Is Jesus Deity?
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
These are FACTS, Dave:- I have regularly and directly engaged the texts you cited in support your views.
- You have regularly and absolutely refused to mention, let alone engage, the texts I cited in support of my views.
Dave is not worth another word of further exchange from you on this topic. Why he acts the way he does may be unclear ... but since his behavior hasn't changed, there is no sense in trying any further to have a decent and profitable exchange with him.
-
@GaoLu said:
I’m looking for any passage to be offered that proves or even could be taken to indicate that Jesus is anything other than fully God. It doesn’t exist of course. I will readily engage such a passage. Nothing like that has been offered.And once again you take the intellectually and forensically lazy approach to making your case, Gao Lu. Without so much as a sentence's worth of substantive engagement with any of them, you apparently expect us to accept your word that none of the texts I or Wolfgang has cited "prove or could be taken to indicate that Jesus is anything other than God." Well, I don't accept your word as anything other than a thinly veiled acknowledgement that a) you have no meaningful response to the texts we have cited, and b) those texts in fact say what we say they say about Jesus' relationship with God.
Here's a way for you to demonstrate your willingness to engage in serious dialogue on these issues. Respond to the following content about Peter's Jerusalem sermon found in Acts 2, content I first created for a response to Dave L. earlier in this thread:
When Peter says this in Jerusalem... (emphasis added)
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23** this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed** by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 2:22–24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
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?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
I invited you to post your favorite proof text, and I will show you how to balance it with others you ignore. Only one of my deity scriptures proves you do not understand the scriptures you stake your claims on.Your refusal to explore the texts I offered, respond to the questions I posed, or, frankly, even to mention, let alone engage, the content of the responses I have made to your posts, reveals the central differences between your and my approaches to issue debates, Dave.
- When you cite Bible texts as a challenge to my views, I engage each of those texts directly. When I cite Bible texts as a challenge to your views, you refuse even to acknowledge them.
- When you ask questions to gain clarity or to challenge my position, I address each question directly. When I ask questions to gain clarity or to challenge your position, you refuse even to acknowledge them.
- When I challenge the meaning and consequence of the texts you cite to support your views on the Trinity, you refuse even to acknowledge my analysis. And when you challenge the meaning and consequence of the texts I cite to support my views on the Trinity.... sorry; you refuse even to acknowledge the texts I cite, so you couldn't possibly challenge their meaning or consequence.
In my experience, refusal to engage others' points of view is NOT a strong debate tactic, Dave; it is instead most sensibly understood as a sign of weakness. You have no rebuttal response to any the texts or analysis I offer, so you offer none, and do so in the weakest, most disrespectful manner possible: You refuse even to mention the texts or that analysis.
These are FACTS, Dave:
- I have regularly and directly engaged the texts you cited in support your views.
- You have regularly and absolutely refused to mention, let alone engage, the texts I cited in support of my views.
If your check doesn't have any cash to back it up, why should I cash it? One verse alone that says Jesus is God shows you do not understand your own "proof texts". Here's another dab from today's bible reading:
“The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.” (1 John 5:12)
“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
“to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
-
Loony tunes ... "big fat [false] claims" ... typical for the blind folk who either can't read what they are posting or else with evil intent try and deceive others.
Anyone who can read will notice on first sight that neither 1Jo 5:12, nor 1Joh 5:20, nor 2Co 5:19 state what is being claimed.
But then, perhaps I am the loony tunes fellow, because I just don't get it how the Son is his own father, God ... nor how the true God and his Son are one and the same God ... nor how God reconciling people in Christ's work of redemption makes Christ to be God ...
It seems that stupidity reigns supreme !!
-
@Wolfgang said:
Loony tunes ... "big fat [false] claims" ... typical for the blind folk who either can't read what they are posting or else with evil intent try and deceive others.Anyone who can read will notice on first sight that neither 1Jo 5:12, nor 1Joh 5:20, nor 2Co 5:19 state what is being claimed.
But then, perhaps I am the loony tunes fellow, because I just don't get it how the Son is his own father, God ... nor how the true God and his Son are one and the same God ... nor how God reconciling people in Christ's work of redemption makes Christ to be God ...
It seems that stupidity reigns supreme !!
Insults do not replace truth.
-
insults? where? Aside from simple general comment, I mentioned the possibility of ME being the loony tunes fellow ... the stupid guy who can't read or is blind.
Did you actually think that this was applying to YOU ??????????
-
@Wolfgang said:
insults? where? Aside from simple general comment, I mentioned the possibility of ME being the loony tunes fellow ... the stupid guy who can't read or is blind.Did you actually think that this was applying to YOU ??????????
Just sayin'.............
