Rejection of Jesus, why?
Comments
-
@C_M_ said:
@Bill_Coley said:
@C_M_ said:
Brethren,
Although the word Trinity is not found in the Bible (neither is the word incarnation). Let's not get lost here. The term “Godhead” which is found in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. Through the word, “Godhead” conveys the same idea as is expressed by the term “Trinity,” that there are three living beings in the Godhead.- Romans 1.20 is a reference to God, not to Jesus or any composite deity. Romans 1.19 makes that clear: (all emphases added)
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:19). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.In my view, the "Godhead" of Romans 1.20 (a translation not widely implemented among English language Bible translations, by the way) is a reference to God's divine nature, not to a conception of the divine's construction.
Bill,
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).
The term "Godhead": The mysterious unity of the three persons of the Godhead is beyond you. It is not an artificial or humanly-engendered reality; not something created by committee actions, council resolutions, or church pronouncements; not something that can be administratively manufactured or contrived. Nor is it a condition to be controlled or enforced. Divinely construed and deep, it comes by each of us, and all of us together, submitting to the infilling of God, through Jesus Christ. “I in them, and you in me.” In this sense, it is a mystery–the mystery of the divine indwelling in God’s followers, individually and corporately.
- First, God is a “God of knowledge” (1 Sam 2:3) and that theology is foremost a reality within the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit know one another fully.
- Second, the triune knowledge, while singular and unique, is not incommunicable, for God is a self-revealing God who makes common (that is, who communicates) his own wisdom to his creatures.
Attributes of the Persons of the Godhead:
---------------------- Father ----- Son ----- Holy Spirit
Eternal ------------- Ps. 90:2 -- Rev. 1:18 -- Heb. 9:14
Creator ------------ Isa. 45:18 ------ Col. 1:16 ---- Gen. 1:2
Almighty ------------ Rev. 1:8 -- Matt. 28:18 -- Rom. 8:11
Omniscient ------------ Ps. 139:4 -- John 2:24-25 -- 1 Cor. 2:10
Omnipresent --------- ---- Jer. 23:24 -- Matt. 28:20 -- Ps. 139:7-8
Love ------ ------------ 1 John 4:8 --- John 15:9 -- Gal. 5:22
To be worshiped ------ -- Rev 14:7 -- 1 Cor. 1:1-2 -- JN 4:24
In Romans 1, Paul develops his first major point: Apart from Christ, no human being can claim freedom from guilt. The saving work of Christ is essential for all, irrespective of culture and religious affiliation. All humanity is guilty before God, the Gentile as well as the Jew. Their sinful deeds will result in the manifestation of God's displeasure. Since many have shown greater devotion to the creature than to the Creator, God has given them over to the passions of their own fallen natures. Paul warns them, however, not to excuse their sins by judging the sins of others. Even the self-righteous moralist will be judged by Jesus Christ in the last judgment. In short: ALL OF US ARE SINNERS IN NEED OF A SAVIOUR. Whatever our nationality, race, social standing, or level of education we are in need of a Saviour.
- "When Copernicus, the Polish astronomer, started to study the heavens, he gradually came to the conclusion that the earth was not the static center around which the universe revolved but, rather, was a moving planet which itself revolved around the sun. He was, however, strangely reluctant to publish his findings, no doubt because he knew what a battle he would have trying to convince his contemporaries that man and his world are not the center of all existence. Man has always felt that he is the center and everything revolves around him. To be told otherwise, whether by an astronomer or a theologian, has always presented man with extreme problems. To insist that the core of truth is in "Him" rather than "us" and that we find our significance revolving around Him rather than the converse, poses a problem similar to that of Copernicus, because man, frankly, doesn't want to know this kind of thing. This is part of the truth that he suppresses."—D. Stuart Briscoe, The Communicator's Commentary: Romans (Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1982), p. 41.
By way of context, Rom. 1:18-20 states that there can be no excuse for those who argue that God is unjust to condemn them because they have not had an opportunity to know Him. The reason being is that God reveals Himself. Paul contends that no one can plead ignorance of God, for He has provided sufficient evidence concerning His existence. He reveals Himself to humanity in three ways:
- (1) By speaking to the conscience of every individual (Rom. 2:15; compare JN 1:9).
- (2) Through the works of creation (Rom. 1:20).
- (3) Through the scriptures which present the Person and work of Christ (John 5:39).
God has dealt with the sin problem through Jesus Christ. Christ died for the sins of all mankind (1 John. 2:2). But His wrath will fall upon the ungodly because they are unwilling to acknowledge Him as their Creator. You don't believe this? CM
Actually "Godhead" is a poor translation. It should read divine nature.
