Titus 2:13 -- The Smoking Gun -- Jesus is God
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley wrote:
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 plain as it possibly could be ... the problem is that "God" is different for some folks. They argue strange things, such as Jesus is God, because God raised Jesus from the dead, he must have raised himself; they also say that God is immortal and cannot die ... but he can raise Himself from the dead ...
Good night, common sense, reason and logic ... but then, they claim that God's spiritual knowledge is any ways far abovee human logic ...
and on and on goes the carousel ....
-
The scriptures plainly say that Jesus raised himself.
There are people here who deny that truth.
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;
-
@Bill_Coley As plain as it possibly could be ... the problem is that "God" is different for some folks. They argue strange things, such as Jesus is God, because God raised Jesus from the dead, he must have raised himself; they also say that God is immortal and cannot die ... but he can raise Himself from the dead ...
Good night, common sense, reason and logic ... but then, they claim that God's spiritual knowledge is any ways far abovee human logic ...
and on and on goes the carousel ....
To believe as you do, a person would have to deny the scriptures that say Jesus raised himself.
They would have to deny the scriptures that say Jesus is God.
They would have to deny that spirits can't die.
They would have to deny all the many other times the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are INTERCHANGEABLE.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote:
They would have to deny all the many other times the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are INTERCHANGEABLE.
And they certainly won't agree with your kind of joke ...
-
@Wolfgang And they certainly won't agree with your kind of joke ...
There is no joke from me.
Only God knows every human's heart.
Do you agree Wolfgang?
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
The scriptures plainly say that Jesus raised himself.
- As I reported in a previous post, the Scriptures 25 times "plainly say" that Jesus "was raised," a phrase whose meaning, by grammatical definition, is that he was the object, not the cause, of his resurrection.
- As I also reported in that previous post, the Scriptures 24 times "plainly say" that God raised Jesus, a phrase whose meaning, by grammatical definition, is that Jesus was the object of God's action, not the cause of it.
- As I also reported in that previous post, the Scriptures 0 times "plainly say" that Jesus raised himself.
Therefore, you cite three texts, EXACTLY NONE OF WHICH say Jesus raised (past tense) himself - that is, that he actually did the raising - while I cite 49 texts, EXACTLY ALL OF WHICH say Jesus could not have raised himself because, according to the grammar of the 49 verses, he was the object of his resurrection, not its cause.
Where is the NT verse that looks back on Jesus' resurrection and concludes, AFTER THE EVENT, that Jesus raised himself?
-- John 10.18 reports part of a presentation Jesus made to an audience before his resurrection.
-- John 2.19 reports part of a conversation Jesus had with some religious leaders after he overturned moneychangers' tables in the temple, another event that happened before the resurrection.
-- John 11.25 reports part of a conversation Jesus had with Martha when he raised Lazarus from the dead, yet another event that happened before the resurrection.
-- While all 49 of the verses I cite report on the resurrection as an event that has already happened - that is, the verses I cite report after the resurrection.
Where is the NT verse that reports the resurrection as an event that has already taken place AND that says Jesus raised himself?
And what is your response - please no distraction or evasion - to the grammatical reality of those 49 verses? BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR THEY MUST MEAN Jesus was the object, not the cause, of his resurrection.
There are people here who deny that truth.
I can't speak for others, but personally, I make it a practice not to deny truth. If I deny the truth of a proposition, it's always because I don't believe the proposition is true. Of course I have denied the truth of propositions that were in fact true - and those denials of truth were mistakes - but I make it a practice not to deny propositions that I believe to be true.
Jesus raised himself.
This is a proposition that I do not believe is true, which is why I deny it.
-
@Bill_Coley As I reported in a previous post, the Scriptures "plainly say" that Jesus "was raised," a phrase whose meaning, , is that he was the object, not the cause, of his resurrection.
That is not true. The scripture plainly says he will raise himself.
As I also reported in that previous post, the Scriptures "plainly say" that God raised Jesus, a phrase whose meaning, , is that Jesus was the object of God's action, not the cause of it. As I also reported in that previous post, the Scriptures "plainly say" that Jesus raised himself.
