Jesus: Truly God in the Gospels

[Jill]

.

[Paidion]

I think we need to be clear when we state "Jesus is God". This statement can be quite confusing in the various ways it can be interpreted. Some even say, "God was born as a human being" or "God died for our sins".
Now I can understand why Modalists or "Oneness" believers can make such statements, and their meaning is clear. For their belief is that God is single divine Individual who expresses Himself in three modes: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They sometimes speak of God having "three faces" and they make much of the Greek word "prosōpon" (face) in this connection.

But strangely, Trintarians frequently make such statements also. I find this hard to fathom, for if I understand Triniatarianism correctly, God is a Trinity, a compound Being consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet when Trinitarians say, "God was born as a human being" they don't seem to mean that the Trinity was born as a human being. So in making this statement, they no longer define "God" as a Trinity, but now use the word to denote any single member of the Trinity, in this case the Son. Am I correct? Do Trinitarians use the word "God" in these distinct ways? In any case, it must be admitted that if Jesus is "God" in the sense of being a member of the Trinity, according to His own prayer He is not "true God".



Notice that in this prayer, Jesus calls the Father "true God" and by means of that little conjuction "and" refers to Himself as other than "true God".

To me, the resolution of the problem is so simple when we view it from the first and second century point of view, that the Son was begotten by the Father "before all ages, the first of God's acts" or as I see it, at the beginning of time. As for Charles's question, "Was there ever a time when the Son was not?", my answer, unlike that of the Arians, is a resounding "NO!" Although His begetting was a single act of God, that act marked the beginning of time, and there was no time prior to that. So for you, Charles, what are the implications of the fact that there was never a time at which the Son did not exist?

[mattrose]

Trinitarian belief insists that there is 1 God. It also insists that the Father, Son & Spirit are equally God. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to refer to the Father as God. Or the Son as God. Or the Spirit as God. Nor is it inappropriate to say that 'God became flesh' or even that 'God died' so long as you are speaking in a trinitarian context. In saying such, you are not insisting that all 3 members died, you are simply referring to one of the members, who is God, doing such a thing. When Jesus called the Father God, He was simply stating a truth.

[Jill]

.

[BrotherAlan]

If God is indeed a Trinity (and I believe He is), then John 17:3 does not pose a problem in believing in the divinity of Christ. For, John 17:3 states the the Father is the "only true God"; as MattRose said, this is simply affirming the divinity of the Father (which is true); it is not, in any way, denying the divinity of the Son. Indeed, one can, without contradiction, affirm not only that the Father is "the only true God"; but one can also affirm that the Son (Jesus Christ) is also "the only true God" (and the same can be said of the Holy Spirit). For, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; yet, there are not three Gods, but one God (and, thus, each is "the only true God").

In fact, John 17:3 actually implies the divinity of Christ; for, in this verse, Christ says that eternal life is in knowing the Father and in "knowing Jesus Christ". If knowing Jesus Christ brings eternal life, then it must be the case that Jesus Christ can impart eternal life to those who believe in Him (a fact brought out even more explicitly in 1 John 5:11, "God has granted us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.") But, if Christ is able to impart eternal life to someone, then He Himself must be a source of eternal life (for, a "thing can not give what it does not have"; Christ cannot give eternal life if He Himself is not the source of eternal life). But, if Christ is able to give eternal life, then He Himself must be eternal (which must mean that He is God, for only God is eternal).

MattRose, great work in coming up with all those verses concerning the divinity of Christ (those will come in very handy as references)! And, like you said, that is just looking at the Gospels (much more can be gleaned from the rest of the Scriptures)! Keep up the good work....

-BrotherAlan

"I have come so that they may have life, and have it abundantly." (Jesus Christ, as quoted in John 10:10)

[Paidion]

I don't think John 17:3 can be looked at that way, Brother Alen, except through a strong Trinitarian lense, and even then it seems to contradict the passage. We may do well to re-examine it:

