Gospel of John 1:14

[Esther]

So where are these places that show Jesus acting on his own authority as God?

I think both Rome and Constantinople would be quite happy for people to pray in the name of a saint. (can't be sure of it though).

And please note, I have no argument with the concept that Jesus IS both God and man. The problem is trying to find something in scripture that shows he WAS both God and man from conception to (probably) some time during the week following his resurrection.

So you will need something in scripture that shows him to have been God during that time frame, not after the resurrection, when he was restored to godhood.

Will Jesus saying, "before Abraham was, I Am" qualify?

John 8:54-59

⁵⁴ Jesus answered, If I were to glorify Myself (magnify, praise, and honor Myself), I would have no real glory, for My glory would be nothing and worthless. [My honor must come to Me from My Father.] It is My Father Who glorifies Me [Who extols Me, magnifies, and praises Me], of Whom you say that He is your God.

⁵⁵ Yet you do not know Him or recognize Him and are not acquainted with Him, but I know Him. If I should say that I do not know Him, I would be a liar like you. But I know Him and keep His word [obey His teachings, am faithful to His message].

⁵⁶ Your forefather Abraham was extremely happy at the hope and prospect of seeing My day (My incarnation); and he did see it and was delighted.

⁵⁷ Then the Jews said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?

⁵⁸ Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I Am.

⁵⁹ So they took up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus, by mixing with the crowd, concealed Himself and went out of the temple [^[e]enclosure].

[tabibito]

FTR, I still hold that Jesus remained "I AM" the whole of His time on earth. I am frankly uncertain whether that necessitates that He was also "God." I certainly believe there is enough ambiguity and "mystery" in Scripture that the "temporary abdication" view should not constitute "heresy."

As for "But the Councils concluded..." and "But the Creeds and Confessions hold...," those arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me. Sorry.

That God gives his name (as translated in the LXX) as "ο ων" (hot own - the being/living one) not "εγω ειμι (egggo ay-me - I am) should be enough to scotch the idea that Jesus saying "I am" has anything to do with a claim to deity. If that isn't enough, we can feel reasonably assured that when the man born blind from birth, whom Jesus healed, when he answered to the people wondering whether he was in fact that same blind man, was making no claim to be deity when he said "I am."

[tabibito]

[QUOTE=NorrinRadd;n1466293]

Son of Man is a title of deity. Ezekiel may have been a son of man, but Jesus is the Son of Man. As such, Jesus is the supreme example of all that God intended mankind to be, the embodiment of truth and grace (John 1:14). In Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). For this reason, the Son of Man was able to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The Son of Man came to save lives (Luke 9:56; 19:10), rise from the dead (Mark 9:9), and execute judgment (John 5:27). At His trial before the high priest, Jesus said, “I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). This statement immediately ended the trial, as the court accused the Lord of blasphemy and condemned Him to death (verses 65–66).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

I've long heard the assertion that "'Son of Man' is a title of deity." I'm on the fence about that. I accept that at least by the time of Jesus, it had become a Messianic title. I'm not sure of the extent to which Jews regarded Messiah as deity.

A search of the Jewish encyclopaedia for "Bar Nash" and "Son of Man" will provide more detail than you could want on the matter. Short answer (where entries are appropriate to the messiah) is that the messiah is Bar Nash, Metatron - highest of the archangels - transformed to become human. 1st century views of the Son of Man did not allow that he was God, so Jesus' first century Jewish audience would not have connected the claim that Jesus was "the Son of Man" with a claim to be God.



Your post is an excellent write-up ... Stolen for future use.

[tabibito]

Are you confusing "impassible" with "immutable"?

Impassible: incapable of suffering or feeling pain (usually regarded as disorders)
Immutable: incapable of change.

Yes - I did muddle them.

[tabibito]

Son of Man is a title of deity. Ezekiel may have been a son of man, but Jesus is the Son of Man.

Altogether too much weight being assigned to the presence or absence of the definite article, "the." Either a word game, or the author doesn't know a whole lot about Koine Greek.

As such, Jesus is the supreme example of all that God intended mankind to be, the embodiment of truth and grace (John 1:14).

Nice. Jesus is the personification of the ideal human.

In Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

A reference to the ascended Jesus. It does not refer to Jesus as he was during the term after becoming flesh until (probably) during the week following the resurrection. I have already stipulated that Jesus is both God and man since shortly after the resurrection.

For this reason, the Son of Man was able to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).

