Baptism in Jesus’ Name?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
In your view, what's the difference between a baptism simply occurring, and the baptism reported in Acts 19.1-5? The passage seems like a clear description of the chain of events that led to the event of the baptism of some Ephesian disciples.
Please say some more about what you mean by a report of a baptism's occurrence.Again, this does not record the actual method of the baptism. The name of Jesus is also the name of the Father and Spirit. The only place the method is giving in Scripture is in Matthew 28.
What "actual method" description of a baptism is present in Matthew 28.19, but missing in Acts 19.15? The only "method" I see in Matthew 28.19 is that the baptism is to be done "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How is that "method" of baptism structurally different from the "method" of baptism in Acts 19.5 - namely, "in the name of the Lord Jesus"? It seems to me that both verses report only the name in which baptism is to be done, which makes them structurally comparable.
That is actually my precise argument, they are the same thing. I haven't articulated that, but that is my position.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
In your view, what's the difference between a baptism simply occurring, and the baptism reported in Acts 19.1-5? The passage seems like a clear description of the chain of events that led to the event of the baptism of some Ephesian disciples.
Please say some more about what you mean by a report of a baptism's occurrence.Again, this does not record the actual method of the baptism. The name of Jesus is also the name of the Father and Spirit. The only place the method is giving in Scripture is in Matthew 28.
What "actual method" description of a baptism is present in Matthew 28.19, but missing in Acts 19.15? The only "method" I see in Matthew 28.19 is that the baptism is to be done "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." How is that "method" of baptism structurally different from the "method" of baptism in Acts 19.5 - namely, "in the name of the Lord Jesus"? It seems to me that both verses report only the name in which baptism is to be done, which makes them structurally comparable.
What can I say, splitting hairs? It's a half a dozen of one hand or six of 12. Bill, you have made an obvious conclusion. CM
-
@reformed said:
What I am saying is that the ECF and the Didache have DIRECT QUOTES from Matthew 29:19 and they include the same text we have today. It was not added later, it was there from the start.A comparative study of the gospel records and the records in the book of Acts with other writings of ECF etc shows how they began introducing (!) new unbiblical and actually heretical "multi-God(s)" doctrine and in regards to baptism CHANGED the original command Jesus gave to his apostles (which they indeed taught and carried out !! as shown by the records in the book of Acts) to a Trinity religion command with a baptism in obedience to a multi-God(s).
IF - as you claim - the original wording of Jesus' command in Mt 28:19 was "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", then why did NONE of the apostles carry out this command and instead changed it to one name of only ONE person, the Messiah Jesus ?? Had Peter at Pentecost already forgotten what the last words of Jesus only days before had been? Had God changed somehow and inspired Peter to change Jesus' command into something else? was Peter plain disobedient and rebellious to Jesus and instituted his own "church" at Pentecost?
Do you realize that your idea above actually would make Peter and the rest of the apostles disobedient fellows? And also make Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, either an ignorant reporter or intentional forgerer in regards to what Jesus had commanded? Seems like you believe and trust the ECF and Didache, etc more than the NT scriptures which in NO record about baptism testify to a baptism "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ever being carried out ...
-
@reformed said:
... The name of Jesus is also the name of the Father and Spirit. ...This idea seems to obviously be a false claim!
"Jesus" (and its corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic term) is NOT the name of God, Who is the Father ... The name YHWH is NOT identical with the name "Jesus", just as the name "Henry" is NOT identical to the name "James"
Furthermore, is there a record in OT or NT Scripture, where we can read about the name of the Spirit ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
What I am saying is that the ECF and the Didache have DIRECT QUOTES from Matthew 29:19 and they include the same text we have today. It was not added later, it was there from the start.A comparative study of the gospel records and the records in the book of Acts with other writings of ECF etc shows how they began introducing (!) new unbiblical and actually heretical "multi-God(s)" doctrine and in regards to baptism CHANGED the original command Jesus gave to his apostles (which they indeed taught and carried out !! as shown by the records in the book of Acts) to a Trinity religion command with a baptism in obedience to a multi-God(s).
And the Didache which was the teaching of the Apostles themselves? Your timeline just doesn't fit.
IF - as you claim - the original wording of Jesus' command in Mt 28:19 was "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", then why did NONE of the apostles carry out this command and instead changed it to one name of only ONE person, the Messiah Jesus ?? Had Peter at Pentecost already forgotten what the last words of Jesus only days before had been? Had God changed somehow and inspired Peter to change Jesus' command into something else? was Peter plain disobedient and rebellious to Jesus and instituted his own "church" at Pentecost?
They DID carry it out as @Bill_Coley pointed out earlier. Not to mention, the actual baptism itself is not recorded for us in Acts so we don't know the specific method that they used.
