Jesus and his God ...
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
A few times reference has been made to Jesus' words as recorded in John 20:17:
Joh 20,17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.
The words of Jesus are plain and clear and show that he himself did not consider himself to be God, but rather put himself on par with his disciples in that he spoke of the true God being both his and their Father and also his and their God.
Trinity dogma adherents and propagators claim that in this case Jesus was speaking "in his humanity" which would not exclude that he "also was God" ... without there being any support or evidence for such an idea found in Jesus' words.
Paul, a few decades later, after Jesus had already been received up into heaven and was seated at the right hand of God, still speaks of Jesus having a God, for example in Eph 1:3
Eph 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
The true God of the Bible does NOT have any other as God beside Him, and most certainly therefore also not above Him. Jesus and Paul both attest to the truth that Jesus had a God above himself whom he recognized as "my God".
Is this not already sufficient evidence from Scripture about the error of the Trinity dogma?? It certainly should be.
Comments
-
I understand this by knowing Jesus is God as far as his person. But he also had a fully human nature although sinless, consisting of mind/flesh/soul (used interchangeably). And a fully divine nature with all of God's attributes. So He as a man ascended to his permanently deified humanity.
Jesus (God) spoke sometimes as a man and sometimes as God
-
Brethren,
I don't feel it's never a time or correct to conclude that John 20:17 and Eph 1:3, are "sufficient evidence from Scripture about the error of the Trinity dogma".I strongly recommend that one consider the following and study the texts belong closely:
- Lev chapter 1. It's background to John 20:17.
-- I will hold my view of (Lev. 1), for now, since my form of contribution in these forums is either discredited or discounted to other forms. - Also, to the opened minded students of the Word, please consider the following:
a. Jesus Christ, Second Person in the Godhead, fully divine, yet incarnate, a member of the human family, was “forever to retain His human nature.”
b. When Jesus became a human being, He totally submitted Himself to the will of the First Person of the Godhead (John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 10:29; 14:10; 15:10, etc.).
c. When Lucifer and evil are fully destroyed, Jesus will return to Him the authority and power He has received (Matt. 28:18) to fight in the battle with Satan, that the First Person may be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:24–28).
c. As a human, Jesus related to the First Person from His position of submission. He called the First Person of the Godhead “My Father” and “My God” (John 20:17).
---------------- ---------------- ---------------------------
In the body of Jesus of woman-born, Divinity and humanity mysteriously dwelt together.
Correct concepts regarding Jesus' person and work come from God, for "no one knows the Son except the Father" (Matt 11:27). Peter, after his memorable answer to the Christological question, "Who do you say that I am?" (Matt 16:15), was assured by Jesus (Matt 11:16, 17).
Bonhoeffer, said, "It is only from God that man knows who he is." This, I affirm without reservation.
Peter wrote his two epistles, explicitly confessed Jesus' Deity, Lordship, and Saviorhood. [See also: See 1 Pet 1:3, 18-20; 2:3-8, 21-25; 3:15, 18, 21, 22; 4:11; 2 Pet 1:1, 2, 8, 11, 16; 2:1, 20; 3:2, 15, 18]. The formula "Lord and Savior" is characteristic of 2 Peter, but both terms are applied to Jesus throughout the NT.
There are at least four great Christological realities about Jesus as Savior one should consider:
(1) He possesses divine and human natures.
(2) He never sinned.
(3) He died for our sin.
(4) He was raised from the dead.Both Father and Son are God, yet there are not two Gods. CM
For further study, on your own, see:
-- D'angelo, M. R. 1990. "A Critical Note: John 20:17 and Apocalypse of Moses 31", Journal of Theological Studies Vol.41 No 2, 529-536
- Lev chapter 1. It's background to John 20:17.
-
@Wolfgang said:
A few times reference has been made to Jesus' words as recorded in John 20:17:Joh 20,17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and [to] my God, and your God.The words of Jesus are plain and clear and show that he himself did not consider himself to be God, but rather put himself on par with his disciples in that he spoke of the true God being both his and their Father and also his and their God.
It shows nothing of the sort. Is Donald Trump the President? Is He His President? Yes. Is he part of the Government? Yes. Is the American Government His government? Yes. Your argument based on the statement is meaningless.
