How Translators Injected "the Third Person" into the New Testament

[dwight92070]

I'll say it again, there's no such thing as "God's first act" - that implies that God had a beginning, which we know He did not

I don't see that there being a beginning to God's acts implies that God had a beginning.

Dwight: Because His "first act" implies that He had He did no act before that, throughout an infinite amount of time OR that He wasn't around to do any acts before that. Thus, He had a beginning point, and then He performed His first act.

Do you think that God was always "doing something" for an infinite time into the past?

Dwight: Obviously, only God knows the answer to that. Since you say that begetting Jesus was God's first act, then you assume that God was doing nothing before that for an infinite time into the past. I say that that is not likely, considering what Jesus said about His father working. Again, Jesus said that His Father had been working "until now" (John 5:17), assuming that was about 30 A.D., and if we only count the years since creation, then God the Father had been working over 4000 years. Also, since He condemns laziness in the Bible, do you actually think He Himself would be doing nothing for an infinite time into the past?

If so, what was He doing? And for what purpose? He had not yet created any thing. So would could He do (other than think).

Dwight: Obviously, again, we don't know, but you presume to know that He was doing nothing. You have no evidence for that. It's much more in line with what Jesus said, that He was always doing something, rather than doing nothing.
Perhaps He was thinking about what He would do when He would beget His Son, and later when He would begin to create the stars, suns, planets, and the various forms of life.

Do you classify God's thoughts as "acts"? I don't. I consider His begetting of His Son as His first act in the sense of doing something outside Himself.

[dwight92070]

Also, we have Jesus' example. Even at the age of 12, He said that He "must be about His Father's business". So Jesus kept quite busy, even before His ministry started. And, as He said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." Jesus kept busy throughout His short life, so we know that God Himself keeps busy. Before creation, we cannot fathom what God would be doing, but that does not mean that He was doing nothing. In fact, given Jesus' example, it would be out of God's character for Him to do nothing. It's beyond our understanding to imagine an existence before creation, but it's not beyond God's understanding. It is sufficient for us to know that the Father is like Jesus, not just for a short season, but for eternity past, present, and future.

God condemns laziness in Proverbs and Jesus condemns laziness in the New Testament. So is God Himself lazy? I don't think so. As far as we know, from the Bible, the Father is always active. Even Steve has pointed out that when God rested from His work of creation on the seventh day, that does not mean that He was not doing other things. In fact, Jesus told us that the Father works on the Sabbath day, because He did many healings on that day. There's no scriptural support to tell us that the Father has ever done nothing - that is, stopped all activity.

Dwight

[darinhouston]

It's beyond our understanding to imagine an existence before creation, but it's not beyond God's understanding.

Amen to that! I think in the end, while Scripture clearly has some hints as to some aspect of pre-existence in some manner, it's not clear at all on what form of pre-existence that is and is not sufficiently revealed or understandable to form the basis of a dogma of essential belief. To suggest it's clear from Scripture (as some might do) is either out of ignorance or dishonesty. I am reading about the various ancient beliefs around pre-existence and there were at least two major streams relevant to our Scripture. Generally speaking, a Hellenistic/Platonic view (akin to the traditional Trinitarian views) and a Jewish/Hebrew understanding (more of a conceptual pre-existence in the mind of God - certainty or prophetic determinism spoken of as pre-existence). All else is somewhat conjecture, but I lean to the Hebrew understanding as the Hellenistic/Platonic leaned on clearly pagan views based on pre-existence and trans-migration of the soul and not God-revealed Jewish/Apostolic traditions.

[dwight92070]

Mark 10:17-18 Jesus says: "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

If we assume Jesus is speaking the truth, and we do, then He was either saying 1. I'm not God and therefore I'm not good or 2. I am God but you don't believe that, so why are you calling Me good?

I think the second one is correct. We know that Jesus was sinless and therefore good. We know that the only way any sinful man can be called good, is to first of all have his sins forgiven, and then he can be given an imputed goodness or righteousness through Jesus. But Jesus' goodness was inherent, not imputed. He was God and He was clearly saying so right here.

It does seem as though Jesus "beats around the bush" often, concerning His being God. Why? Well, because He was humble. Remember the Pharisees asked Him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." He told them, "I told you and you do not believe" Can you imagine Him going around declaring, "I am Christ, I am God" everywhere He went? That would not fit with His character, God's character.

Dwight

[Paidion]

Dwight, what exactly do you mean by saying that Jesus is God? Are you saying that Jesus is the Father?
Or are you simply saying that Jesus, being the Son of God is divine as His Father is?

If the latter (with which I agree), why not just say that Jesus is divine? To say He is God is confusing.

[commonsense]

Hi everyone, I got to reading some of the posts on this forum and thought I'd join in on the discussion. Although I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, I find the topic pretty interesting. I'm basically a down to earth person when it comes to reading the Bible. I think that many people get so carried away in their theology and philosophy that they fail to see what may be right in front of them. I love the words of Moses when he says "It is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say,"Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, "Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it."

