Attributes of God

C Mc

Christ pleased not Himself.' He unveils before us the love of the Father for the guilty race and presents Him as just and the justifier of him that believeth. Jesus did nothing for Himself; His work was in behalf of fallen man. In sacrificing Himself for the good of men. He assumed our nature that He might suffer in our stead.

The book of Proverbs illustrated Jesus' true life of humility. True humility recognizes the need and fulfills God's purpose by accepting His grace and depending on His strength (Prov. 16:19; 22:4).

God ultimately comes to earth as a simple man (Phil. 2:5-8). The first purpose of God in the incarnation was to reveal himself (John 1:18).

Jesus was incarnated within a culture and a people. He was born in Bethlehem as a Jew from Jewish parents who belonged to the tribes of Judah and Levi. According to the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the ancestors of Yeshua were from the tribe of Judah, and in the Gospel of Luke Myriam, his mother, visited her relatives, the parents of Yochanan (John) who were Levites. Zachariah was even officiating in the Temple when he was visited by the angel. He was named for one of the great heroes of the Bible time, Yehoshua (Joshua).

The sacrifices are symbols of the sacrifice to come: that of the Messiah himself. “Surely he carried our griefs and bore our sorrows; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed” (Is 53:4-5 NASB).

Sacrifice brings up the question of justice. How can human beings consider that someone dying for them could be an “act of justice?” If I am the sinner, and the sinner has to die, then why should someone else die instead of me? This dilemma can only be understood if people comprehend what God said in Isaiah 43, “You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. “I, even I, am the LORD; And there is no savior besides Me” (10-11 NASB).

There is no savior beside God, the savior is God himself. The salvation of humanity cannot be entrusted to any human person. It would have to be God, whose death would be sacrifice enough for all people. This is the central mystery of the Christian faith, which can only be understood by way of the law and the prophets. That is why when Jews are prophetically looking at the one they have pierced, they are looking at God himself (Zech. 12:10 NASB).

God, then, is one with the Messiah, and the sign of that unity is the miracle of his incarnation on earth. He became like one of us in order to save us, as Paul observed (Phil. 2:5-11 NASB).

Let me make clear at this point, Jesus Is Only One Among Many Other Messiahs. Sandmel states, “Jesus was neither the first nor the last Messiah in the long history of Judaism by whom or for whom the claim was made that he was the long-awaited Jewish Messiah” (See source, pg 32).

Historically, it is correct that Yeshua was not the only one who was declared “Messiah.” The New Testament openly testifies that Messiahs had proclaimed themselves before, and had proved false. Rabbi Gamaliel speaking to the Sanhedrin reminds people of Theudas and Judas of Galilee in Acts 5:36-37. After the time of the Gospels, the most famous Messiahs in Jewish history have been Bar Chochba, Sabbatai Zevi, and the Rabbi of Lubavitch (upon request for more). CM

SOURCE:

-- Sandmel, Samuel (Rabbi). 2006. We Jews and Jesus: Exploring Theological Differences for Mutual Understanding. Woodstock, VT: SkyLight Paths Publishing.

[Deleted User]

I have no clue what this article is supposed to contribute to the topic being discussed here ...

[Deleted User]

@Wolfgang said:
I have no clue what this article is supposed to contribute to the topic being discussed here ...

@C_M ... something which perhaps contributes or causes me to miss what you are trying to say may actually be that I can't really figure out if your whole post or only parts of it are quoted from the source you then mention at the end of your post. The way your post reads, it appears to me that all of the post is a quote from the source you mentioned, but is this the case? or are there parts of your posts which are actually your own words and only certain sections are from the referenced work of the author Samuel Sandmel (Rabbi)??
Perhaps you can clarify?

C Mc

@Wolfgang said:

@Wolfgang said:
I have no clue what this article is supposed to contribute to the topic being discussed here ...