The Bible plainly says it.
Therefore, you cite three texts, EXACTLY NONE OF WHICH say Jesus raised (past tense) himself - that is, that he actually did the raising - while I cite 49 texts, EXACTLY ALL OF WHICH say Jesus could not have raised himself because, according to the grammar of the 49 verses, he was the object of his resurrection, not its cause.
No one can put even one scripture aside.
Where is the NT verse that looks back on Jesus' resurrection and concludes, AFTER THE EVENT, that Jesus raised himself?
-- John 10.18 reports part of a presentation Jesus made to an audience before his resurrection.
-- John 2.19 reports part of a conversation Jesus had with some religious leaders after he overturned moneychangers' tables in the temple, another event that happened before the resurrection.
-- John 11.25 reports part of a conversation Jesus had with Martha when he raised Lazarus from the dead, yet another event that happened before the resurrection.
You are not making any sense at all to me.
-- While all 49 of the verses I cite report on the resurrection as an event that has already happened - that is, the verses I cite report after the resurrection.
Where is the NT verse that reports the resurrection as an event that has already taken place AND that says Jesus raised himself?
And what is your response - please no distraction or evasion - to the grammatical reality of those 49 verses? BY THE RULES OF GRAMMAR THEY MUST MEAN Jesus was the object, not the cause, of his resurrection.
Jesus said he would raise himself in three days and he did.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
@Bill_Coley As I reported in a previous post, the Scriptures "plainly say" that Jesus "was raised," a phrase whose meaning, [THREE WORDS EDITED OUT HERE] , is that he was the object, not the cause, of his resurrection.
As I also reported in that previous post, the Scriptures "plainly say" that God raised Jesus, a phrase whose meaning, [THREE WORDS EDITED OUT HERE] , is that Jesus was the object of God's action, not the cause of it. As I also reported in that previous post, the Scriptures "plainly say" that Jesus raised himself.
Why did you choose to remove the three word clause "by grammatical definition" from my first two bullet points? That clause is crucial to the meaning and dispositive effect of those two assertions.
That is not true. The scripture plainly says he will raise himself.
Perhaps THIS explains why you chose to remove the three word clause, "by grammatical definition"! Those three words explain on what basis it is in fact TRUE that the phrase "was raised" means Jesus was the object, not the cause, of his resurrection. You're entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own rules of grammar. "Was raised" is a clause set in the passive voice, which, by grammatical definition, means the object of clause's action is instead the clause's subject, as in "Jesus was raised." In that clause, Jesus is the one raised, NOT the one who does the raising. That's grammar 101, even if you edit out my references to it.
No one can put even one scripture aside.
So this must mean that you don't put aside the 49 verses that say Jesus was the recipient of resurrection, not its cause. Good.
I've explained to you how I exegete the three verses you cited (they are set BEFORE the resurrection, and there is no NT verse that looks back at the resurrection as a past event and says "Jesus did that" (past tense) My 49 verses, on the other hand, all look back at the resurrection as a past event and say Jesus didn't do that - he was raised by someone/something other than himself.) You may/likely disagree with my exegesis. Your right. Please return the favor to me now by explaining how you exegete the 49 verses I cited, which all say about the same thing: Jesus was the object of resurrection, not its cause.
Jesus said he would raise himself in three days and he did.
I know which verse you believe says "Jesus said he would raise himself." Please cite the verse that says "he did" (past tense).
-
First, thanks for an invigorating and satisfying exchange of views.
You are welcome.
First, I believe we have exercised and exhausted the x number of texts stating that God raised Jesus in this discussion 😁– I’m not disputing their veracity or number, and never have.
I do understand that you wish to lean on those (God raised) texts, and especially the number of them to support the view that no text affirms Jesus raised himself; or, at the least minimize any such idea. But this goes against the clear language of Jesus’ words in Jn. 2:19, 10:17-18.
