Christianity and Christ's Death

"The Christ" (Greek) and "the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean "the Anointed One."

 

Sane,

I'll try to give you an answer with a wide perspective.

Moses led the Israelites out of slavery. He was Israel's lawgiver. He set up the tabernacle (see my first post). He led the Israelites for 40 years in the desert, and he led them to the borders of the promised land. After Moses died, Joshua led the Israelites into the promised land.

"By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward" (Hebrews 11:24-26).


God gave the Israelites the law through Moses. The New Testament places the law in perspective. Paul writes:

"Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:19-20).


The law highlighted the sinfulness of human beings and the holiness of God. Because we are all sinners, a person cannot be justified (declared righteous) based on his/her own merit. In Isaiah 53, Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would be "pierced for our transgressions" (v. 5), and that he would "justify the many" and "bear their iniquities" (v. 11).

Paul writes that "no one will be declared righteous in [God's] sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin" (Romans 3:20). He then explains the only way a person can be justified (declared righteous).

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood" (Romans 3:21-25).

"For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from observing the law" (Romans 3:28).


John 1:17-18 sums up this post.

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (John 1:17-18).

 

Taken together, "the Law" and "the Prophets" designated the entire Old Testament, including "the Writings," the third section of the Hebrew Bible.


The Hebrew Bible:

1. The Law - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

2. The Prophets

The Former Prophets - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings
The Latter Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets

3. The Writings


The Old Testament of the Christian Bible:

1. The Law Books (the Pentateuch) - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy

2. The History Books - Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther

3. The Poetry and Wisdom Books - Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon

4. The Books of the Major Prophets - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel

5. The Books of the Minor Prophets - Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

 

I highly recommend James R. White's book, The Forgotten Trinity. I've copied a brief definition of the Trinity written by White. You should click on the link to see the diagram.


A Brief Definition of the Trinity

by James White


I know that one of the most oft-repeated questions I have dealt with is, "How does one explain, or even understand, the doctrine of the Trinity?" Indeed, few topics are made such a football by various groups that, normally, claim to be the "only" real religion, and who prey upon Christians as "convert fodder." Be that as it may, when the Christian is faced with a question regarding the Trinity, how might it best be explained?

For me, I know that simplifying the doctrine to its most basic elements has been very important and very useful. When we reduce the discussion to the three clear Biblical teachings that underlie the Trinity, we can move our discussion from the abstract to the concrete Biblical data, and can help those involved in false religions to recognize which of the Biblical teachings it is denying.

We must first remember that very few have a good idea of what the Trinity is in the first place—hence, accuracy in definition will be very important. The doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there is one eternal being of God—indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." It would be a contradiction, obviously, to say that there are three beings within one being, or three persons within one person. So what is the difference? We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. For example, we speak of the "being" of man—human being. A rock has "being"—the being of a rock, as does a cat, a dog, etc. Yet, we also know that there are personal attributes as well. That is, we recognize both "what" and "who" when we talk about a person.

The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings—God, man, and angels. What is personality? The ability to have emotion, will, to express oneself. Rocks cannot speak. Cats cannot think of themselves over against others, and, say, work for the common good of "cat kind." Hence, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. One what, three who's.

NOTE: We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common for people to misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say this!

The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows:

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another—that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity—that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit.


The three sides of the triangle represent the three Biblical doctrines, as labeled. When one denies any of these three teachings, the other two sides point to the result. Hence, if one denies that there are Three Persons, one is left with the two sides of Full Equality and One God, resulting in the "Oneness" teaching of the United Pentecostal Church and others. If one denies Fully Equality, one is left with Three Persons and One God, resulting in "subordinationism" as seen in Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, etc. (though to be perfectly accurate the Witnesses deny all three of the sides in some way—they deny Full Equality (i.e., Jesus is Michael the Archangel), Three Persons (the Holy Spirit is an impersonal, active "force" like electricity) and One God (they say Jesus is "a god"—a lesser divinity than Yahweh; hence they are in reality not monotheists but henotheists). And, if one denies One God, one is left with polytheism, the belief in many gods, as seen clearly in the Mormon Church, the most polytheistic religion I have encountered.

Hopefully these brief thoughts will be of help to you as you "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ."


http://aomin.org/trinitydef.html

 

Sane,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that Jesus never intended for anyone to believe that he was/is God. When you wrote that "the evidence is poor," were you asserting that the evidence that Jesus intended for people to believe that he was/is God is poor?