@C_M ... something which perhaps contributes or causes me to miss what you are trying to say may actually be that I can't really figure out if your whole post or only parts of it are quoted from the source you then mention at the end of your post. The way your post reads, it appears to me that all of the post is a quote from the source you mentioned, but is this the case? or are there parts of your posts which are actually your own words and only certain sections are from the referenced work of the author Samuel Sandmel (Rabbi)??
Perhaps you can clarify?

The whole post is not from the source that's mentioned at the end of the post. It's a combination of other sources, my words and only certain sections are from the referenced work of the author Samuel Sandmel (Rabbi).

For one who shows little or no interests in references, and/or has almost contempt for sources, other than posters' own words, I ask, why? I think the greater points are:

• Do you agree with the message given on the subject matter?
• Did the information cause you to rethink your positions?
• Did you receive a clearer understanding of others point of view?
• Are you willing to share sources of your conclusive expressions? I am sure they are not from the abyss.

I gave the major sources. I am not sharing for a degree or publication. I share thoughts I agree with, points of disagreeing, and ones who share and can say my sentiments better than I can. This is no secret or grand discovery. Some sources I shared are to expand the conversation, understanding, and broaden one's horizon beyond the limited posts and views. No one knows it all, even if some in CD thinks so. I hope you can appreciate this.

In my view, each CD User brings something unique to these forums-- a talent, a skill, an understanding, etc. The last I checked, there are no racial/religious pedigree or scholarly acuity requirements to participate. So, enjoy what each has to offer. Think, share or, not...CM

PS. What are the attributes of God beyond those aforementioned? CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

@Wolfgang said:
@C_M ... something which perhaps contributes or causes me to miss what you are trying to say may actually be that I can't really figure out if your whole post or only parts of it are quoted from the source you then mention at the end of your post. The way your post reads, it appears to me that all of the post is a quote from the source you mentioned, but is this the case? or are there parts of your posts which are actually your own words and only certain sections are from the referenced work of the author Samuel Sandmel (Rabbi)??
Perhaps you can clarify?

The whole post is not from the source that's mentioned at the end of the post. It's a combination of other sources, my words and only certain sections are from the referenced work of the author Samuel Sandmel (Rabbi).

I find this a bit misleading and making it really impossible to properly reply. In case you have not noticed, it is rather important for a correct understanding if what one reads that it is clear as to who is saying what and in reply to whom, etc ...

For one who shows little or no interests in references, and/or has almost contempt for sources, other than posters' own words, I ask, why?

See above ... don't you think it would be necessary for someone reading what in your post are actually YOUR words and which are words from someone else?

I think the greater points are:

• Do you agree with the message given on the subject matter?
• Did the information cause you to rethink your positions?
• Did you receive a clearer understanding of others point of view?
• Are you willing to share sources of your conclusive expressions? I am sure they are not from the abyss.

Once you identify who wrote what, I may be able to intelligently answer those questions.

I gave the major sources. I am not sharing for a degree or publication. I share thoughts I agree with, points of disagreeing, and ones who share and can say my sentiments better than I can.

But unfortunately, it is not clear from your post which points you disagree with, which points you agree with, etc ...thus nobody can really reply to you properly ... because it could even be possible that you have nothing to do with what is being answered.

This is no secret or grand discovery. Some sources I shared are to expand the conversation, understanding, and broaden one's horizon beyond the limited posts and views. No one knows it all, even if some in CD thinks so. I hope you can appreciate this.

Great ... but why not make it possible for a reader to actually be able to follow what you are saying and why you are quoting from someone else, etc .... What is so difficult to write something like, "I believe such and such, and have arrived at my conviction because what Dr. So and So wrote in such and such book, in particular his argument : quote quote quote..." ???

In my view, each CD User brings something unique to these forums-- a talent, a skill, an understanding, etc. The last I checked, there are no racial/religious pedigree or scholarly acuity requirements to participate. So, enjoy what each has to offer. Think, share or, not...CM

Indeed ...

PS. What are the attributes of God beyond those aforementioned? CM

Aforementioned where? to which ones are you referring?

C Mc

Wolfgang,
You remind me of dogs at a race track, the faster the dogs run, the more the operator speeds up the mechanical rabbit. You can't be satisfied. You want everyone to be like you. Drive your train and do your thing. Have you so soon forgotten:

@C_M_ said:
In my view, each CD User brings something unique to these forums-- a talent, a skill, an understanding, etc. The last I checked, there are no racial/religious pedigree or scholarly acuity requirements to participate...CM

Your spirit of distrust and unwillingness to accept what's given setting the stage for a nebulous back and forth to distract and deviate from the matter at hand. In short, you don't drive this train. [Enjoy what each has to offer. Think, share or, NOT...] CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:
Wolfgang,
You remind me of dogs at a race track, the faster the dogs run, the more the operator speeds up the mechanical rabbit. You can't be satisfied. You want everyone to be like you. Drive your train and do your thing. Have you so soon forgotten:

@C_M_ said:
In my view, each CD User brings something unique to these forums-- a talent, a skill, an understanding, etc. The last I checked, there are no racial/religious pedigree or scholarly acuity requirements to participate...CM

I have not forgotten ... instead, I agreed with you in that I replied to your paragraph with "Indeed ..." ... Have you not read?

Your spirit of distrust and unwillingness to accept what's given setting the stage for a nebulous back and forth to distract and deviate from the matter at hand.

Now, where did I deviate from the matter at hand? Can you please substantiate your claim?

As far as I remember, I have replied to your posts in detail, providing comment and answers or else asking questions about the contents in your posts, and I have done so by also leaving quotes from your posts so anyone can read to what I am replying. How is that deviating from the matter at hand??

In short, you don't drive this train. [Enjoy what each has to offer. Think, share or, NOT...] CM

?? thinking, sharing, or not sharing ... is exactly what I am doing. Perhaps the difference is that my approach to a DISCUSSION forum is to engage what others write, ask them questions about it, comment, read what they comment in reply to my posts, etc ...whereas others (and you seem to do this to a large degree as well) do not engage when others ask or comment on their posts but instead "preach their sermon" and leave it at that. In my opinion, the "sermon" approach does not fit too well for a DISCUSSION forum.

C Mc

So be it. Thanks, Wolfgang. You're just one of several in these forums.

Enjoy what each has to offer. Think, share or, NOT... CM

C Mc

Attributes of the Persons of the Godhead

           FATHER /    SON /   HOLY SPIRIT

Eternal -- Ps. 90:2 / Rev. 1:18 / Heb. 9:14

Creator -- Isa. 45:18 / Col. 1:16 / Gen. 1:2

Almighty -- Rev. 1:8 / Matt. 28:18 / Rom. 8:11

Omniscient -- Ps. 139:4 / John 2:24-25 / 1 Cor. 2:10

Omnipresent-- Jer. 23:24 / Matt. 28:20 / Ps. 139:7-8

Love -- 1 John 4:8 / John 15:9 / Gal. 5:22

To be worshiped -- Rev. 14:7 / 1 Cor. 1:1-2 / John 4:24

Various images have been used to help explain and understand the Trinity. None of them does complete justice to the nature of God:

1. The family 
 // Problem: The persons are too separate from each other and do not share one nature.

2. The roles a person plays such as spouse, parent, child 
 // Problem: There is just one person instead of three.
3. A triangle (musical instrument) 
 // Problem: Striking one side causes the other two sides to sound as well. Again the distinctiveness of the three persons is not well expressed. I approve of this post. CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ said:

Attributes of the Persons of the Godhead

           FATHER /    SON /   HOLY SPIRIT

Eternal -- Ps. 90:2 / Rev. 1:18 / Heb. 9:14

Why do you claim that Ps 90:2 is talking only about the Father? Are not all three equally God in your "Trinity Godhead"? Were not - according to your Trinity ideas - Son and Holy Ghost equally God from everlasting to everlasting?