-
Attributes of the Persons of the Godhead:
---------------------- Father ----- Son ----- Holy Spirit
Eternal ------------- Ps. 90:2 -- Rev. 1:18 -- Heb. 9:14
Creator ------------ Isa. 45:18 ------ Col. 1:16 ---- Gen. 1:2
Almighty ------------ Rev. 1:8 -- Matt. 28:18 -- Rom. 8:11
Omniscient ------------ Ps. 139:4 -- John 2:24-25 -- 1 Cor. 2:10
Omnipresent --------- ---- Jer. 23:24 -- Matt. 28:20 -- Ps. 139:7-8
Love ------ ------------ 1 John 4:8 --- John 15:9 -- Gal. 5:22
To be worshiped ------ -- Rev 14:7 -- 1 Cor. 1:1-2 -- JN 4:24
@reformed said: "Actually "Godhead" is a poor translation. It should read divine nature".
Regardless, have not the Bible reveals God's nature?
For example:
God’s Nature
- God is light ---- 1 John 1:5
- God is spirit --- John 4:24
- God is love --- 1 John 4:16
Reformed,
Can you share the rationale (details/examples) why "Godhead" is a poor translation? Any references would be appreciated. CMPost edited by C Mc on -
@C_M_ said:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).The term "Godhead": The mysterious unity of the three persons of the Godhead is beyond you. It is not an artificial or humanly-engendered reality; not something created by committee actions, council resolutions, or church pronouncements; not something that can be administratively manufactured or contrived. Nor is it a condition to be controlled or enforced. Divinely construed and deep, it comes by each of us, and all of us together, submitting to the infilling of God, through Jesus Christ. “I in them, and you in me.” In this sense, it is a mystery–the mystery of the divine indwelling in God’s followers, individually and corporately.
With all due respect, CM, the purpose of your post here is not clear to me. Did you intend it as a definition of the term "Godhead"? Did you intend it as a defense of Trinitarian theology? Did you intend it as a reflection on the reality and self-expression of God?
In my view, the rhetoric and punctuation of Romans 1.20 make a clear reference to God, but not to Jesus or to any composite/triune Godhead. Here is that verse in the ESV:
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:20). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
To whom does that verse's pronoun "his" refer? Romans 1.19 tells us:
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ro 1:19). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
Romans 1.20 refers to God, to what can be known about God. It contains no reference to Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, or any other component of a "Godhead." For those reasons, CM, I don't understand the verse to support a Trinitarian viewpoint. But you may not have offered it to serve such a purpose.
I hope you'll clarify the intentions of your post.
God has dealt with the sin problem through Jesus Christ. Christ died for the sins of all mankind (1 John. 2:2). But His wrath will fall upon the ungodly because they are unwilling to acknowledge Him as their Creator. You don't believe this? CM
In my view, your question requires a multi-layered and biblically/theologically rooted response, one for which I don't have the time or energy at the moment. In short, my responses are yes, Christ died for all, and God's wrath is situational, not eternal. So in the short run, ungodly behavior suffers consequences, but in the long run, God's love, not wrath, determines everyone's outcome
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
In the beginning section of the chapter (John 1:1ff) the text speaks simply about THE WORD (not a living being of some kind, and certainly not about the man Jesus of Nazareth.Only later on - in verse 14 - does the text say that Word BECAME flesh, etc ... The word BECAME plainly tells that prior to this point in time the Word had simply been Word (God's Word), and at the time spoken of in v.14 what had been Word BECAME a living being of flesh and blood.
No that is not what it says. That is the way you read it but that is not what it says.
Joh 1:1,14 (ASV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.It's very simple, @reformed .... but it does require careful and accurate reading without interpreting theology stuff into the text.
Exactly, I wish you would do that. It cannot just be simply God's word or the word would not also be God. My words are not me.
Really ... are you writing for someone else? who else and not you wrote these comments which we read under your @reformed forum name????
HE was in the beginning with God. Through HIM were all things made.
Once again, the problem is your lack of language and grammar ...
The masculine pronoun in Greek (translated in many English translations as "he") refers to the masculine gender noun in Greek (translated in English translations as "Word").
A correct translation from one language to another language has to adjust pronouns in cases where the translated nouns are of different gender in the languages involved. While the Greek word "logos" is masculine gender, the word "Word" is neuter gender, and any masculine pronouns in Greek referring to "logos" should be translated as "it" in English. By the way, such is seen immediately in the German Luther translation.The Word became flesh, that is JESUS CHRIST.
Yes, Word BECAME flesh .... in simple words, what had been in the form of WORD in God's mind and God's plan (namely, that He would sent a man who would be the Messiah) became reality when that man of flesh and blood was conceived and then born.
What is soooooo difficult with simple truth??
