Titus 2:13 -- The Smoking Gun -- Jesus is God
Comments
-
As far as I am concern, Bill, has given the final word on a matter that was unnecessary to begin with. Are you trying to resurrect it? Have you been appointed as Bill's surrogate? Or have you taken it upon yourself, as a volunteer, to attach yourself to the remnant of a by-gone matter? It is finished! CM
So that we're both clear and candid about this "matter," CM:
- My "final word" is that because you have clearly decided not to explain or otherwise stand accountable for your allegation in a post earlier in this thread that one or more CD posters is a "non-Christian," I am no longer asking you to do so, and have implemented the promised consequence of not engaging you in conventional CD exchanges.
- In my view, my calling you to account for your allegation was in fact necessary because your allegation was a clear violation of the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation of these forums.
- I have no surrogates in these forums and do not read Wolfgang's post as his attempt to serve in that role. He simply asked the questions he found appropriate given your refusal to explain or otherwise stand accountable for your allegation.
- This "matter" is "finished," not because you have accepted responsibility for your allegation - which you haven't - but because in light of your refusal to do so, I have implemented an appropriate consequence and have moved on to more productive forum exchanges.
-
Yes indeed for "without morphology there is no theology" (attributed to Peter Gentry)
-
As far as I am concern, Bill, has given the final word on a matter that was unnecessary to begin with. Are you trying to resurrect it? Have you been appointed as Bill's surrogate? Or have you taken it upon yourself, as a volunteer, to attach yourself to the remnant of a by-gone matter? It is finished! CM
the "finished understanding of your statement thus is that you were referring to Bill as that non-Christian you had in mind in your comment.
Now, the matter is indeed finished.
-
Wolfgang,
Aren't you satisfied being and speaking for yourself? Is it your custom to impose your interpretation on the statement of another? You and Bill seem to be obsessed with doing such. What an audacity! Have we no other important matters to address? CM
-
Aren't you satisfied being and speaking for yourself?
I am satisfied being myself and speaking for myself ... and that is what I have been doing.
Is it your custom to impose your interpretation on the statement of another?
Not my custom to impose my understanding and interpretation on another .... but sharing with others and having an honest exchange I certainly value.
You and Bill seem to be obsessed with doing such. What an audacity!
I don't know nor do I care what another person may be obsessed with ...
Have we no other important matters to address? CM
I thought I addressed an important matter ...
-
Bill said:
Bill_Coley Posts: 2,181September 2019 edited September 2019
@C_M_ posted:
Here is my "studied take" on the verse. Titus 2:13. ...
Thank you for providing this exegesis, CM.
While I respect your point of view, and applaud your efforts in your most recent post, in my view your analysis fails to consider the broader context of Titus 2.13 that I pointed out at length in THIS POST back in April as my response to your OP in this thread. In short, that context is that...
refers to the separate/distinct entities."
reports that God (the one called "our Savior") poured out the Spirit on us Jesus Christ, which establishes another clear distinction between God - the one pouring out - and Jesus - the one through whom God pours out.
This creates a conflict between the two passages I cite and the one you cite. Ultimately, Jesus can't be God AND at the same time NOT God, so one of sets of texts - or at least our interpretation of them - must be wrong. That's where other texts come in, the most sensible reading of the VAST majority of which is that Jesus is NOT God. In addition, NO text directly says Jesus is God, and more important, Jesus himself NEVER claims to be God.
My April 11 post offered one other passage - 1 Timothy 2.5-6. It remains useful today:
"5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."
In my view, those verses make an inarguable distinction between the "one God" and the "mediator" between that one God and humans. No one has yet to demonstrate how those two verses are consistent with the "Jesus is God" view. CM, I invite you to show me how they are.
Bill,
Since you raise the two texts above in another thread I decided to revisit the original source of the discussion. In doing so, I see the answer to your concerns about the two verses (Titus 2:13 and 1 Timothy 2.5-6) is clearly in the "INCARNATION" of Jesus. You see, there is no conflict. Surely, you believe in the "INCARNATION".