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

First Jesus addresses His Father as the only true God and then by means of that little conjuction "and", He adds "and Jesus Christ whom You have sent", clearly indicating that "Jesus Christ whom You have sent" is someone other than or in addition to the only true God". Of course, the fact that Jesus does not consider Himself to be "the only true God" in no way detracts from His deity. He is Divine in a way that no other is Divine, and "bears the very stamp of the Father's essence." [Hebrews 1:3]. This writer's concept of Christ's Divinity fits perfectly with the understanding of first and second century Christians who recognized that God "begat His Son before all ages, the first of His acts of old". Those brethren had no concept of a "Trinity". Even the original Nicene Creed speaks of God the Father having "begotten Him before all ages". The concept of an "eternal begetting" put forth by later Trinitarians was unknown during the first two centuries. Centuries later, even that concept came to be dropped by most of Christendom, so that they began to think that the phrase "the only begotten Son" referred to His having been begotten in Mary's womb. The new concept was that the Son was "co-eternal" with the Father accompanied by the notion of the existence of an infinite regression of time into the past. It is my view that "the Beginning" stated in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 was the beginning of time. If time had an actual beginning, then there was no "before". For that reason, there never was a time at which the Son did not exist. If that's what is mean by "co-eternal" then I concur.

[Jill]

.

[BrotherAlan]

Thank you for your reply, Paidion.
Now, with regard to John 17:3, Christ is praying to the Father, and He addresses the Father as "the only true God"; very true. But, when Christ addresses the Father as "the one true God", He is simply asserting the Father has FULL possession of the one and ONLY divine nature. He is NOT asserting that ONLY the Father has this divine nature; but, again, that the Father does indeed have full possession of the one and only divine nature. For, note that Christ does NOT address the Father by saying, "ONLY You, Father, are the true God," but, rather, "You are the ONLY true God." (In other words, the "only" modifies "God", not the Father, as if only the Father were the true God). Thus, Christ is asserting that the Father is divine, without denying His own divinity.

But, why then for the conjunction "and" in differentiating Christ and the Father? Well, it is true that Christ, by using the conjunction "and" differentiates Himself from the Father; but, this is the important point: Christ is differentiating Himself with the FATHER, and not with the divine nature that the Father possesses (which possession by the Father, again, is acknowledged by Christ in addressing the Father as "the only true God"). So, the difference to which Christ directs our attention is between Himself and the Father.

But, this difference between Christ and the Father cannot be a difference in Nature. For, Scripture makes it clear that Christ has a divine nature (as MattRose's references, at the start of this thread, showed). Scripture also makes it clear that the Father has a divine nature. But, two things that have the same nature cannot differ in this nature; thus, Christ and the Father must share the same divine nature (which divine nature is only one, and simple: from this it follows that Christ-- like the Father-- is also the "only true God", for there is only one God, i.e., one divine nature).

If they have the same nature, in what, then, do they differ? If they do not differ in nature, they must differ in Person, for they are clearly different Persons. This is the seeds of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is found in the Gospels (as well as other of the Scriptures).

The fact that it took time for the Church to develop a doctrine on the Trinity does not prove that the first Christians did not believe in the essence of the doctrine; for, doctrines merely make explicit what is first implicitly believed. Again, the Scriptures clearly assert the divinity of the Father, the divinity of the Son, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit; the Scriptures also clearly assert that these Three do not differ in nature, but they do in Person. That is the foundation of the Trinitarian doctrine, and it is in the Scriptures, which Scriptures were believed by the earliest Christians. Thus, the Trinitarian doctrine expresses, in essence, the same Faith as that of the earliest Christians; there are only accidental differences between the manner in which this one and only Faith-- which was "delivered once for all to the saints"-- was professed (since the later doctrine uses more precise and refined language). But the essence of Faith is the same.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

"Before Abraham was, I AM." (Christ; John 8:58)

[Paidion]

Now, with regard to John 17:3, Christ is praying to the Father, and He addresses the Father as "the only true God"; very true. But, when Christ addresses the Father as "the one true God", He is simply asserting the Father has FULL possession of the one and ONLY divine nature. He is NOT asserting that ONLY the Father has this divine nature; but, again, that the Father does indeed have full possession of the one and only divine nature. For, note that Christ does NOT address the Father by saying, "ONLY You, Father, are the true God," but, rather, "You are the ONLY true God."

Let's see how this would work with Adam and Eve, when there were no other humans upon the earth.

Eve says to Adam, "There will be continuing human life, children generated from you, the only true human being on earth, and Eve, who came out from you as a rib." When Eve addresses Adam as "the only true human being", she is simply asserting that Adam has FULL possession of the one and ONLY human nature. She is NOT asserting that ONLY Adam has this human nature; but, again, Adam does indeed have full possession of the one and only human nature. For note that Eve does NOT address Adam by saying, "ONLY you, Adam, are the true human," but, rather, "You are the ONLY true human."

Does it make sense?

[Jill]

.