-
Bill, I think you got it. However, you may need to re-read and marinate it in prayer. In response to your concerns:
- I made a comment about the "Godhead" not necessarily defining it (re-read).
- I gave a brief background of Romans Chapter one.
- The illustration of Copernicus, the Polish astronomer-- "...the core of truth is in "Him" rather than "us" and that we find our significance revolving around Him rather than the converse, poses a problem similar to that of Copernicus, because man, frankly, doesn't want to know this kind of thing".
- The Truth of God is in Christ and the Word. It may not be what we think it is or what we believe.
- Attributes of the Persons of the Godhead: Father -- Son -- Holy Spirit share like attributes or nature. In sum:
- God is light ---- 1 John 1:5
- God is spirit --- John 4:24
- God is love --- 1 John 4:16
- I gave the context of what Rom. 1:18-20, Paul was talking about (albeit brief, re-read).
Notwithstanding, the last book of the Bible is the “revelation of Jesus Christ.” It is
- A revelation given by Christ.
- A revelation about Christ.
- It reveals that Christ is God.
- Christ appears in a vision to John, saying,
- “Do not be afraid, I am the First and the Last [meaning He is eternal]. I am the Living One [source of life]. I was dead, and now look I am alive forever and ever!” (Rev. 1:17b–18).
- He is the eternal God, the one raised from the dead.
@ Bill_Coley said: "In my view, the rhetoric and punctuation of Romans 1.20 make a clear reference to God, but not to Jesus or to any composite/triune Godhead. Here is that verse in the ESV..."
I am not trying to defend the translation of ESV. Get the translators notes or check the preface to understand its word choices and punctuations. When you do, compare them to other versions and translators notes. If not satisfied, you may want to consult with someone more skilled, in textual-analysis, than I am. Are all translations created equal? Read the verse in several versions.
Do you accept the truth of Christ as presented above? CM
-
Wolfgang,
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiimple truth!Two biblical books focus on the “beginning” in their introductions:
- (1) The beginning (Heb. rēʾ šît) before the creation of the world (Gen. 1:1).
- (2) The beginning (Gr. archē) before the Incarnation into the world (John 1:1, 14).
They share a common truth: God is more than one Person. The Greek word archē is found fifty-five times in the New Testament and eighteen times in the writings of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
The “Word was God” literally means “the Word was toward God.” In fact, “John thinks of no opposition between the Word and the Father. The whole existence of the Word was oriented toward the Father.”
John is not merely saying Jesus is divine-like, but that He is God, and the word order in the Greek is emphatic (the Greek word for “divine” is theios; instead of “God” theos; see 2 Pet. 1:4, “participate in the divine nature”). John did not write, “God was the Word,” for the emphasis is on the last noun—the Word was God.
At least, understand, even if, you're not willing to accept it. CM
SOURCES:
-- H. Bietenhard, “archē,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986, German 1967), 1:547.-- Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 67–69.
-- George R. Beasley-Murray, John, vol. 36 in Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 10–11.
-
Some people just want to reject Christ. Unfortunately we will not see them in the Kingdom of Heaven and they will experience eternal torment in Hell. I pray for the members on this board that fall into that category as I do not wish to see anyone in everlasting torment but that is the path that they are on.
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill, I think you got it. However, you may need to re-read and marinate it in prayer. In response to your concerns:
I am not trying to defend the translation of ESV. Get the translators notes or check the preface to understand its word choices and punctuations. When you do, compare them to other versions and translators notes. If not satisfied, you may want to consult with someone more skilled, in textual-analysis, than I am. Are all translations created equal? Read the verse in several versions.I can't find a translation in which the context of Romans 1.20 is a discussion of the composition of the God's identity, tri-part or otherwise. In every translation I consulted, Romans 1.20 is about God and only God. It's not about Jesus or the Holy Spirit or any construction of God's identity. That matters in this instance because I engaged this thread only to respond to an earlier post's proposition that 1.20 in fact has Trinitarian implications, a suggestion with which I disagree.
Do you accept the truth of Christ as presented above? CM
As for the book of Revelation and its message about the identity of Christ, consider the book's opening verses: (all emphases added)
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Re 1:1–2). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
John declares that his work is the revelation God gave to Jesus. I read that as a clear distinction between God and Jesus.
And then a few verses down in the first chapter:
Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. [NOTE: Clearly, John refers here to three separate entities: 1) the one who "is and who was and who is to come;" 2) "the seven spirits;" and 3) to Jesus. I contend that construction means John believes Jesus is NOT the one who "is...was...and is to come" - i.e. Jesus is not God.] To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, [NOTE: John says God is Jesus' God. Yet another clear distinction between Jesus and God.] to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Re 1:4–7). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.