You do believe in the incarnation of Jesus, Bill? if not, why not? The biblical records testify to this. There, you have it. Problem solved. It's the Lord's doing. Praise Him! CM
-
Since you raise the two texts above in another thread I decided to revisit the original source of the discussion. In doing so, I see the answer to your concerns about the two verses (Titus 2:13 and 1 Timothy 2.5-6) is clearly in the "INCARNATION" of Jesus. You see, there is no conflict. Surely, you believe in the "INCARNATION".
You do believe in the incarnation of Jesus, Bill? if not, why not?
I will add my thoughts ..... The answer is NOT in the INCARNATION, since there is no such thing in the Bible as a "God" INCARNATING as a "human". The beginning of a human being is with the conception of seed in a woman.
The Bible knows nothing of some being already alive somewhere in some shape or form INCARNATING (that is, "becoming", "changing into", "taking on life form of flesh and blood") as a human being.
Simple, plain, scriptural .... just leave theological nonsense interpretations behind and go by Scripture.
-
@C Mc posted:
Since you raise the two texts above in another thread I decided to revisit the original source of the discussion. In doing so, I see the answer to your concerns about the two verses (Titus 2:13 and 1 Timothy 2.5-6) is clearly in the "INCARNATION" of Jesus. You see, there is no conflict. Surely, you believe in the "INCARNATION".
You do believe in the incarnation of Jesus, Bill? if not, why not? The biblical records testify to this. There, you have it. Problem solved. It's the Lord's doing. Praise Him! CM
The concept of incarnation does not address the exegesis of Titus 2.13 that I posted nearly two years ago in THIS POST. In short, that exegesis pointed to two other passages in Titus - Titus 1.4 and Titus 3.4-8 - in which the author makes what I interpret to be a clear distinction between God and Jesus, and does so without reference or even allusion to any manner of divine incarnation. In addition, my exegesis identified 1 Timothy 2.5-6 as an important text because it distinguishes - again, clearly and without reference or allusion to divine incarnation - between God and "the man Jesus." So in my view, incarnation does not resolve the conflict to which I pointed.
Do I believe in the incarnation of Jesus? I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean by the phrase, but if by such incarnation you mean that Jesus was actually God, but in a human body, then no, I don't believe in the incarnation of Jesus. But that can't possibly be a surprise to you, CM, given the thousands of words in hundreds of posts I've created in these forums over the years declaring, most often with great specificity, my objections to Trinitarian theology and my understanding of its relevant Bible texts. The deity of Christ is the single most debated topic in the CD forums, or so I estimate. I've never shied from it, nor failed to make my views known.
One other matter, in pursuit of the value of accountability: Your and my discussion of Titus 2.13 derailed in September 2019 when, in response to one of my posts, you wrote, "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian." Over the subsequent months, I then created seven posts that asked you to identify the "non-Christian(s)" to whom you intended to refer via that assertion. To my great irritation and dissatisfaction, you chose not to stand accountable for your allegation, a choice that led me to stop engaging you in conventional CD exchanges. Obviously, I have since ended that boycott, but that doesn't mean I have forgotten or accepted the allegation you made or the choice you made not to own, explain, or defend it. FWIW, I contend that naming the "non-Christian(s)" you meant to identify in your September 2019 allegation is STILL, all these months later, the right thing for you to do.
-
Bro. Bill,
Let's not soil this thread with the pretentious residue of chatter from the past. Please don't resurrect the nebulous. Have we not more important matters like the OP to discuss?
PS. Everything has changed, yet, nothing has changed. Sad! CM
-
The Bible knows nothing of some being already alive somewhere in some shape or form INCARNATING (that is, "becoming", "changing into", "taking on life form of flesh and blood") as a human being.
I am in disagreement with the above premise that scripture knows nothing in regard to the concept defined by incarnation. I will briefly address the incarnation concept found in scripture; though, not with regard to the person Jesus – aka. doctrine of the incarnation.
I agree that the definition of incarnation as mentioned in the above premise is that of an individual entity, or entities – assuming flesh, taking on flesh – or better, embodiment in flesh by a supernatural being which is not of human flesh to begin with. In other words, a supernatural being becoming a man.
I want to take a brief moment here before moving on to make clear that incarnation should not be confused with an idea of divine possession, indwelling, or inspiration.
Having said the above, I believe these following OT texts indicate this principle of enfleshment described in the definition of incarnation (Gen. 6:4; 18; 19; 32:24-30; Josh. 5:13-15).
- “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” (Gen. 6:4)
- “The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby.” (Gen. 18:1–2)
- “The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.” (Gen. 18:22)
- “The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”” (Gen. 19:1–2)
- “They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”” (Gen. 19:5)
- “The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,” (Gen. 19:12)
- “So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak.” (Gen. 32:24)
- “So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”” (Gen. 32:30)
- “Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?” The commander of the LORD’S army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.” (Josh. 5:13–15)
In the NT the crowd at Lystra deemed what we define as incarnation to have applied to both Paul and Barnabas.
- “When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in human form!”” (Acts 14:11)
There is also the case where it is possible an attribute of a god is conceived as an entity itself. For example, again in Acts, we have the power of god described as being Simon himself by the people. In other words, Simon is the fleshly embodiment of the power of god; perhaps the better way to express this in incarnational language is that the power of god in flesh is Simon.
- “and all the people, both high and low, gave him their attention and exclaimed, “This man is rightly called the Great Power of God.”” (Acts 8:10)
Paul will also use this power of God and wisdom of God motif of Christ in 1Cor. 1:24.
- “but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor. 1:24)
It seems to me that scripture has provided ample evidence for knowing something about what is definitional of incarnation.
-
Having said the above, I believe these following OT texts indicate this principle of enfleshment described in the definition of incarnation (Gen. 6:4; 18; 19; 32:24-30; Josh. 5:13-15).
Unfortunately, 18 and 19 should reference chapters 18 and 19 in Genesis. Discovered too late to edit.
-
I agree that the definition of incarnation as mentioned in the above premise is that of an individual entity, or entities – assuming flesh, taking on flesh – or better, embodiment in flesh by a supernatural being which is not of human flesh to begin with. In other words, a supernatural being becoming a man.
So then, can supernatural beings actually become human beings (that is, be incarnated)? As far as I can read Scripture, there is no such thing.
Having said the above, I believe these following OT texts indicate this principle of enfleshment described in the definition of incarnation (Gen. 6:4; 18; 19; 32:24-30; Josh. 5:13-15).
According to this idea of "enfleshment", the result would not be an actual human being, but some kind of temporary vision appearance, or physical manifestation, etc. of a supernatural being, which continues to be a supernatural being but does not become a human being.
There is also the case where it is possible an attribute of a god is conceived as an entity itself. For example, again in Acts, we have the power of god described as being Simon himself by the people. In other words, Simon is the fleshly embodiment of the power of god; perhaps the better way to express this in incarnational language is that the power of god in flesh is Simon.
This is not an incarnation but an emphatic description of Simon by the people ... Simon was neither at any time a supernatural being, etc. and the people also knew this obviously.
-
So then, can supernatural beings actually become human beings (that is, be incarnated)?
That is the definition of incarnation is it not. So, yes.
According to this idea of "enfleshment", the result would not be an actual human being, but some kind of temporary vision appearance, or physical manifestation, etc. of a supernatural being, which continues to be a supernatural being but does not become a human being.
The definition of incarnation is not at all qualified by a duration of time or visionary experience; even as you originally have defined incarnation there is no hint of these conditions. You are correct that upon incarnation a supernatural being does not cease to be such; but, at the same time is in flesh a human being – yes, an actual human being.
This is not an incarnation but an emphatic description of Simon by the people ... Simon was neither at any time a supernatural being, etc. and the people also knew this obviously.
This statement misses the point; whether the power of god in flesh is Simon is true or false, according to our beliefs, is not the subject being discussed. The subject is whether scripture knows something of the concept of incarnation. By the way, I ask where is the support for the claim "and the people also knew this obviously." found?
Anyway, the texts I first provided have angelic beings, God, attributes of a god or God, being found in flesh. One last item here, the text of Acts 14:11 mentioned in my previous post – “The gods have come down to us in human form!” – is clearly a statement of incarnation belief by those people.
Now remember, as before, we're not discussing the validity of the people's claim that Paul and Barnabas are Hermes and Zeus. We are discussing does scripture know nothing, or something, by the definition of what is called incarnation.
-
Anyway, the texts I first provided have angelic beings, God, attributes of a god or God, being found in flesh. One last item here, the text of Acts 14:11 mentioned in my previous post – “The gods have come down to us in human form!” – is clearly a statement of incarnation belief by those people.
That the people there FALSELY claimed things about Paul and Barnabas, does NOT mean that Scripture "knows" or "teaches" such a concept. The Bible does NOT know or teach that supernatural beings actually become human beings ...
Btw, if supernatural beings became actual human beings for a while, the actual humans would be able to become supernatural beings ... so then, there would be a "DECARNATION" at the end of the "INCARNATION" ???
I would say it should be very obvious that such "incarnation" ideas are not Biblical teaching .... even though there are such ideas in human philosophies, mystery religions, theologies.
-
That the people there FALSELY claimed things about Paul and Barnabas, does NOT mean that Scripture "knows" or "teaches" such a concept. The Bible does NOT know or teach that supernatural beings actually become human beings ...
I'll quote myself, "Now remember, as before, we're not discussing the validity of the people's claim that Paul and Barnabas are Hermes and Zeus." Whether the people's claim in this passage is true or false is not at issue in this discussion.
So, my question to you is, does this sentence “The gods have come down to us in human form!” (Acts 14:11) fit the definition of incarnation that you have supplied? "(that is, "becoming", "changing into", "taking on life form of flesh and blood") as a human being." It seems to me that it does.
Btw, if supernatural beings became actual human beings for a while, the actual humans would be able to become supernatural beings ... so then, there would be a "DECARNATION" at the end of the "INCARNATION" ???
Interesting question, I haven't ran across the word decarnation – does it exist?
I would say it should be very obvious that such "incarnation" ideas are not Biblical teaching .... even though there are such ideas in human philosophies, mystery religions, theologies.
I must stress again, that our discussion is centered on, at least from my perspective, whether scripture anywhere provides an indication of this concept of incarnation as it is so defined.
I appreciate and understand your theological reserve and concern for Biblical teaching; but, teaching is not under discussion at this time, and I'm not making any claims regarding teaching in our conversation.
-
I'll quote myself, "Now remember, as before, we're not discussing the validity of the people's claim that Paul and Barnabas are Hermes and Zeus." Whether the people's claim in this passage is true or false is not at issue in this discussion.
It is most certainly a decisive issue to note that the Bible reports that it was THOSE PEOPLE's claim; the Bible does NOT know or teach such an idea, those people did.
So, my question to you is, does this sentence “The gods have come down to us in human form!” (Acts 14:11) fit the definition of incarnation that you have supplied? "(that is, "becoming", "changing into", "taking on life form of flesh and blood") as a human being." It seems to me that it does.
See above ... that sentence is NOT the Biblical teaching. rather it is the Bible's mention of people's false ideas.
I must stress again, that our discussion is centered on, at least from my perspective, whether scripture anywhere provides an indication of this concept of incarnation as it is so defined.
See above ... Scripture provides an indication that some people mentioned in a record in Acts had such an idea and believed such a concept, but Scripture does not know or teach such a concept.
Do you think that the Bible knows and teaches that there actually is no God? You know, the Bible records a sentence "There is no God!" ....
-
... Scripture provides an indication that some people mentioned in a record in Acts had such an idea and believed such a concept, but Scripture does not know or teach such a concept.
I consider the first half of your reply above as a yes to my question. Though I must ask, how is it possible that it can be said scripture does not know (about) or have knowledge of a concept while at the same time reporting on that concept as stated above? Perhaps it is necessary to define the meaning of know as you understand it.
On the matter of teaching, I will continue to say we're not discussing the issue of whether the concept of incarnation is taught or not, nor am I making any claim in this discussion to the effect that it is; rather, under discussion has been the question – does scripture have any knowledge of incarnation as that word is defined.
Do you think that the Bible knows and teaches that there actually is no God? You know, the Bible records a sentence "There is no God!" ....
In the cases where "There is no God!" .... used, it is either followed, or preceded, by a qualification; such as, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”” (Psa. 53:1), “there is no God like you” (2 Chr. 6:14), etc. So, my answer to the above question is no.
-
I consider the first half of your reply above as a yes to my question. Though I must ask, how is it possible that it can be said scripture does not know (about) or have knowledge of a concept while at the same time reporting on that concept as stated above? Perhaps it is necessary to define the meaning of know as you understand it.