-
@Dave_L said:
If your check doesn't have any cash to back it up, why should I cash it? One verse alone that says Jesus is God shows you do not understand your own "proof texts". Here's another dab from today's bible reading:- The point I have made to you multiple times, Dave, is that there is NO indication in ANY of your replies to my posts that you even know my "check" exists! Again and again and again you have refused even to mention, let alone engage, ANY of the Bible texts that underwrite that "check." As a result, we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the basis on which you believe any of them does not support my view of Jesus and God.
- Also again and again and again, you have refused to acknowledge the fact that I HAVE again and again and again and again directly engaged the Bible texts you cite as part of your "check," that I have on several occasions made clear the basis on which I believe the texts you cite do not support your view of Jesus and God.
- And finally, more than once you have alleged that I ignore Bible texts that you believe disprove my view of Jesus and God. When I provided links to and quotations from my posts that proved beyond doubt that your allegation was false, you not only didn't have the decency to acknowledge your error, you chose to repeat the falsehood.
So you refuse to engage - refuse even to mention - the Bible texts I cite or the arguments I make as a result of those texts, and you repeat a blatantly false assertion even though you know it's not true. Explain to me how that conduct of yours in our exchange, Dave, has reflected the spirit and teachings of the Jesus you believe is God.
As for the new texts you cite, I will now engage them directly, but absent a significant change in the way you engage me in our exchanges, this will be the last time I engage your cited texts:
“The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.” (1 John 5:12)
As is often the case, context matters.
- 1 John 5.5 says the one who overcomes the world is the one who believes Jesus is THE SON of God; it does NOT say the one who overcomes is the one who believes Jesus is God.
- 1 John 5.6 identifies the revelation of Jesus as God's Son - NOT as God - as having occurred in Jesus' baptism and crucifixion.
- 1 John 5.9-10 add another distinction between God and God's son.
- 1 John 5.11 says God's gift of eternal life is in God's Son - another distinction.
- 1 John 5.12 says whoever has the Son has life. The verse does not equate the Son to God.
- 1 John 4.7-15 is rooted in the same basic distinction between God and the Son, the one God sent to save the world.
“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
Here you add bold emphasis to parts of two DIFFERENT sentences, and in so doing give the false impression that the words you bold all refer to the same person or being. Let's review the content of the verse:
- Sentence 1, Clause 1: The Son of God gives us insight into "him who is true" - clearly a reference to God (see 1 John 5.18-19 for additional context for the "him" to whom John refers in 1 John 5.20).
- Sentence 1, Clause 2: We are in "him who is true," - the same "him" who was "true" in clause 1: God.
- Sentence 1, Clause 3: A reference to the Son of the one we are "in" (the Son, being Jesus)
- Sentence 2: The "one" who is "the true God" here is clearly the "him" of the verse's first sentence. That "him" was clearly God, NOT Jesus. For John, God is God and Jesus is "the Son" sent by God.
- Bottom line: The words you chose to bold in 1 John 5.20 come from two different sentences within the verse and clearly do not refer to the same being/person/entity.
“to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul makes a clear distinction between God and the Christ through whom God reconciled the world to Godself.
- 2 Corinthians 5.18-19: It is through Christ that God has reconciled us to Godself, and given us the ministry of reconciliation.
- 2 Corinthians 5.20: On behalf of Christ, Paul implores the Corinthians to be reconciled to God.
- 2 Corinthians 5.21: For our sake "he" (God) made "him" (Christ) to be sin.
The distinction between God and the Christ through whom God reconciles us to Godself is evident throughout the chapter.
-
OK, Reformed and Gao_Lu, how do you interpret the verses Dave_L, your companion in the Trinity heresy, has posted above?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Reformed, does the fact that the nowhere does the Bible say anything that would 100% eliminate Jesus from having been a ballet dancer, a plumbing contractor, or the dean of a local university in your view mean that Jesus was all of those things? Must the Bible explicitly rule out a given position, title, role, or office in order for you to agree that Jesus did not hold it? So unless the Bible says, "Jesus was not a horse trainer," you assume that he was?
No. That would be ridiculous. However, if there was a verse taht says he was one of those things but no verses that say he isn't, obviously that would mean he is
As for the biblical witness on Jesus' identity, no, there is no verse that says "Jesus is not God." But I don't contend there is such a verse; nor do I contend that such a verse is necessary. Instead, I contend that the CUMULATIVE WITNESS of literally dozens/scores of verses - many that quote Jesus himself - is that Jesus did not think of himself as God, and apostles such as Peter and Paul did not think of him as God. (I've cited 22 such verses/passages in just the last month or so of this thread's life, and those mostly from John's Gospel, not the Synoptics, where reside the vast majority of texts supportive of my view)
You have cited verses that you interpret to say he was not God. That's something totally different.
The logical problem that YOU "have yet to solve," reformed, is how could Jesus, Peter, and Paul have believed Jesus was God AND YET have said things that to any common sense listener sounded like they believed he was NOT God? Do you commonly say things that seem contrary to your own points of view, somehow expecting that your audience will know you meant the opposite of what you appeared to say, perhaps because you might have said something different in another setting, to another audience? I don't, and I strongly suspect you don't either. But time and again Jesus, Peter, and Paul say things -and I've cited dozens of them over my CD years - whose most sensible interpretation is Jesus is not God.