-
@reformed said:
Some people just want to reject Christ. Unfortunately we will not see them in the Kingdom of Heaven and they will experience eternal torment in Hell. I pray for the members on this board that fall into that category as I do not wish to see anyone in everlasting torment but that is the path that they are on.@reformed assumed position of judge and has spoken .... according to his verdict members of this board fall into the category of experiencing eternal torment in Hell.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Some people just want to reject Christ. Unfortunately we will not see them in the Kingdom of Heaven and they will experience eternal torment in Hell. I pray for the members on this board that fall into that category as I do not wish to see anyone in everlasting torment but that is the path that they are on.@reformed the judge has spoken .... according to his verdict members of this board fall into the category of experiencing eternal torment in Hell.
That's not my judgment, that's God's. You must know Christ as Savior and profess him as Lord. You can't do that if you don't even know who he is.
-
@C_M_ said:
Two biblical books focus on the “beginning” in their introductions:- (1) The beginning (Heb. rēʾ šît) before the creation of the world (Gen. 1:1).
- (2) The beginning (Gr. archē) before the Incarnation into the world (John 1:1, 14).
Simple truth => the two books speak of different beginnings.
Genesis -- the beginning when God created heavens and earth
John -- from the context of the book of John, the beginning mentioned there is the beginning of the Son of God, because the book's purpose is to reveal Jesus as the Son of God.They share a common truth: God is more than one Person.
How do you come up with such a far fetched idea which is NOWHERE mentioned in Genesis nor in John.
The Greek word archē is found fifty-five times in the New Testament and eighteen times in the writings of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
The word "beginning" designates the beginning or start of whatever is then spoken of in the context.
The “Word was God” literally means “the Word was toward God.”
Well, I will have to once again point out a plain error in your reading of the text .... it is NOT the phrase "Word was God" which literally means "Word was toward God", rather it is the phrease "Word was WITH God" which literally could be translated "Word was toward God".
Furthermore, from this expression it is plain and simple and clear that "Word" and "God" are said to have been TWO different entities.In fact, “John thinks of no opposition between the Word and the Father. The whole existence of the Word was oriented toward the Father.”
why does this quoted author all of a sudden switch from "God" to "Father" ??? The "Word" was related in some way to "God", rather simply because it was God's Word, God's plan, God's idea concerning a human being who would be His Son and the Messiah.
The Son of God's existence started as "Word" in God's plan, and it was realized when the time was fulfilled for the coming of this Messiah and the word became flesh in the conception and birth of Messiah Jesus.John is not merely saying Jesus is divine-like, but that He is God, and the word order in the Greek is emphatic (the Greek word for “divine” is theios; instead of “God” theos; see 2 Pet. 1:4, “participate in the divine nature”). John did not write, “God was the Word,” for the emphasis is on the last noun—the Word was God.
Actually, the word order is somewhat peculiar in the Greek, and it is NOT "the word was God" but rather "God was the Word". Incidentally, Luther translated it that way in his German NT translation.
The emphasis in the statement is placed by the use of the noun "God" with the sense of the adjective "GODLY / DIVINE" ... God is emphasized as the one Whose Word, Whose plan, etc this was.At least, understand, even if, you're not willing to accept it. CM
See above ... I am rather confident that I do understand the text quite accurately WITHOUT any insertion of some later theology fantasy.
-
Wolfgang,
When God began, Jesus was face-to-face with Him. R. V. G. Tasker speaks of the uniqueness of John’s prologue for “it reveals the Word of God not merely as an attribute of God, but as a distinct Person within the Godhead, dwelling with the Creator before creation began, and acting as the divine agent in creation.”
It is this God, the Christ through whom the Father created the universe (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:15–16; Heb. 1:1–2), who was now to become a part of creation:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
When the Creator becomes a part of creation, this is a new beginning, which is the only way for humans to become a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) and one day enter a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). In other words, humans and their habitat become new because of the life, death, and subsequent ministry of the God who also became human.
@ Wolfgang said: "...confident that I do understand the text quite accurately..."
Could it be possible, Wolfgang, you can still learn something on this subject matter and it is kosher? CM
PS. Even the OT prophecies about Christ and their New Testament fulfillment speaks of the Father and Son was in the beginning. Are you aware of this? If not, will you accept it when shown for the Bible? CM
SOURCE:
-- R. V. G. Tasker, John, vol. 4 in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1988, 1st ed. 1960), 42.
-
@C_M_ said:
When God began, Jesus was face-to-face with Him. R. V. G. Tasker speaks of the uniqueness of John’s prologue for “it reveals the Word of God not merely as an attribute of God, but as a distinct Person within the Godhead, dwelling with the Creator before creation began, and acting as the divine agent in creation.”It is this God, the Christ through whom the Father created the universe (John 1:3, 10; Col. 1:15–16; Heb. 1:1–2), who was now to become a part of creation:
In plain language: One God, the Father, created the universe through One God, the Son ... which makes for already TWO Gods.
