Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@reformed said:
No, my point is this, you claim that Jesus is not God based on things he said, yet nothing he said would eliminate him from being God.Actually, all that Jesus said and did eliminates him from being God! I am astonished that you do insist on the opposite ...
Have you not read what Jesus stated -- for one example -- in John 20:17??
Joh 20,17 (ASV)
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.Did Jesus here not clearly identify GOD with the Father, rather than himself?
Also, did Jesus not clearly identify that THE SAME WHO was the disciples' God was also his own God? -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, my point is this, you claim that Jesus is not God based on things he said, yet nothing he said would eliminate him from being God.Actually, all that Jesus said and did eliminates him from being God! I am astonished that you do insist on the opposite ...
Have you not read what Jesus stated -- for one example -- in John 20:17??
Joh 20,17 (ASV)
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.Did Jesus here not clearly identify GOD with the Father, rather than himself?
Also, did Jesus not clearly identify that THE SAME WHO was the disciples' God was also his own God?He did say that, but he did not say that he was not God and nothing about the statement would eliminate that.
If I am the President of the United States, am I not also my own President? Yes. The Son, who is himself God, is subject to the Father. That doesn't make him less God or not God.
-
@reformed said:
He did say that, but he did not say that he was not God and nothing about the statement would eliminate that.If I am the President of the United States, am I not also my own President? Yes. The Son, who is himself God, is subject to the Father. That doesn't make him less God or not God.
A man says to his brother, "I'm going to visit your father and my father." By the the logic of your "am I not my own president?" example, the man would be his own father. That makes no sense. Just as it makes no sense to suggest that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of ascending to his ("my") God.
In my view, it's not ONLY John 20.17 that makes the case that Jesus did not believe he was God. In a half hour of looking at only a portion of John's Gospel, I found these...
- John 8.28-29 - Jesus says the one who sent him has not deserted him, declaring a distinction between himself and the one who sent him. Jesus says only what the Father has taught him to say, leading naturally to the observation that had he thought of himself as God, surely he could have spoken for himself.
- John 5.30 - Jesus can do nothing on his own (but couldn't God?!) He seeks not his own will, but the will of the one who sent him. If he believed himself to be God, how could his own will have been different from the will of the one who sent him? Why would he have needed to surrender to a will other than his own?
- John 5.31 - Jesus says his testimony on his own behalf would not be true(!) How could one who considered himself God have believed anything he spoke would not be true?
- John 6.27 - Jesus says God has set God's seal on him (the Son of Man) and also makes clear that for him (Jesus) "Father" is a term of endearment he uses to refer to God, not a referent to a multi-part godhead.
- John 6.29 - Jesus says "the work of God" is that people believe in the one God has sent, another clear distinction between sender and the one sent.
- John 7.17 - Jesus makes a clear distinction between teaching that is from God and teaching that is from Jesus himself: He says the choice for people is whether to believe that his teaching is from God, or is from him (Jesus) speaking on his own authority. Once again, Jesus believes himself to have been sent by God; he expresses no hint of belief that he is God.
- John 8.54 - For Jesus to glorify himself is "nothing," an odd thing for one who is God to say. Jesus here also declares that the one he calls "Father" is the one the people call "God," adding support to my claim that for Jesus, "Father" does not refer to a godhead, but rather is a term of endearment for God.
- John 13.3 - John says Jesus knew he had come from God and would return to God, reminding us yet again that the one sent is not the same as the sender.
- John 17.3 - In prayer, Jesus asserts that eternal life is to know God and to know Jesus Christ whom God has sent, yet another clear distinction between God and the one God sent.
AND THAT'S JUST FROM A HALF HOUR'S SCANNING OF SOME CHAPTERS IN JOHN! Had I the time and inclination, I could have cited dozens/scores of other verses in John, in the Synoptic Gospels, and in the letters and epistles the most obvious and self-evident interpretation of which is that Jesus does not believe himself to be God, and Paul, Peter, et al agree.
A central question for advocates of the Trinity is that if Jesus believed himself to be God, why does he again and again and again respond in ways that make it look like he doesn't believe that?
- Why tell people that he was doing God's will, not his own will, when he must have known people hearing those words would easily and understandably have concluded Jesus could not have been God because someone who was God couldn't do anything other than God's will.
- Why tell people he couldn't do anything on his own, when he must have known people would conclude someone who was in fact God could not be so limited.
