When Did the Disciples FIRST Realize Jesus was Almighty God Himself?

[NonTrinitarian]

This is a real experience I personally had several years back in the ministry. I was going door to door and came across a Church of Christ minister. He quickly stopped my normal presentation and said that he did not agree with our belief that Jesus was not God. Here is the conversation at that point.

NT: Do you think Jesus' followers thought Jesus was God the first day they met him?
CC: No, of course not.
NT: So Jesus must have said or did something that made them think that he was God. Correct?
CC: Yes. He said and did a lot of things that told people he was God.
NT: So if we start from the beginning of Jesus' ministry, assuming no one thought he was God until then, when did people finally come to realize, "Hey! This man is Almighty God!"?
CC: I would say that happened at the transfiguration
NT: So at the transfiguration his disciples began understanding that he was God?
CC: Yes.
NT: Okay. Now if I remember correctly, Jesus was in a mountain with James, John and (I paused right here to see if he could fill it in)
CC: And Peter.
NT: Yes. And Peter. Thank you. Now Jesus begins glowing brightly and Moses and Elijah appear and there is a voice from heaven that said what?
CC: 'This is my Son, listen to him.'
NT: Yes. I think that was it too. So these three saw Jesus glow and heard a voice from heaven. Whose voice do you think they thought they were hearing?
CC: God's.
NT: I agree. So they heard this voice whom they thought was God's and this voice said of Jesus, 'This is my Son.' Now, after they heard that did they think Jesus was God or God's Son?
CC: (With this last question the whole demeanor of this minister changed to one of disappointment) Well, they thought he was God's Son. But there are other instances that made them think he was God.
NT: Yes, I'm aware of those. But I was looking for the first instance when they came to realize that Jesus is the Almighty standing in front of them. The transfiguration was a confirmation that he was God's Son, not God. So when did they realize Jesus was actually God himself?

At this point he cut off the conversation because he was fixing to leave. (And it did appear his family was leaving so I do believe he had to go). I came back two weeks later and he basically told me that he reviewed his college books and was firmly convinced Jesus was God and that he didn't want to debate it with me. I wished him well and left.

Now, why did I mention this account? Because it appears the minister never gave a thought as to HOW Jesus developed into God. I believe this is what MANY if not nearly all Trinitarians do. They begin with the a priori that Jesus is God and then 1.) Look for verses to support it and 2.) Determine how to explain away the ones that seem to suggest Jesus is not. Additionally, I get the impression that most Trinitarians think non-Trinitarians only have three or four verses that suggest Jesus is not God. But nothing could be further from the truth.

I don't believe many Trinitarians have actually gone through the Gospels and built their understanding of Jesus off of the text. They simply read the text off their understanding of Jesus. Today a Trinitarian reads Jesus' words of "The things I teach you are not mine but belong to Him that sent me...You will know whether I speak the things God taught me or if I speak of my own originality" and immediately say 'Well, Jesus was saying that God the Father sent him and that God the Father taught God the Son the things to say. Thus they were not God the Son's words, they were God the Father's words.' But is that what the people around him thought? Why would they not have simply concluded that Jesus was clearly saying he was not God? Unless they already held the highly complex doctrine of the Trinity, how could they have come to any other conclusion?

Thus, this is what I would like to know from Trinitarians: When did the disciples FIRST come to realize that the man they were standing next to was actually Almighty GOD?

[Ron Macy]

NonTrinitarian,


I don't believe many Trinitarians have actually gone through the Gospels and built their understanding of Jesus off of the text. They simply read the text off their understanding of Jesus.


I believe you are correct in your conclusion about the way trinitarians approach the scripture. I also believe your challenge to define exactly when the disciples first began to believe Jesus was God is valid.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Ron

[guacamole]

At some point between when they met Jesus and when they wrote their epistles and taught their own disciples they came to understand that Jesus was God. Perhaps it was when they saw him claim to be divine and then heal the paralytic "So that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sin"?

fwiw
guac.

[Amazing Rando]

Yep- and "who can forgive sins, but God alone!" Though the disciples, being slow to understand, perhaps didn't even get it until they'd seen him raised from the dead.

[NonTrinitarian]

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. It has been proposed that the act of forgiving sins was the turning point for when the disciples finally realized Jesus was ALMIGHTY GOD. Of course, we would expect an expression of astonishment from them but we’ll let that slide for now. Let’s look at the account of Jesus forgiving sins. It is first mentioned at Matthew 9. It is true that the religious leaders said “who can forgive sins but God?”

What is interesting is that Jesus nowhere confirms there opinion. In fact, in the account in Mark Jesus replies to them “Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?” Does this sound like Jesus is CONFIRMING their opinion? I don’t think so. In other words, the religious leaders made a comment about what THEY thought and Jesus didn’t say “Well this will prove to you that I am God”, he condemned them for their reasoning and said this:

“In order for you to know that the Son of MAN has authority on earth to forgive sins, I say to you ‘get up and walk’.” –Matt 9:6 Now note here that Jesus does in fact address their comment by saying that he was about to demonstrate to them that the “Son of Man” COULD forgive sins. And interestingly, Jesus didn’t even say “Son of God”, he said “Son of Man”, referring to his humanness. Was Jesus confirming their opinion that only God could forgive sins? No. He specifically referenced himself as a “man”. In other words, he was REFUTING them and their opinion. He was letting them know that God could give that “authority” to whomever he wants. Did the people understand this action by Jesus to mean that he was claiming to be God? No! Note what verse 8 says:


“At the site of this the crowds were struck with fear and they glorified God, who GAVE such authority TO MEN”

So the people who witnesses this did not draw the same conclusion Trinitarians did. They heard the religious leaders say only God could forgive sins and then believed Jesus just REFUTED such an opinion. And we KNOW the disciples didn’t draw the conclusion Jesus was God from this. How do we know? Let’s read further into Matthew. AFTER this account we see the following:


2 But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent by means of his own disciples 3 and said to him: “Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?”-Matt 11:2-3

Do we suppose John heard about this and still wondered if Jesus was God? No way! He’s not even totally convinced he is the Messiah, let alone God!


33 Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You are really God’s Son.”-Matt 14:33

The disciples didn’t acknowledge him as God. They called him God’s Son. Why the ambiguity? Was there some rule that said that the 1/3 of God who came to the earth could only be called God’s Son even though everyone knew he was God? Additionally, note that it is at THIS point that they are even convinced that he is God’s SON! So much for saying they thought he was God when he forgave sins!


Jesus went asking his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·li´jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “YOU, though, who do YOU say I am?” 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.-Matt 16”14-16

It doesn’t appear anyone else drew the conclusion that Jesus was God because he forgave sins. Even his disciples only drew the conclusion he was God’s Son. Why not just call him “God” if they thought he was THE ALMIGHTY GOD? So how are Trinitarians concluding Jesus is God when apparently no one back then did as of yet?


While he was yet speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! a voice out of the cloud, saying: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him.” 6 At hearing this the disciples fell upon their faces and became very much afraid-Matt 17:5,6

Why the fear? If they really thought Jesus was ALMIGHTY GOD standing in front of them, why be afraid when they heard the voice from heaven? Is it not obvious they associated the voice in heaven with someone more powerful than Jesus? (And note they couldn’t quote Phil 2:5 and say Jesus gave up some of his Godship when he came to the earth as a man)


As for the crowds, those going ahead of him and those following kept crying out: “Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!” 10 Now when he entered into Jerusalem, the whole city was set in commotion, saying: “Who is this?” 11 The crowds kept telling: “This is the prophet Jesus, from Naz´a·reth of Gal´i·lee-Matt 21:9-11

Doesn’t appear these people thought Jesus was God. They said he was a prophet who came in God’s Name. I guess none of the people heard about Jesus forgiving sins.

But there is even MORE proof this didn’t convince his disciples that he was God. After the parallel account in Mark chapter 2, we find these accounts:


But they felt an unusual fear, and they would say to one another: “Who really is this, because even the wind and the sea obey him?”-Mark 4:41

Note here that this is after the account of Jesus forgiving sins and yet the disciples are puzzled at how Jesus can even control the weather. So much for saying they thought he was God because he forgave sins.

Additionally, how does seeing Jesus raised from the dead make people think he was God? There are numerous other experiences of persons being raised from the dead and no one thought THEY were God,

So let’s take another shot at this. When did the disciples finally come to realize Jesus was THE ALMIGHTY GOD standing in front of them?

[reasonabledoubt]

I've often wondered why Jesus never explicitly said, "I am God." Why didn't he do that? If it was so important to believe he was, why not make it so clear that there could be no possible other explanation? Especially knowing that his mission was to the Jews, who more than any other sect believed that God was one, that he could not be even looked upon by any human, etc.

[NonTrinitarian]

I've often wondered why Jesus never explicitly said, "I am God." Why didn't he do that? If it was so important to believe he was, why not make it so clear that there could be no possible other explanation? Especially knowing that his mission was to the Jews, who more than any other sect believed that God was one, that he could not be even looked upon by any human, etc. That's a good question and far more logical than the often retorted Trinitarian question of "Why didn't Jesus ever deny being God?" Such a question borders on being idiotic. I don't go around telling people I'm not God. Do you? The prophets didn't go around telling people they weren't God. What would you do if someone walked up to you and said 'Hey, just wanted to let you know that I am not God'?

"Wow. Thanks for clarifying that buddy. If you hadn't of told me that I would have concluded you were. Especially after you just said God sent you."

Furthermore, even if Jesus had said that it probably wouldn't convince them that he wasn't God. The likely response would be either:
1) Well of course he wasn't "God" because he had to give up some of his godship when he came to Earth as a man. So he was speaking in his "human" nature and from that viewpoint he was not "God". But this doesn't mean he is not God in his divine nature

or

2) When Jesus said he was not "God" he meant he was not "God the Father." He is still "God the Son."

