Jesus, The Christ, Is God (Without Human-reasoning or Approval)
Comments
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
This following one of several verses cripples your position to the point that any further debate is useless.“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (NET)
Earlier in this thread, I responded specifically to your use of Jude 5. Here's what I posted:
Other manuscripts say "God" or "the Lord" saved the people out of Egypt. In fact, the vast majority of the translations in my Logos collection use "Lord," not "Jesus." In the context of the passage, given its reference to the exodus, "God" is most likely the original referent.
You chose not to respond to those observations at the time I originally posted them, Dave. Perhaps you will respond to them now.
The reading Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for Ἰησοῦς (though 𝔓72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ“] for Ἰησοῦς). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA27 for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424c 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading Ἰησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate.
sn The construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule (see note on Lord). The construction strongly implies the deity of Christ. This is followed by a statement that Jesus was involved in the salvation (and later judgment) of the Hebrews. He is thus to be identified with the Lord God, Yahweh. Verse 5, then, simply fleshes out what is implicit in v. 4.
Biblical Studies Press. (2005). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.
So take your pick. I believe the critical apparatus in Nestle Aland 27 and 28 both show "Jesus" to be the better translation. And it also squares with the use of Kurios in place of YHWH in the LXX. This is a NET bible note based on the critical apparatus.
-
11 Reasons to Affirm the Deity of Christ
NATHAN BUSENITZ | MAY 23, 2016In early church history, one of the biggest theological debates centered on the deity of Jesus Christ. There are still groups that deny His deity today, from Muslims (who say Jesus was merely a prophet) to Jehovah’s Witnesses (who insist that He is not equal to the Father).
By contrast, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God.
Here are eleven lines of evidence that affirm the doctrine of Christ’s deity, with corresponding biblical references:1 The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would be God (Isaiah 9:6; Matt. 1:23)
2 Jesus claimed a heavenly preexistence (John 6:62; 8:23; 16:28; 17:5)
3 Jesus assumed divine authority:
Over the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5)
Over the forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5–11)
Over people’s eternal destinies (John 8:24; cf. Luke 12:8–9; John 5:22, 27–29)
4 Jesus exercised divine authority
Over demons (Mark 1:2–27; 3:11; 5:1–20)
Over disease and death (Mark 1:29–31; 40–45; 5:25–43; 8:22–26; etc.)
Over the natural world (Luke 5:1–11; 8:22–25; 9:10–17; etc.)
5 Jesus claimed ownership over that which belongs only to God:
The kingdom of God (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; cf. Luke 1:33)
The elect of God (Matt. 24:30–31)
The angels of God (Matt. 13:41; 24:30–31)
6 Jesus claimed the right to receive worship and the ability to answer prayer (John 14:13–14; cf. Acts 7:59; 9:10–17; Rev. 1:17)
7 Jesus called Himself the Son of Man, a title with divine implications from the Old Testament (cf. Dan. 7:13–14)
8 Jesus also called Himself the Son of God, a title His opponents understood as a claim to deity (Matt. 27:43; John 5:18; 10:46; 19:7)
9 Jesus called Himself “I Am,” thereby applying the Old Testament name Yahweh to Himself (John 8:58; cf. cf. John 6:51; 10:9, 11; 11:25; 14:6; 15:1).
10 Jesus claimed absolute unity with the Father, such that He could tell His disciples, “If you’ve seen Me, you’ve seen the Father” (John 14:9–10; cf. John 10:30; 12:45).
11 The rest of the New Testament affirms that Jesus is God (John 1:1; Acts 20:28; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 1:24; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15–16; 2:9; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:3, 8; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20)
Nathan Busenitz is the Dean of faculty at The Master’s Seminary.
-
@Dave_L said:
If you do not understand the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ, you will never understand scripture. We can pick at verses here and there, which we've done for years to no avail, the outcome will remain the same.It would not in my case IF you had a case and could show from Scripture that it teaches a "Holy Trinity" dogma or teaches that Jesus is God. I would in fact change IF there were textual and contextual support for your position.
This following one of several verses cripples your position to the point that any further debate is useless.
“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (NET)
You chose to use one particular English translation which translates this passage to make it look as if Jesus of Nazareth had already been around and living and leading the children of Israel out of Egypt.