Trinity dogma adherents and propagators claim that in this case Jesus was speaking "in his humanity" which would not exclude that he "also was God" ... without there being any support or evidence for such an idea found in Jesus' words.
Paul, a few decades later, after Jesus had already been received up into heaven and was seated at the right hand of God, still speaks of Jesus having a God, for example in Eph 1:3
Eph 1,3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:Again, this does not say Jesus is not God.
The true God of the Bible does NOT have any other as God beside Him, and most certainly therefore also not above Him. Jesus and Paul both attest to the truth that Jesus had a God above himself whom he recognized as "my God".
This is not in contradiction, you have a misinterpretation by isolating verses out of the context of the whole of Scripture.
Is this not already sufficient evidence from Scripture about the error of the Trinity dogma?? It certainly should be.
No it isn't. You err when you isolate verses.
-
@reformed said:
It shows nothing of the sort. Is Donald Trump the President?Yes
Is He His President? Yes.
No ... He IS the president.
Is he part of the Government? Yes.
Yes ... He is the head and thus above any other members of the government. However, there is no other head of government above him, or?
Is the American Government His government? Yes.
Yes
Your argument based on the statement is meaningless.
I don't think so ... as anyone can see, your comparison is partly based on a false assumption ("the president is his president").
Furthermore, in John 2017 Jesus not only speaks of "my God" -- which your comparison would claim that Jesus himself is his God -- but also about "my Father" ... your comparison would make Jesus to be his own Father?? Or are you now claiming that Jesus' Father and Jesus' God in his statement are TWO different individuals, and Jesus was actually meaning to say "I ascend to my Father and to myself" ???
I would say it is your statement which is not only meaningless, but obviously illogical and unreasonable non-sense.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
It shows nothing of the sort. Is Donald Trump the President?Yes
Is He His President? Yes.
No ... He IS the president.
Is he part of the Government? Yes.
Yes ... He is the head and thus above any other members of the government. However, there is no other head of government above him, or?
Is the American Government His government? Yes.
Yes
Your argument based on the statement is meaningless.
I don't think so ... as anyone can see, your comparison is partly based on a false assumption ("the president is his president").
Furthermore, in John 2017 Jesus not only speaks of "my God" -- which your comparison would claim that Jesus himself is his God -- but also about "my Father" ... your comparison would make Jesus to be his own Father?? Or are you now claiming that Jesus' Father and Jesus' God in his statement are TWO different individuals, and Jesus was actually meaning to say "I ascend to my Father and to myself" ???
I would say it is your statement which is not only meaningless, but obviously illogical and unreasonable non-sense.
How is the president not his president? He is definitely his president.
-
@reformed said:
How is the president not his president? He is definitely his president.Well, perhaps you can tell me who is ranked above the president? I always thought the president is the highest office ... but maybe, I am wrong ?
-
That is irrelevant to the conversation.
-
@reformed said:
How is the president not his president? He is definitely his president.I think this an intriguing argument, reformed.
I am the pastor of the church I serve. In your view, reformed, am I my own pastor?
The chief of your local police department: Is he or she his or her own chief?
By definition, doesn't being a pastor to someone, a chief to someone, or a president for someone require that the pastor, the chief, or the president be a different person from the one to whom he or she is pastor, chief, or president?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
How is the president not his president? He is definitely his president.I think this an intriguing argument, reformed.
I am the pastor of the church I serve. In your view, reformed, am I my own pastor?
Yes, you are your own pastor.
The chief of your local police department: Is he or she his or her own chief?
Yes they are their own chief.
By definition, doesn't being a pastor to someone, a chief to someone, or a president for someone require that the pastor, the chief, or the president be a different person from the one to whom he or she is pastor, chief, or president?
No
-
You were the one who brought up the illustration of "president" ... and I mentioned that a president is NOT his own president, because - as far as I know - "president" is the highest rank and therefore can NOT have a president.
I am surprised you now think this is irrelevant to the conversation ... -
@Wolfgang said:
You were the one who brought up the illustration of "president" ... and I mentioned that a president is NOT his own president, because - as far as I know - "president" is the highest rank and therefore can NOT have a president.
I am surprised you now think this is irrelevant to the conversation ...My point is your contention is wrong. The highest rank answers to themselves so yes a President is his own President.
-
@reformed said:
I am the pastor of the church I serve. In your view, reformed, am I my own pastor?