To his response in each of these situations, Jesus could have interjected his belief that he was God; but he never did. In fact, in each case he gave the opposite impression. At some point, it seems to me, that fact weighs heavily in the Trinity debate
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Joh 20,17 (ASV)
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.Did Jesus here not clearly identify GOD with the Father, rather than himself?
Also, did Jesus not clearly identify that THE SAME WHO was the disciples' God was also his own God?He did say that, but he did not say that he was not God and nothing about the statement would eliminate that.
Most certainly the statement eliminates your totally illogical and unreasonable assumption and clearly states that Jesus himself could NOT have been God nor believed himself to be God, just as he was NOT his father !! You seem to be of the opinion that Jesus was his own father ??
The Son, who is himself God, is subject to the Father. That doesn't make him less God or not God.
So you are saying that one God. who is Jesus, is subject to another God, his God and Father ?? Clearly, you believe in TWO Gods, one of whom is superior to the other.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Joh 20,17 (ASV)
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.Did Jesus here not clearly identify GOD with the Father, rather than himself?
Also, did Jesus not clearly identify that THE SAME WHO was the disciples' God was also his own God?He did say that, but he did not say that he was not God and nothing about the statement would eliminate that.
Most certainly the statement eliminates your totally illogical and unreasonable assumption and clearly states that Jesus himself could NOT have been God nor believed himself to be God, just as he was NOT his father !! You seem to be of the opinion that Jesus was his own father ??
The Son, who is himself God, is subject to the Father. That doesn't make him less God or not God.
So you are saying that one God. who is Jesus, is subject to another God, his God and Father ?? Clearly, you believe in TWO Gods, one of whom is superior to the other.
Yet in the very same book it says he IS God.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Joh 20,17 (ASV)
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.Did Jesus here not clearly identify GOD with the Father, rather than himself?
Also, did Jesus not clearly identify that THE SAME WHO was the disciples' God was also his own God?He did say that, but he did not say that he was not God and nothing about the statement would eliminate that.
Most certainly the statement eliminates your totally illogical and unreasonable assumption and clearly states that Jesus himself could NOT have been God nor believed himself to be God, just as he was NOT his father !! You seem to be of the opinion that Jesus was his own father ??
The Son, who is himself God, is subject to the Father. That doesn't make him less God or not God.
So you are saying that one God. who is Jesus, is subject to another God, his God and Father ?? Clearly, you believe in TWO Gods, one of whom is superior to the other.
Yet in the very same book it says he IS God.
Don't evade answering the specific questions you were asked, please. Instead, answer the questions and reply to points raised, rather than adding another false claim ("in the same book it says he is God") ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Joh 20,17 (ASV)
Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.Did Jesus here not clearly identify GOD with the Father, rather than himself?
Also, did Jesus not clearly identify that THE SAME WHO was the disciples' God was also his own God?He did say that, but he did not say that he was not God and nothing about the statement would eliminate that.
Most certainly the statement eliminates your totally illogical and unreasonable assumption and clearly states that Jesus himself could NOT have been God nor believed himself to be God, just as he was NOT his father !! You seem to be of the opinion that Jesus was his own father ??
The Son, who is himself God, is subject to the Father. That doesn't make him less God or not God.
So you are saying that one God. who is Jesus, is subject to another God, his God and Father ?? Clearly, you believe in TWO Gods, one of whom is superior to the other.
Yet in the very same book it says he IS God.
Don't evade answering the specific questions you were asked, please. Instead, answer the questions and reply to points raised, rather than adding another false claim ("in the same book it says he is God") ...
The same book DOES say he is God (multiple times). That being said, you have yet to show one thing that says the Son is not God. All you have done is affirm that the Father is also God.
-
@reformed said:
The same book DOES say he is God (multiple times).Keep on dreaming ... not one single place in the whole Bible teaches that Jesus is God.
That being said, you have yet to show one thing that says the Son is not God.
Your argument about a text stating "... is NOT God" is silly ... you say that because there is no place that says Jesus is not God Jesus therefore is God. With your logic, since there is no place that says Jesus is not an angel, he therefore is an angel ? or since no place says Jesus is not a father, he therefore had children and is a father?
All you have done is affirm that the Father is also God.
