Titus 2:13 -- The Smoking Gun -- Jesus is God

245

Comments

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260
    edited July 2019

     Jesus is our God and Savior:


    Titus 2:13 King James Bible

    Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

     

    Acts 5:31

    God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

     

    Jesus is the one who is going to appear, making him the great God and Saviour that is spoken of in Titus.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @YourTruthGod posted:

    Titus 2:13 King James Bible

    Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

     

    This verse is one of a handful of verses that, in my view, can reasonably be interpreted to support a Trinitarian Christology. The VAST majority of NT verses, however, cannot be so interpreted, and in fact, support the view that Jesus is NOT God.

    As for Titus 2.13, I think it's important to note that nowhere else in the pastoral epistles is Jesus called God, and in fact, 1 Timothy 2.5 makes clear the distinction between God and the "man" who mediates the relationship between that one God and humanity. (See also the distinction between God and Jesus in 1 Timothy 5.21: "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality. Titus makes a similar distinction in Titus 1.4: "To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." The construction of the bolded clauses offer strong evidence that the author(s) intend to distinguish between God and Jesus.) 


    Acts 5:31

    God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

     Jesus is the one who is going to appear, making him the great God and Saviour that is spoken of in Titus.

    Peter's Christology is quite clear in Acts, I believe.

    • Acts 2.22-24: God "attested" to Jesus by "mighty works and wonders that God did through him." Jesus was crucified according to God's plan, then God raised him up.
    • Acts 2.32: God raised Jesus up.
    • Acts 2.36: God has made Jesus both Christ and Lord.
    • Acts 4.10: God raised the crucified Jesus from the dead.
    • Acts 4.27, 30: (a joint prayer; not just Peter) Jesus is God's "holy servant."
    • Acts 5.30: God raised Jesus.
    • Acts 5.31: God exalted Jesus to God's right hand.

    All of those verses report actions God took for or through Jesus. In NONE of them does Peter or anyone else assert that God acted upon and through one who was also God, or that when God raised Jesus, God actually raised one who was also God.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260
    edited July 2019

    Hi Bill, so glad to be able to have such a serious deep debater to discuss with such things.

    Please be patient with me as I am new and learning how to maneuver here.

    There are more scriptures that show us that Jesus is God, and I hope to discuss them with you.

    As for the scriptures you gave about God raising Jesus, there are also scriptures about the Spirit raising Jesus and Jesus raising himself.

    Jesus raised himself.

    John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

     John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

    John 11:25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;

     The Holy Spirit raised Jesus.

     Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

    The reason why some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and some say the Holy Spirit did, and some others say Jesus did is because they are three and the same.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    Hi Bill, so glad to be able to have such a serious deep debater to discuss with such things.

    Please be patient with me as I am new and learning how to maneuver here.

    There are more scriptures that show us that Jesus is God, and I hope to discuss them with you.

    I am passionate about vigorous, intentional, AND respectful engagements with CD posters. I am a fanatic about the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." And I'm grateful for the spirit of interest and invitation that's apparent to me in your posts. I look forward to our exchanges.

    As for getting used to the place and its processes, take all the time you need.


    John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

     John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

    That Jesus raised himself, and therefore demonstrated his divinity, is an argument at least one other CD poster has made. Some comments about the verses you quoted:

    John 10.18: To my awareness, this is the only place in which Jesus claims to be able to "take up" his life once sacrificed. There is reference to raising the temple from the crucifixion crowd in the Synoptics, but only in John does the image come from Jesus himself. I claim that the VAST majority of NT verses on the issue make clear that Jesus did not raise himself; God did. At no time does Peter, for example, give ANY indication that he believes God and Jesus and the Spirit are one in the same, so that when God raised Jesus, God actually raised God.

    The other thing to note about the claims Jesus makes in John 10 is that he attributes his ability to do those things to the call/charge God has made upon his life. (as you quoted the verse, "This is the command I received from my Father") A natural question to ask, then, is, does Jesus believe he would have had his ministry had the one he calls "Father" not commanded him to it? There is no indication in the Gospels that I'm aware of that Jesus believes he would (see John 5.19-30)


     Romans 8:11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.

    The reason why some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and some say the Holy Spirit did, and some others say Jesus did is because they are three and the same.

    I see no indication in the Romans text that the Spirit is a separate entity/dimension of a larger godhead. Rather, in my view, the Spirit is synonymous for God's power and authority. Consider John the Baptist's word about Jesus in John 3.34: "For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands." (cf Matthew 1.18; Luke 1.35; Luke 24.49; Acts 1.8, 8.18; Acts 10.38)

    In John 4.24 Jesus says "God is Spirit," which again suggests to me that the Spirit is synonymous with God, not a unique, separable manifestation of God (as for Jesus, I believe, "Father" is synonymous for God)

    In sum, I think Romans 8.10 says God raised Jesus from the dead (note that Paul does NOT claim Jesus raised himself from the dead) and that if the Spirit/power of the God who raised Jesus from the dead is in us, we will be raised to new life also.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260
    edited July 2019

    I am passionate about vigorous, intentional, AND respectful engagements with CD posters. I am a fanatic about the CD expectation that we will "criticize ideas, not people." And I'm grateful for the spirit of interest and invitation that's apparent to me in your posts. I look forward to our exchanges.

    As for getting used to the place and its processes, take all the time you need.