But anyway, back to the topic of the thread.

[guacamole]

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. It has been proposed that the act of forgiving sins was the turning point for when the disciples finally realized Jesus was ALMIGHTY GOD. Of course, we would expect an expression of astonishment from them but we’ll let that slide for now. Let’s look at the account of Jesus forgiving sins. It is first mentioned at Matthew 9. It is true that the religious leaders said “who can forgive sins but God?”

So far so good....


What is interesting is that Jesus nowhere confirms there opinion. In fact, in the account in Mark Jesus replies to them “Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?” Does this sound like Jesus is CONFIRMING their opinion? I don’t think so. In other words, the religious leaders made a comment about what THEY thought and Jesus didn’t say “Well this will prove to you that I am God”, he condemned them for their reasoning and said this:
Now note here that Jesus does in fact address their comment by saying that he was about to demonstrate to them that the “Son of Man” COULD forgive sins. And interestingly, Jesus didn’t even say “Son of God”, he said “Son of Man”, referring to his humanness. Was Jesus confirming their opinion that only God could forgive sins? No. He specifically referenced himself as a “man”. In other words, he was REFUTING them and their opinion. He was letting them know that God could give that “authority” to whomever he wants. Did the people understand this action by Jesus to mean that he was claiming to be God? No! Note what verse 8 says:



So the people who witnesses this did not draw the same conclusion Trinitarians did. They heard the religious leaders say only God could forgive sins and then believed Jesus just REFUTED such an opinion. And we KNOW the disciples didn’t draw the conclusion Jesus was God from this. How do we know? Let’s read further into Matthew. AFTER this account we see the following:



This is where I think you are in error. IF, as you argue, Jesus was arguing that God gives authority to mankind to forgive sin, then that teaching would have echoed elsewhere in the NT. That teaching is not echoed anywhere else in the NT. Every where else only God forgives sin. We can forgive each other but the sin debt remains. If your interpretation is correct then that verse conflicts with the rest of the NT.

It seems far more likely, in light of that, the observers got it wrong. That's the problem with such paired statements. It's not only about giving a person (or men) the ability to forgive sin, but to also have power over disease and infirmity. If God did give such authority to men, then he would also give them authority to say to those who are paralyzed, get up and walk. But he hasn't done so. You just can't pick the first half of a parallel passage and forget the second half. If you can't say to someone who is paralyzed, take up your mat and walk, then you can't say to them "Your sins are forgiven".

Parallelism defeats you on other fronts. There are many epithets Jesus refers to himself with. Two are key and used frequently. "Son of Man" and "Son of God". Your assertion is that by calling himself "Son of Man" then it means that he is a man. If he means that he is a man by calling himself "Son of Man", then logically he means that he is God (or a god) by calling himself "Son of God". Again, you can't pick and choose.

No matter how you slice it, it just don't cut.


Do we suppose John heard about this and still wondered if Jesus was God? No way! He’s not even totally convinced he is the Messiah, let alone God!


That's totally a different argument. Being God and being the Christ, at this point in the story, may or may not mean the same thing. They are not mutually identical roles yet in the minds of the hearer.


The disciples didn’t acknowledge him as God. They called him God’s Son. Why the ambiguity? Was there some rule that said that the 1/3 of God who came to the earth could only be called God’s Son even though everyone knew he was God? Additionally, note that it is at THIS point that they are even convinced that he is God’s SON! So much for saying they thought he was God when he forgave sins!


They may not know that he is yet God. True enough. However by the time the first chapter in John is penned, they know enough to have created a hymn that the writer can reference.

So let’s take another shot at this. When did the disciples finally come to realize Jesus was THE ALMIGHTY GOD standing in front of them?

At some point between the events in the gospels the writing of their own works.

fwiw
guac.

[NonTrinitarian]

This is where I think you are in error. IF, as you argue, Jesus was arguing that God gives authority to mankind to forgive sin, then that teaching would have echoed elsewhere in the NT. That teaching is not echoed anywhere else in the NT. Every where else only God forgives sin. We can forgive each other but the sin debt remains. If your interpretation is correct then that verse conflicts with the rest of the NT. So you are basically siding with the religious leaders on this one, huh? By doing such you have taken a stand against Jesus. Note the account. It was mentioned last time but you didn’t deal with it so I’m hoping you will this time:


he said to the paralytic: “Child, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now there were some of the scribes there, sitting and reasoning in their hearts: 7 “Why is this man talking in this manner? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?” 8 But Jesus, having discerned immediately by his spirit that they were reasoning that way in themselves, said to them: “Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and pick up your cot and walk’? 10 But in order for you men to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth,”—he said to the paralytic: 11 “I say to you, Get up, pick up your cot, and go to your home

We see here several points. First, the Jews DO NOT accuse Jesus of being God or even accuse him of claiming to be God. They simply believe he is a man who claims to be able to do what supposedly only God can do. Jesus then condemns them for their reasoning. Now what is Jesus condemning? There are only two things he could condemn. 1.) That they don’t think he is God or 2.) That only God can forgive sins. There is nothing else Jesus can condemn them on. What does Jesus’ reply show as to which one of these things he is condemning? He said that they will now know that the “son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth.”

Now which of the two possible points is Jesus addressing by his answer? If he was condemning them for not believing he was God we would have to first of all ask why? Why SHOULD these men think Jesus is God at this point in time? What has Jesus done BEFORE this point that should have told them he was God? Nothing according to the base argument here because this is supposedly the first time people would have known Jesus was God and thus Jesus could hardly be condemning them for not knowing he is God as, according to your argument, NO ONE knew he was God up until this point in time! Furthermore, IF Jesus was condemning them for not believing he is God he would have said something different than what he did say? He would have said something along the lines of ‘now you will know that I am God and that’s why I can forgive sins.’ He didn’t even come close to saying that.

The only other option is to condemn their reasoning that “only God can forgive sins.” This is to be condemned namely because it doesn’t take into account that only God can do ANYTHING unless he grants people the authority to do certain things. Look at Jesus’ reply. He doesn’t say ‘now you will know I am God’, he says they will “know that the Son of Man as the authority to forgive sins.” He doesn’t take it upon himself to say he is God and that’s why he can forgive sins, he simply states that he has the authority.

Now, how did the people who heard this understand Jesus’ words? Did they think he was addressing the religious leaders mistaken viewpoint that Jesus wasn’t God or did they think Jesus was addressing the point that “only God can forgive sins”? Their reply is crystal clear:

At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.

Now, you make the comment:

IF, as you argue, Jesus was arguing that God gives authority to mankind to forgive sin, then that teaching would have echoed elsewhere in the NT. That teaching is not echoed anywhere else in the NT. Every where else only God forgives sin
you then state:

Of course this argument is flat out wrong because arguments from silence are not valid. But, I’ll let that slide because the premise of your argument is wrong. This teaching IS echoed in the NT

And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. 23 If YOU forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any persons, they stand retained-John 20:22

This verse clearly answers your argument. These men were given the authority to forgive sins when Jesus blew holy spirit on them. Note that point. When they had God’s Spirit on them they had the ability to pronounce forgiveness of sins (or refuse it) and they would be forgiven them or stand retained. So if these imperfect humans can be given that authority then what’s your argument for God not being able to give that authority to Jesus.

Regarding the crowd and what they thought you said,
It seems far more likely, in light of that, the observers got it wrong. That's the problem with such paired statements. It's not only about giving a person (or men) the ability to forgive sin, but to also have power over disease and infirmity. If God did give such authority to men, then he would also give them authority to say to those who are paralyzed, get up and walk. But he hasn't done so. You just can't pick the first half of a parallel passage and forget the second half. If you can't say to someone who is paralyzed, take up your mat and walk, then you can't say to them "Your sins are forgiven". So it seems likely to you that the honest hearted ones who praised God and believed in Jesus misunderstood Jesus but that the religious leaders didn’t? You side with the religious leaders rather than Jesus’ followers? And note that Matthew, the writer of this Gospel, doesn’t narrate in the Gospel here that Jesus was God and that the people misunderstood Jesus.

Also, God DID give humans the authority to tell a paralyzed man to get up and walk! You say “he hasn’t done so” but I direct you to this verse:

Now Peter and John were going up into the temple for the hour of prayer, the ninth hour, 2 and a certain man that was lame from his mother’s womb was being carried, and they would daily put him near the temple door that was called Beautiful, in order to ask gifts of mercy from those entering into the temple. 3 When he caught sight of Peter and John about to go into the temple he began requesting to get gifts of mercy. 4 But Peter, together with John, gazed at him and said: “Take a look at us.” 5 So he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to get something from them. 6 However, Peter said: “Silver and gold I do not possess, but what I do have is what I give you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·rene´, walk!” 7 With that he took hold of him by the right hand and raised him up. Instantly the soles of his feet and his anklebones were made firm; 8 and, leaping up, he stood up and began walking, and he entered with them into the temple, walking and leaping and praising God. 9 And all the people got sight of him walking and praising God.- Acts 3:1-9

Here Peter and John were obviously given the authority to heal a paralyzed man. And thus, according to your own argument, they could then forgive the man of sins. Which is obvious from John 20:22

You said,



Parallelism defeats you on other fronts. There are many epithets Jesus refers to himself with. Two are key and used frequently. "Son of Man" and "Son of God". Your assertion is that by calling himself "Son of Man" then it means that he is a man. If he means that he is a man by calling himself "Son of Man", then logically he means that he is God (or a god) by calling himself "Son of God". Again, you can't pick and choose.

No matter how you slice it, it just don't cut.

