit

Again, though Christ and his God, that is, God the Father are two distinct divine Individuals, they share share the same spirit. There is only one spirit of God.

Rom 8:11 does not affirm that the spirit of anyone raised Christ from the dead. It refers to "the spirit of him who raised Christ from the dead". The "him" who raised Christ from the dead is the Father. This is repeated in the next sentence: "He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."
Here the One who raised Christ from the dead is distinguished from his spirit.

It would seem that Paul seamlessly blends these together and states that the same Spirit who raised Jesus is the one that dwells in us. That would be all of the above. If you disagree with "all of the above" then I don't know how you could disagree with verse 10 "And if Christ is in you" & "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you".

I don't disagree with any of the scripture. But I don't see any of it affirming your interpretation that it is the spirit who raised Christ. The "him" who raised Christ from the dead is the Father. The spirit of the Father is that which dwells in you, the Father's very Person. When Jesus said that his Father and he would dwell in the disciples, did he not refer to the spirit which they share?

The doctrine of the Trinity was not commonly espoused in the early church until Augustine. I know Tertullian's works (earlier than Augustine) appear to teach it. Whether Tertullian actually taught it or whether later Trinitarians interjected the teaching in to his writings is unknown. Perhaps Tertullian picked it up from the Montanist sect with which he associated.

[Guest]

Paidion,

You continue to maintain that:

The Son was generated or begotten by the Father at the beginning of time. Thus there was never a time at which the Son did not exist (as in Arianism).

You must know that the Greek word logos, used by John to inform us of Jesus' existence prior to the incarnation, has a wider meaning than the English "word", that it may well be a reference to the mind or reason of God. That being so, would you not be saying God was mindless without Christ? Did John use the wrong word?