Throughout, I have maintained that both the Father and Son were active in this resurrection; I do so based on scripture stating God raised Jesus, and scripture also stating Jesus raised himself (Jn. 2:19, 10:17-18). Due to the language of these latter texts, I take the both/and route as opposed to an either/or proposition.
Secondly, I quote the following secondary sources below – but only to witness as to how I understand the language of these specific texts, and that I am not reading heretofore some new idea into them (I have used bold text only to direct the eyes more easily).
- "These episodes demonstrate Jesus’ power over death and foreshadow his ability to raise himself from the dead." (David Rolph Seely, “Resurrection,” ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 1121). (emphasis mine)
- "The resurrection is spoken of as the act (1) of God the Father (Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:24; 3:15; Rom. 8:11; Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12; Heb. 13:20); (2) of Christ himself (John 2:19; 10:18)" (M. G. Easton, Easton’s Bible Dictionary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893)). (emphasis mine)
- "Since both sender and sent one are sources and bestowers of life, this Gospel can speak distinctively of Jesus as active in his own resurrection. The resurrection confirms the witness of the one who has promised not only to lay down his life but also to take it up again (10:17–18; cf. also 2:19) and who has claimed to be the embodiment of resurrection and life (11:25)." (Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, Black’s New Testament Commentary (London: Continuum, 2005), 63). (emphasis mine)
- "Jesus’ resurrection, which was a divine act involving all three Persons of the Godhead (John 10:17–18; Acts 13:30–35; Rom. 1:4)" (J. I. Packer, Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993), 125). (emphasis mine)
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.
Lastly, it is my hope that we can return to the specific text of John (2:19, 10:17-18) to discuss the language therein.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about @Bill_Coley ,
-
@Pages posted:
First, I believe we have exercised and exhausted the x number of texts stating that God raised Jesus in this discussion 😁– I’m not disputing their veracity or number, and never have.
Thanks.
Your statement here reminds me of the acknowledgement I have made in many posts that there are NT verses which can be interpreted as supportive of a Trinitarian Christology. I grant that your statement and mine are not directly analogous, but I think they're reminiscent of each other.
I resist the verb phrase "lean on" to describe my reliance on the 49 texts that declare Jesus as the recipient, not the author, of his resurrection because to my hearing, that phrase suggests exegetical dysfunction. I accept those 49 verses because in my view they are by far the dominant view in the New Testament, and their declaration of Jesus' passive receipt of resurrection, by the rules of grammar, rules out his active involvement in that outcome.
I ask you the same question I asked of @YourTruthGod : All 49 of the verses I cite look back on the resurrection of Jesus as an event that has already happened. They all declare Jesus as the passive recipient of a raising that has already been completed. The verses from John that you cite, if they are about the resurrection (and I'm not convinced of that, but for the moment assume it to be true) address the resurrection as a future event, an outcome yet to be accomplished. Where are the NT verses that look back on the resurrection as an event that has already happened, and say, in effect, "Jesus raised (past tense) himself." I have shown that no verse says specifically "Jesus raised himself." Where are the verses that report that a) the resurrection has happened, and b) in the resurrection, Jesus raised himself? I contend that the absence of any such verse in the entire NT, coupled with the four dozen verses whose grammatical structure rules out Jesus' involvement in his own resurrection, make a strong case against Jesus' raising himself.
While on the subject, let me ask a second question: Doesn't the use of the passive voice to report Jesus' resurrection, by the rules of grammar, mean Jesus was the object, not the cause, of his raising?
Throughout, I have maintained that both the Father and Son were active in this resurrection; I do so based on scripture stating God raised Jesus, and scripture also stating Jesus raised himself (Jn. 2:19, 10:17-18). Due to the language of these latter texts, I take the both/and route as opposed to an either/or proposition.
For the reasons stated above, I don't find textual support for a both/and approach.
Secondly, I quote the following secondary sources below – but only to witness as to how I understand the language of these specific texts, and that I am not reading heretofore some new idea into them (I have used bold text only to direct the eyes more easily).
Broken record time: For the reasons stated above, I don't find textual support for the view your sources declare.
Lastly, it is my hope that we can return to the specific text of John (2:19, 10:17-18) to discuss the language therein.