    This sounds good. Thank you so much.

     John 2:19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

    That Jesus raised himself, and therefore demonstrated his divinity, is an argument at least one other CD poster has made. Some comments about the verses you quoted:

    John 10.18: To my awareness, this is the only place in which Jesus claims to be able to "take up" his life once sacrificed. There is reference to raising the temple from the crucifixion crowd in the Synoptics, but only in John does the image come from Jesus himself. I claim that the VAST majority of NT verses on the issue make clear that Jesus did not raise himself; God did. At no time does Peter, for example, give ANY indication that he believes God and Jesus and the Spirit are one in the same, so that when God raised Jesus, God actually raised God.

    Well, we can’t put even one scripture aside, don’t you agree?

    John 10:35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside--

    The other thing to note about the claims Jesus makes in John 10 is that he attributes his ability to do those things to the call/charge God has made upon his life. (as you quoted the verse, "This is the command I received from my Father") A natural question to ask, then, is, does Jesus believe he would have had his ministry had the one he calls "Father" not commanded him to it? There is no indication in the Gospels that I'm aware of that Jesus believes he would (see John 5.19-30) .

    Consider that Jesus is God the Father come as a Son in the flesh…so who else would the Son of Man speak of as giving him the commands but God the Father, and how else but God the Father should the Son tell us he obeys? Do you know what I mean?

    I see no indication in the Romans text that the Spirit is a separate entity/dimension of a larger godhead. Rather, in my view, the Spirit is synonymous for God's power and authority. Consider John the Baptist's word about Jesus in John 3.34: "For he is sent by God. He speaks God’s words, for God gives him the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands." (cf Matthew 1.18Luke 1.35Luke 24.49Acts 1.88.18Acts 10.38)

    I believe that there are many scriptures about a thing that says ‘the Father’, or ‘Jesus’, or ‘the Holy Spirit’ because they are one and the same and interchangeable.

    In John 4.24 Jesus says "God is Spirit," which again suggests to me that the Spirit is synonymous with God, not a unique, separable manifestation of God (as for Jesus, I believe, "Father" is synonymous for God)

    In sum, I think Romans 8.10 says God raised Jesus from the dead (note that Paul does NOT claim Jesus raised himself from the dead) and that if the Spirit/power of the God who raised Jesus from the dead is in us, we will be raised to new life also.[/QUOTE]

    But, consider also that the scriptures say Jesus is the Spirit.

    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

    1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.

    The Spirit gives life, see 2 Corinthians 3:6' Jesus gives life and is a life giving Spirit.

    Revelation 19:15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.

    Jesus is the Spirit on the horse and has a Sword which is the Word of God and itself the Spirit.

    The sword of the Spirit is the word of God, see Ephesians 6:17; John 6:63.

  • @YourTruthGod wrote:

    Well, we can’t put even one scripture aside, don’t you agree?

    I certainly agree that all scripture relating to a subject should be put aside in order to understand the subject correctly.

    I would also say this: If there are many plain and clear verses on a subject and one verse or a few verses seemingly difficult or contradictory, then the one or few seemingly difficult must be interpreted in light of the many clear plain ones !! The many clear plain ones must not be interpreted to "fit" the one or few difficult or contradictory one

    Thus, the one or few verses which seem as if they could be interpreted to say that the man Jesus raised himself from the dead and thereby contradict the many plain and clear verses which state the God raised the man Jesus from the dead must be carefully examined to see if they can be understood in a way which would not cause such a contradiction.

    It would be incorrect to re-interpret the many clear verses somehow in order to make them seemingly "agree" with the one contradictory one.

    John 10:35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside--

    How do you understand these words of Jesus in John 10:35 concerning the subject of whether or not Jesus is God ?

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260


    I definitely don't agree with that.

    John 10:35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside--

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @YourTruthGod posted:

    Well, we can’t put even one scripture aside, don’t you agree?

    If by putting a text "aside" you mean refuse to consider or engage it, then certainly I don't think we can put any text "aside." But when one text says "X" and nine texts say "NOT X," one's final assessment as to whether "X" is true will, of necessity, disagree with at least one text. In my view, while there are a handful of texts which can be interpreted to support a Trinitarian Christology (i.e. they say "X") the VAST majority of texts are most sensibly interpreted to support the rejection of a Trinitarian Christology (i.e. they say "NOT X"). In such a circumstance, at least one text - or perhaps more accurately, at least one interpretation of at least one text - must be rejected.

    For example: In a previous post, I offered several texts from the book of Acts, texts which I claim declare Peter's view of Jesus' relationship to God. These texts:

    Acts 2.22-24: God "attested" to Jesus by "mighty works and wonders that God did through him." Jesus was crucified according to God's plan, then God raised him up.

    Acts 2.32: God raised Jesus up.

    Acts 2.36: God has made Jesus both Christ and Lord.

    Acts 4.10: God raised the crucified Jesus from the dead.

    Acts 4.27, 30: (a joint prayer; not just Peter) Jesus is God's "holy servant."

    Acts 5.30: God raised Jesus.

    Acts 5.31: God exalted Jesus to God's right hand.