If that's what you were asserting, it doesn't seem like you've done enough research to be able to fairly draw that conclusion. If you're still unclear about the definition of the Trinity, I don't think you can legitimately evaluate the evidence, anyway.

The Gospel of John begins with the words, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). If Jesus never intended for John to believe that Jesus was God, then do you think that John's misrepresentation was intentional or unintentional? Or do you think that someone else wrote or edited that verse?

 

These are some excerpts from a well-written paper.


Purpose and Meaning of Ego Eimi in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ

by James White


The Gospel of John has come under great fire in recent centuries for its incredibly high Christology. On this basis alone certain form-critics have rejected the book as having any historical authenticity whatsoever, assuming (without foundation) that such a high Christology could only have evolved after quite some time of "theological formulation" and hence placing its writing well into the second century. Fortunately, not all scholars share the same unfounded presuppositions.

The person of Christ as presented in John's Gospel is indeed of an exceptionally high character—John asserts that Jesus is "the Word become flesh" (John 1:14). He says that this Word is eternal, has always been "with" God (pros ton theon) and indeed shares the very being of God (John 1:1). John describes Jesus as the unique God (monogenes theos) in John 1:18. He portrays Jesus saying that He is the way, the truth, and the life—that man's very life and salvation is dependent upon his relationship with Him (a claim nothing short of blasphemy for a mere created being!), and the Gospel climaxes in Thomas' confession of Jesus as his "Lord and God".

Though the evidences of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ are numerous in this book, one set of these evidences has always fascinated theologians. Jesus utilizes the specific phrase ego eimi of Himself frequently in John's Gospel, and a number of times He does so in a pregnant way, not providing any immediately identifiable predicate. John's recording of these sayings is also significant, as he provides rather obvious settings for these sayings, emphasizing their importance. Is there a significance to this phrase? What is it's purpose and meaning? Does this phrase present yet another aspect of the Deity of Christ? This shall be the topic of the following investigation.


Usage of ego eimi in the Gospel of John

The specific phrase ego eimi occurs 24 times in the Gospel of John. Seventeen of these times it is followed by a clear predicate. Some of these instances would be John 6:35, "I am the living bread" (ego eimi ho artos tes zoes) or John 10:11, "I am the good shepherd" (ego eimi ho poimen ho kalos). 3 times the usage does not fall into a clear category—these would be 4:26, 6:20, and 9:9. In 4:26 Jesus says to the woman at the well, "I am, the one speaking to you" (ego eimi, ho lalon soi) which is strangely reminiscent of the LXX rendering of Isaiah 52:6 (ego eimi autos ho lalon). In 6:20 it seems to be a rather straight-forward self-identification to the frightened disciples in the boat. And in 9:9 we find the man who had been healed of his blindness insisting that he was indeed the man of whom they spoke. This last instance is similar to the sayings as Jesus utters them, in that the phrase comes at the end of the clause and looks elsewhere for its predicate.

Given the above usages, we are left with 7 usages that have been described as "absolute". These would be John 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19, 18:5, 18:6, and 18:8. It is these seven passages that make up the bulk of the discussion concerning the use of ego eimi by John. For the sake of accurate examination, the transliterations of these phrases are provided below:

John 8:24: ean gar me pistuesete hoti ego eimi
John 8:28: tote gnosesthe hoti ego eimi
John 8:58: prin Abraam genethai ego eimi
John 13:19: hina pisteusete hotan genetai ego eimi
John 18:5: legei autois Ego eimi
John 18:6: hos oun eipen autois Ego eimi
John 18:8: eipon humin hoti ego eimi


The main verses that will undergo examination here are 8:24, 8:58, 13:19, and 18:5-6. In the author's translation these passages read as follows:

John 8:24: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." John 8:58: "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

John 13:19: "From now on I tell you before it comes to pass in order that when it does happen, you may believe that I am."

John 18:5-6: "They answered Him, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I am." And Judas also, the one who betrayed Him, was standing with them. Therefore when He said to them, "I am," they went backwards and fell upon the ground."