So you do believe that there are at least two Gods (Jesus is one of them, the other is the Father ("the Father is ALSO God")?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
The same book DOES say he is God (multiple times).Keep on dreaming ... not one single place in the whole Bible teaches that Jesus is God.
That being said, you have yet to show one thing that says the Son is not God.
Your argument about a text stating "... is NOT God" is silly ... you say that because there is no place that says Jesus is not God Jesus therefore is God. With your logic, since there is no place that says Jesus is not an angel, he therefore is an angel ? or since no place says Jesus is not a father, he therefore had children and is a father?
All you have done is affirm that the Father is also God.
So you do believe that there are at least two Gods (Jesus is one of them, the other is the Father ("the Father is ALSO God")?
John 1 is all about Jesus being God, in fact the whole book of John is.
And it is important that it doesn't say he is not God because it DOES say that he is. There is one God in three persons.
-
@reformed said:
John 1 is all about Jesus being God, in fact the whole book of John is.Sorry ... reading a bit more carefully what the text does in fact say could show you rather quickly that you've got things wrong in this case ...
John 1 is about the promised Messiah, the man whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth. Have a look at the end of John 20, where you can read:Joh 20:30-31
30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book:
31but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.the purpose for what is written in the gospel of John, in particular the records about the signs Jesus did, is so that those who read the book may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ..
Perhaps your Bible version reads "that ye may believe that Jesus is God"??And it is important that it doesn't say he is not God because it DOES say that he is. There is one God in three persons.
Again, which Bible version are you reading? I know of no Bible version (and I have quite a few available to me in both English and German, a few Greek texts as well) that would support what you claim.
-
@reformed said:
John 1 is all about Jesus being God, in fact the whole book of John is.And it is important that it doesn't say he is not God because it DOES say that he is. There is one God in three persons.
In a previous post in this thread, reformed, I cited ten verses/passages from John's Gospel that make a clear distinction between Jesus and God. Further, I raised important questions as to why Jesus would again and again and again gives the impression that he doesn't believe himself to be God, if he actually believed he was.
John 1 contains a couple of verses that CAN be interpreted to support a trinitarian view. But John's Gospel also contains dozens of verses that CAN be - I argue, are most accurately - interpreted as clear indications that Jesus did not see himself as God. How do you read the ten verses/passages I cited above? Why in them does Jesus NOT ONCE correct the most obvious and defensible inference his hearers would draw from his words - that he wasn't God?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
John 1 is all about Jesus being God, in fact the whole book of John is.Sorry ... reading a bit more carefully what the text does in fact say could show you rather quickly that you've got things wrong in this case ...
John 1 is about the promised Messiah, the man whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth. Have a look at the end of John 20, where you can read:Joh 20:30-31
30 Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book:
31but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.the purpose for what is written in the gospel of John, in particular the records about the signs Jesus did, is so that those who read the book may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ..
Perhaps your Bible version reads "that ye may believe that Jesus is God"??And it is important that it doesn't say he is not God because it DOES say that he is. There is one God in three persons.
Again, which Bible version are you reading? I know of no Bible version (and I have quite a few available to me in both English and German, a few Greek texts as well) that would support what you claim.
Not to butt in, but....“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)
-
@Dave_L said:
Not to butt in, but....“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)You offer a single verse, Dave, to which I respond, how does the Son of Man's ascension to "where he was before" prove that when he was "where he was before," he was anyone other than the Son of Man? How does his going "where he was before" prove that he was/is God? On several occasions in the Bible angels descend from heaven and then ascend back to where they were before. Does that make them God?
That's my direct, on-point response to the one verse you offered, Dave. You may agree or disagree with my take on the verse, but you can't dispute that I engaged it directly. Now, return the favor and respond directly and on-point to the ten verses/passages I cited in a previous post.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
Not to butt in, but....“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)You offer a single verse, Dave, to which I respond, how does the Son of Man's ascension to "where he was before" prove that when he was "where he was before," he was anyone other than the Son of Man? How does his going "where he was before" prove that he was/is God? On several occasions in the Bible angels descend from heaven and then ascend back to where they were before. Does that make them God?
That's my direct, on-point response to the one verse you offered, Dave. You may agree or disagree with my take on the verse, but you can't dispute that I engaged it directly. Now, return the favor and respond directly and on-point to the ten verses/passages I cited in a previous post.
“For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”” (John 6:33)
“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)
“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9–11)
-
@Dave_L said:
Not to butt in, but....“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)But(t) what?