    Your response was to assert that "The reason why some scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and some say the Holy Spirit did, and some others say Jesus did is because they are three and the same." The problems with your claim are at least two: 1) The cited texts say "God" raised/exalted Jesus, not "the Father," or "the Holy Spirit," or "Jesus;" and 2) None of the cited texts gives ANY indication of support for the view that "Father," "Holy Spirit," and "Jesus" are "three and the same." So what do you do SPECIFICALLY with the cited texts from Acts? Do you set them "aside" in the sense that you disagree with their most sensible meaning, in favor of texts whose most sensible meaning, in your view, supports your Christology?


    I believe that there are many scriptures about a thing that says ‘the Father’, or ‘Jesus’, or ‘the Holy Spirit’ because they are one and the same and interchangeable.

    Please cite text(s) which in your view declare that "the Father," "Jesus," and "the Holy Spirit" are "one and the same and interchangeable." Then I will cite additional texts which in my view make the opposite claim.


    2 Corinthians 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

    2 Corinthians 3:18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

    1 Corinthians 15:45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.

    The Spirit gives life, see 2 Corinthians 3:6' Jesus gives life and is a life giving Spirit.

    Paul clearly believes that the resurrected Jesus ("Lord") is a spiritual being, one he calls "the Spirit." Notice, however, that Paul does NOT call Jesus the "Holy Spirit." He refers to the Holy Spirit on many times in his letters to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, but NEVER does he identify Jesus AS the Holy Spirit. And if you are among those who believe Paul wrote Ephesians, then Ephesians 1.13 and Ephesians 2.18 seem to offer more evidence of Paul's belief that Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.




    Revelation 19:15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.

    I see nothing in the Revelation passages that requires Jesus to be God. Jesus can release God's fury without being God... as God's representative or emissary, for example.


    Jesus is the Spirit on the horse and has a Sword which is the Word of God and itself the Spirit.

    The sword of the Spirit is the word of God, see Ephesians 6:17John 6:63.

    Where in the Revelation text do you find reference to the horse rider's being called a "spirit"? In the text, it seems to me that John describes the rider as a physical being.

  • @YourTruthGod wrote:

    Well, we can’t put even one scripture aside, don’t you agree?

    @Wolfgang wrote

    I certainly agree that all scripture relating to a subject should be put aside in order to understand the subject correctly.

    OOOPS ... somehow in my typing the word NO was accidentally replaced with "all" in the process of rewording my thought ... the above sentence should of course read as follows, which is also borne out by the additional points I mentioned

    I certainly agree that NO scripture relating to a subject should be put aside in order to understand the subject correctly.

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 344

    Quickly, regarding the mentioned subject of who raised Jesus to life – Jesus (Jn. 10:18), God (Acts 5:30), Holy Spirit (Rm. 8:11) – scripture is neither confused, nor is it promoting a three-way competition; I wish to comment that all three – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – clearly work together in harmony, and unity in the resurrection of Jesus as demonstrated by the above referenced texts of scripture.  

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260

    It is not confusing it is revealing.

    They are one, and one means 'the same'.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    Quickly, regarding the mentioned subject of who raised Jesus to life – Jesus (Jn. 10:18), God (Acts 5:30), Holy Spirit (Rm. 8:11) – scripture is neither confused, nor is it promoting a three-way competition; I wish to comment that all three – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – clearly work together in harmony, and unity in the resurrection of Jesus as demonstrated by the above referenced texts of scripture.  

    I dispute the assertion that John 10.18 says Jesus raised himself to life.

    1. The scene the verse reports occurs before the crucifixion, so it can't possibly announce that Jesus raised himself.
    2. In the verse, Jesus doesn't say he WILL "take up [his life] again;" he says that by virtue of the Father's "command" he has the "AUTHORITY" to do so.
    3. On multiple occasions - Matthew 16.21; Matthew 17.9, 23; Matthew 20.19; Matthew 26.32; Mark 14.28; Mark 16.14; Luke 9.22; John 2.22; John 14.20; John 21.14 - even in John's Gospel!) Jesus describes the resurrection as something that will happen TO him - he is the one "raised" - not something he will do for himself. To my awareness, there are no other NT verses that even hint that Jesus raised himself. I will welcome your correction if my claim is incorrect.

    For those reasons - particularly #3 and its Johnannine components - I believe it is reasonable to conclude that John 10.18 does NOT mean Jesus raised himself.

    As for Romans 8.11, notice that in the same verse Paul basically tells us that his reference to the "Spirit" is a synonym for God, not a dimension of a larger godhead. The NLT puts it this way: (emphasis added)

    "The Spirit of God, who raised Jesus from the dead, lives in you. And just as God raised Christ Jesus from the dead, he will give life to your mortal bodies by this same Spirit living within you. "

    In my view, in the context of the verse itself, "Spirit" does not refer to a piece of the Godhead, but rather serves as a synonym for "God."

    So Jesus didn't raise himself, the "Spirit" that raised Jesus is just another name for God, and in Acts, Peter repeatedly says "God" raised Jesus. So who raised Jesus? In my view it's clear: God (who is spirit) did. Not Jesus. And not the Holy Spirit, if it is deemed to be a separable component of the Godhead.

  • @YourTruthGod wrote

    They are one, and one means 'the same'.

    That two persons are one does NOT mean that they are the same person. It could mean - depending on the context of such a statement - that the two persons are of one mind, have one goal, work together on something, etc. ... BUT it would NOT mean that the two are one and the same.

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 344

    @Bill_Coley

    I dispute the assertion that John 10.18 says Jesus raised himself to life.