It has been pointed out to you that the vast majority of English translations, as well as other language translations with which I am familiar (German, French), all do NOT have the word "Jesus" in the text but - basing their translation on different ancient manuscripts - have the word "LORD" (some have "Lord"). That translation is actually in harmony with what the OT records about this event also teach, whereas the reading "Jesus" (as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth) is erroneous and utterly ludicrous!!Jesus was not leading anyone anywhere at the time out of Egypt, as a matter of fact, it was one of his ancestors (Judah ... cp Mt 1:1-17) who experienced that event.
As for the manuscript which has the word which these translators (most likely with big trinity colored glasses on) translated as "Jesus", it could be that the word actually is a reference to the OT "Joshua" (rather than the NT "Jesus") since Joshua indeed was involved with leading Israel part of the exodus from Egypt to the promised land after the death of Moses.
Overall, the reading for "LORD" (rather than "Jesus") found in most manuscripts would ne in harmony with the rest of Scripture and logically and harmoniously fit with the overall teaching of Scripture.
Now, you tell me please, why these textual arguments and the overall context considerations would be incorrect and not in harmony with the Biblical Scriptures overall so that you would not want to change your position on the interpretation of this verse ... I am looking forward to what you have to say about this and what reason(s) you give for maintaining your position!
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
If you do not understand the Trinity, or the Deity of Christ, you will never understand scripture. We can pick at verses here and there, which we've done for years to no avail, the outcome will remain the same.It would not in my case IF you had a case and could show from Scripture that it teaches a "Holy Trinity" dogma or teaches that Jesus is God. I would in fact change IF there were textual and contextual support for your position.
This following one of several verses cripples your position to the point that any further debate is useless.
“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) (NET)
You chose to use one particular English translation which translates this passage to make it look as if Jesus of Nazareth had already been around and living and leading the children of Israel out of Egypt.
It has been pointed out to you that the vast majority of English translations, as well as other language translations with which I am familiar (German, French), all do NOT have the word "Jesus" in the text but - basing their translation on different ancient manuscripts - have the word "LORD" (some have "Lord"). That translation is actually in harmony with what the OT records about this event also teach, whereas the reading "Jesus" (as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth) is erroneous and utterly ludicrous!!Jesus was not leading anyone anywhere at the time out of Egypt, as a matter of fact, it was one of his ancestors (Judah ... cp Mt 1:1-17) who experienced that event.
As for the manuscript which has the word which these translators (most likely with big trinity colored glasses on) translated as "Jesus", it could be that the word actually is a reference to the OT "Joshua" (rather than the NT "Jesus") since Joshua indeed was involved with leading Israel part of the exodus from Egypt to the promised land after the death of Moses.
Overall, the reading for "LORD" (rather than "Jesus") found in most manuscripts would ne in harmony with the rest of Scripture and logically and harmoniously fit with the overall teaching of Scripture.
Now, you tell me please, why these textual arguments and the overall context considerations would be incorrect and not in harmony with the Biblical Scriptures overall so that you would not want to change your position on the interpretation of this verse ... I am looking forward to what you have to say about this and what reason(s) you give for maintaining your position!
What stands out in your views are the similarities you and Bill share with the Pharisees, when it comes to Christ not being God. And Jesus says God blinded them so they could not see. And Paul says, to them the veil remained over the OT scriptures. Many of these foretold Christ's divinity. Even till this day, these blinded exist as a extremely dangerous false religion, only because they could not perceive Christ's divinity. Think about it. WWIII is now likely solely because this group could not see Christ's divinity in scripture.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
RC Sproul writes about this in his Crucial Questions series about God being one in essence and three in person.So what? Did I ask RC Sproul? I don't think so .... IF he was on this forum and had written, I would have asked him ... Why should I read what he said, when I don't have a conversation with him and he can't answer men nor explain things to me?
Why are you so rude and lazy when someone suggests a resource for you to read to better understand a subject?
-
@Dave_L said:
@Wolfgang said:
Now, you tell me please, why these textual arguments and the overall context considerations would be incorrect and not in harmony with the Biblical Scriptures overall so that you would not want to change your position on the interpretation of this verse ... I am looking forward to what you have to say about this and what reason(s) you give for maintaining your position!What stands out in your views are the similarities you and Bill share with the Pharisees, when it comes to Christ not being God.
