Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
When we come to the end of the pipe, one might almost believe like Dave, that some were just not destined to believe. It's not hard to see how he gets there if all you look at is the narrow of port hole of the hardness of the human heart. On the other hand, Dave is wrong. So, all the leaves is the free will of the heart to reject truth. Just like the Bible says.
-
@GaoLu said:
When we come to the end of the pipe, one might almost believe like Dave, that some were just not destined to believe. It's not hard to see how he gets there if all you look at is the narrow of port hole of the hardness of the human heart. On the other hand, Dave is wrong. So, all the leaves is the free will of the heart to reject truth. Just like the Bible says.Why did Jesus speak in parables?
-
Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given . . . . And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: 'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive, for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their heart and turn, so that I should heal them' (Matthew 13:11,14,15).
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory . . . For what man knows the things of man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God . . . But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:7,8,11,14).
The irony is that such people sometimes think they do understand. Clearly, people hear, see and have chance to respond and choose not to do so. Of their own will they close their ear and eyes to Truth.
In the multitude of counselors there is safety. One man alone is often deceived.
-
As a witness to the Bible, I share a thought from the writer of Hebrews. If a person who disregarded the Mosaic law, received the penalty of death, how much greater punishment will fall upon the person who has rejected Jesus, the Son of God? (Heb.10:28–29). The author graphically describes the rejection of Jesus and his work as “trampling under foot” the Son of God and regarding Jesus’ blood, which sanctifies, as common or unclean (Heb. 10:29). One tramples that which one considers completely worthless; the metaphor suggests they have completely denied the deity of Jesus.--Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. 422. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
As a witness to the Bible, I share a thought from the writer of Hebrews. If a person who disregarded the Mosaic law, received the penalty of death, how much greater punishment will fall upon the person who has rejected Jesus, the Son of God? (Heb.10:28–29). The author graphically describes the rejection of Jesus and his work as “trampling under foot” the Son of God and regarding Jesus’ blood, which sanctifies, as common or unclean (Heb. 10:29). One tramples that which one considers completely worthless; the metaphor suggests they have completely denied the deity of Jesus.--Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. 422. CMThe specific intention of your post is not clear to me, C.M. but there's enough in it for me to respond this way: When I say I deny the deity of Jesus, I do not mean or intend to "trample under foot" either him or his work; neither does my denial of his deity mean that I consider him or his work worthless. In fact, as I hope my posts that have included extended and, I hope, careful engagement with numerous Bible texts have displayed, I take Jesus, his words, and the testimony of NT writers about him very seriously, seriously enough to engage directly and openly with CD participants who issue quite striking critiques, not only of my position, but of me as a Christian for holding those views. In fact, I would welcome you to such an exchange of views over the verses and passages of our common selection.
-
Thanks, Bill for sharing.
@Bill_Coley said:
In fact, I would welcome you to such an exchange of views over the verses and passages of our common selection.
In due time as a witness. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
As a witness to the Bible, I share a thought from the writer of Hebrews. If a person who disregarded the Mosaic law, received the penalty of death, how much greater punishment will fall upon the person who has rejected Jesus, the Son of God? (Heb.10:28–29). The author graphically describes the rejection of Jesus and his work as “trampling under foot” the Son of God and regarding Jesus’ blood, which sanctifies, as common or unclean (Heb. 10:29). One tramples that which one considers completely worthless; the metaphor suggests they have completely denied the deity of Jesus.--Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. 422. CMThis quoted author (Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe) seems entirely ignorant of the truth that "the deity of Christ" dogma was not known to the writer of Hebrews as it is a product of the influence of later "church fathers" and their influence.
In addition, the emphasized passage shows an utter ignorance of the main topic that is being dealt with in the epistle to the Hebrews, and it ignores the immediate context of the passage. -
@Wolfgang said:
This quoted author (Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe) seems entirely ignorant of the truth that "the deity of Christ" dogma was not known to the writer of Hebrews as it is a product of the influence of later "church fathers" and their influence.