Old Testament Background of ego eimi

An extensive discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say that the position taken by this writer reflects a consensus opinion of many scholars, that being that the closest and most logical connection between John's usage of ego eimi and the Old Testament is to be found in the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew phrase ani hu in the writings (primarily) of Isaiah. It is true that many go directly to Exodus 3:14 for the background, but it is felt that unless one first establishes the connection with the direct quotation of ego eimi in the Septuagint, the connection with Exodus 3:14 will be somewhat tenuous.

The Septuagint translates the Hebrew phrase ani hu as ego eimi in Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4. In each of these instances the phrase ani hu appears at the end of the clause, and is so rendered (or punctuated) in the LXX (just as in these seven examples in John). The phrase ego eimi appears as the translation of a few other phrases in Isaiah as well that are significant to this discussion. It translates the Hebrew anoki anoki hu as ego eimi in 43:25 and 51:12. Once (52:6) ani hu is translated as ego eimi autos (basically an even more emphasized form). And once (45:18) we find ego eimi kurios for ani Yahweh! This last passage is provocative in that it is in the context of creation, an act ascribed to Jesus by John (John 1:3) and other New Testament writers (Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3).


Conclusion

It could fairly be admitted that an immediate and unqualified jump from the ego eimi of John 8:58 to Exodus 3:14 is unwise. The connection that is much more properly traced is the one given here, that of ego eimi/ani hu as found in Isaiah. The connection between Isaiah and Exodus 3:14 is so obvious as to be undeniable.

We have seen that John uses ego eimi in more than one way—the majority of the time providing a predicate. Even these are astounding in their majesty in regards to the person of Christ. Here Jesus is said to be the way, the truth, and the life; the light of the world; the bread of life; and the good shepherd, each of which it should be noted, has parallels to statements made by Yahweh in the Old Testament. But the bulk of this paper has been devoted to those passages where the phrase is used in a specific sense—in an "absolute" sense.

Upon examining these we have seen that they find their origin and background in the book of Isaiah's usage of the Hebrew term ani hu and its translation as ego eimi in the LXX. We have seen the close parallel between Isaiah 43:10 and John 13:19, both in form as well as thought content.

We have also seen how the context of the passages themselves—the setting and teaching of the entire book of John—makes the identification of ego eimi and its resultant presentation of the deity of Christ inevitable. We have seen how John purposefully emphasizes these phrases, helping us to grasp their significance.

In closing, we might do well to look, then, with this understanding in mind, at Jesus' words at John 8:24: "unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." Jesus here gives us the content and object of saving faith—faith, real faith is that which comes to the real Jesus. A faith that demands a change in Jesus before a commitment is made is not real faith at all. The Jews standing about Him during this conversation most assuredly would not have denied that He was a man—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some had just recently proclaimed Him as Messiah—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some might hail Him as a prophet or a miracle worker, blessed by God—but that was not sufficient for faith. Some today say He was a great moral teacher and philosopher—but that is not sufficient for faith. Some call Him "a god" or a great angel—but that is not sufficient for faith. No, Jesus Himself laid down the line—unless one believes Him for whom He says He is—the ego eimi—one will die in one's sins. There is no salvation in a false Christ. If we are to be united with Christ to have eternal life, then we must be united with the true Christ, not a false representation. It is out of love that Christ uttered John 8:24. We would do well to heed His words.


http://aomin.org/EGO.html

 

"The Gospel of Mark heretically implies that Jesus did not think himself God"? Strong words. You sound pretty sure of yourself. If you want to reject Christ because of Mark 10:18 (or Matthew 19:17 or Luke 18:19), so be it. Jesus answered the man's question the way he did for a purpose.

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.' " - Mark 10:17-19


These are excerpts from The Holiness of God, by R. C. Sproul.


Something is often missed in this well-known meeting between Jesus and the rich ruler. It is the significance of the man's greeting to Jesus. He called Him, "Good teacher." Jesus did not miss the significance of it. Jesus knew at once that he was talking to a man who had a superficial understanding of the word good. The man wanted to talk to Jesus about salvation. Instead Jesus subtly turned the conversation around to a discussion of what goodness was. He took the opportunity to give the man an unforgettable lesson on the meaning of good.

Jesus focused on the man's greeting. "Why do you call me good?" He accented the question with a further qualification: "No one is good—except God alone." Let a red alert sound here. Some people, even learned theologians, have stumbled over Jesus' comments. Some hear Jesus saying in effect, "Why are you calling me good? I am not good. Only God is good. I am not God. I am not good.