    . The scene the verse reports occurs before the crucifixion, so it can't possibly announce that Jesus raised himself.

    . In the verse, Jesus doesn't say he WILL "take up [his life] again;" he says that by virtue of the Father's "command" he has the "AUTHORITY" to do so.

    I disagree with you here on the above points, as Jn. 10:17-18 clearly denotes initiative and authority on Jesus’s part to both lay down his life and take up his life. Both verbs τίθημι (lay down) and λάβω (take up) are active throughout the two verses; so that Jesus is the one doing the actions of laying down and taking up his life. Here in the text of Jn. 10:17-18 the Father’s command is not in itself the actions described.

    Additionally, Jn.2:19-21, where 2:19 uses a future active verb – the raising is being preformed by the subject, Jesus.  

    I’m certain that the timing of this scene being prior to the events is of no consequence as scripture often foretells future events. In fact many, if not all of the texts cited below, witness exactly to this being the case.

    . On multiple occasions - Matthew 16.21; Matthew 17.9, 23; Matthew 20.19; Matthew 26.32; Mark 14.28; Mark 16.14; Luke 9.22; John 2.22; John 14.20; John 21.14 - even in John's Gospel!) Jesus describes the resurrection as something that will happen TO him - he is the one "raised" - not something he will do for himself. To my awareness, there are no other NT verses that even hint that Jesus raised himself. I will welcome your correction if my claim is incorrect.

    I agree with you, in that, the additional verses that you have provided attest to his being raised; however, these verses do not directly address the question of who raised Jesus – rather, they state a fact or what will become fact.

    As for Romans 8.11, notice that in the same verse Paul basically tells us that his reference to the "Spirit" is a synonym for God,  

    Thank you Bill, for bringing this to my attention. I stand corrected on this. My apologies to all. 

    Some days it’s just best not to be on auto-pilot, glance at a text, and then write without someone to proof. I’ll do my best to not repeat this.

    To summarize the above, I maintain that there is textual language given which gives warrant to understanding that both the Father, and Son were active in the resurrection.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260

    Jesus raised himself. He was COMMANDED by the Father to do so.

    If Jesus did not raise himself, then he did not obey the Father.

    Jesus IS the resurrection and the life.

    Yet, you say he didn't raise himself when he did.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260
    edited July 2019

    @Wolfgang " That two persons are one does NOT mean that they are the same person. It could mean - depending on the context of such a statement - that the two persons are of one mind, have one goal, work together on something, etc. ... BUT it would NOT mean that the two are one and the same."

    It has to mean they are one and the same.

    Scriptures don't say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit raised Jesus.

    The scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and other scriptures say Jesus did, and yet other scripture says the Holy Spirit did.

    The word 'one' even means 'the same'.

    The scriptures even say that the Lord IS the Spirit.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @YourTruthGod posted:

    Jesus raised himself. He was COMMANDED by the Father to do so.

    If Jesus did not raise himself, then he did not obey the Father.

    Jesus IS the resurrection and the life.

    Yet, you say he didn't raise himself when he did.

    Some comments:

    1. John 10.18 does NOT say Jesus raised himself.
    2. The verse does NOT say the Father "COMMANDED" Jesus to raise himself. The "command" is that Jesus have the "authority" to "lay down [his] life" and "to take it up again."
    3. To my knowledge, no other New Testament text even hints that Jesus raised himself (please cite passages to correct my understanding)
    4. The VAST, VAST majority of NT verses on the subject - that is, every one except John 10.18 - say the resurrection was an action of which Jesus was the recipient, NOT the cause.
    5. Jesus' word that he is the resurrection and the life is not an assertion that he raised himself. He defines his pronouncement in the very same verses (John 11.25-26) - "Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying. 26 Everyone who lives in me and believes in me will never ever die...." That is, for Jesus, being the resurrection and life means those who believe in him will be raised to eternal life.


  • @YourTruthGod wrote

    @Wolfgang " That two persons are one does NOT mean that they are the same person. It could mean - depending on the context of such a statement - that the two persons are of one mind, have one goal, work together on something, etc. ... BUT it would NOT mean that the two are one and the same."

    @YourTruthGod

    It has to mean they are one and the same.

    John 17:21   That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    Are you of the opinion that all believers become one and the same believer?

    Scriptures don't say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit raised Jesus.

    The scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and other scriptures say Jesus did, and yet other scripture says the Holy Spirit did.

    ?? are you reading from a Bible version that is quite different from the ones commonly used? I am using a number of English Bible translations, various German Bible translations, Greek NT ... but could not find what you are talking about here.

    All scripture is rather plain and clear - whatever translation I looked up - that God, Jesus' Father, raised Jesus from the dead.

    Also, are you of the opinion that a dead person can raise themselves from the dead ??? Or are you of the opinion that Jesus did not really die and was not really dead ???

    The word 'one' even means 'the same'.

    Do you know what context means and how context relates to the meaning of a word used ?

    The scriptures even say that the Lord IS the Spirit.

    See above about context ... and the importance of context for the meaning of words used.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Wolfgang posted:

    John 17:21   That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    Are you of the opinion that all believers become one and the same believer?

    A perceptive find, Wolfgang. Thanks.