When Peter says this in Jerusalem... (emphasis added)
22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. 24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 2:22–24). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
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?
And yet again, you ignored the whole premise of my post that there IS A VERSE that says he is God and not a single one that says he is not.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
If your check doesn't have any cash to back it up, why should I cash it? One verse alone that says Jesus is God shows you do not understand your own "proof texts". Here's another dab from today's bible reading:1. The point I have made to you multiple times, Dave, is that there is NO indication in ANY of your replies to my posts that you even know my "check" exists! Again and again and again you have refused even to mention, let alone engage, ANY of the Bible texts that underwrite that "check." As a result, we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the basis on which you believe any of them does not support my view of Jesus and God.
2. Also again and again and again, you have refused to acknowledge the fact that I HAVE again and again and again and again directly engaged the Bible texts you cite as part of your "check," that I have on several occasions made clear the basis on which I believe the texts you cite do not support your view of Jesus and God.
3. And finally, more than once you have alleged that I ignore Bible texts that you believe disprove my view of Jesus and God. When I provided links to and quotations from my posts that proved beyond doubt that your allegation was false, you not only didn't have the decency to acknowledge your error, you chose to repeat the falsehood.So you refuse to engage - refuse even to mention - the Bible texts I cite or the arguments I make as a result of those texts, and you repeat a blatantly false assertion even though you know it's not true. Explain to me how that conduct of yours in our exchange, Dave, has reflected the spirit and teachings of the Jesus you believe is God.
As for the new texts you cite, I will now engage them directly, but absent a significant change in the way you engage me in our exchanges, this will be the last time I engage your cited texts:
“The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.” (1 John 5:12)
As is often the case, context matters.
- 1 John 5.5 says the one who overcomes the world is the one who believes Jesus is THE SON of God; it does NOT say the one who overcomes is the one who believes Jesus is God.
- 1 John 5.6 identifies the revelation of Jesus as God's Son - NOT as God - as having occurred in Jesus' baptism and crucifixion.
- 1 John 5.9-10 add another distinction between God and God's son.
- 1 John 5.11 says God's gift of eternal life is in God's Son - another distinction.
- 1 John 5.12 says whoever has the Son has life. The verse does not equate the Son to God.
- 1 John 4.7-15 is rooted in the same basic distinction between God and the Son, the one God sent to save the world.
“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
Here you add bold emphasis to parts of two DIFFERENT sentences, and in so doing give the false impression that the words you bold all refer to the same person or being. Let's review the content of the verse:
- Sentence 1, Clause 1: The Son of God gives us insight into "him who is true" - clearly a reference to God (see 1 John 5.18-19 for additional context for the "him" to whom John refers in 1 John 5.20).
- Sentence 1, Clause 2: We are in "him who is true," - the same "him" who was "true" in clause 1: God.
- Sentence 1, Clause 3: A reference to the Son of the one we are "in" (the Son, being Jesus)
- Sentence 2: The "one" who is "the true God" here is clearly the "him" of the verse's first sentence. That "him" was clearly God, NOT Jesus. For John, God is God and Jesus is "the Son" sent by God.
- Bottom line: The words you chose to bold in 1 John 5.20 come from two different sentences within the verse and clearly do not refer to the same being/person/entity.
“to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” (2 Corinthians 5:19)
In 2 Corinthians 5, Paul makes a clear distinction between God and the Christ through whom God reconciled the world to Godself.
- 2 Corinthians 5.18-19: It is through Christ that God has reconciled us to Godself, and given us the ministry of reconciliation.
- 2 Corinthians 5.20: On behalf of Christ, Paul implores the Corinthians to be reconciled to God.
- 2 Corinthians 5.21: For our sake "he" (God) made "him" (Christ) to be sin.
The distinction between God and the Christ through whom God reconciles us to Godself is evident throughout the chapter.
If you were a greek scholar of a similar standing to those performing some of our better translations, we might trust your opinion. But the pros are against you. We have many passages clearly showing Christ's deity. Consider wrangling with this passage for a while.
“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)
And definitions of Christ provided by the well studied such as:
JESUS CHRIST
“Jesus Christ” is a composite name made up of the personal name “Jesus” (from Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yešû (a)?, a late form of Hebrew yehôšûa?, the meaning of which is “YHWH is salvation” or “YHWH saves/has saved”) and the title, assimilated in early Christianity to Jesus as a name, “Christ” (from Gk Christos, which translates Heb maši^a? and Aram meši^?a?, signifying “anointed” and referring in the context of eschatological expectation to the royal “son of David”). The name “Jesus Christ” thus binds together the historic figure Jesus with the messianic role and status that early Christian faith attributed to him. In Jesus’ own lifetime, his name, since it was common in Israel, called for a specifier: “Jesus the Galilean” (Matt 26:69; cf.21:11), or, more often, “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarean.”