In addition, the emphasized passage shows an utter ignorance of the main topic that is being dealt with in the epistle to the Hebrews, and it ignores the immediate context of the passage.Oh, but the dogma was known to the writer of Hebrews (as Hughs knows)!
Hebrews 1:8
"But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.”"[Did I mention before that "trinitarian" language does occur very very early in the NT such as 2 Cor 13:14 and Mt 28:19
We also have the proofs of Rom 9:5 and Rom 1:3-4 (in light of Rom 9:5)]
-
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
This quoted author (Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe) seems entirely ignorant of the truth that "the deity of Christ" dogma was not known to the writer of Hebrews as it is a product of the influence of later "church fathers" and their influence.
In addition, the emphasized passage shows an utter ignorance of the main topic that is being dealt with in the epistle to the Hebrews, and it ignores the immediate context of the passage.Oh, but the dogma was known to the writer of Hebrews (as Hughs knows)!
Hebrews 1:8
"But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.”"It would be good to read carefully and understand how text from OT Scripture is quoted by NT writers ... which would not be such a problem if people would read context and have an overall scope of Scripture ... unfortunately, such seems to be lacking greatly among Christian authors, preachers and their sheep fold
By the way, someone might claim that Jesus said that men could be Gods ... and that there had been such even in OT times ... which would shoot the Trinity dogma (of only 3 individuals being only one God to pieces (cp Joh 10:34-35) ... and, please, don't come with the silly argument that Jesus was talking about "[small "g"] gods" rather than "Gods" since such capitalization matters did not apply to the ancient manuscripts in the first place
-
@GaoLu said:
@Wolfgang said:
This quoted author (Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe) seems entirely ignorant of the truth that "the deity of Christ" dogma was not known to the writer of Hebrews as it is a product of the influence of later "church fathers" and their influence.
In addition, the emphasized passage shows an utter ignorance of the main topic that is being dealt with in the epistle to the Hebrews, and it ignores the immediate context of the passage.Oh, but the dogma was known to the writer of Hebrews (as Hughs knows)!
Hebrews 1:8
"But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.”[Did I mention before that "trinitarian" language does occur very very early in the NT such as 2 Cor 13:14 and Mt 28:19
We also have the proofs of Rom 9:5 and Rom 1:3-4 (in light of Rom 9:5)]
Every book but 3 John begins with at least two members of Triune God. Hebrews,
1 John and Jude clearly express the Trinitarian literary inclusion. First Peter and Jude place all three members of the Triune God together in one thought unit in some of the clearest and strongest Trinitarian languages in the New Testament, so said, a renown scholar. CM -
@C_M_ said:
[Did I mention before that "trinitarian" language does occur very very early in the NT such as 2 Cor 13:14 and Mt 28:19
There is no "trinitarian" language in any of the OT or NT scriptures ... Just because Scripture mentions "God", mentions "Jesus", mentions "holy spirit" does NOT AT ALL mean that Scripture contains "trinitarian" language or teaches a doctrine of the Trinity.
We also have the proofs of Rom 9:5 and Rom 1:3-4 (in light of Rom 9:5)]
Proof of what ? that the Bible mentions God and mentions the Messiah Jesus? There is no proof for any "Trinity" in ´that these are mentioned, but there is actually proof that there is NO Trinity in what is said about them !!
I suppose if you believe that a Father can actually be his own Son, and a Son is actually his own Father, then a lot of things are possible in your fantasy ... but, should one really make one's unreasonable and illogical fantasy a dogma ??
Every book but 3 John begins with at least two members of Triune God. Hebrews,
Not at all ... or does your Bible read "triune", "trinity" or such anywhere?
1 John and Jude clearly express the Trinitarian literary inclusion. First Peter and Jude place all three members of the Triune God together in one thought unit in some of the clearest and strongest Trinitarian languages in the New Testament, so said, a renown scholar. CM
You know, I mention God, and Moses, and the Law together ... now, are you telling me that this fact makes those three a Trinity or that such is "trinitarian" language ??? If not, why not?
Moses was sent by God, he was God's prophet, he is actually called "God" by God Himself and had his own prophet, Aaron !! The Law was Divine (in that literary sense that word was "God") and it was God given ...