Modern translation- It's not rocket science.

"God is not the author of confusion."

Human beings are not God. People who don't believe in God may disagree with this statement. But for those of us who believe in God, there is a higher authority. The fact that Jesus was a human being automatically disqualifies Him from being God. If some man was walking around today, claiming to be God, there wouldn't very many Christians who would believe it, if any.

That Jesus was the voice of God-YES.
That Jesus represents God-YES.
That Jesus was speaking for God-YES.
That Jesus was like God-YES.
That Jesus was one with God as in united in spirit-YES.
That the Holy Spirit of God was dwelling in Jesus-YES
That Jesus was made in God's image-YES.

I believe all of the above.
In Exodus 7, God says to Moses,"See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh." Moses was not God, but he was "as God".

[dwight92070]

Dwight, what exactly do you mean by saying that Jesus is God? Are you saying that Jesus is the Father?
Or are you simply saying that Jesus, being the Son of God is divine as His Father is?

If the latter (with which I agree), why not just say that Jesus is divine? To say He is God is confusing.

Dwight: Paidon, that's a tough question. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know fully what it means to say that Jesus is God. But that does not mean that we cannot or should not agree with the scripture in calling Him God. What did Jesus mean when He basically said that He was God in Mark 10:17-18? We aren't given a detailed explanation, but we do know that He is God. You say that Jesus is divine, which in my understanding means that He is Deity - He is God. There is only One deity - God. Colossians 2:2 calls Christ God's mystery. It appears in scripture that Jesus is not the Father, yet He said that He and His Father are one, and the Old Testament calls Him The Everlasting Father. So it is hard to understand - it is a mystery, yet it is nonetheless true.

[commonsense]

Also, we have Jesus' example. Even at the age of 12, He said that He "must be about His Father's business".

What strikes me as odd is how many times Abraham is mentioned in the New Testament, yet no one seems to pay attention to this.

"Abraham is the father of all who believe."
Jesus is Abraham's seed.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
That God is able to raise up children up unto Abraham from these stones.
That Abraham was not the father of the rulers of Israel.
That if Abraham was their father, they would be doing the works of Abraham.

I don't think Jesus was necessarily referring to God every time He mentions the Father.

We use the term "Father" for a lot of people.
Example spiritual counselors, priests, rabbis.
Father could be used to indicate the the first person to present an idea.
For example, Socrates-The Father of Western philosophy
John Smith- The Father of Mormonism
John Calvin-The Father of Calvinism
Archimedes- the Father of mathematics.

Abraham was the Father of Israel and he was building the nation on the belief in one God and the word of this one God.
If you don't follow the teachings of Socrates then he is not your Father.
Likewise, if you don't follow the teachings of Abraham, then he is not your Father.

Although Abraham is considered the Father of the belief in one God and the word of the one God, he was not the True Father, meaning he didn't create
this God, nor did he create the word of God. They weren't something he cooked up in the imagination of his own mind. Likewise, Archimedes, who is considered to be the Father of mathematics, is not the creator of math.

Many of these Fathers are still working through their writings and through the people who follow them. Jesus would now be considered a Father in this sense as well.

[darinhouston]

commonsense, welcome!

Glad to have you here and we look forward to your contributions. Interesting thought on use of the term "father." I am open to considering that in regard to particular passages, though I think the context in a particular passage would have to guide one to such a conclusion in a given case. I don't see anything in the context of this passage to indicate Jesus meant anything other than God. Could that be prejudice? Perhaps. I guess it could just as easily be a reference to Joseph, as well. But it is quite clear that Jesus considered himself to be the Son of God and he made many references to his Father which are clearly references to the Creator. So, it's pretty clear to me that this passage makes perfect sense to take it in the traditional understanding that he was beginning his ministry, directed by God.

I'm open to suggestions otherwise. But, further discourse on that subject might justify a separate topic.

I note also that this passage is often translated "father's house." If the temple, clearly that would have been context towards the Creator and not Abraham. But, the greek doesn't have either noun. It says "be about that of my father" (or something like that). The "things" of my father. Whether "house" or "business," are there other references by anyone in Scripture to suggest there was a "mission" of Abraham that people were furthering? He was the progenitor of the people, but not so much a "movement." That does sound a lot like the way one would speak of God and not Abraham.

[dwight92070]

Paidon,

A better question would be, "What does the Bible mean when it refers to Jesus as God?" Moses, Isaiah, David, the sons of Korah (writers of some of the Psalms), Micah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews,etc. - what did they mean by telling us over and over again that Jesus was God?

You mention confusion. We are not told anywhere in scripture that we can have a complete understanding of God Himself - especially while we are living here in these tents of flesh. Again, Paul called Christ God's mystery.

Dwight