Creator -- Isa. 45:18 / Col. 1:16 / Gen. 1:2

Col 1:16 is part of a parenthesis in which reference is made to "the invisible God" in v.15, of whom Jesus is the image (but not the invisible God Himself). Jesus was not the Creator of heaven and earth, his Father, God, the Almighty, the Creator was.

Almighty -- Rev. 1:8 / Matt. 28:18 / Rom. 8:11

Did you not read what Mat 28:18 records about Jesus' very own words?? He did NOT say that he was "ALmighty", but that he had been given authority and power ... which quite obviously means that the One Who had given him this authority and power was obviously still more powerful and had more authority than he (Jesus) had after being given his power and authority.

Omniscient -- Ps. 139:4 / John 2:24-25 / 1 Cor. 2:10
Omnipresent-- Jer. 23:24 / Matt. 28:20 / Ps. 139:7-8
Love -- 1 John 4:8 / John 15:9 / Gal. 5:22
To be worshiped -- Rev. 14:7 / 1 Cor. 1:1-2 / John 4:24

These points are as dubious and incorrectly used "proof texts" as already shown for the points of the list above.

Various images have been used to help explain and understand the Trinity. None of them does complete justice to the nature of God:

1. The family 
 // Problem: The persons are too separate from each other and do not share one nature.

2. The roles a person plays such as spouse, parent, child 
 // Problem: There is just one person instead of three.
3. A triangle (musical instrument) 
 // Problem: Striking one side causes the other two sides to sound as well. Again the distinctiveness of the three persons is not well expressed. I approve of this post. CM

I am rather astonished that you want to adhere and believe these images when you yourself already notice that they are essentially "loony tunes" and non-sense.

C Mc

Thanks for the comments. I am still studying. Keep studying. CM

[Deleted User]

A few more occurrences of the word "spirit" in Galatians

Gal 3,2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3,3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3,5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3,14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The verses speak of receiving the spirit, ministering the spirit, having begun in the spirit and that the spirit was promised ... seems rather plain and clear that these texts have nothing whatever to do with a 3rd person of a Trinity God.

Gal 4,6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

How would this relate to a Trinity Godhead ??

Gal 4,29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him [that was born] after the Spirit, even so [it is] now.
Gal 5,5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Again, these two passages also seem to have nothing to do with a "3rd Trinity Godhead person"

Gal 5,16 [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
Gal 5,17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
Gal 5,18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Gal 5,22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Gal 5,25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Is it not clear that expressions like the ones used here, such as "walk in the spirit", "be led of the spirit", "fruit of the spirit", "live in in the spirit" are not speaking about a "3rd Trinity Godhead person" ??

[Deleted User]

The above post ended up in the wrong topic / thread ... it could be deleted now by the administrator of the forum

[Deleted User]

How does the following attribute of God impact your thinking along the lines of "if someone has the attributes of God, he/she is God" ?

Exo 34:14
For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:
Deu 4,24
For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.

C Mc

What? No Incarnation?

@Wolfgang, in the thread, "Attributes of God" said:

"There is no "incarnation" of Jesus or "incarnation" of God in Scripture ... such is perhaps found in certain heath mythologies, but not in the Bible. Or can you actually point out a scripture which says so (and, please, don't come with John 1:14 because that verse does NOT say Jesus incarnated or God incarnated)"?

@CM said:

I accept the Bible. You don't have the right or authority to tell what text to you use or not use. Jesus in His words and deeds is our model for all mission. John 1:14 tells us that He came to dwell with us as one of us. He did not remain distant or aloof. When God conducted the greatest evangelistic campaign of the ages, He did so as Immanuel—God with us. He chose incarnation (fellowship) as the first essential element of His method (Phil 2:5-11). Christ's method is our model.