Eh, that would make for a 2nd Trinity which would have perhaps more credence than the "trinity" you and others here propagate in the fact that God did call Mose "God" but God never called Jesus "God" or said that Jesus was "God" for anyone else ...Why is it that those who call themselves "Christians" and "Bible believing" people are blind to the most simple truth taught in the Bible => There is only ONE PERSON WHO ALONE IS TRUE GOD ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
It would be good to read carefully and understand how text from OT Scripture is quoted by NT writers ... which would not be such a problem if people would read context and have an overall scope of Scripture ... unfortunately, such seems to be lacking greatly among Christian authors, preachers and their sheep fold
By the way, someone might claim that Jesus said that men could be Gods ... and that there had been such even in OT times ... which would shoot the Trinity dogma (of only 3 individuals being only one God to pieces (cp Joh 10:34-35) ... and, please, don't come with the silly argument that Jesus was talking about "[small "g"] gods" rather than "Gods" since such capitalization matters did not apply to the ancient manuscripts in the first place
Wolfgang,
Please, is this supposed to be some kind of the gullibility test? Any reasonable student of the Word knows that Jn 10:34-35, is the quotation of Ps 82:6.
Jesus wasn't making himself God as charged in the earlier verses. He was God (Jn 1:1; 5:18)-- It's interesting, the Jews knew what Jesus meant and claimed. That's why they wanted to stone Him).
The said passage above, simply means that rulers (humans) were called "gods" in Hebrew Scriptures. How much more, one who is, can claim the title? Jesus in substance (self-existent One), life and miracles are justifiable reasons to be recognized as the deity.
For a discussion on the quotation, see: A. T. Hanson. NTS-11 (1964/65):158-62;
NTS 13 (1966/67):363-67; SB, 2:539-41;OTN 21-37, esp. 33; HSB, 279-80.For a better understanding of Jesus' divine and human natures, see:
Is. 9:6
Matt. 1:23*
Luke 1:35
John 1:1
John 1:14
John 10:30
Phil. 2:7
Heb. 1:8
Heb. 4:14–16Happy reading! CM
-
@Wolfgang said:
Oh, but the dogma was known to the writer of Hebrews (as Hughs knows)!
Hebrews 1:8
"But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.”"It would be good to read carefully and understand how text from OT Scripture is quoted by NT writers ... which would not be such a problem if people would read context and have an overall scope of Scripture ... unfortunately, such seems to be lacking greatly among Christian authors, preachers and their sheep fold
Indeed it would be good to read carefully as I have countless scholars have done and arrived at the obvious conclusion. That Scripture is offered as proof by the Hebrew writer. You can deny it, but you stand among a mere handful of doubters.
By the way, someone might claim that Jesus said that men could be Gods ... and that there had been such even in OT times ... which would shoot the Trinity dogma (of only 3 individuals being only one God to pieces (cp Joh 10:34-35) ... and, please, don't come with the silly argument that Jesus was talking about "[small "g"] gods" rather than "Gods" since such capitalization matters did not apply to the ancient manuscripts in the first place
You ignore the obvious proofs of trinity with one of Bill's famous red herrings. The matter of men and gods is a different matter and not really a mystery at all, but I won't go there since it is an utterly different topic.
This isn't like you Wolfgang--I didn't think. Are you sure you wanted to say what you did in the last post?
-
In case it hasn't been mentioned here (perhaps was only mentioned on previous CD forum):
I know very well what the Trinity dogma is about ... I was a rather enthusiastic Trinity believer for years and "defended it" vigorously and used the "arguments and verses" which I had been taught in church and had read in theological sources (and which are brought to the table here by those who believe in the Trinity dogma).See, I now know (and have known now for decades) both sides of the story ... and clearly see the real "(non)truth" and plain errors of the Trinity dogma with its various shades of meaning and how it is define in order to keep propagating its error as "mysterious" truth.