Meyer, B. F. (1992). Jesus (Person): Jesus Christ. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 773). New York: Doubleday.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@GaoLu said:
I will be happy to engage proof texts that disprove the divinity of Christ. I don’t see any above which remottely have anything to say that can be used to disprove the divinity of Christ, while the same authors clearly and repeatedly affirm the divinity of Christ as has been demonstrated time and again.
Any plausible challenge to the statement above is welcome.It is plausible regarding these and other texts that one of us can't read what is written, or one of us refuses to read what is written, or one of us does not believe what is written in favor of a theology to which we hold, or one of us does not understand most simple statements, or one of us is plain ignorant and stupid, or one of us is mentally handicapped in regards to mental capabilities such as as logic and reason, or one of us is silly, or one of us is perhaps something else?
It is also plausible that you are just playing the "smarty game", thinking you made a real intelligent attempt to dodge, evade, drop and cop out comment without being called on it.
It looks like I should be saying "Goodbye" to you as well, although I did in the past have a different opinion regarding you and your posts?
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
I invited you to post your favorite proof text, and I will show you how to balance it with others you ignore. Only one of my deity scriptures proves you do not understand the scriptures you stake your claims on.Your refusal to explore the texts I offered, respond to the questions I posed, or, frankly, even to mention, let alone engage, the content of the responses I have made to your posts, reveals the central differences between your and my approaches to issue debates, Dave.
- When you cite Bible texts as a challenge to my views, I engage each of those texts directly. When I cite Bible texts as a challenge to your views, you refuse even to acknowledge them...
In my experience, refusal to engage others' points of view is NOT a strong debate tactic, Dave; it is instead most sensibly understood as a sign of weakness. You have no rebuttal response to any the texts or analysis I offer, so you offer none, and do so in the weakest, most disrespectful manner possible: You refuse even to mention the texts or that analysis...
Bill & Wolfgang,
Stop it! Enough! There is no need to carry on the way the two of you are conducting yourselves toward Dave. Please, your postings give signs of bullying and being overbearing. Why can't you accept what he has given? If the two you are grossly confident in your understanding, why go out of your way to belittle or insult this man, Dave, in these forums. Your position on the Trinity in general, and the Deity of Christ, in particular, are in the minority, in these forums and in the world of Christendom. Where are your Christianity and general respect for a fellow brother? No, Dave didn't ask or I need to defend him. I am appealing to forum respect and civility.We are all adults here. The above remarks are totally unnecessary! Dave is a senior man. that should count for something. If you are equal in age, respect him as a man. If you are younger, give him honor due him. I don't know if you're relating to Dave as your cry for help or a testosterone demand for spiritual superiority in these forums? Or, maybe, I am just overly sensitive to your form of expressions. Regardless, we must check our tone toward all.
I am not trying so much to extract a public apology from the two of you. I just want you to stop, think, and be a little more considerate of what you are saying, to whom, how and where. This is not a gladiator's arena to spill spiritual blood. Let's honor God in all things even in our disagreements, disappointments, or question/challenges not answered.
No, I am not the forums' police. I am concern about who we say we are, what this site suppose to do, those who are watching (readers), and the good we can do in explaining the Word of God. No, I am not trying to be "holier than thou" or Mr. Righteous. The insults need to stop. "Enough is enough, and too much is good for nothing."
Besides, do we reflect and wonder why so few participate in these forums? Could it be statements above that makes people less inclined to join these forums? For those who are a longer use of these forums, than I; could it be the aforementioned behavior the reason the first CD was shut down with little or no reason or explanation? Are we repeating the mistakes of the past? It behooves us all to "check ourselves before we wreck ourselves."
Finally, I want to remind all, we must allow the righteous truth to flow within our own souls as those who handle the Word (Scripture), in view of others. And once in, we must allow it to have its influence on our conduct.
Please don't let your political views color your Christianity and civility in these forums. Thanks for considering my concerns.
Bill and Wolfgang, in my next post, I will address your text of concerns (Acts 2:22–24). Stay tuned... CM
-
@Dave_L said:
If you were a greek scholar of a similar standing to those performing some of our better translations, we might trust your opinion.Because in the three previous posts where I directly engaged 15 verses/passages you offered for my consideration I relied solely on English language translations, AND BECAUSE by my count, EXACTLY NONE OF MY RESPONSES to your cited verses/passages relied on or made any mention of translation issues, I don't see the relevance of my not being "a Greek scholar of a similar standing to those performing some of our better translations."
But the pros are against you. We have many passages clearly showing Christ's deity.
No. What "we have" are many passages that IN YOUR VIEW "clearly" show Christ's deity. In my responses to your posts, I have directly engaged most the passages you've cited, responses which, in my view, showed that those texts very definitely do NOT "clearly" show such deity.