    In John 10.30, Jesus says he and the Father are "one." In John 17.21, as you point out, Jesus prays that his followers will be "one" just as he and the Father are one. Clearly, in my view, that means Jesus does NOT believe his oneness with God is a sign of personal divinity; instead, I think he believes it's a sign of spiritual intimacy... the likes of which he prays for those who follow him.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260
    edited July 2019

    @Bill_Coley Some comments:

     does NOT say Jesus raised himself.

    The verse does NOT say the Father "COMMANDED" Jesus to raise himself. The "command" is that Jesus have the "authority" to "lay down [his] life" and "to take it up again."

    To my knowledge, no other New Testament text even hints that Jesus raised himself

    The VAST, VAST majority of NT verses on the subject - that is, every one except  - say the resurrection was an action of which Jesus was the recipient, NOT the cause.

    Jesus' word that he is the resurrection and the life is not an assertion that he raised himself. He defines his pronouncement in the very same verses () - That is, for Jesus, being the resurrection and life means those who believe in him will be raised to eternal life.

    The scripture does say Jesus raised himself.

    The scripture does say the Father commanded him to raise himself.

    Saying the vast majority of NT verses say something else is no reason a person can discount what even one other scripture says.

    Besides, I can give MANY scriptures on different topics where the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are interchangeable, not just about who raised Jesus.

    You are saying the scriptures don't say what they do plainly say.

    You are not acknowledging that there are scriptures that say Jesus raised himself; are you acknowledging the scriptures that say Jesus is the Spirit?

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260

    @Wolfgang

    John 17:21   That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    Are you of the opinion that all believers become one and the same believer?

    No. Jesus puts us in him and the Father. No matter how much we believe like Jesus, we are not Jesus.


    YourTruthGod: "Scriptures don't say the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit raised Jesus.

    The scriptures say the Father raised Jesus, and other scriptures say Jesus did, and yet other scripture says the Holy Spirit did."

    ?? are you reading from a Bible version that is quite different from the ones commonly used? I am using a number of English Bible translations, various German Bible translations, Greek NT ... but could not find what you are talking about here.

    The scriptures do not say:"The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit raised Jesus."

    There are scriptures that say the Father raised Jesus. There are other scriptures that say Jesus raised himself; and, there are other scriptures that say the Holy Spirit raised Jesus. Again, there are no scriptures that say what you say about the Father, Jesus, and Spirit raising Jesus. Do you know what I mean?

    All scripture is rather plain and clear - whatever translation I looked up - that God, Jesus' Father, raised Jesus from the dead.

    Also, are you of the opinion that a dead person can raise themselves from the dead ??? Or are you of the opinion that Jesus did not really die and was not really dead ???

    The word 'one' even means 'the same'.

    We are flesh and spirit. The flesh dies but not the spirit.

    Jesus was flesh and Spirit. His Spirit was the Spirit of God the Father come as a man.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260

    @Bill_Coley A perceptive find, Wolfgang. Thanks.

    In John 10.30, Jesus says he and the Father are "one." In John 17.21, as you point out, Jesus prays that his followers will be "one" just as he and the Father are one. Clearly, in my view, that means Jesus does NOT believe his oneness with God is a sign of personal divinity; instead, I think he believes it's a sign of spiritual intimacy... the likes of which he prays for those who follow him.


    Only God can put us in Him. Jesus is that God.

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675

    @Pages posted:

    I disagree with you here on the above points, as Jn. 10:17-18 clearly denotes initiative and authority on Jesus’s part to both lay down his life and take up his life. Both verbs τίθημι (lay down) and λάβω (take up) are active throughout the two verses; so that Jesus is the one doing the actions of laying down and taking up his life. Here in the text of Jn. 10:17-18 the Father’s command is not in itself the actions described.

    How do initiative and authority on Jesus' part demonstrate his role in the completion of the resurrection? Other than, perhaps, John 2.19, where are the OTHER NT verses/passages that declare Jesus' raising himself?

    Further, it's not clear to me that by the phrase "take it up again" Jesus means he will raise himself. In my view, the most reasonable interpretation of the phrase is that after laying down his life in sacrifice (John 10.17) he will pick it up again after he is raised. Recall that on several occasions (quoted in previous post) Jesus makes it clear that the resurrection is something that will happen TO him, not because of him. I think Jesus means he will lay down his life in sacrifice and pick up his life when it is given to him by the God who raises him - at least that's translation that is congruent with the VAST majority of NT passages on the matter.


    Additionally, Jn.2:19-21, where 2:19 uses a future active verb – the raising is being preformed by the subject, Jesus. 

    But John 2.22 makes it clear that John believes the resurrection was something that happened TO Jesus: "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered he had said this, and they believed both the Scriptures and what Jesus had said."  If John believed Jesus' reference to his raising the temple in three days meant Jesus raised himself, then I think John would have said, "After Jesus raised himself [or at least no less than "After Jesus rose from the dead..."]..." but that's not what John reports. John reports Jesus as the passive recipient of the raising. In my view, that's not a declaration of Jesus' raising himself.


    I’m certain that the timing of this scene being prior to the events is of no consequence as scripture often foretells future events. In fact many, if not all of the texts cited below, witness exactly to this being the case.

    And the vast majority of those other verses report the resurrection as something that happens TO Jesus, not because of him. At some point, it seems to me, it is incumbent on you to explain why the Gospel writers and Jesus himself could so frequently declare the resurrection to be an action taken upon Jesus, when it was actually an action taken by him. Why so much misleading witness?