I think we’ve seen how you have sliced it and we’re not impressed. I’m not picking and choosing. I do believe Jesus being the “Son of God” is a god and being a “son of man” makes him a man. But he is a DIFFERENT man from another man. Do you want to say he is a different God from God? My point is that Jesus could have been addressing only one of two points when he condemned the Jews reasoning. He could have condemned them for not believing he was God at that point in time (he could have condemned his followers for that too) or for not acknowledging that God can grant the authority to forgive sins. By calling himself “son of Man” rather than “God” Jesus was obviously not condemning them for not thinking he was God.

NT said
Do we suppose John heard about this and still wondered if Jesus was God? No way! He’s not even totally convinced he is the Messiah, let alone God!

You replied,

That's totally a different argument. Being God and being the Christ, at this point in the story, may or may not mean the same thing. They are not mutually identical roles yet in the minds of the hearer. This rebuttal doesn’t even make sense. Are you telling me that John thought Jesus was THE ALMIGHTY GOD but was wondering whether someone else was going to come OTHER than ALMIGHTY GOD to be the savior of the Jews? Is that what you are saying that John was thinking? If so I don’t know what to say to you because it should be obvious to all that John doesn’t think Jesus is God from this verse!

NT said,
The disciples didn’t acknowledge him as God. They called him God’s Son. Why the ambiguity? Was there some rule that said that the 1/3 of God who came to the earth could only be called God’s Son even though everyone knew he was God? Additionally, note that it is at THIS point that they are even convinced that he is God’s SON! So much for saying they thought he was God when he forgave sins!

you replied,

They may not know that he is yet God. True enough. However by the time the first chapter in John is penned, they know enough to have created a hymn that the writer can reference. This is a copout argument and is basically a side step of the whole issue. Are you telling me that it was while he was on earth but that this MOMENTOUS event when the finally realized ALMIGHTY GOD WAS STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM wasn’t recorded? That of all of the teachings of Christ, THE most profound teaching of all, that he is ALMIGHTY GOD was not recorded for us? Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John thought of mentioning the event that would have struck them with awe???!!! (I don’t know if I should put a question mark here are two lines of exclamation points!)

NT said
So let’s take another shot at this. When did the disciples finally come to realize Jesus was THE ALMIGHTY GOD standing in front of them?



you said

At some point between the events in the gospels the writing of their own works.

fwiw
guac.
And thus, you apparently don’t want to answer. I understand why. Believe me. I used to be a Trinitarian. It is a frustrating question. But it is patently obvious that the people NOR the disciples thought Jesus was God after he forgave sins.

[guacamole]

First off, since I didn't mention it last time. You were right. They didn't recognize Jesus was God, though I believe he was telling them that in no uncertain terms. Pearls too...


[/QUOTE=guacamole]This is where I think you are in error. IF, as you argue, Jesus was arguing that God gives authority to mankind to forgive sin, then that teaching would have echoed elsewhere in the NT. That teaching is not echoed anywhere else in the NT. Every where else only God forgives sin. We can forgive each other but the sin debt remains. If your interpretation is correct then that verse conflicts with the rest of the NT.

So you are basically siding with the religious leaders on this one, huh? By doing such you have taken a stand against Jesus. [/QUOTE]

Not quite sure how you think that I am coming down on the side of the religious leaders since my argument doesn't focus on them. You still haven't dealt with my argument that if Jesus was meaning that men had the authority on earth to forgive sin that it would be echoed elsewhere in the NT. I was under the impression that you considered the rest of the NT to still be authoritative. Is this not the case?



We see here several points. First, the Jews DO NOT accuse Jesus of being God or even accuse him of claiming to be God. They simply believe he is a man who claims to be able to do what supposedly only God can do. Jesus then condemns them for their reasoning. Now what is Jesus condemning? There are only two things he could condemn. 1.) That they don’t think he is God or 2.) That only God can forgive sins. There is nothing else Jesus can condemn them on. What does Jesus’ reply show as to which one of these things he is condemning? He said that they will now know that the “son of man has authority to forgive sins upon the earth.”


I don't know. It might just be me, but someone who is claiming to be able to do something that is a defining characteristic of God is claiming to be God.

Jesus is saying, I can do something that is a defining charactersitic of who God is. To show you that I can do, I will do something else which men also cannot do.



Now which of the two possible points is Jesus addressing by his answer? If he was condemning them for not believing he was God we would have to first of all ask why? Why SHOULD these men think Jesus is God at this point in time? What has Jesus done BEFORE this point that should have told them he was God? Nothing according to the base argument here because this is supposedly the first time people would have known Jesus was God and thus Jesus could hardly be condemning them for not knowing he is God as, according to your argument, NO ONE knew he was God up until this point in time! Furthermore, IF Jesus was condemning them for not believing he is God he would have said something different than what he did say? He would have said something along the lines of ‘now you will know that I am God and that’s why I can forgive sins.’ He didn’t even come close to saying that.


Actually, as I've already noted in this thread, I don't think the disciples recognized that he was God at this point. That doesn't mean that he didn't do anything prior that should make people think he was God (and that wasn't even implied in my arguement, don't quite know how you made that leap). It is obvious that Jesus is still teaching them, not condemning them (you're reading an intention into the verses that isn't there) knowing that they are astounded at his blasphemy, and going to give them an object lesson on that supposed blasphemy.

Just like you note that he doesn't say "now you will know that I am God and that's why I can forgive sins", he also doesn't say what you want him to say either, "now you will know that God has given me the authority to forgive sins." As you are wont to argue, if that was what he meant, why didn't he just say it? He doesn't just say it.


The only other option is to condemn their reasoning that “only God can forgive sins.” This is to be condemned namely because it doesn’t take into account that only God can do ANYTHING unless he grants people the authority to do certain things. Look at Jesus’ reply. He doesn’t say ‘now you will know I am God’, he says they will “know that the Son of Man as the authority to forgive sins.” He doesn’t take it upon himself to say he is God and that’s why he can forgive sins, he simply states that he has the authority.


Again, if that was what he wanted to say, why wouldn't he say it. Why would he say something like "The forgiveness of sin is not divine prerogative only" or something like that. He doesn't.


Now, how did the people who heard this understand Jesus’ words? Did they think he was addressing the religious leaders mistaken viewpoint that Jesus wasn’t God or did they think Jesus was addressing the point that “only God can forgive sins”? Their reply is crystal clear:

[/font]

Now, you make the comment:



Of course this argument is flat out wrong because arguments from silence are not valid.


Au contraire. The point is that no other scripture supports the contention that men have the authority to forgive sin, which is what you are arguing Jesus means as the logical outworking of your point that the leaders are somehow right in thinking that Jesus means that mankind can forgive sins, when they were mistaken in the first place. That's the difference. Somehow some of Jesus' teachings were important enough that they were echoed in Paul, Peter, James and John. The doctrine that mankind can forgive sins is not among those.


But, I’ll let that slide because the premise of your argument is wrong. This teaching IS echoed in the NT


This verse clearly answers your argument. These men were given the authority to forgive sins when Jesus blew holy spirit on them. Note that point. When they had God’s Spirit on them they had the ability to pronounce forgiveness of sins (or refuse it) and they would be forgiven them or stand retained. So if these imperfect humans can be given that authority then what’s your argument for God not being able to give that authority to Jesus.


I was hoping you would bring that up. Let's examine it: Is the teaching here that men can forgive sins, or is the teaching here that Christ has the authority to appoint his representatives? Have they always had the authority to forgive sin? No they just have it now that Christ has given it to them. If Christ is giving his disciples the ability to absolve the sins of men, is he giving that authority to all believers or just the twelve? There's no evidence here that he means that he is giving it all believers. As you are likely to argue, if that's what he means, that men can forgive sins, then why doesn't he just say that.

Secondly, my argument is not that God is not able to give that authority. On the basis of John 20 he can give that authority, but only God can bestow that authority. Again Jesus is doing something that is divine prerogative. Jesus can do it because he is God. God doesn't bestow the ability to forgive sin on Jesus because Jesus is God. That's my argument, not that God cannot give the authority to Jesus. Remember, I do think he is divine.


Regarding the crowd and what they thought you said,
So it seems likely to you that the honest hearted ones who praised God and believed in Jesus misunderstood Jesus but that the religious leaders didn’t? You side with the religious leaders rather than Jesus’ followers? And note that Matthew, the writer of this Gospel, doesn’t narrate in the Gospel here that Jesus was God and that the people misunderstood Jesus.

Also, God DID give humans the authority to tell a paralyzed man to get up and walk! You say “he hasn’t done so” but I direct you to this verse:

[/font]

Here Peter and John were obviously given the authority to heal a paralyzed man. And thus, according to your own argument, they could then forgive the man of sins. Which is obvious from John 20:22


Again, if all men have the authority to forgive sin and tell paralytics to take up their mat and walk then why aren't you doing that? I tell you why, because it's not the case that you have either the authority to forgive sins or heal the lame given to you by God like the twelve had. It is the exception that anyone other than God can do those things. We know this precisely because the crowd is stunned by Jesus' blasphemy and his demonstration of authority.


I think we’ve seen how you have sliced it and we’re not impressed. I’m not picking and choosing. I do believe Jesus being the “Son of God” is a god and being a “son of man” makes him a man. But he is a DIFFERENT man from another man. Do you want to say he is a different God from God? My point is that Jesus could have been addressing only one of two points when he condemned the Jews reasoning. He could have condemned them for not believing he was God at that point in time (he could have condemned his followers for that too) or for not acknowledging that God can grant the authority to forgive sins. By calling himself “son of Man” rather than “God” Jesus was obviously not condemning them for not thinking he was God.


So you're a polytheist then? I hadn't realized that you believed in more than one God. It is strange then that you argue most vociferously that Jesus is not God, but a god, and that the passage demonstrates that he is not God at all but a man, even though, if I follow you plainly, he is a god. In which case if, as you say, God bestowed the authority to forgive sins on Jesus, he did not do so upon a mere man, but upon a god. It seems to me you have refuted yourself.