Near as I can tell, the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. And why does Matthew 9:8 pass without comment?

As I stated before, the Jews had no concept of the Son of Man as God. It was generally agreed that he was the messiah, and the favoured concept was that he was Metatron (highest of the archangels) transformed to become a human. Beyond that, a wide difference of opinion was expressed. Among them, he was to be strictly human, a scion of either the royal line, or of the priestly line, or perhaps there might be two messiahs, one of the royal line and one of priestly line. Nothing in the Jewish concepts allowed that he was God himself.

Among a host of exposition about the Son of Man:

https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13236-savior

§ In Rabbinic Literature
Yer. Yoma v. relates that, when reference was made in the bet ha-midrash to Simon the Just's having, every year of the forty during which he was high priest, been accompanied into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement by an "aged one," veiled and garbed in linen (i.e., by a heavenly being; comp. the "labush ha-badim" in Ezek. ix. 1, 3 et al.), R. Abbahu objected: "Does not the prohibition, 'No man shall be present in the Tabernacle when the high priest enters the sanctuary,' extend to those of whom it is said, 'the appearance of their countenance was that of a man's countenance'?" (Lev. xvi. 17; Ezek. i. 10). Whereupon the rejoinder was made, "Who says that that being was Bar Nash [(the Son of Man)]? It was the All Holy Himself."
See also ibid, § The heavenly messiah; https://jewishencyclopedia.com/artic...342-man-son-of

The Son of Man, the messiah, was not expected to be God himself.

The Son of Man came to save lives (Luke 9:56; 19:10), rise from the dead (Mark 9:9), and execute judgment (John 5:27).

Logos died - certainly. For Kenotic Christology, that presents a knotty expositional problem. For standard Christology, it presents a knotty problem.

At His trial before the high priest, Jesus said, “I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). This statement immediately ended the trial, as the court accused the Lord of blasphemy

You will note (or should) that the charge of blasphemy did not stick.

and condemned Him to death (verses 65–66).

Nope. The trial ended without such a determination. If there had been such a determination, there would have been no trial before Pilate; only a representation (if that) for permission to enact the sentence. Jesus was sentenced by Rome to execution under Roman law - as the manner of execution attests. Had he been convicted under Jewish law, the execution would have been by stoning.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html[/box]
Another instance can be found in John 10 where we see the same pattern again where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, and he doubles down on his claim which angers them even more.

John 10: 24-25
24 [(The Jews said)] If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe
So Jesus had already told the Jews that he was the Christ, that is, someone anointed by God.

John 10:30
“I and the Father are one.”
I interpret that comment according to the expansion provided by Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane.
John 17:11 - Jesus ask that the disciples be one in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one. The disciples "being one" isn't intended that they somehow become a single being, and their oneness is of the same kind as the oneness of Jesus and the Father. Peter did not become James, nor James Peter, in this hoped for oneness, nor do their morphe, omoioma, and schema combine to form a new, single being.
Even worse for the claim that Jesus declared himself God when he said, "I and the Father are one" is John 17:22-23, which shows this oneness to be unity in love and purpose.

As for Jesus granting his Apostles the authority to forgive sins (I assume you're referring to John 20), he could only do so because he himself had that authority as God. Note that the Apostles did not then have the authority in and of themselves to pass on that authority. It was a unique commission exclusively for them as the very first generation of believers.

He had authority from God - said as much himself: John 5:26-27; John 17:1-2.

So - once again, you have presented a group of verses that, depending on interpretation, might indicate that Jesus was and claimed to be God.

[NorrinRadd]

FTR, I still hold that Jesus remained "I AM" the whole of His time on earth. I am frankly uncertain whether that necessitates that He was also "God." I certainly believe there is enough ambiguity and "mystery" in Scripture that the "temporary abdication" view should not constitute "heresy."

As for "But the Councils concluded..." and "But the Creeds and Confessions hold...," those arguments don't carry a lot of weight with me. Sorry.

[NorrinRadd]

If the emperor abdicates, the person who was the emperor does not cease to exist. At least once in history, an emperor abdicated for some years, and then resumed the throne.



It is the difference between not using the gun holstered on one's hip, and disposing of the gun.



Even in that limited an action, he would have taken on a characteristic that he had not had before - it is a change. A person gets married, there is a change in the person: a spouse has at least a new attitude, and a new role. Even the strongest advocates of impassibility among the ECF's were forced to admit that God is not entirely impassible.