Do you realize that your idea above actually would make Peter and the rest of the apostles disobedient fellows? And also make Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, either an ignorant reporter or intentional forgerer in regards to what Jesus had commanded? Seems like you believe and trust the ECF and Didache, etc more than the NT scriptures which in NO record about baptism testify to a baptism "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ever being carried out ...
No, I trust Scripture and show the very earliest members of the church quoted the Scripture as it still is written today. It was not changed.
How so?
"Jesus" (and its corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic term) is NOT the name of God, Who is the Father ... The name YHWH is NOT identical with the name "Jesus", just as the name "Henry" is NOT identical to the name "James"
@dct112685 addressed this earlier. It is the same name because they are the same God.
Furthermore, is there a record in OT or NT Scripture, where we can read about the name of the Spirit ??
It is God.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
A comparative study of the gospel records and the records in the book of Acts with other writings of ECF etc shows how they began introducing (!) new unbiblical and actually heretical "multi-God(s)" doctrine and in regards to baptism CHANGED the original command Jesus gave to his apostles (which they indeed taught and carried out !! as shown by the records in the book of Acts) to a Trinity religion command with a baptism in obedience to a multi-God(s).And the Didache which was the teaching of the Apostles themselves? Your timeline just doesn't fit.
Are you telling us that the Didache was written by the apostles? perhaps even that it is equal to inspired Scripture? The Didache is not the teaching of the Apostles themselves, but rather a compilation of teachings claimed by others to be the apostles' teaching.
IF - as you claim - the original wording of Jesus' command in Mt 28:19 was "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", then why did NONE of the apostles carry out this command and instead changed it to one name of only ONE person, the Messiah Jesus ?? Had Peter at Pentecost already forgotten what the last words of Jesus only days before had been? Had God changed somehow and inspired Peter to change Jesus' command into something else? was Peter plain disobedient and rebellious to Jesus and instituted his own "church" at Pentecost?
They DID carry it out as @Bill_Coley pointed out earlier. Not to mention, the actual baptism itself is not recorded for us in Acts so we don't know the specific method that they used.
Where did Bill point out that the apostles baptized "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ? Did he give any scripture reference where such is mentioned? would you have a scripture reference where the use of "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is mentioned?
Do you realize that your idea above actually would make Peter and the rest of the apostles disobedient fellows? And also make Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, either an ignorant reporter or intentional forgerer in regards to what Jesus had commanded? Seems like you believe and trust the ECF and Didache, etc more than the NT scriptures which in NO record about baptism testify to a baptism "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ever being carried out ...
No, I trust Scripture and show the very earliest members of the church quoted the Scripture as it still is written today. It was not changed.
You did not answer my questions which I asked of you ....
If the Jesus' command were in fact the all so important formula "in the name of the {Holy Trinity}", then Peter and the apostles during the period of the book of Acts did NOT carry out their Lord's command, and - rather strangely - those living a little later claimed to do it and to have learned it from those very apostles ??@Wolfgang said:
us" (and its corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic term) is NOT the name of God, Who is the Father ... The name YHWH is NOT identical with the name "Jesus", just as the name "Henry" is NOT identical to the name "James"@dct112685 addressed this earlier. It is the same name because they are the same God.
What kind of logic is this? Henry and James are the same name because they are both one human?
Furthermore, is there a record in OT or NT Scripture, where we can read about the name of the Spirit ??
It is God.
?? appears to be a nonsense statement and definitely not an answer to the question asked of you.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
A comparative study of the gospel records and the records in the book of Acts with other writings of ECF etc shows how they began introducing (!) new unbiblical and actually heretical "multi-God(s)" doctrine and in regards to baptism CHANGED the original command Jesus gave to his apostles (which they indeed taught and carried out !! as shown by the records in the book of Acts) to a Trinity religion command with a baptism in obedience to a multi-God(s).And the Didache which was the teaching of the Apostles themselves? Your timeline just doesn't fit.
Are you telling us that the Didache was written by the apostles? perhaps even that it is equal to inspired Scripture? The Didache is not the teaching of the Apostles themselves, but rather a compilation of teachings claimed by others to be the apostles' teaching.
IF - as you claim - the original wording of Jesus' command in Mt 28:19 was "baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost", then why did NONE of the apostles carry out this command and instead changed it to one name of only ONE person, the Messiah Jesus ?? Had Peter at Pentecost already forgotten what the last words of Jesus only days before had been? Had God changed somehow and inspired Peter to change Jesus' command into something else? was Peter plain disobedient and rebellious to Jesus and instituted his own "church" at Pentecost?
They DID carry it out as @Bill_Coley pointed out earlier. Not to mention, the actual baptism itself is not recorded for us in Acts so we don't know the specific method that they used.