Consider wrangling with this passage for a while.
“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)Not going to happen, Dave. As I reported in my previous reply to you, your disrespect of me and the content of my posts is so blatant and long-standing that absent a signficant change in the character of your engagement with me, I will no longer respond to your cited passages. (A freebie: I responded to the Jude verse AT LEAST two of the previous times you cited it.)
And definitions of Christ provided by the well studied such as:
JESUS CHRIST
“Jesus Christ” is a composite name made up of the personal name “Jesus” (from Gk Iesous, which transliterates Heb/Aram yešû (a)?, a late form of Hebrew yehôšûa?, the meaning of which is “YHWH is salvation” or “YHWH saves/has saved”) and the title, assimilated in early Christianity to Jesus as a name, “Christ” (from Gk Christos, which translates Heb maši^a? and Aram meši^?a?, signifying “anointed” and referring in the context of eschatological expectation to the royal “son of David”). The name “Jesus Christ” thus binds together the historic figure Jesus with the messianic role and status that early Christian faith attributed to him. In Jesus’ own lifetime, his name, since it was common in Israel, called for a specifier: “Jesus the Galilean” (Matt 26:69; cf.21:11), or, more often, “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus the Nazarean.”
Meyer, B. F. (1992). Jesus (Person): Jesus Christ. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 3, p. 773). New York: Doubleday.
This is not a verse, but a resource quotation, so I'll note that NOTHING in the provided definition says Jesus is God. At best, it says Jesus' name is "YHWH is salvation," and "Christ" means "anointed."
Think about the implication of one's being "anointed": He or she must have been anointed/chosen by someone or something, which means he or she can't be the one who did the anointing/choosing! Jesus - anointed/chosen by God - can't be God, the one who anointed/chose him.
-
The pros say you are wrong, hands down, every time. If you had any background in ancient greek, we might take you more seriously when you contradict the specialists.
-
@reformed said:
And yet again, you ignored the whole premise of my post that there IS A VERSE that says he is God and not a single one that says he is not.There is absolutely NO (did you get it? NO!) verse which says that Jesus is God ... thus your claim that there is one is FALSE.
Simple questions for you:
(1) Does Scripture teach that a human being can be or is God? if yes, where?
(2) Does Scripture declare Jesus of Nazareth to be a human being?
(3) Which kind of living beings are born by women?
(4) Was Jesus conceived in and born of a woman? -
@C_M_ said:
@Wolfgang said:
It is plausible regarding these and other texts that one of us can't read what is written, or one of us refuses to read what is written, or one of us does not believe what is written in favor of a theology to which we hold, or one of us does not understand most simple statements, or one of us is plain ignorant and stupid, or one of us is mentally handicapped in regards to mental capabilities such as as logic and reason, or one of us is silly, or one of us is perhaps something else?It is also plausible that you are just playing the "smarty game", thinking you made a real intelligent attempt to dodge, evade, drop and cop out comment without being called on it.
It looks like I should be saying "Goodbye" to you as well, although I did in the past have a different opinion regarding you and your posts?
Bill & Wolfgang,
Stop it! Enough!Include Dave L and others (perhaps yourself?) as well ... and I may be considering what you wrote.
There is no need to carry on the way the two of you are conducting yourselves toward Dave.
Sorry, CM ... we are actually conducting an exchange by engaging details in texts and answering questions asked of us in detail ... the ones who don't ought to be reconsidering what they are doing and what they deem to be proper for an exchange.
Why aren't you calling on them?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
And yet again, you ignored the whole premise of my post that there IS A VERSE that says he is God and not a single one that says he is not.There is absolutely NO (did you get it? NO!) verse which says that Jesus is God ... thus your claim that there is one is FALSE.
Simple questions for you:
(1) Does Scripture teach that a human being can be or is God? if yes, where?
(2) Does Scripture declare Jesus of Nazareth to be a human being?
(3) Which kind of living beings are born by women?
(4) Was Jesus conceived in and born of a woman?John 1 says he is.
- Yes in John 1.
- Yes
- Humans
- Yes, but it was not a natural conception and therefore is not bound by the normal rules you are trying to put forth.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Simple questions for you:
(1) Does Scripture teach that a human being can be or is God? if yes, where?
(2) Does Scripture declare Jesus of Nazareth to be a human being?
(3) Which kind of living beings are born by women?
(4) Was Jesus conceived in and born of a woman?John 1 says he is.
John 1 says nothing like it ... trinity folks read it into the text.
- Yes in John 1.
Not at all ... John 1 does NOT teach that a human being can be God. If that were the case, it would be true of all human beings, which obviously it isn't.
- Yes
- Humans
Indeed .... and since human beings can NOT be God, neither could Jesus have been.
- Yes, but it was not a natural conception and therefore is not bound by the normal rules you are trying to put forth.
Yes, is indeed correct and thus it is further proven that Jesus was NOT God, because God is certainly not conceived in a woman nor does a woman give birth to God.
