Page 32 of 34 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 338

Thread: John 20:28, My Lord and My God

  1. #311
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    211
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    John explicitly identifies the Word with Jesus in John 1:14 so your idiosyncratic interpretation doesn't work here.
    That's like saying the dust of the earth in Gen. 2:7 is "directly identified" with Adam. In John 1:14 "the Word made flesh" (i.e. the Word become a human being) is Jesus, "the Word" is NOT Jesus.

  2. #312
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3865
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitarian101 View Post
    That's like saying the dust of the earth in Gen. 2:7 is "directly identified" with Adam. In John 1:14 "the Word made flesh" (i.e. the Word become a human being) is Jesus, "the Word" is NOT Jesus.
    John 1:14 is saying the Word became (or was made) flesh, not "the Word made flesh". It's saying that the Word identified as divine being in John 1:1 became the human being known as Jesus. There's no need to force an awkward interpretation like you're trying to do unless you're trying to push some kind of unitarian theology that stands in direct opposition to the text itself.

  3. #313
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    211
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    John 1:14 is saying the Word became (or was made) flesh, not "the Word made flesh". It's saying that the Word identified as divine being in John 1:1 became the human being known as Jesus. There's no need to force an awkward interpretation like you're trying to do unless you're trying to push some kind of unitarian theology that stands in direct opposition to the text itself.
    Correct, "made flesh" (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) means "became a human being," σὰρξ is a synecdoche . So the verse is saying that "the Word became a human being," and this is the being who is called Jesus.

    The grammar (and context) of this verse discounts the Trinitarian interpretation.

  4. #314
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    211
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    John is using God in two different senses in John 1:1-2. When he writes "the Word was with God" in verse 1 he's using God as a name, or a title, for the Father. When he writes the Word was God he's using it to tell us what kind of nature the Word had. So he's saying that the Word has been with the Father from the very beginning, in eternity and that the Word was of the same divine nature as the Father.

    Scripture Verse: John 1:1-2 ESV, the parts in () are my own additions.


    1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father), and the Word was God (in nature). 2 He was in the beginning with God.

    © Copyright Original Source





    The fact remains that you have not demonstrated that Jesus cannot be God and be with God in John 1:1-2 without requiring two Gods.
    In John 20:28 is ὁ θεός "a name, or a title, for the Father" or is it "telling us what kind of nature the Word had" ?

  5. #315
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3865
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitarian101 View Post
    Correct, "made flesh" (σὰρξ ἐγένετο) means "became a human being," σὰρξ is a synecdoche . So the verse is saying that "the Word became a human being," and this is the being who is called Jesus.

    The grammar (and context) of this verse discounts the Trinitarian interpretation.
    The Word was clearly a personal being before becoming human though, and did not become another person after becoming human, so it is still proper to call Jesus the Word. The Trinitarian interpretation has absolutely no problems with this verse.

  6. #316
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3865
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitarian101 View Post
    In John 20:28 is ὁ θεός "a name, or a title, for the Father" or is it "telling us what kind of nature the Word had" ?
    It's both (except in this case it's a title for the Son). The title or designation of God is only properly attributed to someone who actually is divine, so calling someone God is the same thing as claiming that they have a divine nature.

  7. #317
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    211
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    It's both (except in this case it's a title for the Son). The title or designation of God is only properly attributed to someone who actually is divine, so calling someone God is the same thing as claiming that they have a divine nature.
    That's grammatically impossible.

  8. #318
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Faith
    Unorthodox
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    211
    Amen (Given)
    1
    Amen (Received)
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrawnus View Post
    The Word was clearly a personal being before becoming human though, and did not become another person after becoming human, so it is still proper to call Jesus the Word. The Trinitarian interpretation has absolutely no problems with this verse.
    If "the Word" was already a person, it would be nonsense to say that "he" became a person.

  9. #319
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3865
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitarian101 View Post
    If "the Word" was already a person, it would be nonsense to say that "he" became a person.
    But it doesn't say he became a person. It says he became flesh, or human.

  10. #320
    tWebber Chrawnus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,244
    Amen (Given)
    5381
    Amen (Received)
    3865
    Quote Originally Posted by Unitarian101 View Post
    That's grammatically impossible.
    Grammar has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •