Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
Do you actually read Scripture or just certain commentaries and theological doctrinal works? There is absolutely no verse or passage in Scripture which speaks of God becoming a human being ... there are plenty of passages which testify very clearly that while the human being Jesus lived on earth, God as SPIRIT had NOT taken on flesh as you claim but was still in heaven.
We established that Jesus was also human.
No, there is NO "also" anywhere ... Scripture establishes that Jesus was a human being, born of a woman, and testified to by numerous passages in Scripture.
The Word became flesh. God, remember the word was God, became flesh. You cannot ignore this.
The passage in John 1 does NOT say anything about "God became flesh" ... YOU interpret it that way and thereby replace truth with mythology. I am NOT ignoring this at all, and have already stated several times here in these forums how what had been "Word" in God's foreknowledge (cp 1Pe 1:20) "became flesh" when "the time was fulfilled and the Messiah was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4). Absolutely NOTHING about God "taking on flesh" ...
@Reformed, did Jesus miss this idea that God had taken on flesh, since he believed that his God was in heaven and was Spirit and was the One to whom Jesus prayed???You do realize that these ideas are exactly those ideas and concepts borrowed from ancient mythologies?!
No, they are ideas taken straight from Scripture.
Sorry, making a false claim and insisting on it to be true does NOT make it true.
Scripture testifies that God was conceived in human form in the virgin Mary.
Do you even realize what you wrote here and what you are making of God and of Mary?? Perhaps you are a Roman Catholic theology student heavenly influenced by Roman doctrine and dogma rather than adhering to Scripture?
It absolutely makes a difference. Artificial conception? There is no such thing.
Hmn .... I know of a couple where the woman conceived by means of a medical procedure (that is, not by means of sexual intercourse, thus not by a "natural conception" but an "artifical" conception). Did the manner of conception make a difference? NO !! The manner in which the male seed was inserted into the womb did NOT make a difference, the conception took place and the child was born 9 months later.
Women can only conceive a child from a male seed of the human kind, since God established in the beginning the natural law that all procreation is "according to its kind" (cp Gen 1) A human can NOT mix with a monkey, or a donkey, or some other kind of living being to produce a "donkey-man", "man-monkey", etc ...
The miraculous conception in the case of Mary was that God by means of His holy spirit power provided a perfect male seed of the kind "human" so that a conception in Mary could (and did) take place. Mary did not conceive a "dual nature" Being (such is impossible in accordance with the God established law of procreation), but a human being, the male child Jesus.
That is artificial insemination, not artificial conception.
Ah ok ... and what do you think happens with such artificial insemination? a CONCEPTION perhaps? or what do you call that which results from such artificial insemination?
But, to do you the favor .... I would say that in accordance with the laws for procreation which God Himself established in the beginning, God miraculously worked an "artificial insemination" in Mary, providing miraculously a male seed of the kind human, and Mary conceived and gave birth 9 months later to a son, a male human being.God can take on flesh and Scripture says he did.
Scripture says NOTHING like it ... as a matter of truth, there are many many passages and statements in Scripture which refute your claim about "God took on flesh" as utter nonsense.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Do you actually read Scripture or just certain commentaries and theological doctrinal works? There is absolutely no verse or passage in Scripture which speaks of God becoming a human being ... there are plenty of passages which testify very clearly that while the human being Jesus lived on earth, God as SPIRIT had NOT taken on flesh as you claim but was still in heaven.
We established that Jesus was also human.
No, there is NO "also" anywhere ... Scripture establishes that Jesus was a human being, born of a woman, and testified to by numerous passages in Scripture.
The Word became flesh. God, remember the word was God, became flesh. You cannot ignore this.
The passage in John 1 does NOT say anything about "God became flesh" ... YOU interpret it that way and thereby replace truth with mythology. I am NOT ignoring this at all, and have already stated several times here in these forums how what had been "Word" in God's foreknowledge (cp 1Pe 1:20) "became flesh" when "the time was fulfilled and the Messiah was born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4). Absolutely NOTHING about God "taking on flesh" ...
@Reformed, did Jesus miss this idea that God had taken on flesh, since he believed that his God was in heaven and was Spirit and was the One to whom Jesus prayed???You do realize that these ideas are exactly those ideas and concepts borrowed from ancient mythologies?!
No, they are ideas taken straight from Scripture.
Sorry, making a false claim and insisting on it to be true does NOT make it true.
Scripture testifies that God was conceived in human form in the virgin Mary.
Do you even realize what you wrote here and what you are making of God and of Mary?? Perhaps you are a Roman Catholic theology student heavenly influenced by Roman doctrine and dogma rather than adhering to Scripture?
It absolutely makes a difference. Artificial conception? There is no such thing.
Hmn .... I know of a couple where the woman conceived by means of a medical procedure (that is, not by means of sexual intercourse, thus not by a "natural conception" but an "artifical" conception). Did the manner of conception make a difference? NO !! The manner in which the male seed was inserted into the womb did NOT make a difference, the conception took place and the child was born 9 months later.
Women can only conceive a child from a male seed of the human kind, since God established in the beginning the natural law that all procreation is "according to its kind" (cp Gen 1) A human can NOT mix with a monkey, or a donkey, or some other kind of living being to produce a "donkey-man", "man-monkey", etc ...
The miraculous conception in the case of Mary was that God by means of His holy spirit power provided a perfect male seed of the kind "human" so that a conception in Mary could (and did) take place. Mary did not conceive a "dual nature" Being (such is impossible in accordance with the God established law of procreation), but a human being, the male child Jesus.
That is artificial insemination, not artificial conception.
Ah ok ... and what do you think happens with such artificial insemination? a CONCEPTION perhaps? or what do you call that which results from such artificial insemination?
But, to do you the favor .... I would say that in accordance with the laws for procreation which God Himself established in the beginning, God miraculously worked an "artificial insemination" in Mary, providing miraculously a male seed of the kind human, and Mary conceived and gave birth 9 months later to a son, a male human being.God can take on flesh and Scripture says he did.
Scripture says NOTHING like it ... as a matter of truth, there are many many passages and statements in Scripture which refute your claim about "God took on flesh" as utter nonsense.
Scripture days all of the things I have said. It HEAVILY disagrees with you and your viewpoint is a heresy and MUCH in the minority because most people take the Bible for what it says.
-
@reformed said:
Scripture days all of the things I have said.I have not seen that you provided any Scripture which in fact does support your claims.
It HEAVILY disagrees with you and your viewpoint is a heresy and MUCH in the minority because most people take the Bible for what it says.