By the way, the manner of conception does NOT make any difference to what is being conceived and born of the woman. Or are you trying to tell us that a woman who conceived by artificial conception does NOT conceive a human being but some kind of "artificial" being ??
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Simple questions for you:
(1) Does Scripture teach that a human being can be or is God? if yes, where?
(2) Does Scripture declare Jesus of Nazareth to be a human being?
(3) Which kind of living beings are born by women?
(4) Was Jesus conceived in and born of a woman?John 1 says he is.
John 1 says nothing like it ... trinity folks read it into the text.
Humorous, but no.
- Yes in John 1.
Not at all ... John 1 does NOT teach that a human being can be God. If that were the case, it would be true of all human beings, which obviously it isn't.
No, it teaches God took on flesh as a man.
- Yes
- Humans
Indeed .... and since human beings can NOT be God, neither could Jesus have been.
This is a fallacy. We did not establish that human beings cannot also be God. We established that Jesus was also human. BUT, Jesus was not a normal everyday human. He was God taking on form of flesh. God can take on flesh as a human if he chooses, and He did.
- Yes, but it was not a natural conception and therefore is not bound by the normal rules you are trying to put forth.
Yes, is indeed correct and thus it is further proven that Jesus was NOT God, because God is certainly not conceived in a woman nor does a woman give birth to God.
According to what?
By the way, the manner of conception does NOT make any difference to what is being conceived and born of the woman. Or are you trying to tell us that a woman who conceived by artificial conception does NOT conceive a human being but some kind of "artificial" being ??
It absolutely makes a difference. Artificial conception? There is no such thing.
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill & Wolfgang,In this post, I speak only for myself. I do not speak for Wolfgang.
Stop it! Enough! There is no need to carry on the way the two of you are conducting yourselves toward Dave. Please, your postings give signs of bullying and being overbearing. Why can't you accept what he has given?
I am surprised by your post, CM. But before I issue any substantive response, I need to make sure I understand the claims of your post. To wit...
- You claim that my posts "give signs of bullying and being overbearing" to Dave L. Please quote one or more lines from my posts to him which you believe support your claim.
- You claim that I "go out of (my) way to belittle or insult this man, Dave, in these forums." Please quote one or more lines from my posts to Dave L. which you believe support your claim.
- You raise the possibility that I might be letting my "political views color (my) Christianity and civility in these forums." Please quote one or more lines from my posts to Dave L. which gave rise to your concern about that possibility.
Once I'm confident that I understand the basis for your claims in these areas, CM, I will respond to your larger post.
Thanks in advance.
-
Bill,
Thanks for your response.
I won't be going down rabbit holes over my post to you and Wolfgang. However, I address two at the same time, spoke to all, including myself.As for you, specifically, the example I cited above should suffice. In addition, the multiple repeating you didn't answer or engaged my text, etc. It doesn't look good to those on the outside.
Mainly, the overall, tone of exchanges needs to be checked in these forums. My observations showed pages of posts could be consumed and nothing of substance said or accomplished. He's either unwilling, unable or chooses not to engage in the discussion of that topic or a continuation. You're a skilled debater (I sure you missed those old high school/college years). You know when enough is enough. What do you want from the man?
Sometimes in life, we have to look beyond a person's faults and see their needs. That could be in anything. We are not all gifted or skilled equally. I expected greater discernment from the two of you. Better yet, especially, you.
Yes, you can be direct, frank, candid, etc., but let's be balanced. Show greater temperance (self-control) in your determination to get at the truth, to be right, or to expose error. The days of earth's history will come to an end, but today is not the day. Lighten up!
I don't know Dave beyond what he has shared in these forums. What I do know, he's a man of years, self-studied, loves the Lord, and seeks to live for God, to the best of his knowledge as he understands Him. Dave loves sharing in these forums. Let's respect his contributions and faithfulness over the years.
The warning flag has been waved, so let's take this discussion to PM. So send your dossier of condemnations there. Simply because enough time and space have been taken up in this thread from the topic. Let's be fair and respectful to the originator of it.
Keep it sweet, meaningful, and beneficial to all. Shalom! CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill,
Thanks for your response.
I won't be going down rabbit holes over my post to you and Wolfgang. However, I address two at the same time, spoke to all, including myself.If you're not willing to "(go) down rabbit holes" over your posts, then I strongly encourage you not to begin digging them via accusations that one or more CD posters have bullied, insulted, and/or belittled other CD posters.
As for the accusation itself, when I asked you to quote support for it from my posts, I knew you wouldn't do so because your accusation was not true.
As for you, specifically, the example I cited above should suffice. In addition, the multiple repeating you didn't answer or engaged my text, etc. It doesn't look good to those on the outside.