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).
Word became flesh ... but, pray tell, where does Scripture say that a God-person became a human-person. Actually, Scripture does not even know of different "God-persons" (which would equal different "Gods" !!).
When the Creator becomes a part of creation, this is a new beginning,
"Creator becomes a part of creation" ???? Do you not see the total non-sense such a statement ??
which is the only way for humans to become a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) and one day enter a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1).
Not at all ...the only way for humans to be reconciled to God is by a human being (NOT a God-person) giving his life because it was a human person (Adam) by whom sin and death came into the world (cp Rom 5:12ff)
In other words, humans and their habitat become new because of the life, death, and subsequent ministry of the God who also became human.
Plain non-sense ... see Rom 5:12ff GOD does NOT change and "become human"
@ Wolfgang said: "...confident that I do understand the text quite accurately..."
Could it be possible, Wolfgang, you can still learn something on this subject matter and it is kosher? CM
I am learning many things ... but non-sense remains non-sense and with God's help I pray to be able to distinguish theological dogma errors from Scripture truth.
PS. Even the OT prophecies about Christ and their New Testament fulfillment speaks of the Father and Son was in the beginning. Are you aware of this? If not, will you accept it when shown for the Bible?
Sure, Scripture is very clear in that God (the Father) from even before the foundation of the world !! (cp 1Pe 1:20) had a plan of salvation in His mind, in His foreknowledge .. and, of course, the main person in His plan of redemption and salvation was a human person (and NOT God Himself changing and becoming a human person) who would be born of a woman (cp Gal 4:4) and be called "God's Son".
Instead of relying on theology and theological sources, why not rely on Scripture itself???
-
?? God has told you His judgment on members of this board ??
You must know Christ as Savior and profess him as Lord. You can't do that if you don't even know who he is.
I would say you can't do that if you have a totally wrong idea of who he is ... and since Scripture states all over the place that the Messiah (Christ) is A MALE HUMAN BEING, I would think that those who claim and believe that the Messiah is God Himself are the ones who are not in harmony with Scripture ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
?? God has told you His judgment on members of this board ??
You must know Christ as Savior and profess him as Lord. You can't do that if you don't even know who he is.
I would say you can't do that if you have a totally wrong idea of who he is ... and since Scripture states all over the place that the Messiah (Christ) is A MALE HUMAN BEING, I would think that those who claim and believe that the Messiah is God Himself are the ones who are not in harmony with Scripture ...
No Scripture says God became flesh and dwelt among us. Emmanuel, God with us.
-
@reformed said:
No Scripture says God became flesh and dwelt among us.Exactly ... and yet you yourself seem to argue that God became flesh ... or have you now realized the truth that "word became flesh" and that "word" was not a living God-person (God) who became flesh ???
Emmanuel, God with us.
"God with us" is the meaning of the name "Emmanuel"; now does that mean that a person whose name is Emmanuel is actually God Who is with us or others?
-
No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form. He already existed as he created everything and was with God the Father in the beginning. So God the Son took on flesh and lived among us.
Emmanuel, God with us.
"God with us" is the meaning of the name "Emmanuel"; now does that mean that a person whose name is Emmanuel is actually God Who is with us or others?
It does when God decrees that is what his name will be.
-
@reformed said:
No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form. He already existed as he created everything and was with God the Father in the beginning. So God the Son took on flesh and lived among us.
@reformed ... so you ARE SAYING that God (one of our three God-persons) became flesh. On the other hand, you are denying it saying "No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form" ... so then "the Word (Jesus)" is NOT actually God, even though you seem to claim the opposite in your next statement "So God the Son took on flesh ..." or are you saying that "God the Son" really is NOT God ???
Your statements are at best unclear, and they are confusing, misleading, self-contradictory (as I have pointed out above). Perhaps you can clear up the mental mess you have created about that rather simple plain truth in Scripture.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form. He already existed as he created everything and was with God the Father in the beginning. So God the Son took on flesh and lived among us.
@reformed ... so you ARE SAYING that God (one of our three God-persons) became flesh. On the other hand, you are denying it saying "No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form" ... so then "the Word (Jesus)" is NOT actually God, even though you seem to claim the opposite in your next statement "So God the Son took on flesh ..." or are you saying that "God the Son" really is NOT God ???
I am saying Jesus, who has always existed, took on flesh. He is God.
Your statements are at best unclear, and they are confusing, misleading, self-contradictory (as I have pointed out above). Perhaps you can clear up the mental mess you have created about that rather simple plain truth in Scripture.