By no means was Jesus denying his own deity here. Neither was he denying his own goodness. Given the right understanding it would have been perfectly fitting for the rich ruler to call Jesus good. He was the incarnation of the Good. The rich man was talking to God incarnate. The point is, however, that the rich man was not aware of that. He was honoring Jesus as a great teacher, but that is all he saw in Him. He had no idea he was speaking to God Incarnate; he had no clue he was discussing goodness with the Incarnation of the Good.

The rich young ruler obviously did not know his Bible. He had failed to understand the meaning of Psalm 14:

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no
one who does good. The LORD looks down from
heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any
who understand, any who seek God. All have
turned aside, they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good, not even one. - Psalm 14:1-3


This psalm is quoted and amplified in the New Testament by the apostle Paul. The message is unmistakable. The indictment allows for no exceptions save for the Son of God who alone achieves goodness.

The human spirit recoils from such a universal indictment. Surely the Scriptures exaggerate. We know several people who do good. We see people perform good deeds frequently. We grant that no one is perfect. We all slip up from time to time. But we do perform a few good deeds now and then, don't we? No! This is precisely the way the rich young ruler was thinking. He was measuring goodness by the wrong standard. He was evaluating good deeds from an outward vantage point.

God commands that we do certain good deeds. He commands that we give alms to the poor. We give our alms to the poor. That is a good deed, isn't it? Yes and no. It is good in the sense that our outward act conforms to what God commands. In that sense we do good often. But God also looks at the heart. He is concerned about our deepest motivations. For a good deed to pass the standard of God's holiness, it must flow out of a heart that loves God perfectly and loves our neighbor perfectly as well. Since none of this achieves that perfect love for God and our neighbor, all our outwardly good deeds are tarnished. The logic of the Bible is this: Since no one has a perfect heart, no one does a perfect deed.

The law of God is the mirror of true righteousness. When we set our works before the mirror, the reflection in it tells us of our imperfections. Jesus held this mirror up before the eyes of the rich young ruler. "You know the commandments: Do not steal....." It is important to note here that the commandments Jesus listed for the young ruler were those included in the so-called second table of the law, the commandments that deal with our responsibilities toward fellow human beings. These are the commandments that concern stealing, adultery, murder, and so on. Noticeably absent in Jesus' summary were the first few commandments that deal explicitly with our direct obligations to God.

How did the rich man answer? He was not bothered. He calmly looked in the mirror and so no imperfections. In what can only be described as a smug manner, the man replied: "All these I have kept since I was a boy."

Imagine the arrogance or the ignorance of the man. I find it hard to understand Jesus' patience. I would have instantly expressed my indignation by saying something like, "What! You have kept the Ten Commandments since you were a boy! You haven't kept any of the Ten Commandments for the last five minutes. Didn't you hear the Sermon on the Mount? Don't you realize if you are unjustly angry with someone, you have violated the deeper meaning of the law against murder? Don't you know that if you lust after a woman, you break the deeper law of adultery? Don't you ever covet? Have you ever and always honored your parents? You are mad or blind. Your obedience has been superficial at best. You obey on the surface only."

That is how I would have handled it. Jesus was more subtle, and more effective:

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still
lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give
to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
Then come, follow me." - Luke 18:22

If Jesus ever spoke with tongue-in-cheek it was here. If we take Jesus' words literally, we would be forced to conclude that the conversation took place betweeen the two most righteous men in history: that it was a dialogue between the Lamb without blemish and a lamb with only one blemish. I would be delighted to hear from Jesus that my moral perfection lacked only one thing.

We know better. If we speculate and try to get into the secret recesses of Jesus' mind, we can imagine a thought process that went something like this: Oh, you have kept all the commandments since you were a child. Well, let's see. What is the first commandment? Oh, yes. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Let's see how you handle that one.

Jesus put him to the test. If anything in the rich man's life came before God, it was his money. Jesus set the challenge precisely at this point, at the point of the man's obedience to commandment number one: "Go, sell all that you have...."

What did the man do? How did he handle his only blemish? He walked away sorrowfully, for he had great possessions. The man was put to the test of the Ten Commandments and he flunked out after the first question.

The point of this narrative is not to lay down a law that a Christian must get rid of all private property. The point is for us to understand what obedience is and what goodness actually requires. Jesus called the man's bluff, and he folded.