And more polemics and general claims which are plain false. Example: My viewpoint is that the man Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Messiah whom God sent. who was crucified and was raised from the dead by God ... does Scripture disagree with that? does Scripture declare my viewpoint to be heresy? since when is the majority view truth and a minority view heresy?
Your viewpoint is that God sent Himself, actually that God Himself became a human being ... and yet, this "man-God" Jesus himself prayed to a God in heaven and not to himself. According to your viewpoint, there would have been TWO GODS? or perhaps a GOD who split Himself into an "in Spirit God" in heaven and an "in Flesh God" on earth?
I don't really expect that you would address these points raised in detail ... most likely we'll see another "repeat big fat false claim" post, ignoring the most simple truths of Scripture, some of which I have pointed out above
-
I have MULTIPLE times.
It HEAVILY disagrees with you and your viewpoint is a heresy and MUCH in the minority because most people take the Bible for what it says.
And more polemics and general claims which are plain false. Example: My viewpoint is that the man Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Messiah whom God sent. who was crucified and was raised from the dead by God ... does Scripture disagree with that? does Scripture declare my viewpoint to be heresy? since when is the majority view truth and a minority view heresy?
No, Scripture does not disagree with that but it also does not STOP with that. That is why your view is heresy. As far as majority vs. minority, you should lookup the word heresy.
Your viewpoint is that God sent Himself, actually that God Himself became a human being ... and yet, this "man-God" Jesus himself prayed to a God in heaven and not to himself. According to your viewpoint, there would have been TWO GODS? or perhaps a GOD who split Himself into an "in Spirit God" in heaven and an "in Flesh God" on earth?
Remember, there are three parts to the one God. Father, Son, Spirit. So no, the father did not send himself, the son was sent.
I don't really expect that you would address these points raised in detail ... most likely we'll see another "repeat big fat false claim" post, ignoring the most simple truths of Scripture, some of which I have pointed out above
The only one ignoring/twisting Scripture are you and Bill with your crazy and unfounded interpretation of John 1.
-
care to prove your claim and provide scriptures which say what you claim ? (Note: Don't come with verses which do NOT say what you claim but which you interpret to mean what you say)
And more polemics and general claims which are plain false. Example: My viewpoint is that the man Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Messiah whom God sent. who was crucified and was raised from the dead by God ... does Scripture disagree with that? does Scripture declare my viewpoint to be heresy? since when is the majority view truth and a minority view heresy?
No, Scripture does not disagree with that but it also does not STOP with that. That is why your view is heresy. As far as majority vs. minority, you should lookup the word heresy.
So you are in the business of adding to Scripture what it actually doesn't say??
I've read the word heresy in Scripture .... and noticed that in the times of Acts the doctrine of the followers of Jesus was called heresy. I feel in good company.Your viewpoint is that God sent Himself, actually that God Himself became a human being ... and yet, this "man-God" Jesus himself prayed to a God in heaven and not to himself. According to your viewpoint, there would have been TWO GODS? or perhaps a GOD who split Himself into an "in Spirit God" in heaven and an "in Flesh God" on earth?
Remember, there are three parts to the one God. Father, Son, Spirit.
Any scripture which would say that God has "three parts" ??? I could bet, that you won't find one ...
Actually, I know Trinitarians who would disagree with your statement that "there are three parts to the one God" ... because then none of the three would be fully God, but rather only 1/3 God.
So no, the father did not send himself, the son was sent.
I see ... one part of GOD send another part of Himself ...
I don't really expect that you would address these points raised in detail ... most likely we'll see another "repeat big fat false claim" post, ignoring the most simple truths of Scripture, some of which I have pointed out above
The only one ignoring/twisting Scripture are you and Bill with your crazy and unfounded interpretation of John 1.
I see you did exactly what I already predicted above ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
care to prove your claim and provide scriptures which say what you claim ? (Note: Don't come with verses which do NOT say what you claim but which you interpret to mean what you say)
John 1 says Jesus is the word and the word is God.
And more polemics and general claims which are plain false. Example: My viewpoint is that the man Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Messiah whom God sent. who was crucified and was raised from the dead by God ... does Scripture disagree with that? does Scripture declare my viewpoint to be heresy? since when is the majority view truth and a minority view heresy?
No, Scripture does not disagree with that but it also does not STOP with that. That is why your view is heresy. As far as majority vs. minority, you should lookup the word heresy.
So you are in the business of adding to Scripture what it actually doesn't say??
Not at all.
Your viewpoint is that God sent Himself, actually that God Himself became a human being ... and yet, this "man-God" Jesus himself prayed to a God in heaven and not to himself. According to your viewpoint, there would have been TWO GODS? or perhaps a GOD who split Himself into an "in Spirit God" in heaven and an "in Flesh God" on earth?
Remember, there are three parts to the one God. Father, Son, Spirit.
Any scripture which would say that God has "three parts" ??? I could bet, that you won't find one ...
Nope. You have to take all of Scripture.
Actually, I know Trinitarians who would disagree with your statement that "there are three parts to the one God" ... because then none of the three would be fully God, but rather only 1/3 God.
Not what I said at all.
So no, the father did not send himself, the son was sent.
I see ... one part of GOD send another part of Himself ...
Yep
I don't really expect that you would address these points raised in detail ... most likely we'll see another "repeat big fat false claim" post, ignoring the most simple truths of Scripture, some of which I have pointed out above
The only one ignoring/twisting Scripture are you and Bill with your crazy and unfounded interpretation of John 1.
I see you did exactly what I already predicted above ...
That's fine, but you can't ignore Scripture and twist it, but that is exactly what you do.
-
@reformed said:
John 1 says Jesus is the word and the word is God.What verse in John 1 says "Jesus is the word"?
Nope. You have to take all of Scripture.
You have yet to address directly a question I raised earlier in this thread about the practicality of your "have to take all of Scripture" dictum. Here's the question in its entirety, the text to which it refers being Acts 2.22-24:
How is the most common sense hearing of those words NOT that Jesus is not God?
One recurring response of yours to questions like that is we have interpret Scripture with Scripture. That's a sounds like good policy, but the problem is Peter spoke those words to a specific and time-defined group of people, people who did not have access to, could not have possibly have known to expect, the first chapter of John's Gospel or the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or any other NT Scripture.
TO THE PEOPLE TO WHOM PETER ADDRESSED THOSE WORDS, there was no other NT Scripture! Their ONLY frame of reference was what Peter told them, and he told them that Jesus was a man through whom God did mighty works, a man they killed but God raised. That's ALL his audience knew, which means the most common sense interpretation of WHAT THEY HEARD, was that Jesus was not God.
So the question for you and all Trinity advocates is this: What message about Jesus' identity did Peter give his audience that day in Jerusalem (remember, they had NO access to ANY other NT Scripture! They knew ONLY what Peter told them) and was Peter's message in any way inaccurate or misleading?
The questions to which you have not directly responded are in the final paragraph. Did Peter's audience - people who had NO other NT Scriptures to consult - get a complete and accurate picture of Jesus' relationship with God from Peter's sermon? If they did, then where in Peter's sermon did he tell them Jesus was God? If they didn't get a complete and accurate picture, then did Peter mislead THAT PARTICULAR AUDIENCE by leaving out the "truth" about Jesus' deity?
-
@Wolfgang said:
Actually, I know Trinitarians who would disagree with your statement that "there are three parts to the one God" ... because then none of the three would be fully God, but rather only 1/3 God.
Believe you're referring to this:
Partialism
...taught that Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are components of the one God. This led them to believe that each of the persons of the Trinity is only part God, only becoming fully God when they come together. (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian Heresies.html) -
now then, which verse in John 1 says Jesus is the word ??
No, Scripture does not disagree with that but it also does not STOP with that. That is why your view is heresy. As far as majority vs. minority, you should lookup the word heresy.
So you are in the business of adding to Scripture what it actually doesn't say??
Not at all.
Sure you are, you do so by claiming that Scripture doesn't stop where it stops and you then continue on by adding your ideas and mythological theology to it.
Remember, there are three parts to the one God. Father, Son, Spirit.
Any scripture which would say that God has "three parts" ??? I could bet, that you won't find one ...
Nope. You have to take all of Scripture.
Well, why then do you not take into consideration all of Scripture? It would lead to you understanding that Jesus was a human being, and that the only one who alone is true God was his Father in heaven, whom Jesus himself spoke of as "my Father and my God" (cp John 20:17).
So no, the father did not send himself, the son was sent.
I see ... one part of GOD send another part of Himself ...
Yep
I see, you fabricated your own Trinity theology, somewhat aligned with what is considered a Trinitarian heresy, also called "partialism" =>
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.htmlI see you did exactly what I already predicted above ...
That's fine, but you can't ignore Scripture and twist it, but that is exactly what you do.
Ha ha ha ... is what you demonstrate what they call in English "calling the cattle black" ?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
John 1 says Jesus is the word and the word is God.What verse in John 1 says "Jesus is the word"?
Thanks for asking, verses 14-17 explain Jesus is the Word.
Nope. You have to take all of Scripture.
You have yet to address directly a question I raised earlier in this thread about the practicality of your "have to take all of Scripture" dictum. Here's the question in its entirety, the text to which it refers being Acts 2.22-24:
How is the most common sense hearing of those words NOT that Jesus is not God?
One recurring response of yours to questions like that is we have interpret Scripture with Scripture. That's a sounds like good policy, but the problem is Peter spoke those words to a specific and time-defined group of people, people who did not have access to, could not have possibly have known to expect, the first chapter of John's Gospel or the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or any other NT Scripture.
TO THE PEOPLE TO WHOM PETER ADDRESSED THOSE WORDS, there was no other NT Scripture! Their ONLY frame of reference was what Peter told them, and he told them that Jesus was a man through whom God did mighty works, a man they killed but God raised. That's ALL his audience knew, which means the most common sense interpretation of WHAT THEY HEARD, was that Jesus was not God.
So the question for you and all Trinity advocates is this: What message about Jesus' identity did Peter give his audience that day in Jerusalem (remember, they had NO access to ANY other NT Scripture! They knew ONLY what Peter told them) and was Peter's message in any way inaccurate or misleading?
The questions to which you have not directly responded are in the final paragraph. Did Peter's audience - people who had NO other NT Scriptures to consult - get a complete and accurate picture of Jesus' relationship with God from Peter's sermon? If they did, then where in Peter's sermon did he tell them Jesus was God? If they didn't get a complete and accurate picture, then did Peter mislead THAT PARTICULAR AUDIENCE by leaving out the "truth" about Jesus' deity?
We have addressed this Bill. NO, he did not mislead them. Consider who the audience was and the purpose of his message. He was preaching to the Jews who were not ready to accept Jesus as God and would have immediately been turned off to Peter's message. Do you go into an entire theology of Christ when witnessing to someone? I doubt it.
See above response to Bill.
No, Scripture does not disagree with that but it also does not STOP with that. That is why your view is heresy. As far as majority vs. minority, you should lookup the word heresy.
So you are in the business of adding to Scripture what it actually doesn't say??
Not at all.
Sure you are, you do so by claiming that Scripture doesn't stop where it stops and you then continue on by adding your ideas and mythological theology to it.
This is laughable. I haven't added anything, simply reading the plain text of John 1 and others.
Remember, there are three parts to the one God. Father, Son, Spirit.
Any scripture which would say that God has "three parts" ??? I could bet, that you won't find one ...
Nope. You have to take all of Scripture.
Well, why then do you not take into consideration all of Scripture? It would lead to you understanding that Jesus was a human being, and that the only one who alone is true God was his Father in heaven, whom Jesus himself spoke of as "my Father and my God" (cp John 20:17).
THe only one isolating Scripture here is you.
So no, the father did not send himself, the son was sent.
I see ... one part of GOD send another part of Himself ...
Yep
I see, you fabricated your own Trinity theology, somewhat aligned with what is considered a Trinitarian heresy, also called "partialism" =>
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.htmlYou are asking for a complex explanation in a medium that doesn't lend itself to complex explanations. I've offered you books, you do not want to research. That's on you, not me.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
What verse in John 1 says "Jesus is the word"?@reformed said:
Thanks for asking, verses 14-17 explain Jesus is the Word.In my view, vv.14-17 say Jesus was the person through whom the Word became flesh and lived among us. Consider the core message of John 1.18 as rendered by some manuscripts: No one has ever seen God. But the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has revealed God to us. On the subject of the relationship of Jesus to God, that rendering of the verse's content is consistent with the vast majority of the NT, even much of the content of John's Gospel.
You have yet to address directly a question I raised earlier in this thread about the practicality of your "have to take all of Scripture" dictum. Here's the question in its entirety, the text to which it refers being Acts 2.22-24:
We have addressed this Bill. NO, he did not mislead them. Consider who the audience was and the purpose of his message. He was preaching to the Jews who were not ready to accept Jesus as God and would have immediately been turned off to Peter's message. Do you go into an entire theology of Christ when witnessing to someone? I doubt it.
- There is no textual support for your contention, which is that Peter decided his audience WOULD "immediately (turn) off" if he told them Jesus was God, but WOULDN'T "immediately (turn) off" if he accused them of killing Jesus. So he told them the latter, but not the former.
- Peter's sermon includes the following assertions, the collection of which in a single presentation seems as potentially threatening and off-putting as the claim that Jesus was God:
- Jesus was "delivered up" by the plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2.23)
- God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24)
- Jesus is at the right hand of God, having poured out the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.33)
- God has made Jesus, the one they killed, both Lord and Christ/Messiah (Acts 2.36)
Your contention is that Peter chose to make THOSE affirmations of faith - including that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah! - but he chose not to make an affirmation of faith that's at the heart of the Gospel as you see it - that Jesus was God - for fear that they might be turned off. With due respect, I say your contention is not rooted in the text, and does not comport with the content of the sermon Peter gave.
- Many in Peter's audience left his sermon humbled, penitent, and confessional, as the baptisms demonstrate (Acts 2.41). So your contention is that Peter chose to invite his audience to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, which would lead to their receipt of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38) but he chose NOT to tell them one of the central truths of the Gospel as you see it, that Jesus was God. Again I contend, the text does not support your view. Instead, the text supports the view that Peter held back nothing intentionally that was essential to the Gospel, and gave his audience an accurate picture of who he believed Jesus was.
- And it is STILL the case that his audience left his sermon with the clear, unmistakable, AND ACCURATE impression that Peter had told them Jesus was a man whom they had killed, but whom God had raised, and that Peter had told them NOTHING to suggest Jesus was God. How was that NOT a misleading impression in your view?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Bill_Coley said:
What verse in John 1 says "Jesus is the word"?@reformed said:
Thanks for asking, verses 14-17 explain Jesus is the Word.In my view, vv.14-17 say Jesus was the person through whom the Word became flesh and lived among us. Consider the core message of John 1.18 as rendered by some manuscripts: No one has ever seen God. But the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has revealed God to us. On the subject of the relationship of Jesus to God, that rendering of the verse's content is consistent with the vast majority of the NT, even much of the content of John's Gospel.
There is no literary evidence for this viewpoint.
You have yet to address directly a question I raised earlier in this thread about the practicality of your "have to take all of Scripture" dictum. Here's the question in its entirety, the text to which it refers being Acts 2.22-24:
We have addressed this Bill. NO, he did not mislead them. Consider who the audience was and the purpose of his message. He was preaching to the Jews who were not ready to accept Jesus as God and would have immediately been turned off to Peter's message. Do you go into an entire theology of Christ when witnessing to someone? I doubt it.
1. There is no textual support for your contention, which is that Peter decided his audience WOULD "immediately (turn) off" if he told them Jesus was God, but WOULDN'T "immediately (turn) off" if he accused them of killing Jesus. So he told them the latter, but not the former.
Of course there is. Look what the Jews did when they realized Jesus was claiming to be God.
- Peter's sermon includes the following assertions, the collection of which in a single presentation seems as potentially threatening and off-putting as the claim that Jesus was God:
- Jesus was "delivered up" by the plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2.23)
No contradiction to the Trinitarian viewpoint.
- God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24)
Yes, and Jesus said he was going to raise himself, this verse is a proof that he is indeed God.
- Jesus is at the right hand of God, having poured out the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.33)
Again, he is at the right hand of the Father. Trinity proof.
- God has made Jesus, the one they killed, both Lord and Christ/Messiah (Acts 2.36)
No contradiction here.
Your contention is that Peter chose to make THOSE affirmations of faith - including that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah! - but he chose not to make an affirmation of faith that's at the heart of the Gospel as you see it - that Jesus was God - for fear that they might be turned off. With due respect, I say your contention is not rooted in the text, and does not comport with the content of the sermon Peter gave.
It aligns perfectly as I have demonstrated.
- Many in Peter's audience left his sermon humbled, penitent, and confessional, as the baptisms demonstrate (Acts 2.41). So your contention is that Peter chose to invite his audience to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, which would lead to their receipt of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38) but he chose NOT to tell them one of the central truths of the Gospel as you see it, that Jesus was God. Again I contend, the text does not support your view. Instead, the text supports the view that Peter held back nothing intentionally that was essential to the Gospel, and gave his audience an accurate picture of who he believed Jesus was.
Again, we do not teach a full theology when witnessing do we?
- And it is STILL the case that his audience left his sermon with the clear, unmistakable, AND ACCURATE impression that Peter had told them Jesus was a man whom they had killed, but whom God had raised, and that Peter had told them NOTHING to suggest Jesus was God. How was that NOT a misleading impression in your view?
You learn as you grow in the faith.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
So you are in the business of adding to Scripture what it actually doesn't say??
Not at all.
Sure you are, you do so by claiming that Scripture doesn't stop where it stops and you then continue on by adding your ideas and mythological theology to it.
This is laughable. I haven't added anything, simply reading the plain text of John 1 and others.
You are adding the Trinity mythology ("Jesus is the 2nd part of God") ... something NOT taught in Scripture.
Well, why then do you not take into consideration all of Scripture? It would lead to you understanding that Jesus was a human being, and that the only one who alone is true God was his Father in heaven, whom Jesus himself spoke of as "my Father and my God" (cp John 20:17).
The only one isolating Scripture here is you.
Oh dear ... you refuse to take John 20:17 into consideration and when such is pointed out to you, you claim the other is isolating that particular scripture ... do you really think that such twisting and intentional misleading on your part goes unnoticed by those who read here?
I see, you fabricated your own Trinity theology, somewhat aligned with what is considered a Trinitarian heresy, also called "partialism" =>
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.htmlYou are asking for a complex explanation in a medium that doesn't lend itself to complex explanations. I've offered you books, you do not want to research. That's on you, not me.
See above ... your refusal to answer questions in detail, to explain your viewpoints and interpretations clearly demonstrates for all to see how you don't have an answer to the challenges put forth regarding your "Babylonian" mythology which you try to propagate here as "truth".
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
So you are in the business of adding to Scripture what it actually doesn't say??
Not at all.
Sure you are, you do so by claiming that Scripture doesn't stop where it stops and you then continue on by adding your ideas and mythological theology to it.
This is laughable. I haven't added anything, simply reading the plain text of John 1 and others.
You are adding the Trinity mythology ("Jesus is the 2nd part of God") ... something NOT taught in Scripture.
Except that it is. CLEARLY.