Thus, C_M, I might know a lot more than you think about those verses you provided to me for "a happy reading" ... and I do because I've dug a little deeper at the well in reading than Trinitarians usually do while "happily reading" what their Trinity preachers and theologians write about those verses (instead of seriously studying what exactly is said in those verses, what the real context is about, etc.) When constantly reading what is contradicting the most simple and most basic truth of Scripture (namely, that there is only ONE PERSON WHO ALONE IS TRUE GOD), I would no longer be "happily" reading.
-
Wolfgang, perhaps you were not addressing me, but I was not referring to "Trinity dogma." In fact, I am uncomfortable in some ways with the term "trinity" and some resulting articulation of definition. In general I do accept it. The matter I was addressing was our conversation about the writer of Hebrews being really clear about the truth of the deity of Jesus.
-
@GaoLu said:
Wolfgang, perhaps you were not addressing me, but I was not referring to "Trinity dogma." In fact, I am uncomfortable in some ways with the term "trinity" and some resulting articulation of definition. In general I do accept it. The matter I was addressing was our conversation about the writer of Hebrews being really clear about the truth of the deity of Jesus.If you mean to interpret Heb 1:8 in a manner that the writer of Hebrews supposedly makes Jesus to be God ... I suppose in the very next verse then Heb 1:9 the writer of Hebrews declares that "the God Jesus" actually has a God above him Who anointed him ?
Heb 1:9 (KJV)
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.Such an interpretation would make for 2 Gods ... (a) God Jesus [v.8], and (b) God, the God of God Jesus [v.9]
Are you seriously suggesting that the writer of Hebrews propagates a "Bi-nity Godhead" or a "Two-Gods" message?Also, to whom did this quoted OT passage originally apply? Who was anointed with gladness by God among his fellows?? Was that person at the time also the true God or was he a human being selected and anointed by God to be king among his brethren? Does the term translated "God" as it is applied to human beings perhaps have a slightly different meaning and is not a reference to the true God, the Lord God Almighty?
Why would the writer of Hebrews misapply the OT quotation and thereby propagate a false "2 Gods or Binity" doctrine by making Jesus a God under his God Who anointed him? Is the fault really with the writer of Hebrews or with you who misunderstands and misinterprets what he wrote and by such misinterpretation produces such false doctrine ?
-
@Wolfgang said:
If you mean to interpret Heb 1:8 in a manner that the writer of Hebrews supposedly makes Jesus to be God ... I suppose in the very next verse then Heb 1:9 the writer of Hebrews declares that "the God Jesus" actually has a God above him Who anointed him ?Heb 1:9 (KJV)
Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.Such an interpretation would make for 2 Gods ... (a) God Jesus [v.8], and (b) God, the God of God Jesus [v.9]
I think you're right to raise the broader context of Hebrews 1, Wolfgang, as an example of a clear distinction between God and Jesus:
- Hebrews 1.2 - "In these last days (God) has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom he also created the world." God and the Son clearly not the same.
- Hebrews 1.3-4 - "(Jesus) is the radiance of the glory of God" (not of God godself!) "After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." Jesus is a vision of, but not the same as, God.
- Hebrews 1.5 - God says to Jesus, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you," and "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son." God brings the Son into being.
- Hebrews 1.6 - "...When (God) brings the first-born into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship (Jesus)." The first-born is the subject of worship from God's - not his own - angels.
- And then, of course, there's the reference in v.9 to the God of the Son, making clear the writer's belief that Jesus had a God.
I contend that the first verses of Hebrews 1 make a strong case - as do many, many other verses in the NT - that Jesus was not God.
-
[THIS IS THE SECOND EDITION OF THIS POST. THE FIRST EDITION HAS NOT RETURNED SINCE I EDITED ITS CONTENTS. APOLOGIES IF THE FIRST EDITION SHOWS UP AFTER THIS ONE.]
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
Wolfgang, perhaps you were not addressing me, but I was not referring to "Trinity dogma." In fact, I am uncomfortable in some ways with the term "trinity" and some resulting articulation of definition. In general I do accept it. The matter I was addressing was our conversation about the writer of Hebrews being really clear about the truth of the deity of Jesus.If you mean to interpret Heb 1:8 in a manner that the writer of Hebrews supposedly makes Jesus to be God ... I suppose in the very next verse then Heb 1:9 the writer of Hebrews declares that "the God Jesus" actually has a God above him Who anointed him ?