In the context I am addressing what Scripture teaches ... and the use of "Know" in light of the context is rather clear ass NOT just meaning "mentions" or similar ...
On the matter of teaching, I will continue to say we're not discussing the issue of whether the concept of incarnation is taught or not, nor am I making any claim in this discussion to the effect that it is; rather, under discussion has been the question – does scripture have any knowledge of incarnation as that word is defined.
So then why care if the point is not about what Scripture teaches or the truth it proclaims?? I "know" that Scripture mentions "you shall not surely die" .... so what now? Is that what Scripture knows and teaches as truth??
In the cases where "There is no God!" .... used, it is either followed, or preceded, by a qualification; such as, “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”” (Psa. 53:1), “there is no God like you” (2 Chr. 6:14), etc. So, my answer to the above question is no.
And in regards to the example about Paul and Barnabas the same holds true ...some people are mentioned in Scripture as having such an idea and in the immediate context it is clarified that such "incarnation" ideas are false and thus are NOT what Scripture knows as truth and teaches as such.
The commonly propagated idea of "incarnation" (supernatural beings / gods actually becoming human beings) is not taught or propagated by Scripture. There are records indicating that the true God manifested / appeared in various physically notable form (usually in theological circles termed "epiphany", but such has nothing to do with God actually becoming that physically notable thing or person.
-
In the context I am addressing what Scripture teaches ... and the use of "Know" in light of the context is rather clear ass NOT just meaning "mentions" or similar ...
That is an interesting way of using the word know. In the context of your initial response "(The Bible knows nothing of some being already alive somewhere in some shape or form INCARNATING (that is, "becoming", "changing into", "taking on life form of flesh and blood") as a human being.)" which was to another post specific to the doctrine of the incarnation, I can understand that you may have shoe-horned the idea of teaching into the all-inclusive phrase "knows nothing"; but, the dictionary form and common usage of the verb know is to have knowledge of, or be aware of something, etc. Teach is in its own category – certainly they are not equivalent in meaning.
So, in moving on, I'll back-track to my original post's first statement of expressing disagreement with the "knows nothing" premise. I was clear, or so I thought, that the narrow scope of discussion would center on the discovery of the incarnation concept as it has been defined, to the exclusion of theological concerns regarding the teaching of the incarnation as it pertains to Jesus. Nor have I at any time ventured into asserting that scripture teaches incarnation; rather, I have asserted that scripture has knowledge of, is aware of, knows about incarnation (cf. Acts 14:11).
So then why care if the point is not about what Scripture teaches or the truth it proclaims?? I "know" that Scripture mentions "you shall not surely die" .... so what now? Is that what Scripture knows and teaches as truth??
I'll put it this way, the point of discovery in this case is: does scripture have any event described that will fit the definition of incarnation as we know it? I'm curious if your usage of know in this sentence "Is that what Scripture knows and teaches as truth??" is standing in for believes?
However, in response to the first part of your question about "why care", the answer is I do care about what is taught and proclaimed within scripture most assuredly, and all things are to be tested by it; however, the course of this discussion, as I laid out in my opening post is, how do I say it, theologically agnostic. Meaning we lay aside our theological beliefs, as we are not discussing a particular theological doctrine, we are investigating particular events in scripture to see if they fit the definition of incarnation.
And in regards to the example about Paul and Barnabas the same holds true ...some people are mentioned in Scripture as having such an idea and in the immediate context it is clarified that such "incarnation" ideas are false and thus are NOT what Scripture knows as truth and teaches as such.
So, you agree that Acts 14:11 communicates the concept of incarnation, but that the text then clarifies the idea of incarnation as false. My reply to that is, what Paul declares as false is that Paul and Barnabas are gods in flesh, not the idea of incarnation itself – he never goes there (cf. Acts 14:15-18).
The commonly propagated idea of "incarnation" (supernatural beings / gods actually becoming human beings) is not taught or propagated by Scripture.
Are you speaking of the doctrine? If so, that is not our discussion subject.
There are records indicating that the true God manifested / appeared in various physically notable form (usually in theological circles termed "epiphany", but such has nothing to do with God actually becoming that physically notable thing or person.
Yes, you have described the difference between epiphany, an outward manifestation of a form – though not necessarily flesh and having no inward change – and incarnation as has been defined many times previously.