Where did Bill point out that the apostles baptized "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ? Did he give any scripture reference where such is mentioned? would you have a scripture reference where the use of "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is mentioned?
Do you realize that your idea above actually would make Peter and the rest of the apostles disobedient fellows? And also make Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, either an ignorant reporter or intentional forgerer in regards to what Jesus had commanded? Seems like you believe and trust the ECF and Didache, etc more than the NT scriptures which in NO record about baptism testify to a baptism "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" ever being carried out ...
No, I trust Scripture and show the very earliest members of the church quoted the Scripture as it still is written today. It was not changed.
You did not answer my questions which I asked of you ....
If the Jesus' command were in fact the all so important formula "in the name of the {Holy Trinity}", then Peter and the apostles during the period of the book of Acts did NOT carry out their Lord's command, and - rather strangely - those living a little later claimed to do it and to have learned it from those very apostles ??@Wolfgang said:
us" (and its corresponding Hebrew or Aramaic term) is NOT the name of God, Who is the Father ... The name YHWH is NOT identical with the name "Jesus", just as the name "Henry" is NOT identical to the name "James"@dct112685 addressed this earlier. It is the same name because they are the same God.
What kind of logic is this? Henry and James are the same name because they are both one human?
Furthermore, is there a record in OT or NT Scripture, where we can read about the name of the Spirit ??
It is God.
?? appears to be a nonsense statement and definitely not an answer to the question asked of you.
Clearly you don't understand simple Christology. I recommend you study the book of John as well as NT epistles about the Trinity and who God is.
-
@reformed said:
That is actually my precise argument, they are the same thing. I haven't articulated that, but that is my position.I don't understand your argument, reformed.
Your original point was that...
"We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model."
In response to my suggestion that Act 19.5 provides as much of a "specific instance of a recorded baptism" as does Matthew 28.19, you now reply that the "methods" of the two passages are "the same thing." If they're the same thing, then on what basis do you contend that Acts 19 doesn't "record the actual method of baptism," but Matthew 28 does? And if they're the same thing, on what basis do you prefer Matthew 28 over Acts 19? (FWIW, I use the Matthew 28 formula when I conduct baptisms, but only in preservation of the tradition in which I was raised. I have no objection to - and in fact, am more theologically at home with - the Acts 19 formula. Bottom line: I don't think it matters which one we use.)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That is actually my precise argument, they are the same thing. I haven't articulated that, but that is my position.I don't understand your argument, reformed.
Your original point was that...
"We don't see, to my knowledge, any specific instances of a recorded baptism in Acts. It only says that the baptism occurred. Therefore we follow Matthew 28:19's model."
In response to my suggestion that Act 19.5 provides as much of a "specific instance of a recorded baptism" as does Matthew 28.19, you now reply that the "methods" of the two passages are "the same thing." If they're the same thing, then on what basis do you contend that Acts 19 doesn't "record the actual method of baptism," but Matthew 28 does? And if they're the same thing, on what basis do you prefer Matthew 28 over Acts 19? (FWIW, I use the Matthew 28 formula when I conduct baptisms, but only in preservation of the tradition in which I was raised. I have no objection to - and in fact, am more theologically at home with - the Acts 19 formula. Bottom line: I don't think it matters which one we use.)
Well I don't see Acts 19:5 as recording the specific baptism but rather saying that it happened. And yes, the methods are the same thing, the same name. I, like you, have no objection if people only same in the name of Jesus Christ either, however, some here seem to think if you do it any other way than that the baptism is somehow not valid. No Scriptural evidence to support it.
-
@reformed said:
Clearly you don't understand simple Christology. I recommend you study the book of John as well as NT epistles about the Trinity and who God is.Clearly. I don't understand simple Christology ... and for some reason must be reading a totally different book of John and version of the NT epistles.
Somehow, in my book of John, the Lord Jesus identifies only One as the true God and that One is not he himself and also is not Three. Interestingly, the same holds true for the NT epistles (in particular Pauline epistles, where Paul also identifies only One as the true God, and clearly distinguishes the man Christ Jesus from God.But then, I am sure, you know what you are talking about ....
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Clearly you don't understand simple Christology. I recommend you study the book of John as well as NT epistles about the Trinity and who God is.Clearly. I don't understand simple Christology ... and for some reason must be reading a totally different book of John and version of the NT epistles.
Somehow, in my book of John, the Lord Jesus identifies only One as the true God and that One is not he himself and also is not Three. Interestingly, the same holds true for the NT epistles (in particular Pauline epistles, where Paul also identifies only One as the true God, and clearly distinguishes the man Christ Jesus from God.But then, I am sure, you know what you are talking about ....
In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word WAS GOD.
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God, He has made him known.