My suggestion for a proper key to a correct understanding would be to understand a seemingly difficult verse in light of the many clear verses ... and NOT try and contradict all the many clear verses in favor of a particular interpretation of a seemingly difficult verse
Also, it would be a good idea to consider the seemingly difficult verse in detail to see what understanding and interpretation of the statement are possibilities? In other words, is there more than one possibility of how the author could have meant what he expressed in the particular way he used? Next, which of several possibilities is the one that would be in harmony with the context and the rest of Scripture on a given topic?
-
“The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man, are claiming to be God.”” (John 10:33)
The Jews believed Jesus was only a man, just as you do. And this is why the world is suffering under the scourge of war and terrorism. And why the Jews suffered so dearly throughout the centuries. Had they believed Jesus was God, they would have joined the rest of the thousands of Jews who accepted Christ. And they would have acclimated throughout the world into Israel under Christ, aka Christendom.
-
@Dave_L said:
“For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”” (John 6:33)“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)
“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9–11)
In response to my request that you engage directly and on-point with the ten verses/passages I cited in an earlier post, you re-offer John 6.63 and provide two additional texts. What you don't do, Dave, is engage directly and on-point with the ten verses/passages I cited in an earlier post.
In my view, the new texts you cite offer nothing new to the discussion. Neither declares or even intimates that Jesus is God. As I argued in my previous response to you, the fact that the Son of Man was in heaven and then returned to heaven does NOT demonstrate that the Son of Man was God. The fact that the resurrected Jesus ascended to heaven does not prove that he was God anymore than does the fact that you will ascend to heaven when you die prove that you are God.
Again I have engaged your cited texts directly and on-point, Dave. And again I ask you to return the favor by engaging directly the verses I cited earlier in this thread. (And if you don't want to engage all ten, then engage three of them, the number of your texts that I have engaged in this brief exchange).
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
“For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”” (John 6:33)“Then what if you see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?” (John 6:62)
“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9–11)
In response to my request that you engage directly and on-point with the ten verses/passages I cited in an earlier post, you re-offer John 6.63 and provide two additional texts. What you don't do, Dave, is engage directly and on-point with the ten verses/passages I cited in an earlier post.
In my view, the new texts you cite offer nothing new to the discussion. Neither declares or even intimates that Jesus is God. As I argued in my previous response to you, the fact that the Son of Man was in heaven and then returned to heaven does NOT demonstrate that the Son of Man was God. The fact that the resurrected Jesus ascended to heaven does not prove that he was God anymore than does the fact that you will ascend to heaven when you die prove that you are God.
Again I have engaged your cited texts directly and on-point, Dave. And again I ask you to return the favor by engaging directly the verses I cited earlier in this thread. (And if you don't want to engage all ten, then engage three of them, the number of your texts that I have engaged in this brief exchange).
I thought Reformed was doing a good job. That's why I didn't want to butt in. If you could show a difference between you and the Pharisees' view of Christ, It might be worth the time looking at your ideas.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
The same book DOES say he is God (multiple times).Keep on dreaming ... not one single place in the whole Bible teaches that Jesus is God.
That being said, you have yet to show one thing that says the Son is not God.
Your argument about a text stating "... is NOT God" is silly ... you say that because there is no place that says Jesus is not God Jesus therefore is God. With your logic, since there is no place that says Jesus is not an angel, he therefore is an angel ? or since no place says Jesus is not a father, he therefore had children and is a father?
All you have done is affirm that the Father is also God.
So you do believe that there are at least two Gods (Jesus is one of them, the other is the Father ("the Father is ALSO God")?
John 1 is all about Jesus being God, in fact the whole book of John is.
And it is important that it doesn't say he is not God because it DOES say that he is. There is one God in three persons.> @Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
John 1 is all about Jesus being God, in fact the whole book of John is.And it is important that it doesn't say he is not God because it DOES say that he is. There is one God in three persons.
In a previous post in this thread, reformed, I cited ten verses/passages from John's Gospel that make a clear distinction between Jesus and God. Further, I raised important questions as to why Jesus would again and again and again gives the impression that he doesn't believe himself to be God, if he actually believed he was.