That Christ was and is not God is what Jesus himself and his apostles taught and what Christ himself, his apostles and their disciples and followers believed ...
Your allusion to the Pharisees is another loony tune ... of course, the Pharisees - as any of the Jews, accepting Christ or rejecting him, knew from Scripture and believed that the Messiah was to be A MAN, and they also believed that God was only ONE single SPIRIT Being. Thus, the idea of Jesus being God, would be (rightfully so) "insane" and would have never even been considered in any way.
The Pharisee's problem had NOTHING to do with not believing in "God Jesus", rather their problem was that they rejected Jesus as being that human being whom God had sent as the Messiah.And Jesus says God blinded them so they could not see. And Paul says, to them the veil remained over the OT scriptures. Many of these foretold Christ's divinity. Even till this day, these blinded exist as a extremely dangerous false religion, only because they could not perceive Christ's divinity. Think about it. WWIII is now likely solely because this group could not see Christ's divinity in scripture.
Your mixing of scriptures is worse than an incompetent bar dude not knowing how to mix a drink.
-
@Dave_L said:
What stands out in your views are the similarities you and Bill share with the Pharisees, when it comes to Christ not being God. And Jesus says God blinded them so they could not see. And Paul says, to them the veil remained over the OT scriptures. Many of these foretold Christ's divinity. Even till this day, these blinded exist as a extremely dangerous false religion, only because they could not perceive Christ's divinity. Think about it. WWIII is now likely solely because this group could not see Christ's divinity in scripture.And yet again, Dave - this time to Wolfgang - you display your unwillingness to engage in serious discussion of issues, or to address directly the questions posters raise to you. Instead, you reply to Wolfgang's thoughtful textual analysis with judgmental, unfounded, and unsubstantiated criticism.
In my view, among the strongest reasons to question the accuracy of your (and others' in these forums) Trinitarian views is your predictable, almost guaranteed, refusal to address head-on the texts and issues we raise. Rather than answering questions or interpreting texts, you tell us simply that since Jesus was God (the conclusion) all texts we cite mean Jesus was God... even if they don't seem to.
At some point - and I think that point is now - the fact that we routinely engage EVERY text you cite, and you choose not to engage ANY of the texts we cite must mean something. What I think it means is that the biblical foundation for our point of view about the divinity of Jesus is stronger than the biblical foundation for your point of view.
If I'm wrong, Dave, prove it. Don't tell me I'm wrong, or that my views are like the Pharisees'. Show me. Directly engage the many texts I have proffered to you and show me how they don't say what I say they say,and how they in fact support your view of the divinity of Jesus.
-
@reformed said:
Why are you so rude and lazy when someone suggests a resource for you to read to better understand a subject?Consider it "rude and lazy" if you like ... I would not consider what I wrote to be rude nor the result of laziness.
Have you seen me to refer others to some book or work because I did not want to answer a question asked of me? No! Instead, I have spent quite some time explaining my reasoning and understanding of verses and passages in order to accommodate those to whom I was replying and have a detailed conversation. What do I get in reply? Oh, "read RC Sproul" ... so then, who is lazy here?
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
Why are you so rude and lazy when someone suggests a resource for you to read to better understand a subject?Consider it "rude and lazy" if you like ... I would not consider what I wrote to be rude nor the result of laziness.
Have you seen me to refer others to some book or work because I did not want to answer a question asked of me? No! Instead, I have spent quite some time explaining my reasoning and understanding of verses and passages in order to accommodate those to whom I was replying and have a detailed conversation. What do I get in reply? Oh, "read RC Sproul" ... so then, who is lazy here?
If not lazy it was definitely rude whether you think so or not. Someone gave a legitimate response and you trashed them for suggesting you do some research on the matter.
-
The fact remains, Bill and Wolfgang believe exactly like the Pharisees concerning Christ's divinity. If Jesus could not reason with them, standing in front of them, working miracles, raising the dead, how can anyone expect to reason with you?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@Dave_L said:
What stands out in your views are the similarities you and Bill share with the Pharisees, when it comes to Christ not being God. And Jesus says God blinded them so they could not see. And Paul says, to them the veil remained over the OT scriptures. Many of these foretold Christ's divinity. Even till this day, these blinded exist as a extremely dangerous false religion, only because they could not perceive Christ's divinity. Think about it. WWIII is now likely solely because this group could not see Christ's divinity in scripture.And yet again, Dave - this time to Wolfgang - you display your unwillingness to engage in serious discussion of issues, or to address directly the questions posters raise to you. Instead, you reply to Wolfgang's thoughtful textual analysis with judgmental, unfounded, and unsubstantiated criticism.
In my view, among the strongest reasons to question the accuracy of your (and others' in these forums) Trinitarian views is your predictable, almost guaranteed, refusal to address head-on the texts and issues we raise. Rather than answering questions or interpreting texts, you tell us simply that since Jesus was God (the conclusion) all texts we cite mean Jesus was God... even if they don't seem to.
What refusal to address texts do I still have outstanding? I believe I answered the ones you submitted to me unless I missed one.
-
@C_M_ said:
Jesus is God-- Proof!
1. He Is Worshiped by the Angels
Jesus receives worship from the angels upon his entry into the heavenly world (Heb. 1:6). The fact that the angels are commanded by God to worship Jesus signifies that Jesus himself is God.
The text appears to be taken from Deut 32:43 LXX, or less likely, Ps 96:7 LXX. The uncertainty of the source of the citation stems from the fact that the quotation in Hebrews corresponds to no known extant version.
The author of Hebrews now, however, applies the verse to Jesus; the angels are urged to worship the Son. Attridge suggests that the removal of the quotation from its original context made the (Gk.) "auto" ambiguous, allowing the author to apply the verse to Jesus.
----------------------- -------------- ----------- -------------
We continue, Jesus is the Christ (A view from Hebrews)...
The appointment of Chris as (high) priest (Heb. 5:1-10; 7:1- 28). Hebrews gives a rich Christology.
In Heb. 1:1-14, the Son. Christ is referred to as Son (see Heb. 1:2, 5, 8).
Jesus is an eschatological divine messenger. The eschatological language is found in the expression “in these last days” (ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων) (Heb. 1:2). It clearly states “God has spoken to us in a Son,” (Heb.1:2)
- The divine appointed Heir of all things (πάντων) (Heb.1:2).
The Intermediary Agent (δι’ οὗ) of the creation of the world (αἰῶνας) (Heb. 1:2; See also v. Heb. 1:10). A deeper look into the words " the world" (αἰῶνας). This term has four meanings:
- (1) “a long period of time, without ref. to beginning or end”
- (2) “a segment of time as a particular unit of history, age”
- (3) “the world as a spatial concept, the world”
- (4) “the Aeon as a person, the Aeon.” The third meaning is assigned to αἰῶνας in Heb 1:2. It should be also noted that the NJB translates it as "ages" and NIV as the "universe."
The Sustainer (verb φέρω) of everything (τὰ πάντα) (Heb.1:3). This verb appears in the participle form (“sustaining,” NIV, NJB). For further information regarding the meaning of this verb, see sources below.
Furthermore, He as the Son is God (Heb. 1:8-9; See also v. 3) and co-regent king (Heb. 1:3, 8- 9, 13; See also v. 5).
The priesthood is alluded to in the purification of sins performed by the Son (Heb. 1:3). In this way, Christ’s intermediary role includes:
- Soteriology (dealing with sins)
- Protology (creation)
- Eschatological divine revelation.
- His priesthood is more related to the intermediary role of dealing with sins, and this role necessarily requires His human incarnation, a topic to be discussed later. Christ’s priesthood includes priestly actions in a world without sin, before and after the existence of the sin problem.
There is much truth to be had. Truth found truth shared. CM
SOURCES:
-- Brian C. Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews, Biblical Interpretation Series (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2014), 2-14.
-- Harris L. MacNeill, The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1914).
-- Kevin B. McCruden, Solidarity Perfected: Beneficent Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008).
-- Harm H. Meeter, The Heavenly High Priesthood of Christ: An Exegetico-Dogmatic Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans-Sevensma, 1916).
-- Alexander Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood: Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1915). IF INTERESTED, I CAN provide several other sources for the reader of German on an overview of methodological approaches to the study of the Christology of Hebrews (Send a PM).