John doesn't even try to hide the fact that Jesus is God. Paul says in Colossians that all things were created by Christ. Unless Christ is also God, that can't be.
Christ never once denied His deity. He affirmed it. I and the Father are one.
So yes, I know what I am talking about. It is you who do not.
-
@reformed said:
Christ never once denied His deity. He affirmed it. I and the Father are one.
So yes, I know what I am talking about. It is you who do not.
I disagree, reformed.
- John 5.25-30: Jesus says his life-giving power and authority to judge come not from himself, but from God. In fact, Jesus says, he can do "nothing" on his own; he can only judge as God instructs. His purpose, Jesus says, is to carry out God's will, not his own will.
- Mark 10.17-19: Jesus asks a questioner why he (the questioner) calls him (Jesus) "good," when that adjective belongs only to God.
- Matthew 26.39: In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asks God to take the cup of suffering away from him, but only if it is God's will. Jesus says he wants God's will to be done, not his own.
Three occasions on which, I believe, Jesus clearly denied his deity. There are many, many others.
FWIW, in my view, the extent to which those three references speak to how much each of us knows what we're talking about is not relevant to the subject of our exchange.
-
@reformed said:
Christ never once denied His deity. He affirmed it. I and the Father are one.Hmn ... I just read the following in John 17
John 17,20-22 (KJV)
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:Now, according to you, Jesus and the Father being one made Jesus to be God ... so Jesus prayed that they also may be God (cp the "even as we are one")?
So yes, I know what I am talking about. It is you who do not.
Of course, of course .... I can see it clearly, especially when I compare what you write with what I read in my Bible (see above from Joh 17)
By the way, the apostle John does not refer to Jesus is God, but refers to Jesus as the One whom God has sent. Thirty-nine times the Gospel of John refers to Jesus being sent from God (vv. 17, 34; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38; 6:29, 38-39, 44, 57; 7:16, 28-29; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).
-
@reformed ... to come back to the topic of "Baptism in Jesus' Name?" ....
Since the wording in our Bibles in Mt 28:19 ("baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost") and the various references to baptism in the book of Acts (for example, in Acts 2:38 - "baptized in the name of Jesus Christ") contradict each other, the question remains which one of the two is true? Contradicting statements can NOT be both true ...
IF Mt 28:19 with "name of the {Trinity}" is true ... what is the matter with all the other places in Acts and epistles which have "name of Jesus Christ"?
IF the many verses with "name of Jesus Christ" are true ... what is the matter with the one verse having a wording contradicting the many clear verses? -
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
Christ never once denied His deity. He affirmed it. I and the Father are one.
So yes, I know what I am talking about. It is you who do not.
I disagree, reformed.
- John 5.25-30: Jesus says his life-giving power and authority to judge come not from himself, but from God. In fact, Jesus says, he can do "nothing" on his own; he can only judge as God instructs. His purpose, Jesus says, is to carry out God's will, not his own will.
- Mark 10.17-19: Jesus asks a questioner why he (the questioner) calls him (Jesus) "good," when that adjective belongs only to God.
- Matthew 26.39: In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asks God to take the cup of suffering away from him, but only if it is God's will. Jesus says he wants God's will to be done, not his own.
Three occasions on which, I believe, Jesus clearly denied his deity. There are many, many others.
FWIW, in my view, the extent to which those three references speak to how much each of us knows what we're talking about is not relevant to the subject of our exchange.
None of those passages has Christ denying his deity. He denies that he is the father, but not his deity.
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Christ never once denied His deity. He affirmed it. I and the Father are one.Hmn ... I just read the following in John 17
John 17,20-22 (KJV)
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:Now, according to you, Jesus and the Father being one made Jesus to be God ... so Jesus prayed that they also may be God (cp the "even as we are one")?
That's absurd. Nowhere in that passage does he say that they may also be God. You are being ridiculous.
So yes, I know what I am talking about. It is you who do not.
Of course, of course .... I can see it clearly, especially when I compare what you write with what I read in my Bible (see above from Joh 17)
What you read above has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
By the way, the apostle John does not refer to Jesus is God, but refers to Jesus as the One whom God has sent. Thirty-nine times the Gospel of John refers to Jesus being sent from God (vv. 17, 34; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38; 6:29, 38-39, 44, 57; 7:16, 28-29; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).
The one the Father sent yes, but nowhere denies him being God. He already called him God in the first chapter.
-
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
- John 5.25-30: Jesus says his life-giving power and authority to judge come not from himself, but from God. In fact, Jesus says, he can do "nothing" on his own; he can only judge as God instructs. His purpose, Jesus says, is to carry out God's will, not his own will.
- Mark 10.17-19: Jesus asks a questioner why he (the questioner) calls him (Jesus) "good," when that adjective belongs only to God.