The first observation I make about the texts you cite is that none of them refers to the resurrection as an event that has already happened; all of them report conversations/presentations that occur before the crucifixion.
The second observation I make about them is that no other NT verse embraces what you propose is their view of Jesus' involvement in the resurrection. Much differently, in the case of the three Johanine verses/passages among the 49 I cite, there are literally dozens of other confirming verses/passages, both in the other Gospels and in the letters/epistles.
I contend that it is neither logically nor grammatically possible for Jesus to have "been raised (passive voice; by God)" AND ALSO to have raised himself.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
Given the time stamps on two of your recent posts, @YourTruthGod...
- July 15, 1:30 p.m. - "I am not interested in speaking to @Wolfgang fgang and @Bill_Coley anymore. It is too frustrating to have them mock every scripture I post and then deny they do it." and...
- July 15, 3:55 p.m. - "I love God's Word and if someone else does not, then there is no discussing with you."
... I'm assuming that your later-in-the-day July 15, 8:07 p.m. post - "I have no idea what you are talking about @Bill_Coley ," - is something other than an invitation to speak about or discuss the matters at issue in that thread. Hence, other than with this announcement, I am not responding to your post.
-
Jesus says he will raise himself.
He says he is the Life.
He says he is the resurrection.
-
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;
-
Does context actually matter for understanding a text passage or statement correctly? Or can anyone just pick a piece of a statement and claim that what they think is what it means??
Example:
John 11:23-26 (AV)
23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
@YourTruthGod claims that the words emphasized by bold font above in v.25 show that Jesus stated there that he raised himself from the dead.
Question: What does the context of the whole statement of Jesus tell? Was Jesus even talking about his own resurrection? or was he making a statement that would relate to the resurrection of those who would believe in him rather than his resurrection?
-
@Wolfgang , Jesus states that HE IS THE RESURRECTION and the LIFE. So Lazarus' sister should have no fear and believe that Jesus will raise him. Jesus stating that he is the resurrection and the life before he dies shows us how he will be raised himself.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote:
@Wolfgang , Jesus states that HE IS THE RESURRECTION and the LIFE. So Lazarus' sister should have no fear and believe that Jesus will raise him. Jesus stating that he is the resurrection and the life before he dies shows us how he will be raised himself.
Why is it so difficult for you to simply read and stay with what the text does say? For you and what you understand a passage of scripture to say, context appears irrelevant ...
-
@Wolfgang , what you say is embarrassingly ridiculous. You say since Jesus said he is the resurrection before he died then it doesn't mean he could raise himself.
-
@Wolfgang , what you say is embarrassingly ridiculous. You say since Jesus said he is the resurrection before he died then it doesn't mean he could raise himself.
The embarrassing part is at your end, @YourTruthGod, since I am only pointing out the fallacyof your imaginative interpretation that does not really take context into consideration
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
@Wolfgang , what you say is embarrassingly ridiculous. You say since Jesus said he is the resurrection before he died then it doesn't mean he could raise himself.
@Wolfgang polsted:
The embarrassing part is at your end, @YourTruthGod, since I am only pointing out the fallacyof your imaginative interpretation that does not really take context into consideration
I don't know how to assess the location of or responsibility for embarrassment, but I do know that in context, the meaning of Jesus' resurrection claim in John 11.25 is reasonably clear:
- John 11.23 - Jesus tells Martha her brother will rise again.
- John 11.24 - Martha affirms her belief in a "last day" resurrection for her brother
- John 11.25 - Jesus calls himself "the resurrection and the life," then says everyone who believes in him - even those who have died - will live (again).
- John 11.26 - Jesus says those who are still alive and believe in him will never die
- John 11.27 - Martha affirms her belief in what Jesus has said about resurrection, and her belief that Jesus is the Son of God who has come into the world "from God."
- John 11.41 - Before raising Lazarus, Jesus prays to God, thanking God for "hearing" him, and declares that he intends his spoken-aloud prayer to help people believe that God has sent him.