In my view, Wolfgang, the opening verses of Hebrews 1 present a strong case in support of our contention that Jesus is not God.
- Hebrews 1.1-2 - God has spoken to us by his Son, whom God has appointed - a clear distinction between God and God's son, between the one who has spoken and the means by which that one speaks, between the one who appoints and the one who is appointed
- Hebrews 1.3 - The Son is the "radiance of the glory of God," not God; the Son sat down at the right hand of the Majesty - a distinction between God and God's glory, between the Son and the Majesty
- Hebrews 1.4 - the Son has become much superior to the angels; he has inherited a name more excellent than the angels' - surely God would not have to become greater than the angels
- Hebrews 1.5 - To the Son God says "You are my Son. I have begotten you." Distinction between God and God's Son, between the one who begets and the one who is begotten (cf. John 3.16 - "only begotten Son")
- Hebrews 1.6 - God brings "the first born" into the world - more begetting; distinction between God and the one God brings into the world.
- Hebrews 1.9 - The Son's God has anointed the Son - distinction between the one who anoints and the one who is anointed - a clear indication that the writer of Hebrews believes Jesus had a God, which seems to rule out the possibility that the writer thinks Jesus WAS God.
-
If you mean to interpret Heb 1:8 in a manner that the writer of Hebrews supposedly makes Jesus to be God ... I suppose in the very next verse then Heb 1:9 the writer of Hebrews declares that "the God Jesus" actually has a God above him Who anointed him ?
I am not seeing the problem. The flesh of Jesus was not all the fullness of God, but in Him did dwell all the fullness of God. The flesh part was anointed of God.
Where is any problem with that?
In my view, Wolfgang, the opening verses of Hebrews 1 present a strong case in support of our contention that Jesus is not God.
Bill, you have made clear many times that you do not believe the Bible to be true, thus you have no appeal to the Bible as truth, so I am not sure why your arguments would be relevant.
-
@GaoLu said:
Bill, you have made clear many times that you do not believe the Bible to be true, thus you have no appeal to the Bible as truth, so I am not sure why your arguments would be relevant.
1) Given the dozens, more likely, scores, of CD forum posts you and I have created on the subject over the years, I'm confident that your characterization of my view of the Bible is knowingly incomplete and misleading.
2) Your post contends with my argument about the opening verses of Hebrews 1 without reference to the opening verses of Hebrews 1. We know how you (mis)characterize my view of the Bible. And we know that you're "not sure why (my) arguments would be relevant." What we don't know - because you haven't told us - is what you think of the content of my argument, and how you interpret the verses to which I referred.
I'm guessing that were I to respond to one of your posted biblical analyses with a commentary about you instead of a commentary about your analysis or the text(s) at issue, you'd call my commentary "another Coley red herring." And for once, you'd be right.
-
Bill,
Nice passage (A sermon in letter format to a small group of Jewish Christian in a house church).This passage conveys God revealing himself in a more thorough way. Without such, humanity can never know Him. He contrasted methods in the OT with the NT, via the writer of Hebrews. This passage shows me, the God (in OT) who is proactive and He speaks (Gen 3:8-10). God spoke in the past by various ways, prophets, and his son. However, those means were incomplete (alone or in combination).
The climax of God's revelation is through his Son, Jesus. He is a complete and permanent revelation. Revelation through Jesus is superior compared to the prophets of the past:
- Heir of all things (Ps 2:8-- Messianic).
- Jesus created all that exists (Gen 1). See also Jn 1:3 RSV; Col. 1:16 (RSV). It shows the "Word" is a complete revelatory in Heb 1.
- In Jesus, we see God's glory, like the sun reaches the earth.
- Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature. Adam in God's image and likeness Gen. 1:26-27), but Jesus is declared the exact representation. He upholds and guides creation moment by moment.
