Jesus is God -Joshua 5 - who was this man?

[Wootah]

Hi all,

Here is a good talk on Joshua 5:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[e] have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

Would Joshua bow down to not God? Don't angels say hey stop worshipping me if they are not God? Why was Joshua commanded to take off his sandals (think back to Moses)?

[onewithhim]

To all respondents,

I think the scriptures speak well for themselves....

That is true, Jesus says there is only one true God who is greater than him. Why do you think many Christians don't really believe what he says?

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
… the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

And if you look closely at those scriptures that Revelation won provided you can see that they really don't say that Jesus is God. If you want to twist them, that's the only way they can say that.

Thought for thought translation and no twisting. Jesus is real God.

1Jn 5:20 We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we know the real God. We are in the one who is real, his Son Jesus Christ. This Jesus Christ is the real God and eternal life. (GOD's WORD Translation)

Most versions of the Bible do not say, at I John 5:20, that "Jesus is the real God." The wording is confusing at best in other versions. But it can be ascertained that it is speaking of God, the Father. Look at the verse in any other version of the Bible. Jesus is not the true God. "We are in union with the true one, by means of His Son, Jesus Christ." Who does that pronoun refer to---"His" Son? It is directly pointing out that the true one is the Father whose Son is Jesus Christ.

[Difflugia]

Most versions of the Bible do not say, at I John 5:20, that "Jesus is the real God." The wording is confusing at best in other versions.

That's because it's confusing and ambiguous in Greek. Any translation that makes it "clear" has done so by adding something to or taking something away from the text.

But it can be ascertained that it is speaking of God, the Father. Look at the verse in any other version of the Bible. Jesus is not the true God.

That's not clear in Greek.

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν
"We thus know that the Son of God is come and has given us understanding"

ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν
"that we would know the true one"

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ,
"and we are in the true one,"

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
"in his son Jesus Christ."

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
"He is the true God and life eternal."

"We are in union with the true one, by means of His Son, Jesus Christ."

That's not what it says. It says that "we are in the true one, in his son." The NWT translators have added to the text to make sure its readers don't get the wrong idea (or maybe the right one?).

Who does that pronoun refer to---"His" Son? It is directly pointing out that the true one is the Father whose Son is Jesus Christ.

It could be read that way. It could also, just as correctly, be read as a parallel clause in which "the true one" and "his son Jesus Christ" are identically equal. The NWT translators don't want us to entertain that reading, though, so they improperly changed the text to exclude it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #42]

If a translation doesn't allow the ambiguity to stand then it is not being faithful perhaps? That might cut both ways.

[Bible_Student]

...

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν
"We thus know that the Son of God is come and has given us understanding"

ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν
"that we would know the true one"

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ,
"and we are in the true one,"

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
"in his son Jesus Christ."

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
"He is the true God and life eternal."

"The Son of God ... has given us understanding to know the True One"
"We are in the True One with the Son of Him."

SO, the True One is the Father (of the one who gave understanding of Him, his Son).
There is not any other logical meaning unless somebody wants to force the construction to say something else.

[Difflugia]

If a translation doesn't allow the ambiguity to stand then it is not being faithful perhaps? That might cut both ways.

That is definitely a concern in Bible translation.

For my money, i want a Bible that aspires to be exactly as ambiguous as the Bible text. That's not always possible, but I expect it when it is. If a Bible is primarily for liturgical use (like reading in church), I'm OK with clarifying paraphrase. The NIV is more readable and understandable than some other translations, but often at the expense of accuracy. That's fine if you're already a Calvinist and aren't looking to challenge that while reading, but that's not how everyone wants to read and even the same person can have different goals at different times.

My beef with the NWT is that the translators claim to avoid paraphrase whenever possible, but when so many verses end up like this one, that obviously can't be true.

[Difflugia]

"The Son of God ... has given us understanding to know the True One"
"We are in the True One with the Son of Him."

SO, the True One is the Father (of the one who gave understanding of Him, his Son).

You had to change the text yourself to arrive there. It doesn't say, "We are in the true one with the son of him." It says, "We are in the true one, in the son of him." The "him" can be referent to "the true one" or "God."

There is not any other logical meaning unless somebody wants to force the construction to say something else.

If "logical" were the criterion, then the Witnesses wouldn't be trying to shoehorn Jesus as a separate god into a monotheistic religion. The Pauline epistles and Johannine corpus all say a lot of things that defy logic and are theologically weird. You're welcome to harmonize them however you want, but the claim that there is "not any logical meaning" other than your favorite is simply hubris.

[Bible_Student]

Greek preposition ἐν also means with.

The construction is easy to understand, except when a person conceives of God as a composite of father and son in a single identity.

No person would normally think that the expression "the Son of Him" means "the Son of himself". No one is his own child.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #45]

I think to read the Bible and claim that one cannot see the Trinity or that Jesus is God is gaslighting.

The ambiguity of the text on issues like who is the angel of the Lord is obvious. And that list goes on.

[Difflugia]

I think to read the Bible and claim that one cannot see the Trinity or that Jesus is God is gaslighting.

I think it takes a bit of mental gymnastics to not see both Jesuses. The Jesuses of Matthew and Mark are definitely not God incarnate. Luke's Christology is higher than Matthew and Mark, but certainly not trinitarian. While I don't think John is exactly trinitarian, I think that John's Jesus is, at least in some sense, "true God" and "one with the Father."

The problem as I see it lay in thinking that all of the Jesus theologies must be harmonized. Mark's Jesus was adopted as an adult at the baptism, while John's Jesus was in some way unified with God "in the beginning." The two Christologies aren't even compatible, let alone identical. Instead of squinting to find somewhere they can meet and force the stories to be the same, let the stories be as they are. I think that we should try to read what each author wants his or her story to be rather than placing our own theological limitations on it.

The ambiguity of the text on issues like who is the angel of the Lord is obvious. And that list goes on.

That's especially true in the Johannine corpus. Whether or not they share an author, the Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles all love ironic wordplay.

[Capbook]

...
Maybe you can find a verse that say "Jesus is not God."
...

the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

As the owner and chief moderator of the forum Otseng is greater than everyone on this forum. And yet, and yet, we are all humans, we are all the same. Please allow yourself to accept refutations of your arguments.

Please explain, if Jesus is the God, how can the Father be greater than him?

The verse that says, "The Father is greater than I", doesn't says Jesus is not God?
Jesus as a man, (Phil 2:7) makes the Father greater than Jesus.
The pre-existence of Jesus with glory which He had with God before the world was. This proves Jesus is God.

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.