This rebuttal doesn’t even make sense. Are you telling me that John thought Jesus was THE ALMIGHTY GOD but was wondering whether someone else was going to come OTHER than ALMIGHTY GOD to be the savior of the Jews? Is that what you are saying that John was thinking? If so I don’t know what to say to you because it should be obvious to all that John doesn’t think Jesus is God from this verse!


No, I'm saying that you're linking of the two is nonsensical. Wether or not they've figured out that he is the messiah is irrelevant to wether or not they've figured out that he is God.


This is a copout argument and is basically a side step of the whole issue. Are you telling me that it was while he was on earth but that this MOMENTOUS event when the finally realized ALMIGHTY GOD WAS STANDING RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM wasn’t recorded? That of all of the teachings of Christ, THE most profound teaching of all, that he is ALMIGHTY GOD was not recorded for us? Neither Matthew, Mark, Luke or John thought of mentioning the event that would have struck them with awe???!!! (I don’t know if I should put a question mark here are two lines of exclamation points!)


A copout? Jeez, lad, I was, upon reflection admitting that you were right that at this point they still didn't recognize that he was God. If that's a copout to admit that you are right, then by all means, I won't do it anymore.

I subsequently revised my position.


And thus, you apparently don’t want to answer. I understand why. Believe me. I used to be a Trinitarian. It is a frustrating question. But it is patently obvious that the people NOR the disciples thought Jesus was God after he forgave sins.

Please. Condescending insults and backhanded comments don't constitute a fruitful discussion. If that's the way you want to proceed, by all means, but I won't be a part of it. Don't presume you understand any of my motivations. Keep it polite or we can end it, okay?

fwiw
guac.

[NonTrinitarian]

Your first few replies had to do with forgiving sins be a prerogative of God and since we address this at John 20:22, I am jumping to here:

Actually, as I've already noted in this thread, I don't think the disciples recognized that he was God at this point. That doesn't mean that he didn't do anything prior that should make people think he was God (and that wasn't even implied in my arguement, don't quite know how you made that leap). Since this whole thread is about what Jesus first said or did to make people think he was God, the leap there was obvious. I assumed you were discussing this thread to demonstrate that was at the forgiveness of sins. Obviously you are not and so really this is a dead post. I am not here to debate whether forgiving sins is a divine prerogative but I will make this one last post on this point. If you think Jesus did something else before forgiving sins that made people think he was God, please post.

It is obvious that Jesus is still teaching them, not condemning them (you're reading an intention into the verses that isn't there) knowing that they are astounded at his blasphemy, and going to give them an object lesson on that supposed blasphemy. Jesus asked them why they were “reasoning” a certain way in their hearts. He may not have been “condemining” them but he was definitely refuting their “reasoning”. They could only have been reasoning on one of two things that they were wrong on.

1.)Jesus is God and they reasoned that he wasn’t. But as I showed in the last post, it would have been ridiculous for Jesus to condemn them for not thinking he is God. Up to this point he hadn’t done anything to make people think he was God (unless you have a proposal)

2.)The only other reasoning Jesus could have condemned them on was their belief that only God can forgive sins.

Which point does Jesus’ reply seem to point to? Well, the people who were there saw it as if Jesus was addressing point 2, not point 1. That is no minor point.

Just like you note that he doesn't say "now you will know that I am God and that's why I can forgive sins", he also doesn't say what you want him to say either, "now you will know that God has given me the authority to forgive sins." As you are wont to argue, if that was what he meant, why didn't he just say it? He doesn't just say it. But who has the stronger position? No one thought he was God in the first place. No one even considered him as claiming to be God. Even the religious leaders didn’t accuse him of being God or even claiming to be God. They accused him of being a “man” who was trying to do what they thought only God could do. So why on earth would Jesus have to clarify that God gave him that authority? He didn’t as it was patently obvious that God had to give him that authority! And to prove my point we note that he didn’t say God gave him this authority and yet that is EXACTLY how everyone understood him. All of the evidence is pointing to the fact that Jesus was saying God gave him that authority. 1.) He wouldn’t challenge their reasoning for not automatically thinking he was God 2.) He specifically said he was a “man” who had that authority and 3.) the crowds felt “God gave such authority” to Jesus.

Again, if that was what he wanted to say, why wouldn't he say it. Why would he say something like "The forgiveness of sin is not divine prerogative only" or something like that. He doesn't. He didn’t because no one thought he was claiming to be God and so there was no confusion. There was no reason to specifically say God is te one who gave him that power. Everyone already knew that. When he said he had authority the crowds and Matthew immediately knew the answer to the Jew’s challenge that God could grant authority to others.

Au contraire. The point is that no other scripture supports the contention that men have the authority to forgive sin, which is what you are arguing Jesus means as the logical outworking of your point that the leaders are somehow right in thinking that Jesus means that mankind can forgive sins, when they were mistaken in the first place. That's the difference. Somehow some of Jesus' teachings were important enough that they were echoed in Paul, Peter, James and John. The doctrine that mankind can forgive sins is not among those. This is a straw man argument because I never said “mankind” has the authority to forgive sins. I said that God CAN and DOES grant SOME people the authority. And IF Peter and John can forgive sins then he can certainly grant Jesus the same authority. And IF God does grant some men authority then the religious leaders were wrong when they accused Jesus of blasphemy. And thus the whole argument that “only God can forgive sins” is patently in error.


I was hoping you would bring that up. Let's examine it: Is the teaching here that men can forgive sins, or is the teaching here that Christ has the authority to appoint his representatives? Have they always had the authority to forgive sin? No they just have it now that Christ has given it to them. If Christ is giving his disciples the ability to absolve the sins of men, is he giving that authority to all believers or just the twelve? There's no evidence here that he means that he is giving it all believers. As you are likely to argue, if that's what he means, that men can forgive sins, then why doesn't he just say that. Go back and read my post. When I quoted John 20:22 I specifically said that “these men” (IE, the apostles) were granted authority. How did you read into that statement that I said all men can forgive sins? And it’s irrelivent to your argument anyway. We have at least 11 (not 12 because Judas was dead) men who has been given that authority but it only takes ONE to disprove the statement that only God can forgive sins and so if Jesus forgave sins he must be God.

Secondly, my argument is not that God is not able to give that authority. On the basis of John 20 he can give that authority, but only God can bestow that authority. Again Jesus is doing something that is divine prerogative. Jesus can do it because he is God. God doesn't bestow the ability to forgive sin on Jesus because Jesus is God. That's my argument, not that God cannot give the authority to Jesus. Remember, I do think he is divine. Jesus said after his resurrection “All authority in heaven and earth has been GIVEN to me” (Keep the “given” part in mind). Thus, if Jesus has this authority then he can give it to others. Thus, you are correct in one sense that “only God can bestow that authority” so kindly not forget it when you see the many scriptures that show that God gave Jesus his authority. And then Jesus gave some to his 11 apostles. And these many scriptures that specifically state that God “gave” Jesus his authority is an out and out conflict with your statement that “God cannot give the authority to Jesus.”

Again, if all men have the authority to forgive sin and tell paralytics to take up their mat and walk then why aren't you doing that? I tell you why, because it's not the case that you have either the authority to forgive sins or heal the lame given to you by God like the twelve had. It is the exception that anyone other than God can do those things. We know this precisely because the crowd is stunned by Jesus' blasphemy and his demonstration of authority. Again, a straw man argument that doesn’t even help your case if it wasn’t a straw man argument. I never said all men have that authority and it only takes one (though it was granted to at least 11) to disprove your whole theory.

So you're a polytheist then? I hadn't realized that you believed in more than one God. It is strange then that you argue most vociferously that Jesus is not God, but a god, and that the passage demonstrates that he is not God at all but a man, even though, if I follow you plainly, he is a god. In which case if, as you say, God bestowed the authority to forgive sins on Jesus, he did not do so upon a mere man, but upon a god. It seems to me you have refuted yourself. I seldom refute myself. Only when people make stuff up or do poor research does that happen and this isn’t a case where I have done poor research. I am a monotheist in that I believe there is only one True God. Jesus and others are called “gods” due to being a representative of God. They are not true Gods by nature.

I said,

“This rebuttal doesn’t even make sense. Are you telling me that John thought Jesus was THE ALMIGHTY GOD but was wondering whether someone else was going to come OTHER than ALMIGHTY GOD to be the savior of the Jews? Is that what you are saying that John was thinking? If so I don’t know what to say to you because it should be obvious to all that John doesn’t think Jesus is God from this verse! You replied,
”No, I'm saying that you're linking of the two is nonsensical. Wether or not they've figured out that he is the messiah is irrelevant to wether or not they've figured out that he is God. And all I’m asking is to just pause and think about this for a moment. Don’t get hypothetical on me. Go read the verse and ask yourself after reading it whether you really think John thought Jesus was God Almighty but wanted to know if he was really the one to come or if another was coming. I think it is obvious to us all that John did not think he was God at this point in time.

Please. Condescending insults and backhanded comments don't constitute a fruitful discussion. If that's the way you want to proceed, by all means, but I won't be a part of it. Don't presume you understand any of my motivations. Keep it polite or we can end it, okay?

fwiw
guac. I apologize if I attacked you. The point of this thread is to determine what instance made the disciples think Jesus is God. It is obviously not the account of forgiving sins so let’s move on.

[NonTrinitarian]

Bump...
Any takers?

[guacamole]

Sorry about the delay, I was away for the weekend. I'm slowly getting back around to all my threads as work permits.


Since this whole thread is about what Jesus first said or did to make people think he was God, the leap there was obvious. I assumed you were discussing this thread to demonstrate that was at the forgiveness of sins. Obviously you are not and so really this is a dead post. I am not here to debate whether forgiving sins is a divine prerogative but I will make this one last post on this point. If you think Jesus did something else before forgiving sins that made people think he was God, please post.