    I agree with you, in that, the additional verses that you have provided attest to his being raised; however, these verses do not directly address the question of who raised Jesus – rather, they state a fact or what will become fact.

    I base my claim on the grammatical meaning of the passive voice. "Jesus was raised" means, grammatically, that someone other than he raised him. Consider:

    • If I tell you that "I was taken to the library," do you think I mean I took myself to the library?
    • If the news reports that "the escaped prisoners were caught," do you think it means that the prisoners caught themselves?
    • Given the grammatical meaning of the passive voice as displayed in those examples, if the Gospels report that Jesus was raised, how likely is it that they mean Jesus raised himself?


    Thank you Bill, for bringing this to my attention. I stand corrected on this. My apologies to all. 

    I applaud your candor and accountability. Thanks for the good example.


    To summarize the above, I maintain that there is textual language given which gives warrant to understanding that both the Father, and Son were active in the resurrection.

    I respect your view, but strongly disagree. I think the textual evidence is scarce to nearly absent that anyone other than God raised Jesus, and that the option that Jesus raised himself is specifically and on multiple occasions ruled out by the grammar employed in the verses.

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2019

    @Bill_Coley wrote

    I base my claim on the grammatical meaning of the passive voice. "Jesus was raised" means, grammatically, that someone other than he raised him. Consider:


    If I tell you that "I was taken to the library," do you think I mean I took myself to the library?

    I would mean that if I believed you were God and could do anything

    If the news reports that "the escaped prisoners were caught," do you think it means that the prisoners caught themselves?

    I would think it could mean that they fell into a ditch from which they could not get out anymore

    Given the grammatical meaning of the passive voice as displayed in those examples, if the Gospels report that Jesus was raised, how likely is it that they mean Jesus raised himself?

    With God all things are possible ... the more illogical it appears, the more spiritual and God's work it must be.

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260


    Titus 2:13 King James Bible Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

    Acts 5:31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Leader and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

    Jude 1:25 to the only God our Savior be glory,

    Did you read that?


    In Titus 2:13, it says the words great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, but some here won't say that scripture is saying Jesus is God. However, look at Jude 1:25, it says to the ONLY GOD AND SAVIOR.

    So then, if Jesus is not God the Father, then how can he be called the Savior when there is ONLY ONE GOD AND SAVIOR?

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited July 2019

    @YourTruthGod , you should have a look at the verses you throw out here.

    ESV - Tit 2:13  - waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

    YLT - Tit 2:13 - waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,

    NIV - Tit 2:13  - while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior,

    As you hopefully recognize, the translation you mention is not the only possible one. You know, put very simply, the verse declares that the believers were waiting for the realization of their hope, which was the appearing of the display of our God's great glory which is seen the coming of our savior Jesus Christ.

    Acts 5:31 God exalted him to his own right hand as Leader and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

    Acts 5:31 makes a clear distinction between (1) God Who did the exalting, and (2) Jesus,, who was being exalted to God's right hand. Thus it is plain and clear that (1) God and (2) Jesus are NOT one and the same. As for your idea to make two into one because of the word "Savior", see below

    Jude 1:25 speaks of "to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (ESV). As is clearly seen, (1) God and (2) Jesus Christ are NOT one and the same.

    So then, if Jesus is not God the Father, then how can he be called the Savior when there is ONLY ONE GOD AND SAVIOR

    Both God (the Father, the Creator, the Almighty, etc) and also His only begotten Son, the man Jesus are SAVIOR ... Jude 25 says there is only one God, and He is savior .. but He is NOT the only one who is mentioned as savior in connection with man's redemption and salvation.

    God is the One with Whom redemption and salvation has its origin, He devised the plan, etc

    The man Christ Jesus is the one who carried out God's plan of redemption and salvation.

    I hope you realize trhat I most certainly DID READ those verses ... unfortunately, it appears as if you did not read them carefully enough ot else you would have recognized the details I mentioned

  • YourTruthGod
    YourTruthGod Posts: 260

    @Wolfgang, I have no idea how you think you disproved anything that I said.

  • Pages
    Pages Posts: 344

    @Bill_Coley

    How do initiative and authority on Jesus' part demonstrate his role in the completion of the resurrection? Other than, perhaps, John 2.19, where are the OTHER NT verses/passages that declare Jesus' raising himself?


    Further, it's not clear to me that by the phrase "take it up again" Jesus means he will raise himself. In my view, the most reasonable interpretation of the phrase is that after laying down his life in sacrifice (John 10.17) he will pick it up again after he is raised. Recall that on several occasions (quoted in previous post) Jesus makes it clear that the resurrection is something that will happen TO him, not because of him. I think Jesus means he will lay down his life in sacrifice and pick up his life when it is given to him by the God who raises him - at least that's translation that is congruent with the VAST majority of NT passages on the matter.


    But John 2.22 makes it clear that John believes the resurrection was something that happened TO Jesus: "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered he had said this, and they believed both the Scriptures and what Jesus had said."  If John believed Jesus' reference to his raising the temple in three days meant Jesus raised himself, then I think John would have said, "After Jesus raised himself [or at least no less than "After Jesus rose from the dead..."]..." but that's not what John reports. John reports Jesus as the passive recipient of the raising. In my view, that's not a declaration of Jesus' raising himself.