Yes, you are your own pastor.
In my seminary training, I was told over and over and over again that I wasn't and could not be my own pastor.
By definition, doesn't being a pastor to someone, a chief to someone, or a president for someone require that the pastor, the chief, or the president be a different person from the one to whom he or she is pastor, chief, or president?
No
You operate under a different definition of those leadership positions than I. In my view, "pastor" etc are relationships as well as positions:
- I may "doctor" myself, but if I do, I don't have a doctor as in the person/relation which sees to my healthcare needs
- I may "pastor" myself; but if I do, I don 't have a pastor as in the person/relation which sees to my spiritual well being
- I may be my own "chief," but if I do, I don't have a chief as in the person to whom I am accountable
- I may be the president of the United States, but if I do, I don't have a president as in the person who leads and represents me and my fellow citizens as a national leader.
- In my marriage, I am the husband. Does that mean I am also my own husband? No, because husbands, just are pastors, chiefs, and presidents, are relationships as well as positions.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I am the pastor of the church I serve. In your view, reformed, am I my own pastor?
Yes, you are your own pastor.
In my seminary training, I was told over and over and over again that I wasn't and could not be my own pastor.
Then who is your pastor? And I've never heard that before either. If you are the pastor of a church you are also your pastor. There is no other pastor.
By definition, doesn't being a pastor to someone, a chief to someone, or a president for someone require that the pastor, the chief, or the president be a different person from the one to whom he or she is pastor, chief, or president?
No
You operate under a different definition of those leadership positions than I. In my view, "pastor" etc are relationships as well as positions:
- I may "doctor" myself, but if I do, I don't have a doctor as in the person/relation which sees to my healthcare needs
- I may "pastor" myself; but if I do, I don 't have a pastor as in the person/relation which sees to my spiritual well being
- I may be my own "chief," but if I do, I don't have a chief as in the person to whom I am accountable
- I may be the president of the United States, but if I do, I don't have a president as in the person who leads and represents me and my fellow citizens as a national leader.
- In my marriage, I am the husband. Does that mean I am also my own husband? No, because husbands, just are pastors, chiefs, and presidents, are relationships as well as positions.
We disagree on the equivalence of your points to the conversation.
The doctor is not an equivalent point.
Pastor, you and I highly disagree.
Chief, you and I highly disagree.
Husband is not an equivalent point.
-
@reformed said:
My point is your contention is wrong. The highest rank answers to themselves so yes a President is his own President.You are using "to be one's own {president, or whatever else}" in a figurative manner rather than the normal use of the term.
Cp John 20:17 ... Jesus did NOT use the expression "my God" as you try to make it sound, that he was his own God, or do you also want to insist that in his use of "my Father" he was declaring himself to be his own father?
He furthermore established that "his Father and his God" were the same as the believer's father and God ... clearly, believers are not to be their own fathers nor their own God, yes? -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
My point is your contention is wrong. The highest rank answers to themselves so yes a President is his own President.You are using "to be one's own {president, or whatever else}" in a figurative manner rather than the normal use of the term.
Cp John 20:17 ... Jesus did NOT use the expression "my God" as you try to make it sound, that he was his own God, or do you also want to insist that in his use of "my Father" he was declaring himself to be his own father?
He furthermore established that "his Father and his God" were the same as the believer's father and God ... clearly, believers are not to be their own fathers nor their own God, yes?You aren't making equal comparisons. You are trying to compare Jesus and Believer's and they are not the same thing.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Cp John 20:17 ... Jesus did NOT use the expression "my God" as you try to make it sound, that he was his own God, or do you also want to insist that in his use of "my Father" he was declaring himself to be his own father?
He furthermore established that "his Father and his God" were the same as the believer's father and God ... clearly, believers are not to be their own fathers nor their own God, yes?You aren't making equal comparisons. You are trying to compare Jesus and Believer's and they are not the same thing.
well, I did not make the statement about "to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." in John 20:17 ... perhaps you should complain to someone else?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Cp John 20:17 ... Jesus did NOT use the expression "my God" as you try to make it sound, that he was his own God, or do you also want to insist that in his use of "my Father" he was declaring himself to be his own father?
He furthermore established that "his Father and his God" were the same as the believer's father and God ... clearly, believers are not to be their own fathers nor their own God, yes?You aren't making equal comparisons. You are trying to compare Jesus and Believer's and they are not the same thing.
well, I did not make the statement about "to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." in John 20:17 ... perhaps you should complain to someone else?