You and I have different styles of engaging in issue debates, CM. I consider my approach in these forums to be faith-fueled, fact-based, and reason-driven. Posters who ask me a question, pose a hypothetical, or cite a text in their exchanges with me deserve a direct response, and they (almost always) will get one. Similarly, when I raise questions or cite texts, I believe I deserve a direct response. When I don't, I value accountability enough to point it out. And when people make false statements about me or the issue(s) under discussion, I value truth enough to point that out.
Mainly, the overall, tone of exchanges needs to be checked in these forums. My observations showed pages of posts could be consumed and nothing of substance said or accomplished. He's either unwilling, unable or chooses not to engage in the discussion of that topic or a continuation. You're a skilled debater (I sure you missed those old high school/college years). You know when enough is enough. What do you want from the man?
I take your point about the value of knowing when to say when. I exhibited that kind of decision making earlier in this thread when I declared that I would no longer respond to Dave's cited texts. But to me, this is a decision each of us must make individually, on a case by case basis.
Sometimes in life, we have to look beyond a person's faults and see their needs. That could be in anything. We are not all gifted or skilled equally. I expected greater discernment from the two of you. Better yet, especially, you.
In a single paragraph you question my discernment gift and you raise concern for the level of another CD poster's skills, gifts, and "needs." Let's call your paragraph another "rabbit hole" that you probably ought not dig any deeper.
Yes, you can be direct, frank, candid, etc., but let's be balanced. Show greater temperance (self-control) in your determination to get at the truth, to be right, or to expose error. The days of earth's history will come to an end, but today is not the day. Lighten up!
With due respect, CM, I encourage you to manage your posts, and allow me to manage mine.
I don't know Dave beyond what he has shared in these forums. What I do know, he's a man of years, self-studied, loves the Lord, and seeks to live for God, to the best of his knowledge as he understands Him. Dave loves sharing in these forums. Let's respect his contributions and faithfulness over the years.
In my view, these forums don't exist, at least primarily, to express respect for people's past years' contributions and faithfulness. They exist to exchange ideas on a range of topics, many biblical and theological, some social and political. Challenging questions, careful scrutiny of ideas, and reliance on accountability are all components of healthy such exchanges.
The warning flag has been waved, so let's take this discussion to PM. So send your dossier of condemnations there. Simply because enough time and space have been taken up in this thread from the topic. Let's be fair and respectful to the originator of it.
There's no reason to take this discussion to PM. You decided to use a public thread to accuse me of bullying, belittling, and insulting. At the very least, we should pursue your accusation's validity in a public thread. And so we are doing.
-
Bill,
Thanks, once again for your response. You made some valid points. I shared what I perceived in the forum where I saw it. It's obvious you don't agree with my perceptions. For this I am sorry. I guess things will remain the same.Clarifying your actions in these forums are better understood which I don't agree and obvious, once again, different from mine. So, we have a public understanding of each view and approaches in addressing matters in these forums.
I will see you around in the forums. Until next time on the topic of the OP, I will take heed to your suggestion above:
@Bill_Coley said:
With due respect, CM, I encourage you to manage your posts, and allow me to manage mine.
Bill, I would consider responding to any other points of concerns on this matter in a PM. Given the salient points from each of us have been made. That is, each of us loves sharing in these forums, but we approach people and topics from a completely different angle or directions.
With this said, I bid you wholeness of peace, health, and well-being. The End. CM
-
@C_M_ said:
Bill, I would consider responding to any other points of concerns on this matter in a PM. Given the salient points from each of us have been made. That is, each of us loves sharing in these forums, but we approach people and topics from a completely different angle or directions.
With this said, I bid you wholeness of peace, health, and well-being. The End. CM
Well said, CM. I welcome and appreciate the appropriate closure your post brings to this issue.
Blessings,
Bill -
there is nothing humorous about it ... rather it is a very sad matter that so many read this section as if it said something totally different and as if John was writing along the lines of ancient myhtology (cp. the Trinity "God-man" or "man-God" ideas)
Not at all ... John 1 does NOT teach that a human being can be God. If that were the case, it would be true of all human beings, which obviously it isn't.
No, it teaches God took on flesh as a man.
See above ... cp. for example Babylonian and Greek mythology "God-man" figures
Where does Scripture teach anything about such mythological idea of God becoming a human being?Indeed .... and since human beings can NOT be God, neither could Jesus have been.
This is a fallacy. We did not establish that human beings cannot also be God.
Well, "we" may not be doing so, "I" certainly do in accordance with the overall scope of OT and NT Scripture. I do not subscribe to the mythology ideas mentioned above.
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.
BUT, Jesus was not a normal everyday human. He was God taking on form of flesh. God can take on flesh as a human if he chooses, and He did.
You do realize that these ideas are exactly those ideas and concepts borrowed from ancient mythologies?!
- Yes, but it was not a natural conception and therefore is not bound by the normal rules you are trying to put forth.
Yes, is indeed correct and thus it is further proven that Jesus was NOT God, because God is certainly not conceived in a woman nor does a woman give birth to God.