    And the vast majority of those other verses report the resurrection as something that happens TO Jesus, not because of him. At some point, it seems to me, it is incumbent on you to explain why the Gospel writers and Jesus himself could so frequently declare the resurrection to be an action taken upon Jesus, when it was actually an action taken by him. Why so much misleading witness?


    I base my claim on the grammatical meaning of the passive voice. "Jesus was raised" means, grammatically, that someone other than he raised him. Consider:

    If I tell you that "I was taken to the library," do you think I mean I took myself to the library?

    If the news reports that "the escaped prisoners were caught," do you think it means that the prisoners caught themselves?

    Given the grammatical meaning of the passive voice as displayed in those examples, if the Gospels report that Jesus was raised, how likely is it that they mean Jesus raised himself?


    I respect your view, but strongly disagree. I think the textual evidence is scarce to nearly absent that anyone other than God raised Jesus, and that the option that Jesus raised himself is specifically and on multiple occasions ruled out by the grammar employed in the verses.

    As I’m pressed for time I’ll attempt a concise and, dare I say, shotgun approach to my response. I do apologize in advance for the reversed order in my following reply to the points you raise.

    I believe the answer to most, if not all, the above questions and points lie in the summary of my post you are responding to: where, “I maintain that there is textual language given which gives warrant to understanding that both the Father, and Son were active in the resurrection.” (emphasis mine)

    In other words, we are in agreement that there are texts which declare that God raised Jesus; and additionally, there are texts which speak of the event which do not state who it was that raised Jesus. As your two passive examples demonstrate quite well we are left not knowing whom the agent of action is – I’m not contending that inferences cannot be made; just that no definite identity is given in those texts, and this will apply correspondingly as well to those texts referencing Jesus being raised.   

    So, to summarize thus far we have: 

    1. texts where God is the agent actively raising Jesus (Acts 2:32, 5:30, etc.)

    2. texts that describe Jesus being raised in the passive – without stating who raised, or who would raise Jesus (Matt. 16:21, 17:9, etc.)

    3. texts where Jesus is the agent actively raising himself (Jn. 2:19, 10:17-18)

    Where we come to disagreement is at the third point; which will, for me, include the understanding that both the Father and Son were involved in this event (points 1 and 3). In other words, from the text I do not find this to be an either/or; it is for me clearly a both/and proposition. I hope the preceding will bring clarity to my position on this one matter.  

    As to your comment on Jn. 10:17: where you view the phrase taking up to not encompass the raising is, to me, an interesting thought; as the one event now becomes two. I would differ with you on this point and remark that the taking up of life is not seen as a separate and incomplete component of the resurrection; rather, taking up is the whole of resurrection – which is consistent and definitional of coming to life. 

    Regarding authority in Jn. 10:18: in brief, ἐξουσίαν refers to one having the power, authority, or ability to do something (cf. Mk. 1:27, 2:10, Jn. 19:10). This is further brought out by Jesus stating he possesses ἔχω (to have) all that is necessary ἐξουσίαν (power, authority) to preform the task; hence, Jesus has the power, authority, and ability to both lay down and take up his life. (cf. NRSV rendering of v.18) 

  • Bill_Coley
    Bill_Coley Posts: 2,675
    edited July 2019

    First, thanks for an invigorating and satisfying exchange of views.

    @Pages posted:

    I believe the answer to most, if not all, the above questions and points lie in the summary of my post you are responding to: where, “I maintain that there is textual language given which gives warrant to understanding that both the Father, and Son were active in the resurrection.” (emphasis mine)

    In other words, we are in agreement that there are texts which declare that God raised Jesus; and additionally, there are texts which speak of the event which do not state who it was that raised Jesus. As your two passive examples demonstrate quite well we are left not knowing whom the agent of action is – I’m not contending that inferences cannot be made; just that no definite identity is given in those texts, and this will apply correspondingly as well to those texts referencing Jesus being raised.  

    So, to summarize thus far we have: 


    1. texts where God is the agent actively raising Jesus (Acts 2:32, 5:30, etc.)


    2. texts that describe Jesus being raised in the passive – without stating who raised, or who would raise Jesus (Matt. 16:21, 17:9, etc.)


    3. texts where Jesus is the agent actively raising himself (Jn. 2:19, 10:17-18)

    Prompted by your post, I did a Logos search for the word "raised" when used to describe Jesus' resurrection. I'll offer the text list at the end of this post, but for the moment, here's a summary of what I found:

    • 25 instances of "raised" - 10 of which are in the Gospels - where Jesus is the passive recipient of resurrection by an unidentified power/force/person/deity.
    • 24 instances of "raised" that name God as the one who raised Jesus.
    • 1 instance of "raised" in which "the power of the Holy Spirit" raises Jesus.
    • And 0 instances of "raised" in which Jesus raises himself.

    As for those 24 unidentified agents of resurrection:

    1. We know from their use of the passive voice that the writers/speakers of those instances do NOT contend that Jesus did the raising.
    2. 1 Corinthians 15.35,43,52 all refer to US as passive recipients of resurrection, but in the passage Paul ALSO tells us who will raise us: God. (1 Corinthians 15.38)

    Given the totality of that record, I don't see a textual basis upon which to argue that Jesus raised himself. It seems to me that your argument relies on one, perhaps two verses/passages in John, verses which must hold their ground against the persuasive impact of at least 49 other verses/passages in the NT, almost of whose grammatical constructions - either via the passive voice or through presenting Jesus as the direct object of God's action - rule out Jesus as the agent of resurrection.