Are you confusing "impassible" with "immutable"?

[NorrinRadd]

[QUOTE=Mountain Man;n1466229]

Son of Man is a title of deity. Ezekiel may have been a son of man, but Jesus is the Son of Man. As such, Jesus is the supreme example of all that God intended mankind to be, the embodiment of truth and grace (John 1:14). In Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). For this reason, the Son of Man was able to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The Son of Man came to save lives (Luke 9:56; 19:10), rise from the dead (Mark 9:9), and execute judgment (John 5:27). At His trial before the high priest, Jesus said, “I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). This statement immediately ended the trial, as the court accused the Lord of blasphemy and condemned Him to death (verses 65–66).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

I've long heard the assertion that "'Son of Man' is a title of deity." I'm on the fence about that. I accept that at least by the time of Jesus, it had become a Messianic title. I'm not sure of the extent to which Jews regarded Messiah as deity.

In any case, WADR, that citation does a poor job of making the point. To wit:

1) The title makes the declaration, and then the very first sentence contradicts it by saying that "Son of Man" referred to Jesus being the ultimate example of humanity, not deity.

2) The verse cited there -- John 1:14 -- makes no reference to "Son of Man." In John, that term first appears at the very *end* of that chapter, in a different setting.

3) "Son of Man" does not occur anywhere in Colossians, so the 2:9 citation is pointless.

4) The Matthew 9:6 citation does not prove the point, especially when one considers v. 8 in the same context (emphasis mine): "When the crowd saw this, they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men."

5) The "Lord of the Sabbath" reference would have been marginally more credible if the author had cited Matthew 12:8. Unlike Matthew, Mark's version includes v. 27, which explicitly explains *why* the "Son of Man" is "Lord of the Sabbath" (emphasis mine): “The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath. (V. 28) For this reason..."

6) Luke 9:56 appears to be an error; probably 6:9 is intended; neither it nor 19:10 says anything obvious about deity, apart from unstated presuppositions supporting that idea.

7) Mark 9:9 only predicts His rising. It does not link it with His deity. We know from elsewhere He said that "He" would raise the metaphorical temple (His dead body), but even those asserting that He "abdicated" His deity only make that claim between His conception and His death. Further, John 21:14 says He "was raised," implying by someone else; Acts 4:10 and 13:32-34 say that "God," clearly a distinct Divine Person, did the raising; likewise Rom. 4:24, 8:11, 10:9, Gal. 1:1, and 1 Thess. 1:10.

8) John 5:27 is unconvincing, especially given the context. In v. 25, He refers to Himself as the Son of God, then goes on to say that the reason He has authority to judge is that He is Son of Man. (Interestingly, however, the "life in Himself" tidbit in v. 26 could hint at His deity during His Incarnate time on earth, apart from whatever "Son of Man" means.)

9) The Matt. 26:64 thing, especially the "clouds of Heaven," is definitely a reference to deity. The context does not show that "deity" is inherent in the Son of Man title, as opposed to being a rank He (re)gains in the future.

Another instance can be found in John 10 where we see the same pattern again where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, and he doubles down on his claim which angers them even more.

Keener, in the notes of the IVP Bible Background Commentary, agrees that this is a claim to deity, and that the "stoners" recognize it as such. The problem is that Jesus as quoted by John complicates things. The "one" language from 10:30 recurs in the Last Supper Discourse, in ch. 17 IIRC, and there parallel language is used about the disciples. Further, to justify His "Son of God" terminology, He appeals to Psa. 82:6, where it was considered non-blasphemous for the merely mortal judges who served as God's agents to be referred to as "gods" and "sons of the Most High."

As for Jesus granting his Apostles the authority to forgive sins (I assume you're referring to John 20), he could only do so because he himself had that authority as God. Note that the Apostles did not then have the authority in and of themselves to pass on that authority. It was a unique commission exclusively for them as the very first generation of believers.

I'll take the liberty of assuming tab may also have in mind the "bind and loose" citations, but primarily John 20. For those who believe Jesus "abdicated" His deity for a time, the John 20 quote would not be a refutation, because they believe He re-assumed His divine status at some point after His death. So from that perspective, He as God would be granting His followers the same authority He had as a man.

On the "pass[ing] on the authority" and "unique commission exclusively for them" (my emphasis) -- There is nothing in the context to suggest that. If you are going to make that claim, you might as well claim that the whole idea of the "Great Commission," of which this is John's version, was only for them. I don't think that fits the immediate context, the larger Johannine context, or the parallel Great Commission accounts.