- Matthew 26.39: In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asks God to take the cup of suffering away from him, but only if it is God's will. Jesus says he wants God's will to be done, not his own.
Three occasions on which, I believe, Jesus clearly denied his deity. There are many, many others.
None of those passages has Christ denying his deity. He denies that he is the father, but not his deity.
I disagree.
In the John 5 passage, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God, not God (v.25), and defines that son as one to whom God (the Father) has granted authority (v.27). It's clear from the passage that without God's authorization, Jesus believes he can do nothing (v.30) Surely one who considered himself to be God would never have considered himself to be powerless. In my view, for Jesus, "Father" is not one of three manifestations of God's revelation to the world, but rather his preferred name for God ("Abba," a term of endearment and intimacy - "daddy").
In the Mark 10 passage, there is no reference to the "Father" at all. Instead, there is Jesus' response to a man who improperly calls him "good," an adjective that Jesus says belongs only to God. If Jesus believed himself to be God, he would not have turned the man's adjective aside. In my view, the passage makes no mention of, let alone any specific objection to, Jesus' purported identity as the "Father."
In the Matthew 26 passage, Jesus makes clear that his will is different from God's will (he wants the cup to pass from himself, but God, apparently, does not). Because his will is different from God's will, Jesus must surrender, and does so with his iconic phrase, "Not my will, but your will." If Jesus were God, how could he have had a will different from God's? Could God have more than one will, one of which was better - more in line with God's will - than the other? I don't think that's possible.
In my view, these three passages have nothing to do with Jesus' response to the possibility that some may believe him to be the "Father." Instead, they make clear that Jesus does not believe himself to be God.
-
@reformed said:
Now, according to you, Jesus and the Father being one made Jesus to be God ... so Jesus prayed that they also may be God (cp the "even as we are one")?
That's absurd. Nowhere in that passage does he say that they may also be God. You are being ridiculous.
What is absurd is YOUR reasoning that "being one with the Father" makes Jesus to be God. IF that were the case, then those for whom Jesus prayed to be one would also be God. YOUR reasoning is absurd.
By the way, the apostle John does not refer to Jesus is God, but refers to Jesus as the One whom God has sent. Thirty-nine times the Gospel of John refers to Jesus being sent from God (vv. 17, 34; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38; 6:29, 38-39, 44, 57; 7:16, 28-29; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).
The one the Father sent yes, but nowhere denies him being God. He already called him God in the first chapter.
So are you now saying that the Father is NOT God? Sure, John knows that God is God, but John also knows that Jesus is a man, the only begotten Son of God, and even records that this man, Messiah Jesus, prayed to God and addressed God as "Father", and emphatically stated that the Father ALONE is the true God (cp John 17:3).
But then, perhaps you know better than Jesus and you think that Jesus just was a little ignorant or maybe under stress in Joh 17 forgot who he really was?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Now, according to you, Jesus and the Father being one made Jesus to be God ... so Jesus prayed that they also may be God (cp the "even as we are one")?
That's absurd. Nowhere in that passage does he say that they may also be God. You are being ridiculous.
What is absurd is YOUR reasoning that "being one with the Father" makes Jesus to be God. IF that were the case, then those for whom Jesus prayed to be one would also be God. YOUR reasoning is absurd.
No it doesn't that doesn't even make sense in the passage Wolfgang.
By the way, the apostle John does not refer to Jesus is God, but refers to Jesus as the One whom God has sent. Thirty-nine times the Gospel of John refers to Jesus being sent from God (vv. 17, 34; 4:34; 5:23-24, 30, 36-38; 6:29, 38-39, 44, 57; 7:16, 28-29; 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; 9:4; 10:36; 11:42; 12:44-45, 49; 13:16, 20; 14:24; 15:21; 16:5; 17:3, 18, 21, 23, 25; 20:21).
John 1 calls Jesus God. You can't get around that fact.
The one the Father sent yes, but nowhere denies him being God. He already called him God in the first chapter.
So are you now saying that the Father is NOT God? Sure, John knows that God is God, but John also knows that Jesus is a man, the only begotten Son of God, and even records that this man, Messiah Jesus, prayed to God and addressed God as "Father", and emphatically stated that the Father ALONE is the true God (cp John 17:3).
No they are both God. One God three persons. Thre persons ONE essence.
But then, perhaps you know better than Jesus and you think that Jesus just was a little ignorant or maybe under stress in Joh 17 forgot who he really was?
Nope, he claimed to be God.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
@Bill_Coley said:
- John 5.25-30: Jesus says his life-giving power and authority to judge come not from himself, but from God. In fact, Jesus says, he can do "nothing" on his own; he can only judge as God instructs. His purpose, Jesus says, is to carry out God's will, not his own will.