-- See George H. Guthrie, “The Structure of Hebrews Revisited,” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Washington, DC, 2006), https://hebrews.unibas.ch/documents/2006 GuthrieH.pdf (accessed 28 December, 2016), 2 (Figure 2: the Structure of the Book of Hebrews).
-- Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Oxford, 1907, pp 32-33, 1052.
-
Yes, indeed Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the human being whom God appointed and sent to be the Messiah (Christ) and to accomplish what God had designed for the Messiah to fulfill in regards to man's redemption and salvation.
This fact alone, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah PROVES that Jesus is NOT God. The Messiah (Christ) is NOT God Himself, but is a human being whom God has sent.
-
@Wolfgang said:
Yes, indeed Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the human being whom God appointed and sent to be the Messiah (Christ) and to accomplish what God had designed for the Messiah to fulfill in regards to man's redemption and salvation.
This fact alone, that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah PROVES that Jesus is NOT God. The Messiah (Christ) is NOT God Himself, but is a human being whom God has sent.
How does the fact that Christ is the Messiah prove He is not God?
-
@reformed said:
How does the fact that Christ is the Messiah prove He is not God?In at least two ways:
1) Because when New Testament writers declare Jesus to be the Messiah (or "Christ"), they most frequently do so in a way that makes a clear distinction between the Messiah (Jesus) and the one who sent the Messiah (God). In my view, Peter presents a very clear such distinction between the two in his Acts 2 sermon: (Acts 2.36, emphasis added)
- "36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 2:36). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Surely there is a distinction between the person who is the "Christ" and the one who makes that person the Christ.
2) Because the vast majority of NT references to the Messiah address the term as an office or role, not as a personal name. It's "the Messiah," (e.g. Acts 17.3; John 10.24; Mark 1.1) where "Messiah" is a position, an office Jesus holds. Jesus is the Messiah, whereas claims that he was God would most naturally have been communicated without the definitive article: e.g. Peter would have said, God made him God; religious leaders would have asked Jesus whether he was God, not whether he was the Messiah or "the son of God".
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
How does the fact that Christ is the Messiah prove He is not God?In at least two ways:
1) Because when New Testament writers declare Jesus to be the Messiah (or "Christ"), they most frequently do so in a way that makes a clear distinction between the Messiah (Jesus) and the one who sent the Messiah (God). In my view, Peter presents a very clear such distinction between the two in his Acts 2 sermon: (Acts 2.36, emphasis added)
- "36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Ac 2:36). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Surely there is a distinction between the person who is the "Christ" and the one who makes that person the Christ.
2) Because the vast majority of NT references to the Messiah address the term as an office or role, not as a personal name. It's "the Messiah," (e.g. Acts 17.3; John 10.24; Mark 1.1) where "Messiah" is a position, an office Jesus holds. Jesus is the Messiah, whereas claims that he was God would most naturally have been communicated without the definitive article: e.g. Peter would have said, God made him God; religious leaders would have asked Jesus whether he was God, not whether he was the Messiah or "the son of God".
This just shows the duality of Christ. It in no way supports a notion that he is not God. Only if you read into the text does it do that.
-
@reformed said:
This just shows the duality of Christ. It in no way supports a notion that he is not God. Only if you read into the text does it do that.Where in the texts to which I referred do you find reference to "the duality of Christ"? (And given your response to me, I assume that the references you point out will not be the result of your "read(ing) into the text(s).")
-
According to your ideas, Reformed, Is the one who sends someone identical to the one who is being sent? Is God the seed of the woman (cp Gen 3:15) Did God begat Himself in Mary, who thus then is God's mother?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
This just shows the duality of Christ. It in no way supports a notion that he is not God. Only if you read into the text does it do that.Where in the texts to which I referred do you find reference to "the duality of Christ"? (And given your response to me, I assume that the references you point out will not be the result of your "read(ing) into the text(s).")
I wonder how anyone reads "a duality of Christ" in those texts to which you pointed ... I've found no manuscript evidence nor English or German translations which have such a thing anywhere ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
I wonder how anyone reads "a duality of Christ" in those texts to which you pointed ... I've found no manuscript evidence nor English or German translations which have such a thing anywhere ...In the texts I cited, I find no reference to the duality to which reformed refers, which is why I've asked him to point it out in his next reply.