They don't contradict, you have not pointed out any contradiction at all. The simple plain truth is Jesus is God (The Word WAS God) and took on flesh and dwelt among us. This is not hard to see at all and is the PLAIN meaning that even a child can understand.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed ... so you ARE SAYING that God (one of our three God-persons) became flesh. On the other hand, you are denying it saying "No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form" ... so then "the Word (Jesus)" is NOT actually God, even though you seem to claim the opposite in your next statement "So God the Son took on flesh ..." or are you saying that "God the Son" really is NOT God ???I am saying Jesus, who has always existed, took on flesh. He is God.
And yet, you denied earlier that God became flesh ...
Your statements are at best unclear, and they are confusing, misleading, self-contradictory (as I have pointed out above). Perhaps you can clear up the mental mess you have created about that rather simple plain truth in Scripture.
They don't contradict, you have not pointed out any contradiction at all.
See above .... you claim Jesus is God, you claim Jesus became flesh, you deny that God became flesh.
The simple plain truth is Jesus is God (The Word WAS God) and took on flesh and dwelt among us. This is not hard to see at all and is the PLAIN meaning that even a child can understand.
See above ... By the way, when I asked some children a few years ago during a Roman Catholic church preparation class for their first holy communion, they -- without exception -- found the idea of the holy trinity a strange idea which did not really make any sense. So much for your thought of "even a child can understand". Also, since learned theologians and scholars agree that the trinity idea about Jesus is God can't really be understood, I wonder how you would come up with the idea that even a child can understand ....
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed ... so you ARE SAYING that God (one of our three God-persons) became flesh. On the other hand, you are denying it saying "No, the Word (Jesus) took on human form" ... so then "the Word (Jesus)" is NOT actually God, even though you seem to claim the opposite in your next statement "So God the Son took on flesh ..." or are you saying that "God the Son" really is NOT God ???I am saying Jesus, who has always existed, took on flesh. He is God.
And yet, you denied earlier that God became flesh ...
No I didn't.
Your statements are at best unclear, and they are confusing, misleading, self-contradictory (as I have pointed out above). Perhaps you can clear up the mental mess you have created about that rather simple plain truth in Scripture.
They don't contradict, you have not pointed out any contradiction at all.
See above .... you claim Jesus is God, you claim Jesus became flesh, you deny that God became flesh.
How in the world do I deny that God became flesh?
The simple plain truth is Jesus is God (The Word WAS God) and took on flesh and dwelt among us. This is not hard to see at all and is the PLAIN meaning that even a child can understand.
See above ... By the way, when I asked some children a few years ago during a Roman Catholic church preparation class for their first holy communion, they -- without exception -- found the idea of the holy trinity a strange idea which did not really make any sense. So much for your thought of "even a child can understand". Also, since learned theologians and scholars agree that the trinity idea about Jesus is God can't really be understood, I wonder how you would come up with the idea that even a child can understand ....
I did not say they understood the idea of the Trinity. I said they understand the plain meaning of John 1.
-
@reformed said:
See above .... you claim Jesus is God, you claim Jesus became flesh, you deny that God became flesh.
How in the world do I deny that God became flesh?
In an earlier post, I pointed out that your position would mean that God became flesh, to which you replied, with a "No, ...."
See above ... By the way, when I asked some children a few years ago during a Roman Catholic church preparation class for their first holy communion, they -- without exception -- found the idea of the holy trinity a strange idea which did not really make any sense. So much for your thought of "even a child can understand". Also, since learned theologians and scholars agree that the trinity idea about Jesus is God can't really be understood, I wonder how you would come up with the idea that even a child can understand ....
I did not say they understood the idea of the Trinity. I said they understand the plain meaning of John 1.
Ha, ha ... indeed, they did understand the plain meaning of John 1 !! However, that plain meaning was NOTHING like the Trinitarian idea of Jesus=God which you propose to be the meaning of John 1.
-
@ Wolfgang said: "I am learning many things ... help I pray to be able to distinguish theological dogma errors from Scripture truth".
Consider Scriptural truth about Jesus:
Christ read from the scroll of Isaiah (Isa. 61:1–2). He concluded saying, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165), in his First Apology, presents Old Testament predictions of Christ.
Below is biblical data on Old Testament prophecies about Christ and their New Testament fulfillment.