That has nothing to do with what I said.
-
@reformed said:
That has nothing to do with what I said.of course not ... how could it ?
-
You are the one trying to compare unequal parts.
-
@reformed said:
You are the one trying to compare unequal parts.I am ?? Instead of making an unsupported claim, could you please show us in John 20:17 what you are talking about? Was it not Jesus himself who said "to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."?
With Jesus and believers being unequal, did Jesus speak about two different Fathers and two different Gods?
Or did he speak of only one Father and one God, Who is both "my (Jesus') Father and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') Father" and "my (Jesus') God and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') God" ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You are the one trying to compare unequal parts.I am ?? Instead of making an unsupported claim, could you please show us in John 20:17 what you are talking about? Was it not Jesus himself who said "to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."?
With Jesus and believers being unequal, did Jesus speak about two different Fathers and two different Gods?
Or did he speak of only one Father and one God, Who is both "my (Jesus') Father and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') Father" and "my (Jesus') God and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') God" ??
The President is his President and he is also my president, are we equal? No.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You are the one trying to compare unequal parts.I am ?? Instead of making an unsupported claim, could you please show us in John 20:17 what you are talking about? Was it not Jesus himself who said "to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."?
With Jesus and believers being unequal, did Jesus speak about two different Fathers and two different Gods?
Or did he speak of only one Father and one God, Who is both "my (Jesus') Father and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') Father" and "my (Jesus') God and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') God" ??
The President is his President and he is also my president, are we equal? No.
??
We've already dealt with your claim "president is his own president" and showed how it is a logical fallacy.Now, to my above questions for clarification of your earlier claim ... would you please answer the questions rather than evading them?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
You are the one trying to compare unequal parts.I am ?? Instead of making an unsupported claim, could you please show us in John 20:17 what you are talking about? Was it not Jesus himself who said "to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."?
With Jesus and believers being unequal, did Jesus speak about two different Fathers and two different Gods?
Or did he speak of only one Father and one God, Who is both "my (Jesus') Father and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') Father" and "my (Jesus') God and your (Mary's, and by extension all Jesus' followers') God" ??
The President is his President and he is also my president, are we equal? No.
??
We've already dealt with your claim "president is his own president" and showed how it is a logical fallacy.No you haven't. You just spouted off some words that didn't change anything or prove anything.
Now, to my above questions for clarification of your earlier claim ... would you please answer the questions rather than evading them?
I did answer them.
-
Initial observation of Jn. 20:17b:
“πορεύου δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου καὶ εἰπὲ αὐτοῖς· ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν.”
‘Go instead to my brothers’ “πορεύου δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου”. This is the only instance within the Johannine corpus where Jesus will call the disciples his brothers.
God is referenced, throughout John’s gospel, as Jesus’ Father only – the one exception to this occurs here at 20:17 “καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν”.
‘... my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ “τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν.” There is a distinction in the use of μου and ὑμῶν regarding the difference of the Father’s unique relationship by nature to His Son, and that by adoption to believers (cf. Heb. 2:11). Of most importance, believers are now Jesus’ true brothers (cf. Rom. 8:29) and share the same Father and God; this sonship of believers having come about through the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1Pet. 1:3).
Jesus’ words here at v. 17 “τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν” are reminiscent of OT covenantal language (cf. Jer. 31:33; Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 36:28). ‘to my God and your God’ “καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν” (cf. Ruth 1:16 “καὶ ὁ θεός σου θεός μου·”).
To summarize, this text announces that the special relationship previously enjoyed only by the Father and Son is now bestowed on all who believe (cf. Jn. 1:12-13).
Second observation:
Why Jesus can say “θεόν μου” at v. 17b and not negate the Trinity – two points follow:
God is “the God of all flesh” and all flesh is “under the law” (cf. Jer. 32:27; Gal. 4:4).
Scripture says to worship God and obey God (cf. Ex. 23:25; Lev. 18:4).
The person Jesus is flesh (cf. Ro. 1:3, 8:3; 1John 4:2) by way of a virgin birth (cf. Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:34-35) subject to God and His Law (cf. Jn. 6:38, 8:29), and it is through his obedience that the Law is fulfilled (cf. Matt. 5:17).