I think the texts are clear - as is John 20.17, by the way, which you cited in another thread - but I look forward to reformed's "duality" analysis.
-
@Wolfgang said:
According to your ideas, Reformed, Is the one who sends someone identical to the one who is being sent? Is God the seed of the woman (cp Gen 3:15) Did God begat Himself in Mary, who thus then is God's mother?
The Father did not send himself, he sent the son. Nobody is God's mother.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
This just shows the duality of Christ. It in no way supports a notion that he is not God. Only if you read into the text does it do that.Where in the texts to which I referred do you find reference to "the duality of Christ"? (And given your response to me, I assume that the references you point out will not be the result of your "read(ing) into the text(s).")
You have to interpret Scripture with Scripture and take all of Scripture together, not just isolated verses.
-
@reformed said:
You have to interpret Scripture with Scripture and take all of Scripture together, not just isolated verses.In other words, the texts I cited indeed make no reference to - actually, give no hint of - "the duality of Christ," making it a theme discerned in those texts only by reading it into them from select other texts. Yes?
-
@Bill_Coley said:
@reformed said:
You have to interpret Scripture with Scripture and take all of Scripture together, not just isolated verses.In other words, the texts I cited indeed make no reference to - actually, give no hint of - "the duality of Christ," making it a theme discerned in those texts only by reading it into them from select other texts. Yes?
No, they talk about part of Christ's nature, other texts, like John 1, talk about the other part of his nature. That's not reading into anything.
-
@reformed said:
No, they talk about part of Christ's nature, other texts, like John 1, talk about the other part of his nature. That's not reading into anything.Where in ANY of the texts I cited do you find ANY indication that the speaker or writer believes that his references to Jesus report only "part of (his) nature"? When in Acts 2.36 Peter says God made Jesus Lord and Messiah, how is that anything other than a clear and intentional distinction between God and Jesus? Peter doesn't say one part of God made another part of God Lord and Messiah. Peter says God made Jesus.
Peter makes essentially the same distinction in his Matthew 16 confession to Jesus, when asked who he thinks Jesus is:
20 Then he asked them, “But who do you say I am?”
Peter replied, “You are the Messiah sent from God!”Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Lk 9:20). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Peter believes Jesus is the Messiah God sent. He doesn't believe Jesus IS God.
And again in 1 Peter 1:
He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
The New International Version. (2011). (1 Pe 1:20–21). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
God chose Jesus before the creation of the world. Through Jesus, they believe in God, the one who raised and glorified Jesus. The distinction between the two is clear.
Jesus himself makes the distinction in John 17:
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
The New International Version. (2011). (Jn 20:17). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
And also in John 7:
16 So Jesus told them, “My message is not my own; it comes from God who sent me. 17 Anyone who wants to do the will of God will know whether my teaching is from God or is merely my own. 18 Those who speak for themselves want glory only for themselves, but a person who seeks to honor the one who sent him speaks truth, not lies.
Tyndale House Publishers. (2013). Holy Bible: New Living Translation (Jn 7:16–18). Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
It's God's message, not his message (remember Gethsemane: "not my will, God, but your will be done") Again and again, even from Jesus, the distinction between between God and Jesus is obvious. Do you argue that Jesus himself doesn't know who he is?
Your only case seems to be a small number of verses in John, by which, you assert, other verses must be interpreted. But why doesn't that small number of verses in John have to be interpreted by the vast majority of verses in the NT where the author OR JESUS HIMSELF makes an unambiguous separation between God and the Jesus God sent, raised, and glorified? Why does the small number of verses reverse the clear meaning of the vast majority of verses? Why doesn't the vast majority of verses reverse the clear meaning of the small number of verses?
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
According to your ideas, Reformed, Is the one who sends someone identical to the one who is being sent? Is God the seed of the woman (cp Gen 3:15) Did God begat Himself in Mary, who thus then is God's mother?The Father did not send himself, he sent the son. Nobody is God's mother.
Is the Father God? Is the son God? IF your answer to both questions is "yes", then Mary conceived and gave birth to God, thus becoming the mother of God. Furthermore, God did send God. Now, IF God did not send Himself, then one God sent a different God and you actually are talking about TWO Gods.