Prophecy --------------------------------- Fulfillment
- Born/Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2) -----------Born/Bethlehem (Luke 2:4–7)
- Slain children (Jer. 31:15) -------------Slain children (Matt. 2:17–18)
- Out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1) --------------Out of Egypt (Matt. 2:15)
- Forerunner (Isa. 40:3–5) --------------Forerunner (Matt. 3:1, 3)
- Betrayal (Ps. 41:9) -------------------Betrayal (John 13:18; 18:2)
- 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12) ---------30 pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14–15)
- Spat on/beaten (Isa. 50:6) ----------Spat on/beaten (Matt. 26:67; John 19:1)
- Gambled for garment (Ps. 22:18) ------Gambled for garment (John 19:23–24)
- No broken bones (Ps. 34:20) -------------No broken bones (John 19:32–33)
- Side pierced (Zech. 12:10) -------------Side pierced (John 19:34, 37)
- Resurrection (Ps. 16:10) -------------------Resurrection (John 20:9)
- At the Throne (Ps. 110:1) --------------At the Throne (Acts 2:34–36)
Jesus fulfills OT Prophecies. What are the chances an ordinary man fulfilling all these things in a lifetime? CM
SOURCES:
-- Justin Martyr, First Apology, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. 1989), 1:173–181 (32–53). -
@C_M_ said:
Consider Scriptural truth about Jesus:
Christ read from the scroll of Isaiah (Isa. 61:1–2). He concluded saying, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165), in his First Apology, presents Old Testament predictions of Christ.Below is biblical data on Old Testament prophecies about Christ and their New Testament fulfillment.
Prophecy --------------------------------- Fulfillment
1. Born/Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2) -----------Born/Bethlehem (Luke 2:4–7)fulfillment had to be by a human being, because God is NOT born ...
- Slain children (Jer. 31:15) -------------Slain children (Matt. 2:17–18)
again, obviously the fulfillment involved a human being
- Out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1) --------------Out of Egypt (Matt. 2:15)
- Forerunner (Isa. 40:3–5) --------------Forerunner (Matt. 3:1, 3)
- Betrayal (Ps. 41:9) -------------------Betrayal (John 13:18; 18:2)
- 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12) ---------30 pieces of silver (Matt. 26:14–15)
- Spat on/beaten (Isa. 50:6) ----------Spat on/beaten (Matt. 26:67; John 19:1)
- Gambled for garment (Ps. 22:18) ------Gambled for garment (John 19:23–24)
- No broken bones (Ps. 34:20) -------------No broken bones (John 19:32–33)
- Side pierced (Zech. 12:10) -------------Side pierced (John 19:34, 37)
- Resurrection (Ps. 16:10) -------------------Resurrection (John 20:9)
- At the Throne (Ps. 110:1) --------------At the Throne (Acts 2:34–36)
Since each of these required that the fulfillment involve a human being, I did not detail each point, but it should be clear that - for example - God has no bones to not be broken, Judas did not betray God for little money, etc ...
Jesus fulfills OT Prophecies. What are the chances an ordinary man fulfilling all these things in a lifetime? CM
Since the prophecies were all about ONE HUMAN BEING, the chances they were fulfilled by a human being were 100%. If even one required "more than a human being", then that prophecy would have been false.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
See above .... you claim Jesus is God, you claim Jesus became flesh, you deny that God became flesh.
How in the world do I deny that God became flesh?
In an earlier post, I pointed out that your position would mean that God became flesh, to which you replied, with a "No, ...."
If I said that you either have taken something out of context, or I misread what you wrote.
See above ... By the way, when I asked some children a few years ago during a Roman Catholic church preparation class for their first holy communion, they -- without exception -- found the idea of the holy trinity a strange idea which did not really make any sense. So much for your thought of "even a child can understand". Also, since learned theologians and scholars agree that the trinity idea about Jesus is God can't really be understood, I wonder how you would come up with the idea that even a child can understand ....
I did not say they understood the idea of the Trinity. I said they understand the plain meaning of John 1.
Ha, ha ... indeed, they did understand the plain meaning of John 1 !! However, that plain meaning was NOTHING like the Trinitarian idea of Jesus=God which you propose to be the meaning of John 1.
Except that it is. The plain meaning is Jesus is the Word and the Word is God and the Word has always existed.
-
@reformed said:
Ha, ha ... indeed, they did understand the plain meaning of John 1 !! However, that plain meaning was NOTHING like the Trinitarian idea of Jesus=God which you propose to be the meaning of John 1.
Except that it is. The plain meaning is Jesus is the Word
Wrong ....
According to Joh 1:14 the Word BECAME flesh (in the human person Jesus).and the Word is God
Yes, God is His Word, just as you are your word or I am my word.
and the Word has always existed.
Indeed, God's word concerning the coming Messiah has existed in God's foreknowledge from even before the foundation of the world (cp 2Pe 1:20)
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Ha, ha ... indeed, they did understand the plain meaning of John 1 !! However, that plain meaning was NOTHING like the Trinitarian idea of Jesus=God which you propose to be the meaning of John 1.