That's an interesting point. If the disciples don't think that Jesus is God yet, he may not have done anything that gave them that impression. They came around to that point at some time, thought that isn't recorded in scripture. There were other things that he said and did that might have given them some inkling as they put together the clues. I don't know that your question can be answered as it is stated, fwiw.


Jesus asked them why they were “reasoning” a certain way in their hearts. He may not have been “condemining” them but he was definitely refuting their “reasoning”. They could only have been reasoning on one of two things that they were wrong on.

1.)Jesus is God and they reasoned that he wasn’t. But as I showed in the last post, it would have been ridiculous for Jesus to condemn them for not thinking he is God. Up to this point he hadn’t done anything to make people think he was God (unless you have a proposal)

2.)The only other reasoning Jesus could have condemned them on was their belief that only God can forgive sins.

Which point does Jesus’ reply seem to point to? Well, the people who were there saw it as if Jesus was addressing point 2, not point 1. That is no minor point.

There's still no reason to conclude that Jesus is comdemning them. But lets assume that for the moment it is the case. You say that he isn't comdemning them not for believing he is God since they as yet had no reason to believe such a thing(becuase either their isn't evidence or they haven't put it together yet). If he wouldn't be condemning them on account of such flimsy justification for his own deity, then why would he similarly condemn them for something that was a novel teaching without any basis prior to his actions? IOW, would he condemn them for something else they shouldn't have thought to begin with?

Which point is he addressing? He is addressing the issue of wether or not he can forgive sins. That is the issue. The fact that he's blaspheming should give us some inkling of his claim.


But who has the stronger position? No one thought he was God in the first place. No one even considered him as claiming to be God. Even the religious leaders didn’t accuse him of being God or even claiming to be God. They accused him of being a “man” who was trying to do what they thought only God could do.

So, therefore if they thought that he was a man claiming to do only what God could do then they thought he was trying to claim he was God. Blasphemy pure and simple.


So why on earth would Jesus have to clarify that God gave him that authority? He didn’t as it was patently obvious that God had to give him that authority! And to prove my point we note that he didn’t say God gave him this authority and yet that is EXACTLY how everyone understood him. All of the evidence is pointing to the fact that Jesus was saying God gave him that authority.

All the evidence? I don't think so. He's not saying what you want him to say. You're being forced to adopt the same line of reasoning trinitarians use when supporting the trinity. The fact is that there is enough room to interpret the passage in a trinitarian way. He's not saying "God gave me the authority." That's telling, imo, because one would think that he ought to be giving God the credit, if for nothing else than at least giving him the authority.

See below (#30) for what exactly the crowds understand....


1.) He wouldn’t challenge their reasoning for not automatically thinking he was God 2.) He specifically said he was a “man” who had that authority and 3.) the crowds felt “God gave such authority” to Jesus.


1. Why not? I imagine that if he was God he would challenge that!

2. He didn't specifically say that he was a "man". He refered to himself as the "Son of Man" which isn't saying that he is merely a man.

3. The crowd? The conclusion they came away with was that God had givien such authority to "men", not "a man, Jesus".


He didn’t because no one thought he was claiming to be God and so there was no confusion. There was no reason to specifically say God is te one who gave him that power. Everyone already knew that. When he said he had authority the crowds and Matthew immediately knew the answer to the Jew’s challenge that God could grant authority to others.


No one thinking he claimed to be God is irrelevant to the reason why he doesn't say "God gave me the authority to forgive sin" if that's what he is trying to say. Per your own reasoning, if he is trying to say something, he ought to just say it, no?

This is a straw man argument because I never said “mankind” has the authority to forgive sins. I said that God CAN and DOES grant SOME people the authority. And IF Peter and John can forgive sins then he can certainly grant Jesus the same authority. And IF God does grant some men authority then the religious leaders were wrong when they accused Jesus of blasphemy. And thus the whole argument that “only God can forgive sins” is patently in error.

Except that the people come away thinking that "[God] had given such authority to men". Not Jesus. Not the disciples (who hadn't demonstrated this ability yet). Men.

I don't doubt that God gave the authority to Peter and John to absolve sin once they were acting as Christ's representatives on earth. That doesn't mean that he likewise "gave" it to Jesus. In fact I would argue on account of the instruction that Jesus is one giving them the authority. In any case I'm not arguing that the apostles weren't given the ability to forgive sin (though I would quibble with the understanding of it). The Jews clearly thought it was divine prerogative, whoever it was given to. If he didn't mean to teach that mankind could forgive sins, then the crowd certainly walked away with the wrong conception.

Go back and read my post. When I quoted John 20:22 I specifically said that “these men” (IE, the apostles) were granted authority. How did you read into that statement that I said all men can forgive sins? And it’s irrelivent to your argument anyway. We have at least 11 (not 12 because Judas was dead) men who has been given that authority but it only takes ONE to disprove the statement that only God can forgive sins and so if Jesus forgave sins he must be God.

and

Again, a straw man argument that doesn’t even help your case if it wasn’t a straw man argument. I never said all men have that authority and it only takes one (though it was granted to at least 11) to disprove your whole theory.



It does if the conception of the crowd is that only God can forgive sins. I didn't read into your statement at all. I'm simply taking what the "crowd" has said about Jesus. If you think that it means they are marveling that Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, then it means that the crowd understood it as meaning "men" have the authority to forgive sins, because that's what the passage says. "Men".



I seldom refute myself. Only when people make stuff up or do poor research does that happen and this isn’t a case where I have done poor research. I am a monotheist in that I believe there is only one True God. Jesus and others are called “gods” due to being a representative of God. They are not true Gods by nature.

Seldom? Always a first time for everything eh? And who exactly would these
"others" be who are called "gods" ("theoi") in the Bible? And being called "gods" due to being representatives of God? Apostles maybe, but gods? I don't know...


fwiw
guac.

(if you want to stop discussing this particular instance in this thread that's okay. We can pick it up whenever...)

[NonTrinitarian]

That's an interesting point. If the disciples don't think that Jesus is God
yet, he may not have done anything that gave them that impression. They came
around to that point at some time, thought that isn't recorded in scripture.
There were other things that he said and did that might have given them some
inkling as they put together the clues. I don't know that your question can
be answered as it is stated, fwiw. And that's very problematic because every defense a Trinitarian gives on the hundreds of verses that clearly show Jesus to be someone other than God is answered via the definition of the Trinity. IE, 'Well that verse doesn't mean Jesus is not God because he gave up some of his godly abilities when he came to the earth' or something similar. So you answer these verses with an already accepted view that God is a Trinity. But how did the disciples and people in the crowds view these sayings of Christ that would say to anyone who didn't already beleive in the Trinity that Jesus is not God? You all are just assuming everyone back then already believed in the Trinity and viewed the things the same way you do. But we know that isn't the case. So what made these people all of sudden think Jesus is God and how in the world can one say with a straight face that whatever that instance was, it wasn't reported in ANY Gospel?

There's still no reason to conclude that Jesus is comdemning them. But lets
assume that for the moment it is the case. You say that he isn't comdemning
them not for believing he is God since they as yet had no reason to believe
such a thing(becuase either their isn't evidence or they haven't put it
together yet). If he wouldn't be condemning them on account of such flimsy
justification for his own deity, then why would he similarly condemn them
for something that was a novel teaching without any basis prior to his
actions? IOW, would he condemn them for something else they shouldn't have
thought to begin with?

Which point is he addressing? He is addressing the issue of wether or not he
can forgive sins. That is the issue. The fact that he's blaspheming should
give us some inkling of his claim. Are you serious? You don't think there's a reason to think that Jesus was condeming them for their thinking? Have you read Mark 2:6-11? He is blatantly challenging their reasoning. That's why he asks "why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?" As far as the other part, there are no verses that say God can't pass the autority to forgive sins on to humans but there are verses that say the Messiah will wipe out transgressions. So they SHOULD have known that the "son of Man" could forgive sins and would forgive sins. If they don't know the scriptures that's there own fault.

So, therefore if they thought that he was a man claiming to do only what God
could do then they thought he was trying to claim he was God. Blasphemy pure
and simple. Only apparently no one back then who believed in Jesus seen it your way. So what am I to do? Believe your interpretation (which is the same as the wicked religious leaders) or the eye witnesses who praised God and expressed faith in Jesus?

All the evidence? I don't think so. He's not saying what you want him to
say. You're being forced to adopt the same line of reasoning trinitarians
use when supporting the trinity. The fact is that there is enough room to
interpret the passage in a trinitarian way. He's not saying "God gave me the
authority." That's telling, imo, because one would think that he ought to be
giving God the credit, if for nothing else than at least giving him the
authority.

See below (#30) for what exactly the crowds understand.... So if he said "God gave him the authority" that would convince you he wasn't claiming to be God? Go read Matthew 28:18. The truth of the matter is that NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS, walked away from that incident believing the way you do. Think about that. NO ONE walked away from that saying, 'Wow, I guess we were wrong. He is God.' Especially his discples who later wondered how he could control the weather. Only you (as in Trinitarians) read that incident and reaon that way. And in fact God did give the authority to forgive sins to "men". I can name at least eleven.

No one thinking he claimed to be God is irrelevant to the reason why he
doesn't say "God gave me the authority to forgive sin" if that's what he is
trying to say. Per your own reasoning, if he is trying to say something, he
ought to just say it, no? Irrelevant?! My goodness. Did Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc etc etc go around saying "I am not God" and "I was only able to do that because God gave me that authority" everytime they did a miracle? Did people fall down and worship Moses when he called water out of a rock but didn't mention anything about it being God who did it? You're reasoning is highly suspect here. It's ludricrous to think that if no one thought Jesus was God in the first place for Jesus to say 'Oh, by the way, just in case you were wondering, I'm not God.' Take off your trinitarian specs and read the Bible from a first century viewpoint. That's why I started this thread. To point out that you all just assume everyone thought he was God and never ask yourselves how it started. Having the Trinity doctrine is easy. Getting to it is a whole different story.