As you have noted in the above statement epiphany and incarnation are not equivalent of one another; but I must ask, what records are being referred to in your statement and how does this reflect on the texts given in my first post?
-
So, you agree that Acts 14:11 communicates the concept of incarnation, but that the text then clarifies the idea of incarnation as false. My reply to that is, what Paul declares as false is that Paul and Barnabas are gods in flesh, not the idea of incarnation itself – he never goes there (cf. Acts 14:15-18).
Acts 14:11 communicates that some people had a viewpoint of and believed in incarnation (in their words described as gods becoming men). Acts 14:11 as such and from the viewpoint of the inspired writer does NOT communicate a concept of incarnation.
This is no different from the case in Gen 3, where Gen 3:4 communicates that the serpent said "You shall not surely die", but Gen 3:4 does NOT communicate the concept of "men will not surely die".
What sense is there in your attempt to exclude doctrine from reading and determining what Scripture itself communicates and teaches?? Is it because you deduct from such statements in Scripture as in Acts 14:11 that the Bible itself teaches incarnation rather than teaches that some people believed in incarnation (which belief is shown as false in the immediate context)?
-
Acts 14:11 communicates that some people had a viewpoint of and believed in incarnation (in their words described as gods becoming men).
Good, we agree. In reporting this event it is substantiated that scripture has knowledge of incarnation belief.
Acts 14:11 as such and from the viewpoint of the inspired writer does NOT communicate a concept of incarnation.
The inspired writer of Acts recording Paul makes no comment either good or bad regarding incarnation – it is just reported.
An event fitting the definition of incarnation is the subject under investigation.
What sense is there in your attempt to exclude doctrine from reading and determining what Scripture itself communicates and teaches??
In certain instances, and from time to time, it is helpful to check on one's interpretation of scripture.
Is it because you deduct from such statements in Scripture as in Acts 14:11 that the Bible itself teaches incarnation rather than teaches that some people believed in incarnation
Teaching has ever only been a part of this conversation in your perspective and responses; not from me – as I've stated many times previously. In Acts 14:11 I deduce that the Bible is aware of incarnation.
What have I been addressing throughout the course of these exchanges from the very first sentence? Is it not that scripture has knowledge of what is defined as incarnation? Nothing more, nothing less.
(which belief is shown as false in the immediate context)?
How so?
Wrongly assigning false to the peoples belief of incarnation; when in fact, false in this context is being applied to their belief that Paul and Barnabas are gods in flesh.
I'll quote myself from my previous post: "My reply to that is, what Paul declares as false is that Paul and Barnabas are gods in flesh, not the idea of incarnation itself – he never goes there (cf. Acts 14:15-18)."
-
Good, we agree. In reporting this event it is substantiated that scripture has knowledge of incarnation belief.
Oh dear .... accepting the truth that the writers of Scripture wrote as they were inspired by God, I would think that the author had knowledge of a lot of things ... Having knowledge of something does NOT equal knowing and approving something to be correct and true.
I'll quote myself from my previous post: "My reply to that is, what Paul declares as false is that Paul and Barnabas are gods in flesh, not the idea of incarnation itself – he never goes there (cf. Acts 14:15-18)."
So in some case or cases such incarnation idea of "god(s) becoming man" is true ? Perhaps that was the case with Simon the sorcerer who is reported to have been regarded by people as "the great power of God"?? Perhaps "sorcerers" in general are incarnated supernatural powerful beings/gods/angels ?
-
So in some case or cases such incarnation idea of "god(s) becoming man" is true ?
Well, a sometimes used argument from silence frequenting the forum is the one which argues – this would be the perfect time for X to say XYZ; but, X didn't therefore... – in this case with regard to what we call incarnation; Paul didn't say, you foolish people believing in mythological fantasies, did he – would've been the perfect time for it. 😁
In the text of Acts 14:11-18 there is simply no comment given specific to either disapproval or approval of the concept of incarnation; there is however, objection and denial by Paul and Barnabas that they themselves are gods in flesh.
I would direct you to the OT texts given in my opening post for, quite possibly, a solution to your above question.
Perhaps that was the case with Simon the sorcerer who is reported to have been regarded by people as "the great power of God"?? Perhaps "sorcerers" in general are incarnated supernatural powerful beings/gods/angels ?