- Jesus sustains "all things by the word of his power" or "His mighty word", the same word that called the universe into being (Heb. 11:1).
Contribution to the conversation. More later, stay tuned. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Nice passage (A sermon in letter format to a small group of Jewish Christian in a house church).This passage conveys God revealing himself in a more thorough way. Without such, humanity can never know Him. He contrasted methods in the OT with the NT, via the writer of Hebrews. This passage shows me, the God (in OT) who is proactive and He speaks (Gen 3:8-10). God spoke in the past by various ways, prophets, and his son. However, those means were incomplete (alone or in combination).
First, thanks for your post, C.M. and for your engagement with the Hebrews 1 text, an engagement in which, it seems to me, you repackage the author's intentions quite well.
I agree with you that the author contends that God's previous self-revelations were insufficient, or at least incomplete.
The climax of God's revelation is through his Son, Jesus. He is a complete and permanent revelation. Revelation through Jesus is superior compared to the prophets of the past:
I also agree with you that the author believes God's revelation in Jesus is both permanent and superior to past revelations. For clarity's sake regarding the issue at hand in this thread, however, I must note in my view, Jesus as God's most profound self-revelation does not mean that Jesus was God. Jesus is the Messiah, God's chosen/appointed one - the one chosen by God to reveal the Logos (the Word) to the world - who has become superior to the angels, who now sits at God's right hand.
- Jesus created all that exists (Gen 1). See also Jn 1:3 RSV; Col. 1:16 (RSV). It shows the "Word" is a complete revelatory in Heb 1.
Notice that that text says God created the world through the Son; the text does not say the Son was the creator.
- Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature. Adam in God's image and likeness Gen. 1:26-27), but Jesus is declared the exact representation. He upholds and guides creation moment by moment.
The fullness of God was in Jesus; he was the Word in human form. Before Jesus, the Word was real and creative (so John 1) but it took on flesh - arrived in a form we could understand - in the person of Jesus. We saw God's most complete revelation in Jesus, though it's of course the case that no revelation of God to humans could reveal EVERYTHING about God (Isaiah 55.8-9 remain true).
- Jesus sustains "all things by the word of his power" or "His mighty word", the same word that called the universe into being (Heb. 11:1).
My sense is that in Hebrews 1, it is the resurrected/glorifed Jesus, not the earthly Jesus, who upholds the universe with his power. What do you think? It is the glorified Jesus whom God appointed "heir of all things" (v.2) in whom God has entrusted authority.
Excellent post, C.M. Please continue the conversation (thanks for calling your last post an addition to the "conversation;" excellent word choice, I think)
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@GaoLu said:
Bill, you have made clear many times that you do not believe the Bible to be true, thus you have no appeal to the Bible as truth, so I am not sure why your arguments would be relevant.
1) Given the dozens, more likely, scores, of CD forum posts you and I have created on the subject over the years, I'm confident that your characterization of my view of the Bible is knowingly incomplete and misleading.
I am willing to publicly apologize for any error in my characterization of you. I do not think my characterization is incomplete or misleading. If in fact, you do believe the Bible to absolutely be truth, say so. If not, I cannot imagine why you would bother to further debate what it says.
2) Your post contends with my argument about the opening verses of Hebrews 1 without reference to the opening verses of Hebrews 1. We know how you (mis)characterize my view of the Bible. And we know that you're "not sure why (my) arguments would be relevant." What we don't know - because you haven't told us - is what you think of the content of my argument, and how you interpret the verses to which I referred.
I do not believe Buddhist Sutras to be the inspired word of God or Truth. I do not expect
a Buddhist to engage me in arguing "Truths" of the Sutras. If you do not believe the truth of the inspired word of God, the Truth of the Bible then I would not expect you to offer meaningful dialog concerning its truths.I'm guessing that were I to respond to one of your posted biblical analyses with a commentary about you instead of a commentary about your analysis or the text(s) at issue, you'd call my commentary "another Coley red herring." And for once, you'd be right.