Quote:

Originally Posted by trinitarian
NT said,
This is a straw man argument because I never said "mankind" has the
authority to forgive sins. I said that God CAN and DOES grant SOME people
the authority. And IF Peter and John can forgive sins then he can certainly
grant Jesus the same authority. And IF God does grant some men authority
then the religious leaders were wrong when they accused Jesus of blasphemy.
And thus the whole argument that "only God can forgive sins" is patently in
error.

You replied,
Except that the people come away thinking that "[God] had given such
authority to men". Not Jesus. Not the disciples (who hadn't demonstrated
this ability yet). Men. And this proves what? They saw a man forgive sins and back up it with healing. They could have thought that there were others as well granted that authority. There were many people claiming to be disciples and claiming to heal during that period. Your stressing of the word "men" over "man" shows desperation. However you want to play that card, it is blatantly obvious that no one there, including that discples, walked away from that incident feeling the same way you do.

I don't doubt that God gave the authority to Peter and John to absolve sin
once they were acting as Christ's representatives on earth. That doesn't
mean that he likewise "gave" it to Jesus. In fact I would argue on account
of the instruction that Jesus is one giving them the authority. In any case
I'm not arguing that the apostles weren't given the ability to forgive sin
(though I would quibble with the understanding of it). The Jews clearly
thought it was divine prerogative, whoever it was given to. If he didn't
mean to teach that mankind could forgive sins, then the crowd certainly
walked away with the wrong conception. Again, this argument is desperation and an attempt to detract from the fact that it absolves your argument. Take the crowd and their conclusion out of the picture if you want. I don't care. I don't need their conclusion (though it is certainly gamaging to your viewpoint) to refute your argument that if Jesus forgave sins he must be God because only God can forgive sins. That's clearly been refuted, regardless of what the crowds thought (though they were on the right path). And there are NUMEROUS times in the Gospels where Jesus says God gave him his abilities. He doesn't say everytime he healed someone 'Now remember, God gave me that ability' though it is clear from several verses that it was God's power, not Jesus' power, that enabled Jesus to heal. You're setting up your own criteria and no one else from Moses through Jesus followed it at every miracle.

Seldom? Always a first time for everything eh? And who exactly would these
"others" be who are called "gods" ("theoi") in the Bible? And being called
"gods" due to being representatives of God? Apostles maybe, but gods? I
don't know... Are you serious about not knowing the instances of men being called "theos" because of their position? Go to the JW Forum and you'll see a thread on this.

[guacamole]

And that's very problematic because every defense a Trinitarian gives on the hundreds of verses that clearly show Jesus to be someone other than God is answered via the definition of the Trinity. IE, 'Well that verse doesn't mean Jesus is not God because he gave up some of his godly abilities when he came to the earth' or something similar. So you answer these verses with an already accepted view that God is a Trinity. But how did the disciples and people in the crowds view these sayings of Christ that would say to anyone who didn't already beleive in the Trinity that Jesus is not God? You all are just assuming everyone back then already believed in the Trinity and viewed the things the same way you do. But we know that isn't the case. So what made these people all of sudden think Jesus is God and how in the world can one say with a straight face that whatever that instance was, it wasn't reported in ANY Gospel?


The problem is that my recognition of the divinity of Christ is not contingent on the disciples, or anyone else in the scripture, recognizing that same fact. You're arguing the same point that Ron Macy also argued that we ought to believe what they recognized, when they were wrong time and time again. They also argued over who would be first in the kingdom, abandoned him, and had such little faith that they went back to their old occupation after he died. And I should think they were right because...?

The fact that they didn't recognize it during their time with him is irrelevant if the recognize him in the future. The point of the Gospels is not to tell anything other than the life and ministry of Christ. Logically, if they came to that understanding afterward, then it wouldn't be in the Gospels now would it?


Are you serious? You don't think there's a reason to think that Jesus was condeming them for their thinking? Have you read Mark 2:6-11? He is blatantly challenging their reasoning. That's why he asks "why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?" As far as the other part, there are no verses that say God can't pass the autority to forgive sins on to humans but there are verses that say the Messiah will wipe out transgressions. So they SHOULD have known that the "son of Man" could forgive sins and would forgive sins. If they don't know the scriptures that's there own fault.


How does that prove that Jesus isn't God if I believe that Jesus was the messiah who was God? No matter which way you turn the reasoning is circular.

Again you are arguing the negative with me. Nevertheless you still condemn my usage of it. If it isn't valid for me to say that the trinity is specifically denied, then it isn't valid for you to say that the doctrine of men forgiving sins isn't specifically denied. Don't make use of a tactic that you condemn in me, that makes no sense, I have no reason to believe you.


Only apparently no one back then who believed in Jesus seen it your way. So what am I to do? Believe your interpretation (which is the same as the wicked religious leaders) or the eye witnesses who praised God and expressed faith in Jesus?


Shrug. Either way. The leaders got it wrong. I don't know why you'd use their thinking to bolster your arguement if you think they are wrong. The same people who blasphemed went away praising God. There's no reason why those needs be two different groups of people.


So if he said "God gave him the authority" that would convince you he wasn't claiming to be God? Go read Matthew 28:18. The truth of the matter is that NO ONE, NOT EVEN THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS, walked away from that incident believing the way you do. Think about that. NO ONE walked away from that saying, 'Wow, I guess we were wrong. He is God.' Especially his discples who later wondered how he could control the weather. Only you (as in Trinitarians) read that incident and reaon that way. And in fact God did give the authority to forgive sins to "men". I can name at least eleven.


Again you wan't to bolster your argument on what they think. It doesn't work. The religious leaders didn't think he was the messiah, which presumably you believe. The disciples didn't think he would rise from the dead, which presumably you believe. Why give them such special consideration now, when for all intensive purposes, the gospels consistently portray them as "not getting it".

As for your last point, it depends on what you mean as "men". You say that the religious leaders were wrong, nevertheless they support your point if it must mean "authority to forgive sin" not "authority to heal". The religious leaders could have been amazed that God gave the authority to men to heal. Either way, my interpretation isn't dependent on what think the people who consistently get things wrong in the story.


Irrelevant?! My goodness. Did Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc etc etc go around saying "I am not God" and "I was only able to do that because God gave me that authority" everytime they did a miracle? Did people fall down and worship Moses when he called water out of a rock but didn't mention anything about it being God who did it? You're reasoning is highly suspect here. It's ludricrous to think that if no one thought Jesus was God in the first place for Jesus to say 'Oh, by the way, just in case you were wondering, I'm not God.' Take off your trinitarian specs and read the Bible from a first century viewpoint. That's why I started this thread. To point out that you all just assume everyone thought he was God and never ask yourselves how it started. Having the Trinity doctrine is easy. Getting to it is a whole different story.


Again, why read it from the pov of those who consistently can't figure it out. That makes no sense. Did moses or any of the prophets ever say "So that you will know that I have authority on earth to forgive sin" before they did their miracles? There would be no reason to think they were God. They weren't blaspheming.


Quote:
Originally Posted by trinitarian
And this proves what? They saw a man forgive sins and back up it with healing. They could have thought that there were others as well granted that authority. There were many people claiming to be disciples and claiming to heal during that period. Your stressing of the word "men" over "man" shows desperation. However you want to play that card, it is blatantly obvious that no one there, including that discples, walked away from that incident feeling the same way you do.


Desperation. Right. I stressed the word "men" because that is word in the text at the end where the leaders come to their highly vaunted opinion. "Men". Not "man". No one may think exactly what I'm thinking, but then they're not thinking what you are thinking either. Maybe you're emphasis of the word "man" is a desperate ploy.



Again, this argument is desperation and an attempt to detract from the fact that it absolves your argument. Take the crowd and their conclusion out of the picture if you want. I don't care. I don't need their conclusion (though it is certainly gamaging to your viewpoint) to refute your argument that if Jesus forgave sins he must be God because only God can forgive sins. That's clearly been refuted, regardless of what the crowds thought (though they were on the right path). And there are NUMEROUS times in the Gospels where Jesus says God gave him his abilities. He doesn't say everytime he healed someone 'Now remember, God gave me that ability' though it is clear from several verses that it was God's power, not Jesus' power, that enabled Jesus to heal. You're setting up your own criteria and no one else from Moses through Jesus followed it at every miracle.


Ach. You're still wanting to argue from the negative even though you won't let me do it. Weak.

I'm not the one prattling on about what the religious leaders and others think. That's you. Your argument hinges on what they think at the end, not me. Get rid of their supposed affirmation of your position and all you are left with is Jesus blaspheming, the people thinking he is wrong, and him healing to show he is not wrong. It still doesn't work.


Are you serious about not knowing the instances of men being called "theos" because of their position? Go to the JW Forum and you'll see a thread on this.

The thread which consisted of a few exchanges in which you try and base your argument on Psalm 45:6? Jesus isn't telling anyone they are gods because (insisting as you are wont) if we read the chapter through first century eyes, they wouldn't have thought anyone was a god. If they would have thought that, they wouldn't have gotten upset at him, now would they? They obviously didn't interpret "god" to mean "divine" being. If I can't contradict first century reasoning, why can you? If it was okay for the king to be considered God, and if all governments are authorities granted by God (Roms. 13), then why wouldn't first century Christians just admit that Caesar was a god?

fwiw
guac.

(P.S. I don't know if you are still looking for answers to your original question. We seem sufficiently side tracked and others seem content to let us wrassle. Do you want to take this discussion to it's own thread, I don't want to keep side traking this thread if you want answers to your original question...)