In its context, Jesus' "resurrection and the life" self-description is a response to Martha's belief that her brother will, eventually, live again. Jesus seems to affirm Martha's belief, that as the "resurrection and the life" he is proof that indeed, those who believe in him but have died - as her brother has died - will in fact live again. Jesus' comment that those who are still living and believe in him will never die SEEMS to suggest that such people will not experience physical death, but that obviously can't be what Jesus means. In his words to Martha, Jesus makes no overt promise to raise her brother in the moment.
Importantly, Jesus does NOT reject Martha's pronouncement that he has come "from God." Yet another chance for Jesus to identify himself AS God, and NOT just someone who is "from" God, that Jesus refuses to use. Instead, he leaves Martha and us with the clear impression that he is in fact the Son of God who is FROM God.
Jesus' prayer to God in 11.41 leaves the clear impression that Jesus sees himself as the conduit for divine action. He thanks God for hearing him. There is no sense in the verse that he's thanking himself for hearing himself. That is, God raises Lazarus through Jesus. Jesus does not raise Lazarus because Jesus is God.
-
@Bill_Coley, thank you for further commenting on the passage in John 11 and pointing out details of the context. I was hoping that @YourTruthGod would have done the same and noticed what Jesus' words are about
-
It is hard for me to read long irrelevant things others have to say about God and the Bible.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
It is hard for me to read long irrelevant things others have to say about God and the Bible.
Thanks for reading enough of my "long irrelevant [thing]... about God and the Bible" to discern that it was a "long irrelevant [thing]... about God and the Bible." Some posters would have made that dismissive and evasive judgment without reading word one of the alleged "long irrelevant [thing]... about God and the Bible."
And thanks for keeping your word. In THIS RECENT POST in another thread, you declared that I needed to "(s)peak according to the scriptures or [you wouldn't] reply." My most recent post in this current thread was indeed about "the scriptures" - the context of Jesus' "I am the resurrection and the life" claim - and you did indeed reply.... not in a way that advanced the discussion, or helped us understand YOUR view of the context of Jesus' statement, or offered anything resembling a thoughtful, cogent critique of my analysis... but you DID reply. Thanks!
-
@Wolfgang posted:
@Bill_Coley, thank you for further commenting on the passage in John 11 and pointing out details of the context.
Thanks for the kind word, Wolfgang.
To be candid, until earlier in this thread I saw the notice YOU gave to the context of Jesus' "resurrection and the life" comment, I hadn't paid much attention to it. So my thanks to you for calling attention to the setting in which Jesus makes the iconic declaration.
But perhaps I've had good instincts about the John 11 verse without paying attention to its context. I've included it in the Scripture collection I build into every funeral experience I create, and always with the idea that the "resurrection and the life" is a gift available to those who believe in Jesus, which indeed seems to be the in-context meaning of the phrase. It's good that a look at the wider passage affirms my application of the verse.
-
Bill, it is things and not [thing],
I can reply to say I will not reply after you speak to me or about me.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
It is hard for me to read long irrelevant things others have to say about God and the Bible.
In the past, I learned that many English native tongue speakers would call such a statement "a lousy cop out answer" ... others might say it is a lousy excuse" ?
-
@Wolfgang In the past, I learned that many English native tongue speakers would call such a statement "a lousy cop out answer" ... others might say it is a lousy excuse" ?
Maybe it is just the truth.
-
@YourTruthGod wrote
Maybe it is just the truth
Oh, I am sure - and thus agree with you -- that it is the truth, that your earlier reply was a lousy cop out answer or at best a lousy excuse
-
@Wolfgang, Bill and you both should welcome some insight that I am trying to help you with.
-
@YourTruthGod posted:
I don't speak for Wolfgang, but as for myself, I would welcome the insight I might gain from your direct responses to the questions I ask or the biblical exegesis I post (for example, in this very thread, in THIS POST.
As for the content of your posts, I find no insight in your post, "It is hard for me to read long irrelevant things others have to say about God and the Bible." Such a sentence, serving as one's entire response to another poster's biblical exegesis, strikes me as evasive, dismissive, and deconstructive.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