If you have a Sutra and I don't believe it contains the Truth of God and I argue the meaning of what you say are Truths in it, I will not expect you to give much weight to my arguments. If I did argue and you brought up this salient point, I would not call that a Coley-red-herring.
-
@GaoLu said:
@Bill_Coley said:
1) Given the dozens, more likely, scores, of CD forum posts you and I have created on the subject over the years, I'm confident that your characterization of my view of the Bible is knowingly incomplete and misleading.I am willing to publicly apologize for any error in my characterization of you. I do not think my characterization is incomplete or misleading. If in fact, you do believe the Bible to absolutely be truth, say so. If not, I cannot imagine why you would bother to further debate what it says.
In rough, on-the-spot, and condensed form, my view of the Bible is that it is the inspired word of God, written and compiled by human beings who were moved, guided, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Through the writings of the Bible, God spoke to both their original audiences and audiences throughout time since.
Due to human involvement in the creation of the writings of the Bible, there are errors and mistakes. Some are copyist errors. Some are errors rooted in different source mateiral. Some are errors created by cultural influence. Therefore, the truth of the Bible often cannot be discerned from a single verse or passage, but rather from an engagement with the whole of Scripture (e.g. as to the divinity of Jesus). The presence of errors, in my view, does NOT mean that the Bible is not inspired; it rather means there were humans involved in its creation. The errors also do NOT invalidate 2 Timothy 3.16.
Now, tell me how THAT view of the Bible is fairly and completely characterized by your words that I called "knowingly incomplete and misleading"... (emphasis added)
"Bill, you have made clear many times that you do not believe the Bible to be true, thus you have no appeal to the Bible as truth...."
-
Due to human involvement in the creation of the writings of the Bible, there are errors and mistakes. Some are copyist errors. Some are errors rooted in different source mateiral. Some are errors created by cultural influence.
For me personally, this invalidates your arguments as mentioned above and contradicts your statement that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
You are free and welcome to offer comments all you wish of course. Just know that for me the characterization stands and arguments from such a source must be viewed in light of the source.
-
@GaoLu said:
"Bill, you have made clear many times that you do not believe the Bible to be true, thus you have no appeal to the Bible as truth...."
I hope this is not true. This will cause one to be without a knowledge of God, faith, a guide to live by, without hope for the afterlife, death or the resurrection. How would one know the origin of life, the world, Jesus-the Christ, the way of salvation, God's dealing with humanity, deliverance from Satan and sin and the promises of the return of Christ? What a sad and hopeless person?
Perhaps, a thread needs to be started to review, again, the Inspiration of the Bible, its promises, hope abd God (whom so many don't know or deny his existence). It would be quite fruitless to engage in meaningful conversations when the parties don't agree among themselves, the basic and ultimate principles of authority. Without such, it would just be the regurgitation of religious verbiage. I hope it's not true; say it ain't so, GaoLu? CM
-
@GaoLu said:
... If you do not believe the truth of the inspired word of God, the Truth of the Bible then I would not expect you to offer meaningful dialog concerning its truths.
A wise man once said, what one says, it doesn't mean he believes it. If he says it long enough, he may one day.
However, what one does; he believes, even if he doesn't know why.
On the other hand, what one thinks, is not what one says or do.
What one thinks, he says, and do repeatedly; he believes. What say ye? CM
-
@C_M_ said:
This passage conveys God revealing himself in a more thorough way. Without such, humanity can never know Him. He contrasted methods in the OT with the NT, via the writer of Hebrews.where does this passage in Heb 1 speak about contrasting methods of God revealing Himself in the OT with methods of God revealing Himself in the NT?
I read about the writer of Hebrews stating that God used the method of speaking in times past by speaking via the prophets and in these last days (the days in which the writer of Hebrews lived) God spoke by His Son.God spoke in the past by various ways, prophets, and his son. However, those means were incomplete (alone or in combination).
Is this what Heb 1:1-2 state? Does the writer of Hebrews really include "speaking by his Son" in the "in times past" category? Does not v.2 clearly state something different??