Well, why then do you not take into consideration all of Scripture? It would lead to you understanding that Jesus was a human being, and that the only one who alone is true God was his Father in heaven, whom Jesus himself spoke of as "my Father and my God" (cp John 20:17).
The only one isolating Scripture here is you.
Oh dear ... you refuse to take John 20:17 into consideration and when such is pointed out to you, you claim the other is isolating that particular scripture ... do you really think that such twisting and intentional misleading on your part goes unnoticed by those who read here?
I have not ignored this verse. There is ZERO contradiction with that verse and Trinitarian viewpoints.
I see, you fabricated your own Trinity theology, somewhat aligned with what is considered a Trinitarian heresy, also called "partialism" =>
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/Trinitarian%20Heresies.htmlYou are asking for a complex explanation in a medium that doesn't lend itself to complex explanations. I've offered you books, you do not want to research. That's on you, not me.
See above ... your refusal to answer questions in detail, to explain your viewpoints and interpretations clearly demonstrates for all to see how you don't have an answer to the challenges put forth regarding your "Babylonian" mythology which you try to propagate here as "truth".
I'm not putting forth Babylonian mythology. I don't even know what you are referring to so therefore not doing that at all. I am simply using the Word of God.
-
Just one verse which even mentions "Trinity", please .... IF there is none, then please shut up with your repeated nonsense claims that Scripture teaches a "Trinity".
Oh dear ... you refuse to take John 20:17 into consideration and when such is pointed out to you, you claim the other is isolating that particular scripture ... do you really think that such twisting and intentional misleading on your part goes unnoticed by those who read here?
I have not ignored this verse. There is ZERO contradiction with that verse and Trinitarian viewpoints.
Of course you ignored that scripture ... or there is a worse problem with you. In this verse, Jesus is recorded as stating that he has the same God his followers have as his God. Since God cannot have God as his God, the verse CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is NOT God nor any part of a multi-part God.
See above ... your refusal to answer questions in detail, to explain your viewpoints and interpretations clearly demonstrates for all to see how you don't have an answer to the challenges put forth regarding your "Babylonian" mythology which you try to propagate here as "truth".
I'm not putting forth Babylonian mythology. I don't even know what you are referring to so therefore not doing that at all. I am simply using the Word of God.
No, you are not "simply using the Word of God" ... IF you were, you should have noticed without any problem what the words of Jesus recorded in John 20:17 clearly teach.
While you may perhaps not know much about ancient mythologies, you have now been made aware of it and how the Trinity dogma is very much aligned with Babylonian, and other ancient mythology and mystery religions that all have some kind of "Trinity" as their top "Godhead" which leaves no further excuse of ignorance from your end
-
@Wolfgang said:
Just one verse which even mentions "Trinity", please .... IF there is none, then please shut up with your repeated nonsense claims that Scripture teaches a "Trinity".
Wow, talk about rude. As I am sure you know, proper Biblical Studies do not single out one verse, but take Scripture as a whole. However, there are plenty of verses where all members of the Trinity are present. https://overviewbible.com/trinity-bible-verses/
Oh dear ... you refuse to take John 20:17 into consideration and when such is pointed out to you, you claim the other is isolating that particular scripture ... do you really think that such twisting and intentional misleading on your part goes unnoticed by those who read here?
I have not ignored this verse. There is ZERO contradiction with that verse and Trinitarian viewpoints.
Of course you ignored that scripture ... or there is a worse problem with you. In this verse, Jesus is recorded as stating that he has the same God his followers have as his God. Since God cannot have God as his God, the verse CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is NOT God nor any part of a multi-part God.
How can God not have a God? Where is this established? Does the President have a President? Your argument is ridiculous nonsense. It does not clearly teach that Jesus is not God because your argument is very much flawed and nonsensical.
See above ... your refusal to answer questions in detail, to explain your viewpoints and interpretations clearly demonstrates for all to see how you don't have an answer to the challenges put forth regarding your "Babylonian" mythology which you try to propagate here as "truth".
I'm not putting forth Babylonian mythology. I don't even know what you are referring to so therefore not doing that at all. I am simply using the Word of God.
No, you are not "simply using the Word of God" ... IF you were, you should have noticed without any problem what the words of Jesus recorded in John 20:17 clearly teach.
I do and have and explained.
While you may perhaps not know much about ancient mythologies, you have now been made aware of it and how the Trinity dogma is very much aligned with Babylonian, and other ancient mythology and mystery religions that all have some kind of "Trinity" as their top "Godhead" which leaves no further excuse of ignorance from your end
Except there is a problem with that theory, I can come to the conclusion of the Trinity without knowing any of that because it is clear in Scripture.
-
@reformed said:
Wow, talk about rude.I would say, I am writing rather directly and to the point ... just tired of "diddling around" with you.
As I am sure you know, proper Biblical Studies do not single out one verse, but take Scripture as a whole. However, there are plenty of verses where all members of the Trinity are present. https://overviewbible.com/trinity-bible-verses/
Sorry ... do you not realize that you presume that there is a Trinity and then you claim that in verses which speak of the Father, and of His only begotten Son and His power holy spirit are speaking about the Trinity??? What kind of manner of Biblical Studies is that supposed to be??
I have not ignored this verse. There is ZERO contradiction with that verse and Trinitarian viewpoints.
Of course you ignored that scripture ... or there is a worse problem with you. In this verse, Jesus is recorded as stating that he has the same God his followers have as his God. Since God cannot have God as his God, the verse CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is NOT God nor any part of a multi-part God.
How can God not have a God?
WOW ... do you not realize that you are hereby claiming that there would be at least TWO GODS ?? Do you perhaps believe that what you regard as Trinity are actually THREE GODS??
Where is this established?
It is established In Scripture ...
Does the President have a President?
No, he does not ... AS President he has NO other President above him. Or are you now disputing this simple logical and plain truth??
Your argument is ridiculous nonsense. It does not clearly teach that Jesus is not God because your argument is very much flawed and nonsensical.
You are caught in the fallacy of trying to prove a negative from a negative.
I'm not putting forth Babylonian mythology. I don't even know what you are referring to so therefore not doing that at all. I am simply using the Word of God.
No, you are not "simply using the Word of God" ... IF you were, you should have noticed without any problem what the words of Jesus recorded in John 20:17 clearly teach.
I do and have and explained.
Where and what have you explained? Certainly not here ... where you just made some plain one sentence claims in between paragraphs ... sort of like the little boy who just repeats "I did so and so" or "I did not do so and so" and that's all there is.