Therefore, in Trinitarian theology the Father began relating to the Son as his God the moment the second person of the Trinity entered into the created order (cf. Phil. 2:7-8) taking on flesh "σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (cf. Jn. 1:14); and it is for this reason that Jesus, both true man true God, can speak of the first person of the Trinity, the Father, as “θεόν μου”.
In short, “θεόν μου” does not provide evidence against the Trinity; rather, it demonstrates the humanity of the second person of the Trinity and the relationship of Father to Son after the Son’s incarnation.
-
@Pages said:
‘Go instead to my brothers’ “πορεύου δὲ πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελφούς μου”. This is the only instance within the Johannine corpus where Jesus will call the disciples his brothers.God is referenced, throughout John’s gospel, as Jesus’ Father only – the one exception to this occurs here at 20:17 “καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν”.
While God is spoken of as the believers' father in John only in this instance, there are plenty other places in the other gospels and other NT writings where God is addressed as "Father" also in reference to the disciples, the believers ... for one, cp. how Jesus starts out his instruction to the disciples about how to pray "OUR Father, who are in heaven ..."
Therefore, trying to make a point from "John 20:17 is the one exception ... etc" is not really providing a valid point.‘... my Father and your Father, to my God and your God’ “τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν.” There is a distinction in the use of μου and ὑμῶν regarding the difference of the Father’s unique relationship by nature to His Son, and that by adoption to believers (cf. Heb. 2:11).
There is no such distinction as you assign to the words "my" and "your" ... the words are simple possessive pronouns with the same function etc.
See, God was Jesus' Father in the same way as He is the believers' Father in terms of oriental thinking and covenant relationship. In addition (!!), God was Jesus' Father in a "biological" sense, due to his conception in Mary being a miraculous act of God via His holy spirit power (which is not the case with the believers)Of most importance, believers are now Jesus’ true brothers (cf. Rom. 8:29) and share the same Father and God; this sonship of believers having come about through the resurrection of Jesus (cf. 1Pet. 1:3).
What do you mean with "believers are now Jesus' TRUE brothers"? In regard to which Father-Son relationship are Jesus and the believers true brother ... (a) covenant, or (b) biological ??
Jesus’ words here at v. 17 “τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν” are reminiscent of OT covenantal language (cf. Jer. 31:33; Lev. 26:12; Ezek. 36:28). ‘to my God and your God’ “καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν” (cf. Ruth 1:16 “καὶ ὁ θεός σου θεός μου·”).
Indeed ... now, please note, that this clearly indicates that Jesus himself therefore can not be part of or actually be that God, just as much as the believers are not that God.
To summarize, this text announces that the special relationship previously enjoyed only by the Father and Son is now bestowed on all who believe (cf. Jn. 1:12-13).
See above ... the bigger problem with your statement is that there is NO mention in Scripture of a "special relationship" between God and Jesus mentioned which they "previously enjoyed".
Second observation:
Why Jesus can say “θεόν μου” at v. 17b and not negate the Trinity – two points follow:See above .. Jesus' words very plainly negate the concept of the Holy Trinity as taught in most of Christian churches.
- God is “the God of all flesh” and all flesh is “under the law” (cf. Jer. 32:27; Gal. 4:4).
- Scripture says to worship God and obey God (cf. Ex. 23:25; Lev. 18:4).
Indeed ...
The person Jesus is flesh (cf. Ro. 1:3, 8:3; 1John 4:2) by way of a virgin birth (cf. Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:34-35) subject to God and His Law (cf. Jn. 6:38, 8:29), and it is through his obedience that the Law is fulfilled (cf. Matt. 5:17).
Indeed ...
Therefore, in Trinitarian theology the Father began relating to the Son as his God the moment the second person of the Trinity entered into the created order (cf. Phil. 2:7-8) taking on flesh "σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (cf. Jn. 1:14);
Assumptive conclusion based on disregard of what John 1:14 actually says ...
and it is for this reason that Jesus, both true man true God,
Not so ... NOWHERE in Scripture is there any indication or mention of anyone being "both true man true God". The true God is NOT a man at any time, and a human being (man) is NOT the true God.
can speak of the first person of the Trinity, the Father, as “θεόν μου”.
