In the experience of God and an immortal nature it was a comparison test.
All the aspects and traits in my nature with its personality could be compared point by point with another. The difference is able to be understood from the perspective of my own mind with all flaws.
This is what it is about. Jesus had to overcome at every point to make a nature and mind that is acceptable to God and will be energized by God. This will lead to immortality.
God is an energizing Spirit and cannot be quantified or described or comprehended.
Jesus, the nature and mind is the bridge and conduit that gives access to the energizing power of God.
In the experience of God and an immortal nature it was a comparison test.
All the aspects and traits in my nature with its personality could be compared point by point with another. The difference is able to be understood from the perspective of my own mind with all flaws.
This is what it is about. Jesus had to overcome at every point to make a nature and mind that is acceptable to God and will be energized by God. This will lead to immortality.
God is an energizing Spirit and cannot be quantified or described or comprehended.
Jesus, the nature and mind is the bridge and conduit that gives access to the energizing power of God.
Allan,
Well, I agree that Jesus is the source for accessing the Father, and faith in Him will result in immortality. But Jesus is God. We are not and can never become God. This is an important distinction to keep in mind. I have seen many Arian arguments regarding Christ, including Sir Isaac Newton, who was very interested in pursuing spiritual things. He may have been a genius, but he got this wrong IMO. If Jesus Christ is not God, then our faith is in vain.
Earlier I said that a good translation of John 1:1c is “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often used here by trinitarian translators and theologians to support translating the anarthrous θεός (QEOS) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. Actually, Colwell’s Rule only permits, and does not demand, that a predicate nominative followed by an equating verb ("is" "was" etc.) can be translated as definite rather than indefinite. But we should not be quick to say that the traditional rendering of this phrase is translated in error. And perhaps "and the Word was God" is the best translation here.
But in my opinion one thing that we can demand is the understanding that the anarthrous (no definite article) predicate noun
usually indicates a qualitative nuance when placed before the equative verb ("was"). A definite meaning for the term is the traditional rendering: “the word was God.” Context makes it difficult to see the translation as indefinite ("and the Word was a god") very likely. Linguistically one thing that is clear is that, in general, an anarthrous case should be translated with a qualitative aspect to θεός in John 1:1c. We would need context to lead us to an indefinite translation ("and the Word was a god").
The NEB, Moffatt, NET and a couple other translations IMO got it best by translating in such a way that it was clear that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father) - thus capturing the qualitative aspect. Moffett had, “and the Word was divine,” which does not work that well since “divine” is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. Otherwise that would probably be the best way to translate the phrase. The translation “what God was the Word was,” which the NET Bible has, is IMO a very good translation since it conveys that everything God was in essence, the Word was as well. That translates with a "qualitative" focus which I think is best here.
So then God (the Father) is one in essence with the Son. But please do not equate them as one and the same Person!
There seems to be much confusion regarding the meaning of the trinity. Some see it as One God appearing in various forms or modes (modalism), which does not agree with scripture. Others see it as three Gods, rather than just one! The biblical idea is that there is
one God. yet there are
three distinct persons of the godhead. This comes from just taking what is clear in scripture. Remember, we should not try to make God make sense from a human perspective... He is God.
The key issue here is that the Son is fully God. If we do not accept this, we do not believe in the Christ of the Bible.
I will have a little more to share later about the use of the predicate nominative in koine Greek, and why it was not possible to have an article before QEOS in John 1:1c and not have nonsense. (But to include it here would make this post longer than it is already!) If we did include an article before both the Word (LOGOS) and God (QEOS), that would be modalism. So keeping this in mind, that
John could not place an article before QEOS or else he would be saying that there was one essence and one person as well, we must then deal with whether John intended an indefinite or qualitative meaning here. I think the context makes it very clear:
John 1: 6 - 18 A man came, sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that everyone might believe through him. He himself was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into being by him, but the world did not recognize him. He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. But to all who have received him – those who believe in his name – he has given the right to become God’s children – children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God.
Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. John testified about him and shouted out, “This one was the one about whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is greater than I am, because He existed before me.’” For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. The only one, Himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.
Is not this context clear? Colossians has much to say on this as well as Hebrews 1:
Colossians 1:15-20 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.
He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him. He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Colossians 2:9, 10 For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form, and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
"
All the fulness of deity lives in Christ in bodily form." Seems obvious to me. Also we see that
all things that came into existence came into existence through the Son, and that
He maintains the universe. Is the Son not performing the duties that one would expect from deity?
Hebrews 1:1-3 After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
The Son is "
the radiance of Hos glory and the representation of His essence."
The Jesus of the Bible is in essence God. If we study the NT carefully, it is difficult to come to any other natural conclusion, interpreting the Bible texts as they naturally read. It may be difficult to easily and coherently describe all that the Bible says regarding the Son. But that He is God is clear, as I see it. We should start there.
Catch you guys later.
BadDog