While you may perhaps not know much about ancient mythologies, you have now been made aware of it and how the Trinity dogma is very much aligned with Babylonian, and other ancient mythology and mystery religions that all have some kind of "Trinity" as their top "Godhead" which leaves no further excuse of ignorance from your end
Except there is a problem with that theory, I can come to the conclusion of the Trinity without knowing any of that because it is clear in Scripture.
How often have I heard this false claim ... when asked for a little more detail, anyone who has made such a claim in the past had to acknowledge that they actually first heard or read about the idea of a Trinity from outside of Scripture and then - following the type of false teaching and claims as you propagate here as well - they thought that it was "clear in Scripture".
More honest and recognized theological scholars of a Trinitarian background even openly admit and state that there was no such Trinity teaching in existence at the times of Acts and not until some time later. They admit that "Trinity" was unknown to the early Christians, and this explains why the Trinity is NOT mentioned or taught in Scripture. -
Diddling around? If that is what you think about the truth that is on you. But when you tell someone to shutup that isn't direct and to the point it is rude and uncalled for and I deserve an apology.
As I am sure you know, proper Biblical Studies do not single out one verse, but take Scripture as a whole. However, there are plenty of verses where all members of the Trinity are present. https://overviewbible.com/trinity-bible-verses/
Sorry ... do you not realize that you presume that there is a Trinity and then you claim that in verses which speak of the Father, and of His only begotten Son and His power holy spirit are speaking about the Trinity??? What kind of manner of Biblical Studies is that supposed to be??
I have not ignored this verse. There is ZERO contradiction with that verse and Trinitarian viewpoints.
Of course you ignored that scripture ... or there is a worse problem with you. In this verse, Jesus is recorded as stating that he has the same God his followers have as his God. Since God cannot have God as his God, the verse CLEARLY teaches that Jesus is NOT God nor any part of a multi-part God.
How can God not have a God?
WOW ... do you not realize that you are hereby claiming that there would be at least TWO GODS ?? Do you perhaps believe that what you regard as Trinity are actually THREE GODS??
I didn't say that at all. Do you actually read what I write?
Where is this established?
It is established In Scripture ...
Reference?
Does the President have a President?
No, he does not ... AS President he has NO other President above him. Or are you now disputing this simple logical and plain truth??
The President is his own President. Just like God is his own God.
Your argument is ridiculous nonsense. It does not clearly teach that Jesus is not God because your argument is very much flawed and nonsensical.
You are caught in the fallacy of trying to prove a negative from a negative.
Please show how I have done this.
I'm not putting forth Babylonian mythology. I don't even know what you are referring to so therefore not doing that at all. I am simply using the Word of God.
No, you are not "simply using the Word of God" ... IF you were, you should have noticed without any problem what the words of Jesus recorded in John 20:17 clearly teach.
I do and have and explained.
Where and what have you explained? Certainly not here ... where you just made some plain one sentence claims in between paragraphs ... sort of like the little boy who just repeats "I did so and so" or "I did not do so and so" and that's all there is.
This thread is hundreds of posts long. Go look for it yourself.
While you may perhaps not know much about ancient mythologies, you have now been made aware of it and how the Trinity dogma is very much aligned with Babylonian, and other ancient mythology and mystery religions that all have some kind of "Trinity" as their top "Godhead" which leaves no further excuse of ignorance from your end
Except there is a problem with that theory, I can come to the conclusion of the Trinity without knowing any of that because it is clear in Scripture.
How often have I heard this false claim ... when asked for a little more detail, anyone who has made such a claim in the past had to acknowledge that they actually first heard or read about the idea of a Trinity from outside of Scripture and then - following the type of false teaching and claims as you propagate here as well - they thought that it was "clear in Scripture".
You can say what you want, but the Trinity is clearly evident in Scripture. Even if you don't go with the Trinity there is at least two persons. John 1 makes that clear.
More honest and recognized theological scholars of a Trinitarian background even openly admit and state that there was no such Trinity teaching in existence at the times of Acts and not until some time later. They admit that "Trinity" was unknown to the early Christians, and this explains why the Trinity is NOT mentioned or taught in Scripture.
I don't believe that at all. https://carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes
-
Consider the core message of John 1.18 as rendered by some manuscripts: No one has ever seen God. But the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has revealed God to us. On the subject of the relationship of Jesus to God, that rendering of the verse's content is consistent with the vast majority of the NT, even much of the content of John's Gospel.
@reformed said:
There is no literary evidence for this viewpoint.I didn't get through all of my Logos collection's translations, but among the ones I looked at, the NLT, ESV, NRSV, NIV, NIV (1984), The NET Bible, and The New American Bible all include a note about the alternative rendering of John 1.18 to which I referred. The translators who produced those THOSE versions clearly thought there is literary evidence for this viewpoint.
- There is no textual support for your contention, which is that Peter decided his audience WOULD "immediately (turn) off" if he told them Jesus was God, but WOULDN'T "immediately (turn) off" if he accused them of killing Jesus. So he told them the latter, but not the former.
Of course there is. Look what the Jews did when they realized Jesus was claiming to be God.
Because precision matters: While many religious mucky mucks BELIEVED Jesus had claimed to be God, the reality is he never made such a claim.
As for Peter's sermon, my point is that there is no textual support in Acts 2 that Peter withheld what you claim is a central part of the Gospel because he thought they would "immediately (turn) off." Had he wanted to withhold information for fear of the crowd's reaction, why didn't he withhold his contention that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah?
- Jesus was "delivered up" by the plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2.23)
No contradiction to the Trinitarian viewpoint.
Whether any or all of Peter's assertions that I cited pose any "contradiction to the Trinitarian viewpoint" is not relevant to the purpose for which I cited them. In response to your claim that Peter did not tell his audience Jesus was God out of concern that they would "immediately (turn) off," I cited each of Peter's assertions as a component of what I called a "collection of which in a single presentation seems as potentially threatening and off-putting as the claim that Jesus was God." The issue is whether they might have "turned off" the crowd, not whether they contradict the "Trinitiarian viewpoint."
- God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24)
Yes, and Jesus said he was going to raise himself, this verse is a proof that he is indeed God.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
- Jesus is at the right hand of God, having poured out the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.33)
Again, he is at the right hand of the Father. Trinity proof.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
- God has made Jesus, the one they killed, both Lord and Christ/Messiah (Acts 2.36)
No contradiction here.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions.
(see above)Your contention is that Peter chose to make THOSE affirmations of faith - including that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah! - but he chose not to make an affirmation of faith that's at the heart of the Gospel as you see it - that Jesus was God - for fear that they might be turned off. With due respect, I say your contention is not rooted in the text, and does not comport with the content of the sermon Peter gave.