John 20:23 is directly linked to the impartation of the Spirit in 20:22 and the statement in 20:21 that Jesus was "sending" them "[j]ust as" the Father sent Jesus. (I realize there are definite limits to the "just as," because no one but Jesus was sent to ransom the world.) Only here and in 7:39 does John use the receive + Spirit language. In ch. 7 it is linked with the "living water" language of 4:10-11. Here in ch. 20, it echoes both Gen. 2:7 and Eze. 37 (so it presents the risen Jesus as both God and prophet of God). In all three cases, it has the import of imparting life, and cannot reasonably apply only to the first generation, any more that only the first generation constituted the branches of the Vine in John's Last Supper Discourse.

But here John clearly links the Spirit with the "sending" and the authority to "forgive" or "retain" sins.

With some definite differences in emphasis and details, there are overlaps with especially Luke's Great Commission accounts in Luke 24 and Acts 1, including the importance of the Spirit and the mention of forgiving sin. Lest anyone think that Commissioning and empowering was only for the Apostles and maybe a few choice associates, Acts 2:17-18 and 2:38-39 should dispel that notion.

[Mountain Man]

You are placing a lot of weight behind what uncited verses can be said to imply in contradiction of explicit claims.

Jesus' critics claimed that only God could forgive sins and Jesus did not contradict them? I assume you're referring to Mark 2: 7-11

7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about 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 pallet and walk’?
10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–He *said to the paralytic,
11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”

.
Jesus did not contradict them? The son of man has authority to forgive sins (he does not even say the son of God). That says even the son of man has authority to forgive sins, an authority that was also passed on to the apostles. The least that needs to be done is to show that "the son of man" (bar nash) would have been understood by the audience to mean God. Oop - everything available shows that in the teachings of the time, Bar Nash was not considered to be God. Jesus' audience was well aware that the claim "the son of man has authority to forgive sins" contradicts their claim: the authority to forgive sins was firmly held by someone who was not God. Various explanations of the identity of Bar Nash were extant, but not one of them declared him to be God. By "son of man" the audience understood "not God (alone)"

What significance do you assign to Jesus only said the word and the storm was stilled?

Son of Man is a title of deity. Ezekiel may have been a son of man, but Jesus is the Son of Man. As such, Jesus is the supreme example of all that God intended mankind to be, the embodiment of truth and grace (John 1:14). In Him “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). For this reason, the Son of Man was able to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The Son of Man came to save lives (Luke 9:56; 19:10), rise from the dead (Mark 9:9), and execute judgment (John 5:27). At His trial before the high priest, Jesus said, “I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). This statement immediately ended the trial, as the court accused the Lord of blasphemy and condemned Him to death (verses 65–66).

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html

Another instance can be found in John 10 where we see the same pattern again where the Pharisees accuse Jesus of claiming to be God, and he doubles down on his claim which angers them even more.

As for Jesus granting his Apostles the authority to forgive sins (I assume you're referring to John 20), he could only do so because he himself had that authority as God. Note that the Apostles did not then have the authority in and of themselves to pass on that authority. It was a unique commission exclusively for them as the very first generation of believers.

[NorrinRadd]

Abdicated.
Logos did not cease to exist, he simply lay aside godhood during that time. Cupboard emptied does not mean cupboard annihilated.


God's nature would have to change even in the standard (normative) theologies. He had a quality (human existence) that had not existed before. Not even adoptionism would completely preserve the concept of God's impassibility.

Exactly. Mainstream "orthodoxies" tap-dance around this and invent fancy theological terms to justify picking certain preferred Scriptures to take at face value while subordinating or bending others.

[tabibito]

I'm just making observations and redirecting your attempt to put me on the defensive. What is "standard theology"?

It is just what it says - (stock) standard. The usual, normative even.

I'm not really interested in dueling expositions with someone who's playing word games. I understand your position; you ostensibly understand mine.

While you're saying that I am playing word games, I am in fact insisting that the words and phrases have clear meaning. Also, truth is more important to me than point scoring, so I'll examine anything proffered to see whether it has an impact on what I believe, and adjust my beliefs if they come up short.

[quote]I'm not accusing you of anything.[quote]

In this very post, you accuse me of playing word games, and of flying false colours, but you're not accusing me of anything?
Maybe we have different concepts of word games - my concept is that at base, words and phrases get twisted to make it seem that they mean something they do not. Alternatively, it might be claiming that words or phrases are obscure or ambiguous when they are crystal clear.