Also, where does the writer of Hebrews declare that what God "spoke in the past by various ways, prophets, and his son" to have been "incomplete (alone or in combination)"? Where in this passage in Hebrews is "incomplete vs complete" a point of what the writer of Hebrews is declaring?
The climax of God's revelation is through his Son, Jesus. He is a complete and permanent revelation. Revelation through Jesus is superior compared to the prophets of the past:
?? where does Scripture say anything about "He [Jesus] is a complete and permanent revelation" ?? How can revelation from God declared by a prophet like Moses, Daniel, Jeremiah, etc be inferior to revelation from God declared by Jesus ??
Why was there revelation from God given after Jesus in the writings of apostles, such as Peter, John, Paul ... if Jesus already was the complete and permanent revelation of God ??- Heir of all things (Ps 2:8-- Messianic).
So in truth, Psa 2:8 as something spoken and written by an OT prophet many centuries before Christ was actually part of the complete and permanent revelation?
- Jesus created all that exists (Gen 1). See also Jn 1:3 RSV; Col. 1:16 (RSV). It shows the "Word" is a complete revelatory in Heb 1.
Well, reading Gen 1, there is nothing in the text I can see about Jesus creating anything there ...
I have no clue how you logically connect the verses you mention to then conclude and claim that the "Word" (why do you put that term in " "?? is it because you interpret something rather than Scripture actually stating it ?? )is "a complete revelatory in Heb 1" ...- In Jesus, we see God's glory, like the sun reaches the earth.
?? are these supposed to be just some nice sounding sermon words?
- Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature. Adam in God's image and likeness Gen. 1:26-27), but Jesus is declared the exact representation. He upholds and guides creation moment by moment.
which Scripture (either OT or NT) says anything about "Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature" ?? What do you mean with "God's nature" in your statement?
I have read in Scripture that Jesus obeyed God in all that he said and he did, thereby submitting his will to God's will perfectly and remaining without sin in his day by day walk, resulting also in that anyone who observed what Jesus said and did could see God as Jesus himself declared ("he who has seen me, has seen the Father" ... cp. Joh 14:9).
- Jesus sustains "all things by the word of his power" or "His mighty word", the same word that called the universe into being (Heb. 11:1).
I have no clue how Heb 11:1 related in any way to what you are saying here .... is this perhaps a wrong scripture reference?
I'd appreciate if you would clarify your points ... as they were stated, and as you can see from my questions for clarification, I was unable to follow quite a number of things you mentioned ...
-
It would be quite fruitless to engage in meaningful conversations when the parties don't agree among themselves, the basic and ultimate principles of authority. Without such, it would just be the regurgitation of religious verbiage. I hope it's not true; say it ain't so, GaoLu?
I would like to say it ain't so. I have to let Bill speak for himself...which I think he did above.
A wise man once said, what one says, it doesn't mean he believes it. If he says it long enough, he may one day.
However, what one does; he believes, even if he doesn't know why.
On the other hand, what one thinks, is not what one says or do.
What one thinks, he says, and do repeatedly; he believes. What say ye? CMI think that wise man was indeed very wise.
-
@GaoLu said:
Due to human involvement in the creation of the writings of the Bible, there are errors and mistakes. Some are copyist errors. Some are errors rooted in different source mateiral. Some are errors created by cultural influence.
For me personally, this invalidates your arguments as mentioned above and contradicts your statement that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
I suppose it would be necessary to define what is meant with "the writings of the Bible" ... for example, does that term refer
(a) to the original writings as first put in writing by those who were inspired by God to write what they wrote?
(b) to the writings we have today in a particular Bible version we hold as a printed book in hand or display in a different form on the screen of our computer ?Furthermore one should clarify if any copies done (in former times by hand written copyist work, later by printing, photocopying, etc.) may contain deviations (and thus errors) from the God inspired original ...
What about translations of the writings into other languages ... can there be translation problems or errors?
What about different interpretations and dogmas - among them false interpretations and dogmas - having gained entrance into Bible versions/translations ?? Were or are all these as "inspired of God" as the writers of the originals were and thus have equal status in terms of authority ??
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)