The point seems to be missed in this. Acts 8:10 interestingly reflects that it is possible for even a single attribute of a god to be in flesh. In this particular case that single attribute is "the Great Power of God." which has incarnated and is known as Simon by the people as the text states.
As far as your "Perhaps "sorcerers" in general..." ending comment pertaining to Acts 8:10 is concerned; I say it would be mistaken to think that my motive in this discussion is somehow to devise and impose a doctrine of incarnation for sorcerers. However, if you have additional information pertaining to sorcerers incarnating within scripture that you wish to share, I would be more than happy to look at it.
-
The point seems to be missed in this. Acts 8:10 interestingly reflects that it is possible for even a single attribute of a god to be in flesh. In this particular case that single attribute is "the Great Power of God." which has incarnated and is known as Simon by the people as the text states.
There is NOTHING at all in Acts 8 which reflects the possibility "for even a single attribute of a god to be in flesh" ... or do now false ideas of people constitute true doctrine???
Furthermore., the people' words make use of a figure of speech by which they linked what they wrongly thought of as "great power of God" emphatically to the person and called the person by it.
Enough said from my side on this exchange ....
-
@Wolfgang said:
since there is no such thing in the Bible as a "God" INCARNATING as a "human." The beginning of a human being is with the conception of seed in a woman.
The Bible knows nothing of some being already alive somewhere in some shape or form INCARNATING (that is, "becoming," "changing into," "taking on life form of flesh and blood") as a human being.
Bill said:
Do I believe in the incarnation of Jesus? I suppose it depends on precisely what you mean by the phrase, but if by such incarnation you mean that Jesus was actually God, but in a human body, then no, I don't believe in the incarnation of Jesus. But that can't possibly be a surprise to you, CM, given the thousands of words in hundreds of posts I've created in these forums over the years declaring, most often with great specificity, my objections to Trinitarian theology and my understanding of its relevant Bible texts. The deity of Christ is the single most debated topic in the CD forums, or so I estimate. I've never shied from it, nor failed to make my views known.
CM says: Wow! It's surprising to read after years of studying and posting you state so boldly: "I don't believe in the incarnation of Jesus." How do you square your position with the passage of Scripture below? How readth thou?
6And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.
7For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
8Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.
9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. (NASB: 1995 update. (1995). (2 Jn 6–9).
@Wolfgang and @Bill_Coley, it saddened me to read, after all these years, two reasonably intelligent men who claim to be Christians and accept the Bible as" inspired" and "trustworthy" have not come to grips with the Incarnation of Christ. These passages on the incarnation were not just added to the Bible recently. Read them anew with the power of God in view:
- a. God became man in the person of Christ (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-7).
- b. The "how" is a great mystery (1 Timothy 3:16).
- c. The reason (Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Peter 3:18).
- d. The record (Matthew 1:18-21; Galatians 4:4).
Above are the plain Word of God without commentary or voices of scholars. God is speaking to reveal Himself to you. CM
-
My heart breaks for the joy missed by so many here. If only they could know truth! Maybe one day.
-
@Wolfgang and @Bill_Coley, it saddened me to read, after all these years, two reasonably intelligent men who claim to be Christians and accept the Bible as" inspired" and "trustworthy" have not come to grips with the Incarnation of Christ.
Why are you not saddened to not be able to see and believe what the Bible actually does say? After all you years of reading the verses you mention below, you have not realized that they do not mention an "incarnation" ??
These passages on the incarnation were not just added to the Bible recently. Read them anew with the power of God in view: a. God became man in the person of Christ (John 1:14; Philippians 2:5-7).
Nothing about God becoming a man there.
b. The "how" is a great mystery (1 Timothy 3:16).
No such idea mentioned there
c. The reason (Hebrews 2:14, 15; 1 Peter 3:18).
Fantasy .... there is no reason for God becoming man
d. The record (Matthew 1:18-21; Galatians 4:4).
Nothing about an incarnation in these records ... they are about conception and bi
Above are the plain Word of God without commentary or voices of scholars. God is speaking to reveal Himself to you. CM
The commentaries are well present in your short notes with the verses.
-
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Truth is before you to set you free. Drink deeply if you will. Reject the Bible passages if that is your will. I wish you all the best.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