You're self-admittedly attempting to pass off your beliefs as sort of orthodox.

As Norrin Radd observed, kenosis is not considered heretical. A passible God and human Christ have been gaining in acceptance since Moltmann. They're still on the outer edges of orthodoxy, but gaining ground: too much scriptural evidence is weighing against standard theologies. If you are as well acquainted with developments of theology through the 3rd to 5th centuries as it seems from your posts, you will be well aware that the theologians of the time went well outside the scriptures to develop the concepts that prevailed.

[One Bad Pig]

So far, your arguments have been directed at discrediting me. You haven't offered any argument that discredits mine.

I'm just making observations and redirecting your attempt to put me on the defensive. What is "standard theology"?

If the verses and passages that I have offered are cherry picked, you should have no difficulty in providing an exposition and passages that show where and how my understanding is flawed.

I'm not really interested in dueling expositions with someone who's playing word games. I understand your position; you ostensibly understand mine.

There was a time when a woman decided to prove something I was saying wrong. She opened up the Bible to a relevant passage and read it off. I reached across and ran my finger under the verse preceding what she had read. She read it, and proceeded to vilify me for more than 15 minutes straight, loudly and in no uncertain terms. Did she think she was making a point?

That's nice.

Often enough, in personal encounters, the Holy Spirit has been with me to show that what I have said is true, at least well enough to have my listeners willing to give me second and subsequent hearings. I don't know how that would work on the net, can't even begin to imagine how it might work ... but I'm confident that it can be done.

Whether I am vilified for what I say, or the Holy Spirit acts to confirm what I say seems largely to depend on the attitude of my audience to what I say. Accusations against me are therefore wasted.

I'm not accusing you of anything. You're self-admittedly attempting to pass off your beliefs as sort of orthodox.

[Sparko]

So that's what you meant by "nature."

6 who, although He existed in the MORPHE of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the MORPHE of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself

A laying aside of one morphe and taking up another. Is a person's morphe part of his nature? According to your understanding, he added a human morphe to a divine morphe, which means that he changed - even according to your own definitions. Not only that, but with his incarnation, his homoioma and schema conformed to those of a human. He didn't have a human homoioma or schema before that time.

The nature of God did not change. The nature of God refers to his attributes and what he is: His righteousness, goodness, holiness, spirit, being triune, uncreated, eternal, supreme, etc.


The Son added a human nature, but his divine nature did not change. But we can argue that all day. What is important is that the Son's divine nature did not go away or change while he was incarnate on earth. Whether he did not have access to his "powers" or whether he just didn't use them, has no bearing on whether his divine nature did not cease to exist. Jesus was fully God the Son as well as fully human. Two natures.

Do you agree with that? If not, explain what you do believe, because it sounds like we might be talking past each other.

[tabibito]

Sounds like you are playing word games.

God's nature is not a gun. Did the Son (logos) continue to exist while Jesus was alive? Yes or No?

Was the Son still fully God after the incarnation? yes or no?


No, a person getting married is still the same nature (human being) as when he was single. You don't seem to understand what "nature" means. It is not a role you play, it is what you are.

So that's what you meant by "nature."

6 who, although He existed in the MORPHE of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the MORPHE of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men and being made in the likeness of men.
8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself

A laying aside of one morphe and taking up another. Is a person's morphe part of his nature? According to your understanding, he added a human morphe to a divine morphe, which means that he changed - even according to your own definitions. Not only that, but with his incarnation, his homoioma and schema conformed to those of a human. He didn't have a human homoioma or schema before that time.

[Sparko]

If the emperor abdicates, the person who was the emperor does not cease to exist. At least once in history, an emperor abdicated for some years, and then resumed the throne.



It is the difference between not using the gun holstered on one's hip, and disposing of the gun.

Sounds like you are playing word games.

God's nature is not a gun. Did the Son (logos) continue to exist while Jesus was alive? Yes or No?

Was the Son still fully God during the incarnation? yes or no?

Even in that limited an action, he would have taken on a characteristic that he had not had before - it is a change. A person gets married, there is a change in the person: a spouse has at least a new attitude, and a new role. Even the strongest advocates of impassibility among the ECF's were forced to admit that God is not entirely impassible.

No, a person getting married is still the same nature (human being) as when he was single. You don't seem to understand what "nature" means. It is not a role you play, it is what you are.