- Mark 10.17-19: Jesus asks a questioner why he (the questioner) calls him (Jesus) "good," when that adjective belongs only to God.
- Matthew 26.39: In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asks God to take the cup of suffering away from him, but only if it is God's will. Jesus says he wants God's will to be done, not his own.
Three occasions on which, I believe, Jesus clearly denied his deity. There are many, many others.
None of those passages has Christ denying his deity. He denies that he is the father, but not his deity.
I disagree.
In the John 5 passage, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God, not God (v.25), and defines that son as one to whom God (the Father) has granted authority (v.27). It's clear from the passage that without God's authorization, Jesus believes he can do nothing (v.30) Surely one who considered himself to be God would never have considered himself to be powerless. In my view, for Jesus, "Father" is not one of three manifestations of God's revelation to the world, but rather his preferred name for God ("Abba," a term of endearment and intimacy - "daddy").
That's an interesting view, but I believe it is wrong.
In the Mark 10 passage, there is no reference to the "Father" at all. Instead, there is Jesus' response to a man who improperly calls him "good," an adjective that Jesus says belongs only to God. If Jesus believed himself to be God, he would not have turned the man's adjective aside. In my view, the passage makes no mention of, let alone any specific objection to, Jesus' purported identity as the "Father."
You are reading into the text. Jesus never said that it was improper for the man to call him good.
In the Matthew 26 passage, Jesus makes clear that his will is different from God's will (he wants the cup to pass from himself, but God, apparently, does not). Because his will is different from God's will, Jesus must surrender, and does so with his iconic phrase, "Not my will, but your will." If Jesus were God, how could he have had a will different from God's? Could God have more than one will, one of which was better - more in line with God's will - than the other? I don't think that's possible.
Yes, Jesus was also human and his humanity did not want to go through the pain and suffering he was about to endure. No contradiction here.
In my view, these three passages have nothing to do with Jesus' response to the possibility that some may believe him to be the "Father." Instead, they make clear that Jesus does not believe himself to be God.
No, we do not believe he is the father, he is the son. The second part of the Godhead.
-
@reformed said:
No, we do not believe he is the father, he is the son. The second part of the Godhead.hmn ....
So then, the Son is part of the Godhead ...
Is the Father part of the Godhead?
Is the Godhead God? -
Yes to all three.
-
I see .... so the Father is not God, but only part of God. And the Son is also only part of God.
So then Who or What actually is the Godhead/God? Is God a Trio or Team of which the Father and the Son are only parts? -
@Wolfgang said:
I see .... so the Father is not God, but only part of God. And the Son is also only part of God.
So then Who or What actually is the Godhead/God? Is God a Trio or Team of which the Father and the Son are only parts?That is a simple way of putting it I guess. They are all one in the same essence but distinct in person/role.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Yes to all three.
I see .... so the Father is not God, but only part of God. And the Son is also only part of God.
So then Who or What actually is the Godhead/God? Is God a Trio or Team of which the Father and the Son are only parts?Human reasoning, alone, can NEVER comprehend the things of God. None can know God except He reveals himself in language and method humans can grasp (General/Special revelations).
"Without faith, it's impossible to please God." Man humbly accept what God has revealed. Human reason has a role, but faith goes beyond human reasoning. This calls for humility on behalf of man.
Man is finite (limited) in thoughts, insights, and abilities. God is infinite (unlimited). The Bible will not answer every question a man has. God has revealed enough to a man to believe, accept and live.
There are some things of God that will not make sense to the man. God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). One in Purpose, Power, and Redemption. CM
PS. What you don't understand or what doesn't make sense, pray!
-
@reformed said:
That's an interesting view, but I believe it is wrong.There's certainly nothing wrong with our disagreeing on the matter, but your statement of disagreement doesn't address either of the arguments to which it responded. I'm particularly interested in your view of Jesus' claim of powerlessness in the absence of God's authorization (John 5.30). He says he can do nothing on his own. Only with divine direction and provision, predicated on his obedience to the will of the one who sent him, does he judge justly. What kind of God is powerless without assistance?
You are reading into the text. Jesus never said that it was improper for the man to call him good.
In my view, the most reasonable interpretation of the exchange in Mark 10 is that Jesus believes the man's use of the title "good teacher" is improper because it suggests a quality, Jesus believes, reserved for someone other than himself. Had Jesus wanted to accept the accolade, why wouldn't he simply have said, "You call me good. You are right, for I am God, and God alone is good"?
In John 13.13, Jesus tells his his disciples they are right to call him "teacher and Lord" for that is what he is. He doesn't say, "Why do you call me teacher and Lord? Only God is teacher and Lord."