IF - as you claimed above - believers are TRUE brothers of Jesus, then it would follow that they also are "persons of the Trinity (perhaps the 4th, 5th, 6th etc etc etc person???)
In short, “θεόν μου” does not provide evidence against the Trinity;
Of course it does, and your attempt of somehow fiddling the Trinity into Jesus' own words is not only inappropriate but plain false.
rather, it demonstrates the humanity of the second person of the Trinity and the relationship of Father to Son after the Son’s incarnation.
You mentioned some very good and true points as long as you remained within the concepts and the boundaries of what Scripture actually does say ... However, you undid those the moment you switched from Scripture as base for your evaluation and interpretation to the Trinity dogma as your base for your arguments. When reading your post, it is clear that you give Scripture and the Trinity dogma (which is not mentioned in Scripture and only was formally accepted as a doctrine during the 4th century AD) the same level of credence and authority ...
The difference between you and me is that I do not do so, but that I regard Scripture as authority for truth due to divine inspiration, whereas later established church council doctrines are only man's ideas and thus not of the same authority.
-
While God is spoken of as the believers' father in John only in this instance, there are plenty other places in the other gospels and other NT writings where God is addressed as "Father" also in reference to the disciples, the believers ... for one, cp. how Jesus starts out his instruction to the disciples about how to pray "OUR Father, who are in heaven ..."
Therefore, trying to make a point from "John 20:17 is the one exception ... etc" is not really providing a valid point.The observations regarding John’s use of brothers and Father in Jn.20:17 are in fact correct, valid, and explicit as I have written them. For instance, within the Johannine corpus can you provide a text other than 20:17 where the disciples are called “ἀδελφούς μου“ by Jesus?
In your Matt. 6:9 example Jesus is teaching his disciples how to pray contrary to the examples he gives in the preceding verses. Jesus is thereby excluded from being included in “Πάτερ ἡμῶν” given his opening instruction “Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς·“ to his disciples. Moreover, this text (Matt. 6:9) is outside of John’s writing and completely misses what is observed in John’s gospel. Where, in John’s gospel, do you find the Father referenced as Father to believers apart from this reference in 20:17?
There is no such distinction as you assign to the words "my" and "your" ... the words are simple possessive pronouns with the same function etc.
See, God was Jesus' Father in the same way as He is the believers' Father in terms of oriental thinking and covenant relationship. In addition (!!), God was Jesus' Father in a "biological" sense, due to his conception in Mary being a miraculous act of God via His holy spirit power (which is not the case with the believers)You write there is no distinction implied in the text between μου and ὑμῶν; yet, you, yourself, make a distinction in the relationship of Father to Son and that of Father to believers.
IF - as you claimed above - believers are TRUE brothers of Jesus, then it would follow that they also are "persons of the Trinity (perhaps the 4th, 5th, 6th etc etc etc person???)
Are you arguing against some strain of Mormonism? You’re not thinking clearly – believers are brothers by adoption, nor does it follow that a believer by this adoption becomes a god.
The difference between you and me is that I do not do so, but that I regard Scripture as authority for truth due to divine inspiration, whereas later established church council doctrines are only man's ideas and thus not of the same authority.
The difference between us is not found in councils; but in our different conclusions derived from the text of Scripture which in turn drives theology.
-
@Pages said:
While God is spoken of as the believers' father in John only in this instance, there are plenty other places in the other gospels and other NT writings where God is addressed as "Father" also in reference to the disciples, the believers ... for one, cp. how Jesus starts out his instruction to the disciples about how to pray "OUR Father, who are in heaven ..."
Therefore, trying to make a point from "John 20:17 is the one exception ... etc" is not really providing a valid point.The observations regarding John’s use of brothers and Father in Jn.20:17 are in fact correct, valid, and explicit as I have written them. For instance, within the Johannine corpus can you provide a text other than 20:17 where the disciples are called “ἀδελφούς μου“ by Jesus?
The point is that God is NOT only called Father in reference to the believers in Joh 20:17 -- even though that is the only place in John -- but in other NT writings as well. Because of this truth, I don't think it to be a good idea to make a theology of the fact that in John only in this place the term is used in John. And especially so, since we are not talking about John's words as used in his narrative, but about Jesus' words as recorded by John. And Jesus himself spoke of God being the believers' heavenly Father in other places as well.