    Where we come to disagreement is at the third point; which will, for me, include the understanding that both the Father and Son were involved in this event (points 1 and 3). In other words, from the text I do not find this to be an either/or; it is for me clearly a both/and proposition. I hope the preceding will bring clarity to my position on this one matter.  

    I don't see the textual support for your view. In my view, the 25 instances of the passive voice by grammatical definition rule out Jesus as the agent of, or even a partner in, his own raising, as do the many verses in which Jesus is the object of God's action.


    As to your comment on Jn. 10:17: where you view the phrase taking up to not encompass the raising is, to me, an interesting thought; as the one event now becomes two. I would differ with you on this point and remark that the taking up of life is not seen as a separate and incomplete component of the resurrection; rather, taking up is the whole of resurrection – which is consistent and definitional of coming to life. 

    To my reading of the phrase, for Jesus, the two processes - laying down and taking up his life - are distinct and separable. I respect your different conclusion.


    Regarding authority in Jn. 10:18: in brief, ἐξουσίαν refers to one having the power, authority, or ability to do something (cf. Mk. 1:27, 2:10, Jn. 19:10). This is further brought out by Jesus stating he possesses ἔχω (to have) all that is necessary ἐξουσίαν (power, authority) to preform the task; hence, Jesus has the power, authority, and ability to both lay down and take up his life. (cf. NRSV rendering of v.18) 

    I agree that Jesus had the authority, power and ability to lay down and take up his life. We disagree, as previously noted, as to what taking up his life means.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    NOW HERE'S THE LIST OF NT TEXTS I FOUND IN WHICH "RAISED" REFERS TO THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS. [KEY: (p)=passive voice/unidentified agent; (G)=God raised Jesus; (HS)=the power of the Holy Spirit raised; I used the NLT version and for this list excepted only the clause in which the word "raised" appears. I'm open to correction, but I don't believe my process or quotations risk contextual challenges.]

    (p) Matthew 16.21 - would be raised 
    (p) Matthew 19.9 - will be raised
    (p) Matthew 20.19 - will be raised
    (p) Matthew 26.32 - after I have been raised
    (p) Mark 14.28 - after I am raised
    (p) Mark 16.14 - after he had been raised
    (p) Luke 9.22 - will be raised
    (p) John 2.22 - after he was raised
    (p) John 14.20 - when I am raised
    (p) John 21.14 - since he had been raised
    
    (G) Acts 2.24 - God released... and raised him
    (G) Acts 2.32 - God raised Jesus
    (G) Acts 3.15 - God raised him
    (G) Acts 3.26 - God raised up his servant
    (G) Acts 4.10 - the man you crucified but God raised from the dead
    (G) Acts 5.30 - the God of our ancestors raised Jesus
    (G) Acts 10.40 - God raised him
    (G) Acts 13.30 - God raised him
    (G) Acts 13.37 - someone whom God raised
    
    (HS)Romans 1.4 - raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit
    (G) Romans 4.24 - believe in him (God), the one who raised Jesus our Lord
    (p) Romans 4.25 - he was raised to new life
    (G) Romans 6.4 - Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father
    (p) Romans 7.4 - the one who was raised from the dead
    (G) Romans 8.11 - the Spirit of God (or) God raised Christ Jesus
    (p) Romans 8.34 - was raised to life for us
    (G) Romans 10.9 - God raised him from the dead
    
    (G) 1 Corinthians 6.14 - God will raise us...just as he raised our Lord
    (p) 1 Corinthians 14.4 - he was raised from the dead
    (p) 1 Corinthians 15.13 - if... then Christ has not been raised either
    (p) 1 Corinthians 15.14 - if Christ has not been raised
    (G) 1 Corinthians 15.15 - God raised Christ 
    (p) 1 Corinthians 15.16 - if... then Christ has not been raised
    (p) 1 Corinthians 15.17 - if Christ has not been raised
    (p) 1 Corinthians 15.20 - Christ has been raised
    (p) 1 Corinthians 15.23 - Christ was raised
    
    (G) 2 Corinthians 4.14 - God, who raise the Lord Jesus
    (p) 2 Corinthians 5.15 - Christ, who died and was raised for them
    
    (G) Galatians 1.1 - God the Father, who raised Jesus
    
    (G) Ephesians 1.19-20 - God’s power... that raised Christ from the dead
    (G) Ephesians 2.4-5 - God...gave us life when he raised Christ
    (G) Ephesians 2.6 - he (God) raised us from the dead along with Christ
    
    (p) Philippians 3.10 - the mighty power that raised [Christ] from the dead
    
    (G) Colossians 2.12 - God, who raised Christ from the dead
    
    (G) 1 Thessalonians 1.10 - Jesus, whom God raised
    (p) 1 Thessalonians 4.14 - Jesus died and was raised
    
    (p) 2 Timothy 2.8 - Jesus Christ... was raised from the dead
    
    (G) 1 Peter 1.3 - God raised Jesus
    (G) 1 Peter 1.21 - he (God) raised Christ from the dead
    (p) 1 Peter 3.18 - he was raised to life in the Spirit
    

     

Sign In or Register to comment.