[NonTrinitarian]

The problem is that my recognition of the divinity of Christ is not contingent on the disciples, or anyone else in the scripture, recognizing that same fact. You're arguing the same point that Ron Macy also argued that we ought to believe what they recognized, when they were wrong time and time again. They also argued over who would be first in the kingdom, abandoned him, and had such little faith that they went back to their old occupation after he died. And I should think they were right because...? This is good. I’m content with this argument. This merely states what I have been saying all along. So many Trinitarian “proof texts” did not mean to the disciples what they mean to Trinitarians today. I’m okay with that.

The fact that they didn't recognize it during their time with him is irrelevant if the recognize him in the future. The point of the Gospels is not to tell anything other than the life and ministry of Christ. Logically, if they came to that understanding afterward, then it wouldn't be in the Gospels now would it? Hmm. Now this is intereting. Do you want to move past John and go into Acts? Because I have LOTS of questions on how gentiles and Jews alike came to know Jesus is God based on Acts through Revelation



How does that prove that Jesus isn't God if I believe that Jesus was the messiah who was God? No matter which way you turn the reasoning is circular.

Again you are arguing the negative with me. Nevertheless you still condemn my usage of it. If it isn't valid for me to say that the trinity is specifically denied, then it isn't valid for you to say that the doctrine of men forgiving sins isn't specifically denied. Don't make use of a tactic that you condemn in me, that makes no sense, I have no reason to believe you. Please elaborate on where my reasoning was circular. I clearly mentioned verses where it says the Messiah, someone spoken of as someone OTHER than Jehovah God, would wipe out sins. Thus, “the doctrine of men forgiving sins” is specifically mentioned.

Shrug. Either way. The leaders got it wrong. I don't know why you'd use their thinking to bolster your arguement if you think they are wrong. The same people who blasphemed went away praising God. There's no reason why those needs be two different groups of people. I think it’s obvious from the rest of the accounts that the religious leaders were definitely a group separate from the crowds. And regardless, all went away thinking that Jesus wasn’t God. Unlike Trinitarians.




Again you wan't to bolster your argument on what they think. It doesn't work. The religious leaders didn't think he was the messiah, which presumably you believe. The disciples didn't think he would rise from the dead, which presumably you believe. Why give them such special consideration now, when for all intensive purposes, the gospels consistently portray them as "not getting it". Because you point to a certain verse (when I say you, I mean Trinitarians in general) and say ‘Ah, that proves Jesus is God’ when in fact it didn’t prove any such thought to those who were actually there and saw it. But I would be more than happy to jump into the post gospel accounts as that will prove significantly more challenging to Trinitarians.

As for your last point, it depends on what you mean as "men". You say that the religious leaders were wrong, nevertheless they support your point if it must mean "authority to forgive sin" not "authority to heal". The religious leaders could have been amazed that God gave the authority to men to heal. Either way, my interpretation isn't dependent on what think the people who consistently get things wrong in the story. And thus your whole attitude is ‘darned what anyone else thinks or thought, these verses clearly show Jesus is God’, despite the fact that soon other men will also pronounce forgiveness of sins.

Again, why read it from the pov of those who consistently can't figure it out. That makes no sense. Did moses or any of the prophets ever say "So that you will know that I have authority on earth to forgive sin" before they did their miracles? There would be no reason to think they were God. They weren't blaspheming. You’re right assuming that to say ‘your sins were forgiven’ was blasphemy. And yet we later find out other men (at least 11) did that without being blasphemers. Your argument continues to fall apart.

Desperation. Right. I stressed the word "men" because that is word in the text at the end where the leaders come to their highly vaunted opinion. "Men". Not "man". No one may think exactly what I'm thinking, but then they're not thinking what you are thinking either. Maybe you're emphasis of the word "man" is a desperate ploy. Yeah right. I’m desperate? The crowds, who were there and witnessed the whole situation, think what I think, (That God gave such authority to “men” (not all, but some “men”)) and I’M THE ONE WHO IS DESPERATE? Please.

I'm not the one prattling on about what the religious leaders and others think. That's you. Your argument hinges on what they think at the end, not me. Get rid of their supposed affirmation of your position and all you are left with is Jesus blaspheming, the people thinking he is wrong, and him healing to show he is not wrong. It still doesn't work. The supposition you hold is that the religious leaders were right. Correct? And yet we know they were wrong. God is not the only one who can forgive sins. He “gave that authority to men”. So much for Jesus’ “blasphemy”! Now what part of this doesn’t work?



The thread which consisted of a few exchanges in which you try and base your argument on Psalm 45:6? Jesus isn't telling anyone they are gods because (insisting as you are wont) if we read the chapter through first century eyes, they wouldn't have thought anyone was a god. If they would have thought that, they wouldn't have gotten upset at him, now would they? They obviously didn't interpret "god" to mean "divine" being. If I can't contradict first century reasoning, why can you? If it was okay for the king to be considered God, and if all governments are authorities granted by God (Roms. 13), then why wouldn't first century Christians just admit that Caesar was a god? I’m talking about the thread where Jesus defends his own position by noting that God called Kings and Judges “Gods”. I assume you are looking at something different because if you were looking at the one I am thinking you wouldn’t have said the things you did. You are arguing that the Jews DURING JESUS’ TIME wouldn’t have thought anyone was called “god” accept Jehovah. Correct? And you imply that this somehow lends credence for your argument. And it would accept that Jesus was condemning them for their viewpoint! Read John 10:33-36.

You’re proud of not contradicting 1st century reasoning and yet Jesus blew it apart. Let me see if I understand you. When Jesus corrects persons incorrect reasoning (like only God can forgive sins or only Jehovah can be called “god”) you are proud your reasoning is like theirs but when Jesus DOESN’T correct their reasoning (Like thinking that he was not God but that God gave him that authority to forgive sins) you condemn their reasoning.

And do I really need to explain to you why the JEWS would not have referred to Caesar as “god”? Please think about this and ask that question again.

(P.S. I don't know if you are still looking for answers to your original question. We seem sufficiently side tracked and others seem content to let us wrassle. Do you want to take this discussion to it's own thread, I don't want to keep side traking this thread if you want answers to your original question...) No. I’ve accepted the fact that Trinitarians are not able to see the development of their doctrine in scripture. They can only assume God snapped it into their brain at some point in time. I’m satisfied.

[NonTrinitarian]

Bump

I guess developing the Trinity is a little more complicated than coming to the NT with a preconceived belief in the NT, huh? Makes explaining how the people in Jesus' day understood his words a whole lot more complicated. I'm disappointed in the number of responses to this post. I didn't realize it was such a difficult question.

[Athanasius]

No. I’ve accepted the fact that Trinitarians are not able to see the development of their doctrine in scripture. They can only assume God snapped it into their brain at some point in time. I’m satisfied.

The calming of the wind and the waves by Jesus may have been one of those times, although perhaps not the first. To quote John Gill:

came and worshipped him: not merely in a civil, but in a religious way; being convinced, by what they saw, that he must be truly and properly God, and worthy of adoration;

saying, of a truth, thou art the Son of God: not by creation, as angels and men, nor by office, as magistrates, but by nature; being of the same essence, perfections, and power, with God, his Father: and which these actions of his now done, as well as many others, are full attestations of; as his walking upon the sea, causing Peter to do so too, saving him when sinking, and stilling the wind and waves upon his entrance into the vessel; all which being observed by the disciples and mariners, drew out this confession upon full conviction from them, that he was a divine person, and the proper object of worship.

Now I realize that you will argue that they only recognized Him as the son of God in this passage. I would argue that they recognized more. They saw that as the Son of God, he shared in the nature and attributes of God, and this was plainly evidenced by the power over nature he had so awesomely just demonstrated.

When the disciples first realized this is not so important as is the fact that they did, as is evidenced by the statements they later made regarding Christ, especially John.

[NonTrinitarian]

The calming of the wind and the waves by Jesus may have been one of those
times, although perhaps not the first. After Jesus calmed the storm the first time they asked "Who is this person that even the winds and sea obey him?"(Matt 8:27). Obviously they didn't think he was God yet. The next account is Matt 14:33 where Peter calls Jesus the "Son of God."

Now at this point you have to ask yourself what Peter meant by that. You have answered this way:


Now I realize that you will argue that they only recognized Him as the son
of God in this passage. I would argue that they recognized more. They saw
that as the Son of God, he shared in the nature and attributes of God, and
this was plainly evidenced by the power over nature he had so awesomely just
demonstrated. On what grounds do you answer as such? Are you telling me Peter all of a sudden now believed that Jesus was Almighty God and yet he was not All God because there was still God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in Heaven? That he thought God was actually a three-person God in which one person of God, who was still fully God, came down to the earth and had to subject himself to the rest of God because he became a man? That this 1/3 of God could be sent by God, not know as much as God, say his God is greater than him and yet he is that same God? Are you saying that this is what Peter meant? How in the world did Peter come to this conclusion?

And if Peter did mean that Jesus was God, why not just say "you are God" instead of "you are God's Son"? Was there some rule somewhere that said that if 1/3 of God comes to the earth as a man you must refer to him as God's Son and not as God even though you mean he is God when you call him God's Son? You have some how zipped the whole idea of the Trinity into Peter's head and magically assumed he knows what you know though it is nowhere explained to him in scripture.

Later on Peter again only calls Jesus the "Son of the living God" (Matt 16:14-16). Again, if he thought Jesus was God why not call him God? Peter said others were calling him Elijah, John the Baptists or Jeremiah. If Peter thought Jesus was God why didn't he call him such instead of speaking of him as someone other than God. And don't pull the old 'God in nature' malarkey because in any other verse in both the OT and the NT if someone is called someone else's son everyone immediately assume the Son is younger and distinct. Thus, to call Jesus the Son of God means he's younger than God (note, GOD, not GOD THE FATHER, just GOD, PERIOD) and distinct from God, (not distinct from God the Father, distinct from God, period).