John 1 contains a couple of verses that CAN be interpreted to support a trinitarian view. But John's Gospel also contains dozens of verses that CAN be - I argue, are most accurately - interpreted as clear indications that Jesus did not see himself as God. How do you read the ten verses/passages I cited above? Why in them does Jesus NOT ONCE correct the most obvious and defensible inference his hearers would draw from his words - that he wasn't God?
Actually you listed verses that make a distinction between the son and the father. Not a distinction between the son and God.
-
@Dave_L said:
I thought Reformed was doing a good job. That's why I didn't want to butt in. If you could show a difference between you and the Pharisees' view of Christ, It might be worth the time looking at your ideas.You don't think it's worth your time to "(look) at (my) ideas," but you offer three texts in this exchange, presumably because you think it would be worth my/our time to look at YOUR ideas. Amazing.
In my view, Dave, the vitality of these forums depends on its members deciding that each others' views are "worth (their) time." Hence, your views are worthy of my time, NOT because I agree with them (I don't!) but because they're your views. At some point in your CD journey, I hope you will conclude that even the views of those who in your opinion sound like Pharisees are worthy of your time and response.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
I thought Reformed was doing a good job. That's why I didn't want to butt in. If you could show a difference between you and the Pharisees' view of Christ, It might be worth the time looking at your ideas.You don't think it's worth your time to "(look) at (my) ideas," but you offer three texts in this exchange, presumably because you think it would be worth my/our time to look at YOUR ideas. Amazing.
In my view, Dave, the vitality of these forums depends on its members deciding that each others' views are "worth (their) time." Hence, your views are worthy of my time, NOT because I agree with them (I don't!) but because they're your views. At some point in your CD journey, I hope you will conclude that even the views of those who in your opinion sound like Pharisees are worthy of your time and response.
I'm of the opinion that someone who subscribes to a proven heresy does not have an opinion that is worth anyone's time.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Bill_Coley said:
Again I have engaged your cited texts directly and on-point, Dave. And again I ask you to return the favor by engaging directly the verses I cited earlier in this thread. (And if you don't want to engage all ten, then engage three of them, the number of your texts that I have engaged in this brief exchange).I thought Reformed was doing a good job. That's why I didn't want to butt in. If you could show a difference between you and the Pharisees' view of Christ, It might be worth the time looking at your ideas.
@Bill_Coley it is rather clear that Dave_L is either unwilling or unable to engage any text directly and on-point. Perhaps he has no clue what that engaging a text directly actually is ... despite the fact that you are giving him plenty of examples right in front of his face
Sadly, Dave_L doesn't seem to be the only one here unable or unwilling to do so in discussions of textual passages ... Reformed displays the very same conduct
-
@reformed said:
Actually you listed verses that make a distinction between the son and the father. Not a distinction between the son and God.So then you are now saying that the father is NOT God ????
IF the Father were God, "a distinction between the son and the father" would be the same thing as "a distinction between the son and God". Since "the son and the father" is not the same as "the son and God", YOU are declaring that "the father" is NOT "God".
-
@reformed said:
I'm of the opinion that someone who subscribes to a proven heresy does not have an opinion that is worth anyone's time.1) But apparently you think it IS worth your/someone's time to declare judgments as to whose opinions are and are not worthy of anyone's time.... Well that's something, anyway.
2) Ultimately, it's not my views that you and Dave and other Trinity advocates refuse to engage; it's the Scripture texts I present. I propose that you don't engage those texts because you can't engage them without acknowledging that my exegesis of them is correct. Those texts say exactly what I say they say, and their cumulative impact outguns and overwhelms the impact of the small set of verses Trinity advocates rely on.
When people on two sides of an issue each present Bible texts to support their views, but one of the two sides regularly refuses to engage the other side's texts, one very sensible interpretation of that refusal is that the people implementing it have no effective response to the texts their counterparts have provided. That's certainly my interpretation of your refusal to engage Bible texts other than ones you cite, reformed.
-
@reformed said:
I'm of the opinion that someone who subscribes to a proven heresy does not have an opinion that is worth anyone's time.I suppose your Trinity opinion should not be worth my or anyone else's time ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Bill_Coley it is rather clear that Dave_L is either unwilling or unable to engage any text directly and on-point. Perhaps he has no clue what that engaging a text directly actually is ... despite the fact that you are giving him plenty of examples right in front of his faceSadly, Dave_L doesn't seem to be the only one here unable or unwilling to do so in discussions of textual passages ... Reformed displays the very same conduct
I've long believed that people who have no effective reply to another's argument have three basic choices: 1) Acknowledge they have no effective reply; 2) Say nothing at all; 3) Change the subject or otherwise distract from their lack of an effective reply.