Perhaps you should rethink your position. CM

[Deleted User]

@C_M_ posted

I accept the Bible.

Do you think or want to stipulate that I do not accept the Bible ?

You don't have the right or authority to tell what text to you use or not use.

As anyone else also has, I certainly have the right to point out that a certain scripture verse falsely used to support a certain claim actually does not support such claimed position.

Jesus in His words and deeds is our model for all mission. John 1:14 tells us that He came to dwell with us as one of us. He did not remain distant or aloof.

And John 1:14 does NOT say that "he came to dwell with us", as if the verse said that Jesus already lived somewhere prior in some shape or form and thne came to us to dwell with us for a while. I suggest to actually read what the verse says and to understand the text correctly in its immediate and remote context.

When God conducted the greatest evangelistic campaign of the ages, He did so as Immanuel—God with us. He chose incarnation (fellowship) as the first essential element of His method (Phil 2:5-11). Christ's method is our model.

Some fancy ideas put in fancy qording ... just not what John 1:14 or any other scripture statement says.

Perhaps you should rethink your position. CM

Why should I? Seems far more that such would be fitting to your position.

C Mc

To be clear, Wolfgang, do you and Bill really accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God?

1. If not, why not? If so, why?
2. What does this acceptance mean?
3. Do you see the Bible as Inerrancy-- "Free from errors" or Errancy-- "full of errors"?
4. You may have stated your positions somewhere in these forums. Please, consider sharing them again here, in one place together, given that the two you are staunched, hard-core anti-trinitarian.
5. If Jesus is just a man, who is your Savior? If he is just a man what is his origin, given the two of you don't believe in the incarnation?

The CD Family and I really want to hear from you and Bill on the questions above. CM

PS. No tricks. I want to know. Set the records straight.

[Deleted User]

To be clear, Wolfgang, do you and Bill really accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God?

@C_M_ let me be VERY clear .... for already the umptieth time: I have most likely hundreds of times in posts in these forums stated my position on this question !! To be VERY clear: I consider your question as addressed to me an insult !!

You may have stated your positions somewhere in these forums. Please, consider sharing them again here, in one place together, given that the two you are staunched, hard-core anti-trinitarian.

See above ... I will NOT share anything further here ... Your questions only add insult to injury.

The CD Family and I really want to hear from you and Bill on the questions above. CM

Since when are YOU "the speaker of the house" in these forums? By now, I am rather angry.

PS. No tricks. I want to know. Set the records straight.

You got no tricks and a very straight record from me with this post.

C Mc

https://www.christiandiscourse.net/discussion/comment/15141#Comment_15141

Wolfgang,

I am sorry you got so angry. I could have thought of several other ways to respond, but you seem to be beyond this at this point.

Regardless, the message received as you left for me to conclude. I am in no way "the speaker of the house" in these forums. I am not that proud or power-driven to assume such. I have taken some liberty on behalf of the silent-readers to ask the questions.

I am somewhat surprised by the speed and intensity of your outburst. It's your experience, and I am sure you have your reasons. I have my opinion, but I will let you have your moment. Let's end the third day of the new year at peace. CM

PS. It is a faithful saying, he who wants answers should ask questions, but it's no guarantee they will be answered.

[Deleted User]

PS. It is a faithful saying, he who wants answers should ask questions, but it's no guarantee they will be answered.

Indeed ... and how many times have you NOT answered even the most simple and plain questions asked of you and instead evaded by asking more and different questions??

In case you did not notice or realize: In my previous post I DID ANSWER your questions by referring you to the perhaps hundreds of times where I addressed very directly what you wanted to know.

Yes, I do not take oodles of time to respond if and when I already have the answer to reply to someone's post. My answer would be no different if I waited 5 days, 5 weeks or just 5 hours ... I honestly answer when I can and leave it at that. Simple, plain, honest, straight forward.