According to what?
The overall testimony of Scripture ... mythologies know women who conceive by gods and give birth to god's
By the way, the manner of conception does NOT make any difference to what is being conceived and born of the woman. Or are you trying to tell us that a woman who conceived by artificial conception does NOT conceive a human being but some kind of "artificial" being ??
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.
-
@Wolfgang said:
there is nothing humorous about it ... rather it is a very sad matter that so many read this section as if it said something totally different and as if John was writing along the lines of ancient myhtology (cp. the Trinity "God-man" or "man-God" ideas)
Not at all ... John 1 does NOT teach that a human being can be God. If that were the case, it would be true of all human beings, which obviously it isn't.
No, it teaches God took on flesh as a man.
See above ... cp. for example Babylonian and Greek mythology "God-man" figures
Where does Scripture teach anything about such mythological idea of God becoming a human being?Indeed .... and since human beings can NOT be God, neither could Jesus have been.
This is a fallacy. We did not establish that human beings cannot also be God.
Well, "we" may not be doing so, "I" certainly do in accordance with the overall scope of OT and NT Scripture. I do not subscribe to the mythology ideas mentioned above.
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.
BUT, Jesus was not a normal everyday human. He was God taking on form of flesh. God can take on flesh as a human if he chooses, and He did.
You do realize that these ideas are exactly those ideas and concepts borrowed from ancient mythologies?!
- Yes, but it was not a natural conception and therefore is not bound by the normal rules you are trying to put forth.
Yes, is indeed correct and thus it is further proven that Jesus was NOT God, because God is certainly not conceived in a woman nor does a woman give birth to God.
According to what?
The overall testimony of Scripture ... mythologies know women who conceive by gods and give birth to god's
By the way, the manner of conception does NOT make any difference to what is being conceived and born of the woman. Or are you trying to tell us that a woman who conceived by artificial conception does NOT conceive a human being but some kind of "artificial" being ??
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.
But this creeps me out. If Jesus is merely a man and not God, then we are possessed by another human being who is not omnipresent. But Jesus, the omnipresent God inhabits all of those born of his Spirit.
-
@Dave_L said:
But this creeps me out. If Jesus is merely a man and not God, then we are possessed by another human being who is not omnipresent. But Jesus, the omnipresent God inhabits all of those born of his Spirit.I can't decide if that is creepy or humorous or both.
Get real about those who repeatedly reject the Gospel, Dave. We know what Heb 10:26 says:
"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins..." -
@Wolfgang said:
there is nothing humorous about it ... rather it is a very sad matter that so many read this section as if it said something totally different and as if John was writing along the lines of ancient myhtology (cp. the Trinity "God-man" or "man-God" ideas)
Not at all ... John 1 does NOT teach that a human being can be God. If that were the case, it would be true of all human beings, which obviously it isn't.
No, it teaches God took on flesh as a man.
See above ... cp. for example Babylonian and Greek mythology "God-man" figures
Where does Scripture teach anything about such mythological idea of God becoming a human being?John 1, Matthew, and Luke.
Indeed .... and since human beings can NOT be God, neither could Jesus have been.
This is a fallacy. We did not establish that human beings cannot also be God.
Well, "we" may not be doing so, "I" certainly do in accordance with the overall scope of OT and NT Scripture. I do not subscribe to the mythology ideas mentioned above.
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.
BUT, Jesus was not a normal everyday human. He was God taking on form of flesh. God can take on flesh as a human if he chooses, and He did.
You do realize that these ideas are exactly those ideas and concepts borrowed from ancient mythologies?!
No, they are ideas taken straight from Scripture.
- Yes, but it was not a natural conception and therefore is not bound by the normal rules you are trying to put forth.
Yes, is indeed correct and thus it is further proven that Jesus was NOT God, because God is certainly not conceived in a woman nor does a woman give birth to God.
According to what?
The overall testimony of Scripture ... mythologies know women who conceive by gods and give birth to god's
Scripture testifies that God was conceived in human form in the virgin Mary.
By the way, the manner of conception does NOT make any difference to what is being conceived and born of the woman. Or are you trying to tell us that a woman who conceived by artificial conception does NOT conceive a human being but some kind of "artificial" being ??
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. God can take on flesh and Scripture says he did.
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
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.But this creeps me out. If Jesus is merely a man and not God, then we are possessed by another human being who is not omnipresent. But Jesus, the omnipresent God inhabits all of those born of his Spirit.
Hmn ... the truth of Scripture "creeps you out" ? Your statement indicates to me only how "creepy" your mythology based Trinity doctrine really is
-
Here's a few trinitarian verses I ran across today. Not looking for them, but scripture is rich with them if you know how to spot them.
“Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds.” (John 14:10)
“Jesus replied, “If anyone lovesme, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him.” (John 14:23)
““I have spoken these things while staying with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will cause you to remember everything I said to you.” (John 14:25–26)
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