In your Matt. 6:9 example Jesus is teaching his disciples how to pray contrary to the examples he gives in the preceding verses. Jesus is thereby excluded from being included in “Πάτερ ἡμῶν” given his opening instruction “Οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς·“ to his disciples. Moreover, this text (Matt. 6:9) is outside of John’s writing and completely misses what is observed in John’s gospel. Where, in John’s gospel, do you find the Father referenced as Father to believers apart from this reference in 20:17?
See above ... in which gospel we find Jesus' speaking of God being also the believers' Father is irrelevant to the truth that Jesus did speak of God being the believers' heavenly Father.
There is no such distinction as you assign to the words "my" and "your" ... the words are simple possessive pronouns with the same function etc.
See, God was Jesus' Father in the same way as He is the believers' Father in terms of oriental thinking and covenant relationship. In addition (!!), God was Jesus' Father in a "biological" sense, due to his conception in Mary being a miraculous act of God via His holy spirit power (which is not the case with the believers)You write there is no distinction implied in the text between μου and ὑμῶν; yet, you, yourself, make a distinction in the relationship of Father to Son and that of Father to believers.
But the distinction has nothing to do with and is not based on the words "your" and "my" (!) as you seem to believe.
IF - as you claimed above - believers are TRUE brothers of Jesus, then it would follow that they also are "persons of the Trinity (perhaps the 4th, 5th, 6th etc etc etc person???)
Are you arguing against some strain of Mormonism?
Not that I am aware of .... Now, what about answering my question about what you meant with "believers are TRUE brothers of Jesus"?
You’re not thinking clearly – believers are brothers by adoption, nor does it follow that a believer by this adoption becomes a god.
For one, I would stick with arguments about the matter rather than personal accusations such as "you are not thinking clearly" ...
So then, since according to your above statement "believers are brothers by adoption" and they are "TRUE brothers" of Jesus, are you saying Jesus also was God's Son by adoption like the believers are ? If not, what do you mean with "TRUE brothers of Jesus"??The difference between you and me is that I do not do so, but that I regard Scripture as authority for truth due to divine inspiration, whereas later established church council doctrines are only man's ideas and thus not of the same authority.
The difference between us is not found in councils; but in our different conclusions derived from the text of Scripture which in turn drives theology.
Hmn ... what about the fact that you use Trinity based arguments to interpret Scripture when Scripture does not even mention what you claim? For example, ideas about a previous special relationship between God and Jesus prior to Jesus' conception and birth, etc. which is not found in Scripture but is an integral part of church council established Trinity dogma?
-
@Pages
in regards to Jesus having not only a Father above him, but also having a God, I'll point you to the following NT passages (the one from Eph 1 was already mentioned in the original post of this thread):2Cor 11:31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Eph 1:3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
1Pet 1:3
Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,I do think that these passages are plain and clear in teaching that the Lord Jesus Christ has a God above him, and this God is his Father and not the Lord Jesus Christ himself. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is the same true God, God and Father, of all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
-
@Pages
To add another interesting statement of Jesus recorded in John 17 to this topic of whom Jesus regarded to be his God and to whom he prayed, I suggest to observe carefully what Jesus stated in his prayer:Joh 17:3 (AV)
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
John 17:3 (NASB95)
“This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.To Whom was Jesus praying? V.1 states that he was praying to his Father in heaven. Is this a different Father from that Father Whom he mentions in Joh 20:17? Is this a different Father from that Father to Whom he instructed his disciples to pray?
According to Jesus' statement in Scripture (John 17:3), he regards this Father to be the ONLY ONE Who is true God ... Jesus leaves no room at all to include anyone else besides his Father as "true God". Also, this important truth that only the Father is true God, is stated in other NT writings as well (e.g., cp. several passages in Pauline epistles)
-
Therefore, in Trinitarian theology the Father began relating to the Son as his God the moment the second person of the Trinity entered into the created order (cf. Phil. 2:7-8) taking on flesh "σὰρξ ἐγένετο" (cf. Jn. 1:14); and it is for this reason that Jesus, both true man true God, can speak of the first person of the Trinity, the Father, as “θεόν μου”.
I appreciate your clarity and explanations. You have a keen grasp of the word and fine ability to articulate theology that is helpful to me. If you think it might be helpful for us, could you expand a little on the notion above?