As for reading into the text, I don't think I do any such thing. I contend that I am reading the text as it is. On the other hand, I believe your contention that the passage reports another of Jesus' denials that he is the Father, even though in it he makes no reference to the Father, is a much better example of reading into a text.
Yes, Jesus was also human and his humanity did not want to go through the pain and suffering he was about to endure. No contradiction here.
Your response to my comments on the Matthew 26 text doesn't address the central issue I raised: When in the Garden Jesus says "Take this cup from me. But I want your will to be done, not mine," doesn't he declare that his personal will is at odds with - contrary to - God's (his Father's) will? If so, how is it possible for God to have more than one will, at least two of which are in direct conflict?
No, we do not believe he is the father, he is the son. The second part of the Godhead.
But your claim to which I responded was that you believe the passages I cited express Jesus' denial of being "the father"
"None of those passages has Christ denying his deity. He denies that he is the father, but not his deity."
I claim that in the vast majority of relevant Gospel texts, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. Wolfgang and I have cited several in this exchange, but there are many, many others. Jesus calls himself the Son of God, but his declared powerlessness as Son (see above) and his expression of a will at odd's with his Father's in my view make clear that he doesn't believe the Son of God is part of the godhead.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
I see .... so the Father is not God, but only part of God. And the Son is also only part of God.
So then Who or What actually is the Godhead/God? Is God a Trio or Team of which the Father and the Son are only parts?That is a simple way of putting it I guess. They are all one in the same essence but distinct in person/role.
What is a simple way of putting it?
Are you saying that the term "God" is and describes an "essence"?
What would this "God" or "essence" be ... is it some character trade, some "thing", or what?Reading Gen 1:1 rather clearly states that "God" is an acting "individual" (cp. "In the beginning God created ..."). Throughout the Bible, "God" is never said to be "an essence". Nor is God ever said to be a team, a family, a group, or any such ...
-
Please note, that this statement was in immediate context of a post in which @reformed indicated such an idea ....
@C_M_ said:
Human reasoning, alone, can NEVER comprehend the things of God. None can know God except He reveals himself in language and method humans can grasp (General/Special revelations).So then, are you saying that those promoting the Holy Trinity dogma have received special revelation which would then explain that their ideas is correct and true?
"Without faith, it's impossible to please God." Man humbly accept what God has revealed. Human reason has a role, but faith goes beyond human reasoning. This calls for humility on behalf of man.
I agree ... and I do notice that God has never revealed that "He" is actually a "They (3 individuals)" ...
Man is finite (limited) in thoughts, insights, and abilities. God is infinite (unlimited). The Bible will not answer every question a man has. God has revealed enough to a man to believe, accept and live.
So then what is the case with the Trinity dogma which is not revealed or taught in Scripture (as a number of trinitarian theologians and scholars readily admit !) ? Why is it believed IF God has not revealed it? Or did God in fact after the completion of Scripture specially reveal it to those ECF who began propagating it?
There are some things of God that will not make sense to the man. God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). One in Purpose, Power, and Redemption. CM
Have you had special revelation which enables you to know that God is a "Trinity God"?
That God (Who is said in Scripture to be the Father) and His only begotten Son (the man Jesus Christ) are "one in purpose, mind" is clearly taught in Scripture, when Jesus makes clear that he (the Son of God) always submitted his will to God's (his Father's) will and carried out what God wanted in word and deed.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
That's an interesting view, but I believe it is wrong.There's certainly nothing wrong with our disagreeing on the matter, but your statement of disagreement doesn't address either of the arguments to which it responded. I'm particularly interested in your view of Jesus' claim of powerlessness in the absence of God's authorization (John 5.30). He says he can do nothing on his own. Only with divine direction and provision, predicated on his obedience to the will of the one who sent him, does he judge justly. What kind of God is powerless without assistance?
A kind of God that works in three in tandem. The Father has ultimate authority over the Trinity.
You are reading into the text. Jesus never said that it was improper for the man to call him good.
In my view, the most reasonable interpretation of the exchange in Mark 10 is that Jesus believes the man's use of the title "good teacher" is improper because it suggests a quality, Jesus believes, reserved for someone other than himself. Had Jesus wanted to accept the accolade, why wouldn't he simply have said, "You call me good. You are right, for I am God, and God alone is good"?
He wasn't ready to reveal himself yet. But never once did he say he shouldn't be called good.
In John 13.13, Jesus tells his his disciples they are right to call him "teacher and Lord" for that is what he is. He doesn't say, "Why do you call me teacher and Lord? Only God is teacher and Lord."
How is that relevant?
As for reading into the text, I don't think I do any such thing. I contend that I am reading the text as it is. On the other hand, I believe your contention that the passage reports another of Jesus' denials that he is the Father, even though in it he makes no reference to the Father, is a much better example of reading into a text.
