P
purestmoney
Guest
there is a major difference seeing the Father in a person and know that a person is the real Father we are talking about, seeing the father in you is not a concrete evidence to prove that you are the Father
- Status
D
Darryl_B
Guest
That is correct, but that is only a subset of what Thomas is expressing. You are focusing on the implicit reference which certainly does exist, however you avoided at all costs the explicit, for which you probably have your own personal reasons, if you would like to share them.
The explicit is a direct statement to Jesus Christ being the subject of Thomas’ observation. “My Lord and my God” Jesus Christ.
I wonder whether Thomas knew that his words would one day suffer from theological indirection.
The explicit is a direct statement to Jesus Christ being the subject of Thomas’ observation. “My Lord and my God” Jesus Christ.
I wonder whether Thomas knew that his words would one day suffer from theological indirection.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
The gospel of John is extremely poetic, mystical and theological. The true meaning is never the surface meaning.
For example, Jesus says both:
" If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true." - John 5:31
“Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true.” - John 8:14
To read only the surface meaning is to misunderstand the Gospel of John.
For example, Jesus says both:
" If I alone bear witness about myself, my testimony is not deemed true." - John 5:31
“Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true.” - John 8:14
To read only the surface meaning is to misunderstand the Gospel of John.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The problem with “never the surface meaning” is that such a claim leads inevitably to the next step which is something like, “we are therefore free to assign whatever meaning we wish to the ‘true meaning’ since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the surface meaning.”
Why is the “surface meaning” even stated, then, if the true meaning is NEVER the surface meaning and has no correlation to it?
This is an unwarranted step. It is proposing unfettered eisegesis instead of proper exegesis
The surface meaning is a step to the true meaning and points unquestionably towards the true meaning once the surface meaning is properly and fully understood.
What do you understand as the “true meaning” of the Gospel of John, then?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
In the context of Jesus walking on the water, which according to the OT is something only God can do, along with Jesus intending to “pass them by” another phrase which always occurs in OT theophanies, the translation of “Ego eimi” or I Am is, indeed, warranted.Crusader13:
False. “Ego eimi” means “it is I” in this context, hence why every translator translates it such. Just because somebody says “I am” does not mean they are using the divine name.
This was intended by the Gospel writers to be a theophany – God revealing himself – which is why the disciples dropped in worship (proskuneo) of Jesus.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
Does that mean Peter is God, then?
No. They understood that Jesus was the mystery of Godliness in the flesh, so that is why he performed Godly works and miracles.
But alas, it is not he who is doing it. Because we are told it is the father working through him that did these many wonders. (Acts 2:22)
W
whyeyeman
Guest
This is not what I mean at all. Ok, perhaps when it says “Jesus went into Capernaum” or something it’s surface meaning is true.
But what we are talking about in John 20:28 is the culmination of the entire Gospel. It is nothing trivial. It is Thomas professing what Jesus has been trying to make his disciples understand the whole time. That Jesus is the holy one of God, and when you look at Jesus you see the image of the father.
W
whyeyeman
Guest
That Jesus Christ is the holy one sent by God to gather the elect into his Kingdom.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So Jesus is not God then, according to you, since it had to be God the Father working through him?
What precisely is “the mystery of Godliness in the flesh?”
D
Darryl_B
Guest
You have gone from the argument that “it is simple” to “it is complex” in very quick succession. Which one is it?
John 5:31 the law requires 2 or 3 witnesses, 2 okay, 3 best. To the unbeliever the testimony of Jesus Christ concerning Himself, is insufficient.
John 8:14 but the reality is by witnessing about himself, he has 3 witnesses, which begs the question, when is 1 witness 3 and when is 3 witnesses 1?
Which agrees with the classic Trinitarian formulation, and validates the revelation made to Thomas which he then expressed explicitly “my Lord and my God” Jesus Christ.
It appears to me there is a pool, which you are resisting looking into, circumventing that pool, preferring the water to be darkness, a void, and therefore denying Thomas the right to his own personal observation of that pool and seeing a little less darkly than you are prepared to give him credit for.
Any particular reason you are doing this?
John 5:31 the law requires 2 or 3 witnesses, 2 okay, 3 best. To the unbeliever the testimony of Jesus Christ concerning Himself, is insufficient.
John 8:14 but the reality is by witnessing about himself, he has 3 witnesses, which begs the question, when is 1 witness 3 and when is 3 witnesses 1?
Which agrees with the classic Trinitarian formulation, and validates the revelation made to Thomas which he then expressed explicitly “my Lord and my God” Jesus Christ.
It appears to me there is a pool, which you are resisting looking into, circumventing that pool, preferring the water to be darkness, a void, and therefore denying Thomas the right to his own personal observation of that pool and seeing a little less darkly than you are prepared to give him credit for.
Any particular reason you are doing this?
W
whyeyeman
Guest
I didn’t say that. But the Bible says that God the father did the miracles. Acts 2:22.
Jesus Christ. He is the embodiment of God’s plan of salvation for mankind and the one by whom this shall be achieved.
P
purestmoney
Guest
ALL these explanation cannot convince a 10 year old buy that JESUS is the GOD and not SON of GOD.
B
bsy
Guest
Hello purestmoney
I think you are confused with “nature” and “persons”…
Nature : God/Divine
Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
CCC 254
The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another:
“He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.
++++++++++++++
When Jesus said, “The Father and I are one.” Jesus was referring to their nature - one nature that is “God.”
When Jesus called Himself the “Son.” He was referring to His person.
I think you are confused with “nature” and “persons”…
Nature : God/Divine
Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
CCC 254
The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another:
“He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.
++++++++++++++
When Jesus said, “The Father and I are one.” Jesus was referring to their nature - one nature that is “God.”
When Jesus called Himself the “Son.” He was referring to His person.
- Status