Except that it is. The plain meaning is Jesus is the Word
Wrong ....
According to Joh 1:14 the Word BECAME flesh (in the human person Jesus).and the Word is God
Yes, God is His Word, just as you are your word or I am my word.
and the Word has always existed.
Indeed, God's word concerning the coming Messiah has existed in God's foreknowledge from even before the foundation of the world (cp 2Pe 1:20)
That is reading a bunch into the text to say that the Word in this case is the Words. No, Jesus is the physical Word of God here on earth. Jesus, the person, has always existed. That is why there were multiple persons creating in Genesis. Not just one person. "Let US make man in OUR own image"
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
According to Joh 1:14 the Word BECAME flesh (in the human person Jesus).and the Word is God
Yes, God is His Word, just as you are your word or I am my word.
and the Word has always existed.
Indeed, God's word concerning the coming Messiah has existed in God's foreknowledge from even before the foundation of the world (cp 2Pe 1:20)
That is reading a bunch into the text to say that the Word in this case is the Words.
Have you not noticed that the word "word [Gr. logos]" always has the meaning of "word, plan, concept" where it is used in Scripture?
The ones who are reading a bunch into the text in Joh 1 are those folks who interpret the word "word" in these few verses only as being a living person / Jesus, rather than having its normal meaning.No, Jesus is the physical Word of God here on earth.
And could you please explain what you are actually saying with this statement? Jesus is "the physical Word of God"? What is "physical word"? Are there different kinds of word, such as "physical" and something else?
Jesus, the person, has always existed.
The real question is in which form has the person Jesus existed? Has he always been a living person of flesh and blood? a living person of some other kind?
I contend that Scripture mentions that Jesus
(a) existed first even from before the foundation of the world in the form of "word" in God's foreknowledge and in God's declared plan
(b) when the time for fulfillment of God's plan came, Jesus then existed as that living human being of flesh and blood which before this time existed only in God's plan.
(c) after the resurrection from the dead and since and for evermore, Jesus exists as an eternally living resurrected personThat is why there were multiple persons creating in Genesis. Not just one person. "Let US make man in OUR own image"
Multiple persons creating? Please, just read the very next verse following the part statement you quoted here ... it reads
Gen 1:27(ASV)
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Note the emphasized statement ... it speaks not of multiple creator persons, but of one single person who did the creating !!
A further note: Please don't read into the text what is not there ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
According to Joh 1:14 the Word BECAME flesh (in the human person Jesus).and the Word is God
Yes, God is His Word, just as you are your word or I am my word.
and the Word has always existed.
Indeed, God's word concerning the coming Messiah has existed in God's foreknowledge from even before the foundation of the world (cp 2Pe 1:20)
That is reading a bunch into the text to say that the Word in this case is the Words.
Have you not noticed that the word "word [Gr. logos]" always has the meaning of "word, plan, concept" where it is used in Scripture?
The ones who are reading a bunch into the text in Joh 1 are those folks who interpret the word "word" in these few verses only as being a living person / Jesus, rather than having its normal meaning.This is not a logical argument. Words can be attributed to people all the time. That is why you must look at context which you refuse to do.
No, Jesus is the physical Word of God here on earth.
And could you please explain what you are actually saying with this statement? Jesus is "the physical Word of God"? What is "physical word"? Are there different kinds of word, such as "physical" and something else?
Jesus is the Word of God that we actually hear. He came, and spoke. He created, He spoke things into existence.
Jesus, the person, has always existed.
The real question is in which form has the person Jesus existed? Has he always been a living person of flesh and blood? a living person of some other kind?
No not always flesh and blood, he became flesh and dwelt among us.
I contend that Scripture mentions that Jesus
(a) existed first even from before the foundation of the world in the form of "word" in God's foreknowledge and in God's declared planWord is one word to describe him. That isn't what he was and how he existed.
(b) when the time for fulfillment of God's plan came, Jesus then existed as that living human being of flesh and blood which before this time existed only in God's plan.
Nonsense.
(c) after the resurrection from the dead and since and for evermore, Jesus exists as an eternally living resurrected person
Partially correct.
That is why there were multiple persons creating in Genesis. Not just one person. "Let US make man in OUR own image"
Multiple persons creating? Please, just read the very next verse following the part statement you quoted here ... it reads
Gen 1:27(ASV)
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.Note the emphasized statement ... it speaks not of multiple creator persons, but of one single person who did the creating !!
One single being, yes. You, however, ignored the verse I spoke of. Let US make man in OUR own image. That is not speaking of one person.
A further note: Please don't read into the text what is not there ...
I'm not. You should read what IS there.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)