It aligns perfectly as I have demonstrated.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
- Many in Peter's audience left his sermon humbled, penitent, and confessional, as the baptisms demonstrate (Acts 2.41). So your contention is that Peter chose to invite his audience to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, which would lead to their receipt of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38) but he chose NOT to tell them one of the central truths of the Gospel as you see it, that Jesus was God. Again I contend, the text does not support your view. Instead, the text supports the view that Peter held back nothing intentionally that was essential to the Gospel, and gave his audience an accurate picture of who he believed Jesus was.
Again, we do not teach a full theology when witnessing do we?
For you, how important to the central message of the Gospel - the one that led many in Peter's audience to confession, baptism, and receipt of the Holy Spirit - is the assertion that Jesus is God? Is it absolutely essential, so that no presentation of the Gospel that lacks it can be sufficient or adequate? Or is it a detail that can be added in later, sometime after one's confession, baptism, and receipt of the Holy Spirit?
From your posts, I've always assumed that for you, the assertion that Jesus is God is at the very heart of the Gospel, not its periphery. I've always assumed that for you, a person has not truly accepted the Gospel of Christ unless he or she believes Jesus is God. If my assumptions are correct, then at the very least you would raise concerns - probably doubts - about the confessions and baptisms of Peter's listeners, since they confessed and were baptized having been told only that Jesus was a man whom God raised from the dead. Am I incorrect?
Bottom line: How could it have been that Peter was willing to risk his audience's attention by telling them they killed their long-awaited Messiah, but he wasn't willing to risk their attention by telling them Jesus was God, a claim I'm pretty sure you believe is at the heart of the Gospel?
- And it is STILL the case that his audience left his sermon with the clear, unmistakable, AND ACCURATE impression that Peter had told them Jesus was a man whom they had killed, but whom God had raised, and that Peter had told them NOTHING to suggest Jesus was God. How was that NOT a misleading impression in your view?
You learn as you grow in the faith.
See the previous two paragraphs.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Consider the core message of John 1.18 as rendered by some manuscripts: No one has ever seen God. But the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has revealed God to us. On the subject of the relationship of Jesus to God, that rendering of the verse's content is consistent with the vast majority of the NT, even much of the content of John's Gospel.
@reformed said:
There is no literary evidence for this viewpoint.I didn't get through all of my Logos collection's translations, but among the ones I looked at, the NLT, ESV, NRSV, NIV, NIV (1984), The NET Bible, and The New American Bible all include a note about the alternative rendering of John 1.18 to which I referred. The translators who produced those THOSE versions clearly thought there is literary evidence for this viewpoint.
I should have been more clear, I was talking about your view on vs. 14-17.
- There is no textual support for your contention, which is that Peter decided his audience WOULD "immediately (turn) off" if he told them Jesus was God, but WOULDN'T "immediately (turn) off" if he accused them of killing Jesus. So he told them the latter, but not the former.
Of course there is. Look what the Jews did when they realized Jesus was claiming to be God.
Because precision matters: While many religious mucky mucks BELIEVED Jesus had claimed to be God, the reality is he never made such a claim.
Except that he did, and they understood his claim correctly.
As for Peter's sermon, my point is that there is no textual support in Acts 2 that Peter withheld what you claim is a central part of the Gospel because he thought they would "immediately (turn) off." Had he wanted to withhold information for fear of the crowd's reaction, why didn't he withhold his contention that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah?
Because that part HAD to be divulged then.
- Jesus was "delivered up" by the plan and foreknowledge of God (Acts 2.23)
No contradiction to the Trinitarian viewpoint.
Whether any or all of Peter's assertions that I cited pose any "contradiction to the Trinitarian viewpoint" is not relevant to the purpose for which I cited them. In response to your claim that Peter did not tell his audience Jesus was God out of concern that they would "immediately (turn) off," I cited each of Peter's assertions as a component of what I called a "collection of which in a single presentation seems as potentially threatening and off-putting as the claim that Jesus was God." The issue is whether they might have "turned off" the crowd, not whether they contradict the "Trinitiarian viewpoint."
- God raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24)
Yes, and Jesus said he was going to raise himself, this verse is a proof that he is indeed God.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
But Peter knew Jesus said that he was going to do it, then he said God did it. In fact, that is proof Peter beleived Jesus to be God.
- Jesus is at the right hand of God, having poured out the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.33)
Again, he is at the right hand of the Father. Trinity proof.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
- God has made Jesus, the one they killed, both Lord and Christ/Messiah (Acts 2.36)
No contradiction here.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions.
(see above)Your contention is that Peter chose to make THOSE affirmations of faith - including that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah! - but he chose not to make an affirmation of faith that's at the heart of the Gospel as you see it - that Jesus was God - for fear that they might be turned off. With due respect, I say your contention is not rooted in the text, and does not comport with the content of the sermon Peter gave.
It aligns perfectly as I have demonstrated.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
- Many in Peter's audience left his sermon humbled, penitent, and confessional, as the baptisms demonstrate (Acts 2.41). So your contention is that Peter chose to invite his audience to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, which would lead to their receipt of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2.38) but he chose NOT to tell them one of the central truths of the Gospel as you see it, that Jesus was God. Again I contend, the text does not support your view. Instead, the text supports the view that Peter held back nothing intentionally that was essential to the Gospel, and gave his audience an accurate picture of who he believed Jesus was.
Again, we do not teach a full theology when witnessing do we?
For you, how important to the central message of the Gospel - the one that led many in Peter's audience to confession, baptism, and receipt of the Holy Spirit - is the assertion that Jesus is God? Is it absolutely essential, so that no presentation of the Gospel that lacks it can be sufficient or adequate? Or is it a detail that can be added in later, sometime after one's confession, baptism, and receipt of the Holy Spirit?
I'll be honest, even witnessing today I don't talk about the fact that Jesus is God. I talk about what he did and how they can be saved. Later we teach them all about who Crist is.
From your posts, I've always assumed that for you, the assertion that Jesus is God is at the very heart of the Gospel, not its periphery. I've always assumed that for you, a person has not truly accepted the Gospel of Christ unless he or she believes Jesus is God. If my assumptions are correct, then at the very least you would raise concerns - probably doubts - about the confessions and baptisms of Peter's listeners, since they confessed and were baptized having been told only that Jesus was a man whom God raised from the dead. Am I incorrect?
I would not say it is the heart of the Gospel in the way you are probably thinking. It is necessary because God is the only perfect being that could even be a sacrifice for sin, but it is not necessary to understand that while presenting the Gospel necessarily.