The only true answer out of the dilemma created by answering "yes" to the questions (Is the Father God? Is the son God?) is to acknowledge the truth of Jesus' very own words, as recorded in John 17:3, that THE FATHER ALONE is the true God.
-
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
According to your ideas, Reformed, Is the one who sends someone identical to the one who is being sent? Is God the seed of the woman (cp Gen 3:15) Did God begat Himself in Mary, who thus then is God's mother?The Father did not send himself, he sent the son. Nobody is God's mother.
Is the Father God? Is the son God? IF your answer to both questions is "yes", then Mary conceived and gave birth to God, thus becoming the mother of God. Furthermore, God did send God. Now, IF God did not send Himself, then one God sent a different God and you actually are talking about TWO Gods.
If it were a normal natural conception you would be right. But it was not.
The only true answer out of the dilemma created by answering "yes" to the questions (Is the Father God? Is the son God?) is to acknowledge the truth of Jesus' very own words, as recorded in John 17:3, that THE FATHER ALONE is the true God.
And in that same book it says Jesus himself is God and he and the Father are one.
-
Something I think we overlook is that the first three gospels do not boldly proclaim Jesus' deity. It is there, but not too noticeable to the reader. And then John boldly proclaims Jesus' divinity in his opening verses. And even after his resurrection Jesus needed to open the disciples understanding of the OT scriptures, before they could realize the prophecies they read all of their lives had been fulfilled in him.
But by the time we finish the NT canon, Christ's deity becomes obvious. As Paul said during the tongues era, we now see darkly but then face to face. And the trail of Christological creeds followed, making clear the trinity and deity of Christ to any open minded who consider them.
-
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Is the Father God? Is the son God? IF your answer to both questions is "yes", then Mary conceived and gave birth to God, thus becoming the mother of God. Furthermore, God did send God. Now, IF God did not send Himself, then one God sent a different God and you actually are talking about TWO Gods.If it were a normal natural conception you would be right. But it was not.
What does the conception have to do with the questions I asked?
Again: Is the Father God? Is the son God? what is your answer to these rather simple questions? Did Mary conceive and give birth to the son?IF your answer to these questions is "yes", then you affirm that Mary is the mother of God, and you affirm that God did send Himself. If God did not send Himself, then you are talking about TWO Gods.
The only true answer out of the dilemma created by answering "yes" to the questions (Is the Father God? Is the son God?) is to acknowledge the truth of Jesus' very own words, as recorded in John 17:3, that THE FATHER ALONE is the true God.
And in that same book it says Jesus himself is God and he and the Father are one.
So then, are you saying Jesus did not know what he was talking about? actually, it looks as if you would think that God was praying and talking to God and making false statements in his prayer?
Where does the text say in the same book that Jesus is God? -
@Wolfgang said:
@reformed said:
@Wolfgang said:
Is the Father God? Is the son God? IF your answer to both questions is "yes", then Mary conceived and gave birth to God, thus becoming the mother of God. Furthermore, God did send God. Now, IF God did not send Himself, then one God sent a different God and you actually are talking about TWO Gods.If it were a normal natural conception you would be right. But it was not.
What does the conception have to do with the questions I asked?
Again: Is the Father God? Is the son God? what is your answer to these rather simple questions? Did Mary conceive and give birth to the son?Yes both are God. Mary is irrelevant to that discussion.
IF your answer to these questions is "yes", then you affirm that Mary is the mother of God, and you affirm that God did send Himself. If God did not send Himself, then you are talking about TWO Gods.
No, Mary carried God in the flesh but is not his mother in the way you are trying to make it sound. It is not two Gods it is two persons of the one God.
The only true answer out of the dilemma created by answering "yes" to the questions (Is the Father God? Is the son God?) is to acknowledge the truth of Jesus' very own words, as recorded in John 17:3, that THE FATHER ALONE is the true God.
And in that same book it says Jesus himself is God and he and the Father are one.
So then, are you saying Jesus did not know what he was talking about? actually, it looks as if you would think that God was praying and talking to God and making false statements in his prayer?
Where does the text say in the same book that Jesus is God?John 1. And nothing Jesus did NOT say the Father alone is God. You read that into the text.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