You added to the text that he states he is not God by asking the question. Think of it this way, if the President disguised himself as someone else but was recognized and someone said "Mr. President" and then he said "Why do you call me President when Donald Trump is the President?" Would that be the President denying his Presidency? No.
Yes, Jesus was also human and his humanity did not want to go through the pain and suffering he was about to endure. No contradiction here.
Your response to my comments on the Matthew 26 text doesn't address the central issue I raised: When in the Garden Jesus says "Take this cup from me. But I want your will to be done, not mine," doesn't he declare that his personal will is at odds with - contrary to - God's (his Father's) will? If so, how is it possible for God to have more than one will, at least two of which are in direct conflict?
I believe I did answer the central issue, how did I not?
No, we do not believe he is the father, he is the son. The second part of the Godhead.
But your claim to which I responded was that you believe the passages I cited express Jesus' denial of being "the father"
Maybe I am missing something here? What are you saying and what do you think I said?
"None of those passages has Christ denying his deity. He denies that he is the father, but not his deity."
I claim that in the vast majority of relevant Gospel texts, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and God. Wolfgang and I have cited several in this exchange, but there are many, many others. Jesus calls himself the Son of God, but his declared powerlessness as Son (see above) and his expression of a will at odd's with his Father's in my view make clear that he doesn't believe the Son of God is part of the godhead.
He makes a clear distinction between him and the Father. Yes, but not him and God.
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
I see .... so the Father is not God, but only part of God. And the Son is also only part of God.
So then Who or What actually is the Godhead/God? Is God a Trio or Team of which the Father and the Son are only parts?That is a simple way of putting it I guess. They are all one in the same essence but distinct in person/role.
What is a simple way of putting it?
Are you saying that the term "God" is and describes an "essence"?
What would this "God" or "essence" be ... is it some character trade, some "thing", or what?Reading Gen 1:1 rather clearly states that "God" is an acting "individual" (cp. "In the beginning God created ..."). Throughout the Bible, "God" is never said to be "an essence". Nor is God ever said to be a team, a family, a group, or any such ...
Except in that same passage God also says "Let US make man in OUR own image" that doesn't sound singular to me.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
What is a simple way of putting it?
Are you saying that the term "God" is and describes an "essence"?
What would this "God" or "essence" be ... is it some character trade, some "thing", or what?Reading Gen 1:1 rather clearly states that "God" is an acting "individual" (cp. "In the beginning God created ..."). Throughout the Bible, "God" is never said to be "an essence". Nor is God ever said to be a team, a family, a group, or any such ...
Except in that same passage God also says "Let US make man in OUR own image" that doesn't sound singular to me.
Why did you not answer the questions I asked of you?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
I see .... so the Father is not God, but only part of God. And the Son is also only part of God.
So then Who or What actually is the Godhead/God? Is God a Trio or Team of which the Father and the Son are only parts?That is a simple way of putting it I guess. They are all one in the same essence but distinct in person/role.
What is a simple way of putting it?
Are you saying that the term "God" is and describes an "essence"?
What would this "God" or "essence" be ... is it some character trade, some "thing", or what?Reading Gen 1:1 rather clearly states that "God" is an acting "individual" (cp. "In the beginning God created ..."). Throughout the Bible, "God" is never said to be "an essence". Nor is God ever said to be a team, a family, a group, or any such ...
The essence question is much deeper than can be talked about here in a forum setting. I recommend picking up Sproul, R. C. What Is the Trinity?. Vol. 10. The Crucial Questions Series. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2011.
It is free in Logos or from Ligonier and it addresses this topic specifically in one chapter.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
What is a simple way of putting it?
Are you saying that the term "God" is and describes an "essence"?
What would this "God" or "essence" be ... is it some character trade, some "thing", or what?Reading Gen 1:1 rather clearly states that "God" is an acting "individual" (cp. "In the beginning God created ..."). Throughout the Bible, "God" is never said to be "an essence". Nor is God ever said to be a team, a family, a group, or any such ...
The essence question is much deeper than can be talked about here in a forum setting. I recommend picking up Sproul, R. C. What Is the Trinity?. Vol. 10. The Crucial Questions Series. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2011.
It is free in Logos or from Ligonier and it addresses this topic specifically in one chapter.I am asking YOU about YOUR understanding and YOUR insights ... when I am interested in R.C. Sproul, I will look up in his writings. I am not having a conversation with R.C. Sproul, but with someone who goes by the "name" @reformed and would like @reformed to answer questions asked of him (or her).
YOU spoke above about "one essence" ... so I would think that YOU understand what YOU are talking about and take responsibility for what YOU write and are willing to answer and clarify YOUR statements if and when asked about them.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