Later on in Matt 17:5 they hear God's voice and fall down in fear. Why? If, according to you they already believed Jesus was Almighty God and had been in his presence for years, why be afraid when they heard a voice from heaven? Is it not obvious they associated that voice with someone higher up than Jesus? Is it not obvious that they didn't hold the same awe for Jesus as they did this voice? I'd like to hear your explanation of Matt 17:5.

Then you quote John Gill. Who is John Gill? By what authority should I take his opinion over anyone else's? He takes it upon himself to tell me what Peter thought by calling Jesus God's Son? I didn't realize John Gill could read Peter's mind. Furthermore, the latter accounts that happen after the calming of the storm still demonstrate that they didn't think Jesus was God. For instance, Matt 17:5.

Furthermore, John Gill's whole argument is based on the miracles that Jesus performed. John Gill wants me to think these people thought Jesus was God because he performed miracles? Well, I can either assume John Gill can read dead peoples minds or I can see what these dead people wrote about what they thought in regards to Jesus' miracles.

"One day as he (Jesus) was teaching...and the power of the Lord was present for him to heal the sick."-Luke 5:17

Here Luke says it was the power of the "Lord", someone other than Jesus, that was present in order for Jesus to heal.

"Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."- Act 2:22

They didn't say Jesus was God and that's why he could perform these miracles. They called Jesus a MAN and said it was GOD who did these works through Jesus. (Kinda like God did miracles through Moses, Elijah, Elisha, etc.)

"namely Jesus the Nazareth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing...because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

Peter doesn't say Jesus is God because he performed miracles. He said that God anointed Jesus with his power and that Jesus did these things because God (someone other than Jesus) was with Jesus.

So I could care less what John Gill thinks these people thought. I'll just take their own word.

When the disciples first realized this is not so important as is the fact
that they did, as is evidenced by the statements they later made regarding
Christ, especially John. Oh, but it's very important. You see, you can't explain away the HUNDREDS of verses that clearly show Jesus is someone other than God UNTIL you develop the Trinity. So until they developed that idea then verses like this would clearly make them think Jesus is NOT God.

"What I teach is not mine but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know concerning this teaching whether it is from God or if I speak of my own originality."-John 7:16,17

Now what did the people who heard this conclude? That Jesus is God? Yeah right! It's obvious that unless they already have an intricately developed understanding, not only that Jesus is God but also a full understanding of the Trinity, they would have no option but to conclude Jesus is someone other than God. No one was walking away from that saying, "Well, Jesus is 1/3 of God who came to the earth and so had to give up some of his god qualities and that's why he can speak of God as someone other than himself. Also, since Jesus was a man and had to give up some of his god qualities it was necessary for the other 2/3 of God to give Jesus their teaching. That's why Jesus could say this teaching was from God and not from himself, even though he is that very same God."

Of course, that's exactly how Trinitarians want to understand that verse and why you all aren't too excited about having to justify your reading that thought into the minds of the people back then. How they got to the understanding of Jesus being God is too difficult for Trinitarians to tackle. So you stick your head in the sand and hope no one ever asks how it all started or how the early Christians understood the words of Jesus. Defending the Trinitarian is so much more easy if we already assume it's existence, don't you agree?

[Athanasius]

In your entire post above you leave out the fact that the disciples worshipped Jesus following the calming of the wind and the waves. It seems quite reasonable that they worshipped Him because they recognized His divinity when they saw His power over the wind and the waves. As Gill pointed out, they worshiped him not as a matter of civil respect, as one might do with a government official, for that would have been out of place in the informal atmosphere of a cramped fishing boat. Their worship was a natural response the awesome power just demonstrated. Jesus did not refuse their worship, as the Angel who spoke to John on the Isle of Patmos did. Thus, I would say that the disciples recognized His divinity at this time. If that recognition faded temporarily, this and many other events surely combined to lead the disciples to conclude that Jesus was divine.

Who is John Gill? Better, who was he? A Puritan theologian who wrote perhaps the most detailed commentary in the English language written by a single man. Gill was well versed in Hebrew and Jewish writings and commentaries. I often consult his commentary.

And don't pull the old 'God in nature' malarkey because in any other verse in both the OT and the NT if someone is called someone else's son everyone immediately assume the Son is younger and distinct. Thus, to call Jesus the Son of God means he's younger than God (note, GOD, not GOD THE FATHER, just GOD, PERIOD) and distinct from God, (not distinct from God the Father, distinct from God, period).

Malarkey to recognize that a son shares in the natural attributes of his father? That he shares in His father's estate and authority? Malarky to assume otherwise! And of course the Son is a person distinct from His Father! Trinitarians do not think otherwise!

[NonTrinitarian]

In your entire post above you leave out the fact that the disciples worshipped Jesus following the calming of the wind and the waves. It seems quite reasonable that they worshipped Him because they recognized His divinity when they saw His power over the wind and the waves. As Gill pointed out, they worshiped him not as a matter of civil respect, as one might do with a government official, for that would have been out of place in the informal atmosphere of a cramped fishing boat. Their worship was a natural response the awesome power just demonstrated. Jesus did not refuse their worship, as the Angel who spoke to John on the Isle of Patmos did. Thus, I would say that the disciples recognized His divinity at this time. If that recognition faded temporarily, this and many other events surely combined to lead the disciples to conclude that Jesus was divine. Ahh, nothing like good ole fashioned CIRCULAR REASONING. Proskyneo is delivered to many people in the scriptures. It is only translated as "worship" if it's felt the person giving proskyneo to another person is meaning to "worship" the person as God. If we don't already think that, we would translate the word as obeisence, homage, etc.

So before you can translate proskyneo as "worship" when directed to Jesus, you first have to ASSUME they were meaning to worship Jesus as Almighty God. And you can't assume that until you ahve already assumed they already thought he was God. Your argument is so circular it makes my head spin.

And thanks for ignoring my other arguments where AFTER you say they believed Jesus was ALMIGHTY GOD they act like he wasn't. I'm anxiously awaiting your response to them.

Malarkey to recognize that a son shares in the natural attributes of his father? That he shares in His father's estate and authority? Malarky to assume otherwise! And of course the Son is a person distinct from His Father! Trinitarians do not think otherwise! No, malarkey for saying the Son is the same age as the Father. And a human son and father are both humans, but let's not forget they are DIFFERENT humans. Are you wanting to say the Son of God and God are DIFFERENT gods? By your own illustration of a Father and Son you are. And also note (And I highlighted this TWICE), that I didn't say Jesus was distinct from his Father, I said he was distinct from GOD. That's what the verses say, do they not? They don't contrast Jesus with "God the Father", they contrast Jesus with "God", PERIOD. Just accept what the verse DO say and not what you wish them to say.

[Athanasius]

Are you wanting to say the Son of God and God are DIFFERENT gods?

Different persons who are both fully divine.

Colossians 2:9 (RSV) For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily


Being fully divine, each may be addressed as God, for the fullness of deity dwells in both. And yet although they are different persons, they are not different Gods, for there is one God, and they are of one substance with each other.

[Athanasius]

As I wrote in another post, being is not synonymous with personhood.

[Ron Macy]

Athanasius,

As I wrote in another post, being is not synonymous with personhood.

What scripture do you offer as proof of your statement?

We live in a world which has a one to one correspondence between being and personhood. That says one being has only one person. The Bible was written in the context of this world view. I believe the Bible assumes this one to one correspondence. I further believe you need to provide the Scriptures which teach the change from the one to one correspondence to the one to many correspondence.

I also believe if you can't provide specific scripture which teaches the one to many correspondence, you have no foundation for believing or teaching the trinity.

So, I repeat, what scripture do you offer as proof of your statement?

Ron

[Magdalenbrother]

The calming of the wind and the waves by Jesus may have been one of those times, although perhaps not the first. To quote John Gill:



Now I realize that you will argue that they only recognized Him as the son of God in this passage. I would argue that they recognized more. They saw that as the Son of God, he shared in the nature and attributes of God, and this was plainly evidenced by the power over nature he had so awesomely just demonstrated.

When the disciples first realized this is not so important as is the fact that they did, as is evidenced by the statements they later made regarding Christ, especially John.Power over nature is displayed throughout the Bible by people, "mere men" as the Trinitarians would say in their thinly disguised contempt for human nature. And the disciples knew the Bible, that Moses and the prophets could control the elements and perform wondrous miracles. So when they saw Jesus stop the storm, they reacted like all normal Jews: they regarded him as God's representative on earth, someone through whom God acted. To say it in pagan terms, he was divine. Not God.

Anyway, Jesus told his disciples to do the same thing and he even said that they would perform bigger miracles. Does that make us God? No. But it certainly makes us (potentially) divine.

Did "John" claim that Jesus was God? I doubt it. He/she wanted people to people to believe that Jesus is God's son period. Did he/she mean that God had a son in the same way as frogs and human beings beget their progeny?

The Church says this is how we should understand the Biblical passages on Jesus' sonship. The Church says it. The text says something too but it is open to interpretation.

That is the risk, the challenge of the Bible.

The disciples believed that Jesus was the Messiah, the human liberator, king, prophet, priest and judge promised by God. The perfect man.

[Athanasius]

Sigh.

[porter]

Bump

I guess developing the Trinity is a little more complicated than coming to the NT with a preconceived belief in the NT, huh? Makes explaining how the people in Jesus' day understood his words a whole lot more complicated. I'm disappointed in the number of responses to this post. I didn't realize it was such a difficult question.

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most difficult doctrines to understand.

IMO the disciples did not begin to think of Jesus as God until after the resurrection and most probably after the ascension.
I don't think the doctrine was established until sometime after the epistles of Paul were completed.
Thus I don't think you will not find many (any?) arguments for the Trinity in the Gospels.
I think it would be better to look for support in Paul's letters.
As I do not have a good grasp on the doctrine of the Trinity, and I am not a Biblical scholar, I am not the one to do that.

Porter