In my view, both Dave L and reformed have chosen option 3, and have done so via name-calling:
- Dave L has no response to the texts I cite, so he likens me to a Pharisee.
- Reformed as no response to the texts I cite, so he likens me to a heretic.
If you can't beat the message, beat the messenger. Call 'em a name.
Unfortunately for them, their problem is not that I am or might be a Pharisee or heretic. Their problem is that the verses I cite - as well as a clear majority of NT verses/passages - don't support their view.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Actually you listed verses that make a distinction between the son and the father. Not a distinction between the son and God.So then you are now saying that the father is NOT God ????
IF the Father were God, "a distinction between the son and the father" would be the same thing as "a distinction between the son and God". Since "the son and the father" is not the same as "the son and God", YOU are declaring that "the father" is NOT "God".
I did not say that at all.
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
I'm of the opinion that someone who subscribes to a proven heresy does not have an opinion that is worth anyone's time.1) But apparently you think it IS worth your/someone's time to declare judgments as to whose opinions are and are not worthy of anyone's time.... Well that's something, anyway.
Fair enough.
2) Ultimately, it's not my views that you and Dave and other Trinity advocates refuse to engage; it's the Scripture texts I present. I propose that you don't engage those texts because you can't engage them without acknowledging that my exegesis of them is correct. Those texts say exactly what I say they say, and their cumulative impact outguns and overwhelms the impact of the small set of verses Trinity advocates rely on.
We have dealt with the Scriptures. I would not call what you are doing exegesis, rather eisegesis.
I do not acknowledge that your handling of those passages is correct because you ignore other Scriptures, by definition that is bad exegetical work.
When people on two sides of an issue each present Bible texts to support their views, but one of the two sides regularly refuses to engage the other side's texts, one very sensible interpretation of that refusal is that the people implementing it have no effective response to the texts their counterparts have provided. That's certainly my interpretation of your refusal to engage Bible texts other than ones you cite, reformed.
I've engaged your texts.
-
Jesus taught us that it was useless to argue with the Pharisees who saw things the same as BC and WS do. If either cannot grasp the passages already cited, surely the more complex proofs of Christ's deity will also not be received.
-
@Dave_L said:
Jesus taught us that it was useless to argue with the Pharisees who saw things the same as BC and WS do. If either cannot grasp the passages already cited, surely the more complex proofs of Christ's deity will also not be received.So why do you post new texts in these threads for Wolfgang's and my consideration when you believe we "cannot grasp the passages already cited"?
-
@reformed said:
Actually you listed verses that make a distinction between the son and the father. Not a distinction between the son and God.As I showed in the verses I cited, for Jesus, "Father" is a term of endearment for God, not a reference to God as part of a multi-person godhead. For example, John 8.54...
54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 8:54). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
In other words, Jesus tells the crowd the one he calls "Father" is the one they call "God."
A similar result obtains from John 6.27...
Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 6:27). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Notice that Jesus refers to himself as "the Son of Man," which clearly is not a component of any Trinitarian formulation. He solidifies that point in John 6.29, where he says the work of God - not "the Father" - is to believe in the one God - not "the Father" - has sent.
Then there are the verses I cited in which Jesus claims personal powerlessness without God. Those verses have nothing to do with a distinction between "Father" and "Son;" they have to do with a distinction between Jesus and God, his source of power and authority. For example, John 5.30....
30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 5:30). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
That verse also establishes a clear distinction between Jesus' will and God's will, something found multiple times in the Gethsemane scene.
And perhaps the clearest distinction of all among the verses I cited is in John 17.3, where in a prayer, Jesus says...
And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 17:3). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Jesus begins the prayer (John 17.1) with the term of endearment "Father," but in 17.3 does not refer to God as "Father" or to himself as "the Son." He calls God "the only true God," and he calls himself "Jesus Christ," the one God has sent. If that verse doesn't declare a clear distinction between God and Jesus, I'm at a loss to know what language would.
Because your one sentence dismissal of the ten texts I cited fails to address the substance of any of them, I contend you have not at all engaged them, reformed. Please address at least the texts I cite in this post and the specific assertions I make about each one.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