Bottom line: How could it have been that Peter was willing to risk his audience's attention by telling them they killed their long-awaited Messiah, but he wasn't willing to risk their attention by telling them Jesus was God, a claim I'm pretty sure you believe is at the heart of the Gospel?
See above
-
I would still like to see WS' or BC's strongest proof text against the deity of Christ. If we could show an alternative view, perhaps everyone would be the better.
-
The translators who produced those THOSE versions clearly thought there is literary evidence for this viewpoint.
@reformed said:
I should have been more clear, I was talking about your view on vs. 14-17.We disagree.
Because precision matters: While many religious mucky mucks BELIEVED Jesus had claimed to be God, the reality is he never made such a claim.
Except that he did, and they understood his claim correctly.
Please cite the verse in which Jesus claims to be God.
WHO "understood his claim correctly"?
As for Peter's sermon, my point is that there is no textual support in Acts 2 that Peter withheld what you claim is a central part of the Gospel because he thought they would "immediately (turn) off." Had he wanted to withhold information for fear of the crowd's reaction, why didn't he withhold his contention that they had killed their long-awaited Messiah?
Because that part HAD to be divulged then.
So you claim Peter's audience HAD to be told they had killed their messiah, but they didn't have to be told Jesus was God? How does that view comport with the view you expressed in THIS POST: (emphasis added)
"There is a difference between preaching to your choir and all out heresy. This week we have seen heresy on these boards by the denial that Christ is God. That being said, this is a board called "Christian Discourse." If that were the case, everyone here would affirm the Deity of Christ because to deny it is not Christian."
To me, that sounds like you think Jesus as God is central to the Gospel. You believe Peter would have risked not telling his audience Jesus was God - in fact, he told them ONLY that Jesus was a man they had killed and God had raised - when their any denial of the claim would have meant they weren't Christians?
Yes, and Jesus said he was going to raise himself, this verse is a proof that he is indeed God.
Again, your response is not germane to the purpose for which I raised Peter's assertions. (see above)
But Peter knew Jesus said that he was going to do it, then he said God did it. In fact, that is proof Peter beleived Jesus to be God.
Even assuming the validity of your logic - which I don't - there is still NOTHING in his Jerusalem sermon to report that Peter believes Jesus to be God, and there is NOTHING in the crowd's reaction to indicate they believed Jesus to be God.
I'll be honest, even witnessing today I don't talk about the fact that Jesus is God. I talk about what he did and how they can be saved. Later we teach them all about who Crist is.
Given your belief that denial of Jesus' divinity means a person is not Christian, I am surprised that you're willing to leave such a teaching til "later."
I would not say it is the heart of the Gospel in the way you are probably thinking. It is necessary because God is the only perfect being that could even be a sacrifice for sin, but it is not necessary to understand that while presenting the Gospel necessarily.
It's necessary to be a Christian (see your quoted post above) but it's not necessary to include/understand it while presenting the Gospel. I'm surprised.
-
@Dave_L said:
I would still like to see WS' or BC's strongest proof text against the deity of Christ. If we could show an alternative view, perhaps everyone would be the better.Have you not been reading along in the various threads touching on this topic? Our strongest proof texts are THE VERY SAME TEXTS you and others think are proving your dogma.
We just (a) happen to read what is written and (b) think reasonably and logically using basic Scripture truth, such as "man is NOT and can NOT be God" or "God is NOT and can NOT be a human".
You however deny such simple plain truth ... and you then turn scriptures which plainly and clearly testify that Jesus is a human being (and therefore can not be God !!) and as such plainly and clearly distinguish him from God into an "yes, but ...." and "is also ..." God can NOT "also" be human, neither can the man Jesus "also" be God.
-
@Dave_L said:
I would still like to see WS' or BC's strongest proof text against the deity of Christ. If we could show an alternative view, perhaps everyone would be the better.I'm sorry that I have not made clear to you, Dave, that given what I consider to be your patently disrespectful refusal to engage any of the many texts I have presented to you in the past while I have directly and substantively engaged many of the texts you have presented, I will no longer engage in exchanges or interpretations of Scripture with you. That stance will change only when you agree to engage directly the texts I cite.
As Wolfgang has noted, in his and my previous posts you will find numerous (dozens?) of texts that he and I have offered in defense of our respective views on the Trinity. In those posts you will also find numerous (dozens?) of our responses to the texts you and other advocates of the Trinity have posted.
-
The problem with your approach is that any one of my single verses that say Jesus is God, totally refutes your interpretation of all of your texts. It is not expedient trying to wade through your mess of tangles playing by your rules, that only one of my passages untangles.
“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)
-
@Dave_L said:
The problem with your approach is that any one of my single verses that say Jesus is God, totally refutes your interpretation of all of your texts.No, Dave_L, the real problem is that we have NOT seen any of your single verses that Jesus is God, since you have NOT provided any verses that say what you claim.
It is not expedient trying to wade through your mess of tangles playing by your rules, that only one of my passages untangles.
You are nothing but HOT AIR until now ... Let us see your single verses that say Jesus is God, and stop repeating false claims.
“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)
Even in this incorrect translation, this verse does NOT say what you claim.
A closer look at other translations and manuscript evidence underlying the translations will show you rather clearly and plainly that a translation ".. once fully knew it, that JESUS, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt ...." is based on an awkward text reading and most likely NOT according to what the original text of Jude actually had.
Cp. the following translations:BASB95 - 5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.
KJV - 5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
ASV - 5 Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things once for all, that the Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
NA27 - 5 Ὑπομνῆσαι ⌜δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι⸆, εἰδότας °[ὑμᾶς] ⸂πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ⸃ λαὸν ἐκ ⸁γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν,Wondering what single verses you may have which say that Jesus is God ....
-
So we come back around to the amateurs know more than the Greek language pros?
-
Here's another problem for your views rejecting Christ and his divinity.
“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)
-
@Dave_L said:
Here's another problem for your views rejecting Christ and his divinity.“as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13)
No problem at all ... consider the word order and construction in the Greek texts, and you will find what the verse actually says ... rather than being fooled by "Trinitarian translators'" rendering of the expression "the appearing of the glory of our great God, even Jesus Christ."
That appearing of the God's glory was in what happened in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.Do you mean to tell us that Paul was mixed up regarding who is God and who is Messiah Jesus ??
-
@Dave_L said:
So we come back around to the amateurs know more than the Greek language pros?That has happened more than once in human history ... actually, more often than not it was "pros" who purposely misled the majority of people into believing the lie to be the truth.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
