fast

There has been some talk lately by theists at IIDB and elsewhere about God and Jesus being the same entity. I can find nothing in this quoted text that even remotely suggests that this is the case. Is there another part of scripture that would even insinuate this being the case?

Julian

John 1:1

cf 1:14

fast

I'm sorry, but I'm not too good at this stuff, so I'm having a hard time understanding what you are referring to.

I think the first one you refer to is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

I'm not sure what the second one refers to at all.

Assuming I have the first one correct, can you explain how the conclusion is drawn that there are not two separate entities? Also, and assuming the inference can be drawn, does it make sense to hold that they are one entity in light of John 3:16 wording which seems to clear it up that they are two separate entities?

Julian

The word becomes flesh, i.e. Jesus. In John 1:1 we learn that 'the word was god.' Hence the word = Jesus = god.

This translation has been debated endlessly here and it could also be understood in other ways, i.e. that the word is the same as god, not actually god, although I disagree with that translation since that is being a bit free with the Greek, IMHO.

Julian

Chris Weimer

I don't see it as being free with Greek. Theos can be used to denote the divine, and here it does that also.

Not to say that John elsewhere equates Jesus with God, but that's another story.

Julian

I simply don't see that. Liddell-Scott shows the adjectival as limited and rarely used judging by their examples. Here is the very short adjectival entry:

III. as Adj. in Comp. theôteros, divine, thurai th., opp. kataibatai anthrôpoisin, Od.13.111; choros th. Call.Ap. 93, cf.Dian.249, D.P.257. (Derived by Hdt.2.52 fr. tithêmi ( [kosmôi thentes ta prêgmata] ), by Pl.Cra.397d fr. thein. Etym. dub.) [In Ep. (twice in Hom.) and Trag. (E.Ba.47, 1347, al., not in Com.), as monosyll. by synizesis, theoi Il.1.18 , Thgn.142; theôn h.Cer.55 , 259; theois Thgn.171 ; theoisin Od.14.251 ; theous h.Cer.325 : even in nom. theos before a vowel, E.Or.399 (cf. Pors. ad loc.), HF347; in Pi.P. 1.56 apptly. a short monosyll.]

I don't see how one can use an adjectival reading of θεος when a much better and easier reading is more common. Notice that most of that entry relates to Epic and Tragic (if I am reading that correctly). Does anyone have a BAGD handy?

Julian

fast

Let's say for the sake of argument that we can technically draw the conclusion (do to wording issues in that specific circumstance) that "Jesus = God." If this is an isolated interpretation that goes against the remaining context, wouldn't it then be reasonable that the isolated inference "Jesus = God" is a misunderstanding of some sorts?

Do most people evangelists (for example) believe that the Son and the Father are one or two? I'm trying to figure out which is the minority position. I'm assuming here that most believe they are two separate entities, and I'm also assuming here that those who posit otherwise are using a very sketchy interpretation to say they are one. Most preachers would say one is the Father and one is the Son and thus conclude two different entities, right?

Julian

Well, in John we also have:

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

Which could just signify agreement or something more. The fact is that the understanding of of the trinity and what they are and how they work have been debated for almost two thousand years and have spawned an untold number of heresies. An Infidels site may not be the best place to clarify this issue.

Julian

mdarus

The doctrine of the Trinity maintains there is but one God. The clear monotheism of the Old Testament is upheld. The challenge is to find a vocabulary that maintains the unity of God while describing the Son and the Holy Spirit. The concept was first described by the Latin equivalent of "person". However, when Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are described as "persons", this is not in the sense of separate "entities". One concept that was discarded was that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are temporal modes (in the Old Testament he was Father, the New Testament he was Son and now he is Holy Spirit). This is considered the "heresy" of modalistic monarchianism.

The question in John 3;16 is usually about monogenes ("only begotten" or "one and only"). The question is about whether the word is related to gennao "to beget" or gene "unique". The second alternative is preferred since there is only one nu in the word. It is also preferred because it reduces the question about the Father begetting the Son and whether this means the Son had a later origin than the Father. This is relevant to maintain the oneness of God.

ziffel

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Show us the Father?

John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Perhaps these don't really suggest the same entity, but rather a unified will. These were the closest I could find, at any rate.