New Comer
Comments
-
I didn't ask you, @C Mc, but thanks for answering.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Thanks for the reassurance. You present yourself as never being wrong.
Knowing that a person may be wrong keeps their posts in perspective.
I'm surprised that our acknowledgements of imperfection play any role in your perspective on our posts. I treat as common knowledge and settled law the axiom that nobody's perfect. No one, including no CD poster, is immune from errant statements, mistaken representations, accidental- and/or intentional falsehoods; anyone who claims such immunity is wrong. So you don't need my or Wolfgang's confession to know we make mistakes any more than we need your confession to know that you make them.
And as for how we present ourselves, we might be back to the inference/implication issue again. You might be inferring claims of inerrancy from our presentations when we don't mean to imply it.
I don't speak for Wolfgang, but as for me, OF COURSE I think I'm right in the opinions I express. Do you hold opinions that you believe to be wrong? I doubt it. I sure don't. But here's the corrective: Belief and confidence that one is right do NOT mean one is actually right.
I think about various kinds of statements about which I hold varying levels of confidence in my being "right":
- ACCEPTED FACTS: 1+1=2 (base 10). I'm right about that. Someone might assert that I'm wrong - that 1+1=47, -60, or 9,213 - but they're wrong. I'm not. 1+1=2. Period.
- OBSERVED FACTS: In Acts 2, Peter calls Jesus a "man" "through" whom God did awesome things and whom God raised from the dead. I'm right about that - that IS what Peter says about Jesus in Acts 2 - but the statement is the result of my reading of the text, which subjects the statement to my imperfection. Now someone might assert that by those words Peter doesn't *mean* what I believe he means, but that's a different discussion. My report of what Peter says about Jesus - NOT what he means about Jesus - is right (though I am capable of mistakes when I report a text's content!).
- OPINIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS: I understand Peter's words clearly to mean that he doesn't believe Jesus is God. In my view, the biblical case about the divinity of Jesus obvious and compelling, but that's *my* interpretation of the biblical text. I think I'm right, of course, but so do you think you're right when you declare your belief that Jesus was God based on YOUR interpretation of the biblical text. In such cases, I don't claim to be "right" in a "1+1=2" sense, or a "Peter says these words about Jesus in Acts 2" sense. I claim to be right in a "that's my opinion and I think I'm right or I wouldn't hold the opinion, but I won't say you're "wrong" if you disagree with me" sense. Instead I'll say, we disagree.
So perhaps you infer all-encompassing claims of inerrancy from the urgency of my defense of what I believe are "1+1=2"- and "in Acts 2 Peter says..."-type statements. I assure you that I intend no such implication. I respect your opinions and interpretations, and acknowledge that you could be right, even though I disagree.... But don't try to tell me 1+1=87!
-
@byGeorge Thanks for the reassurance. You present yourself as never being wrong.
Ah ... really ... perhaps you realize that the textual arguments we present are most often straight forward and right?! Is that why you refuse to engage a Biblical text based discussion and study, knowing that "well-established" mainstream church denominational dogmas, such as trinity divinity of Christ, etc., are not necessarily true?
-
I am not sure if landed among aliens or in Bedlam. I can't help but snoop around long enough to determine which it might be,
-
You landed among a microcosm of the real world. Most mainstream Christians associate on-site and forums with people that think or are more like themselves. This site may "test-stress" more of your belief and internal Christianity. In daily walk, you normally don't encounter this concentration of anti-trinitarian, especially on a site labeled "Christian Debate." I know it's an enigma, to say the least. They are hard dye-in-the-wool anti-christ (gk-"against," "opposite," or "opposed") when it comes to the Divinity of Christ. Their opinion and presuppositions take president over the "inspired" Word of God.
Don't be afraid or dismayed. Truth must be spoken, just the same, to opposing forces. The minority voices must be lit and remain burning in the midst of the opposing majority. The darker the night, the brighter the stars. Take hope. A small light in a very dark room shines brightly. So it is in a forum with most of the active participates are anti-christ.
You may ask, why remain with the Christian Debate? God's Word says, "go into all the world..." (Matt 28:18-20). CD is a part of this world. You can do what many other Christians have done, from a cursory look over past threads and posts, leave. Now, you see why there are so many like-minded thinkers in one site that carries the name that disbelieves half of who Jesus is, what He said, what he has done, and promises He made. One wonders, is there any hope? Yes, there is. It's not going to be easy, but there is light and hope. They want you to think otherwise and to leave like a whipped dog with its tail between its legs.
What's the solution? Invite your Christian friends to come here. Discuss the Bible and uplift Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, The Savior of humanity, with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (our comforter and guide). They can't accept that God is so much bigger and wiser than their little minds can process. The fact that God had to reveal himself through symbols (earthly sanctuary) inspired men to write (Bible), miracles (Red sea, lion's den, etc.), and theophanies so we could know Him. You are not alone. Greater is He that is in you than in the world (CD). Hold on to the "Self-existing One, who was, is, and is to come." CM
-
@C Mc In daily walk, you normally don't encounter this concentration of anti-trinitarian, especially on a site labeled "Christian Debate."
Anti-trinitarian does NOT equal anti-christian ... Christians in the early centuries AD did not know about a "Father-Son-Holy Ghost Holy Trinity" simply because such a theology dogma did NOT exist prior to the councils of the 4th century AD.
I know it's an enigma, to say the least. They are hard dye-in-the-wool anti-christ (gk-"against," "opposite," or "opposed") when it comes to the Divinity of Christ.
"Liar, liar, pants on fire ..." I am NOT anti or against Christ !!! I am anti or against false mainstream church dogmas invented centuries after Christ, and the reason for such is the simple and plain truth of Scripture that there is no Trinity God nor a Trinity Christ in Scripture.
Their opinion and presuppositions take president over the "inspired" Word of God.
Flat out lies ... unless you are actually speaking of yourself and Trinity friends who indeed elevate council dogma over the inspired word of God as revealed in Scripture. Stop hiding behind mainline human thought up tradition and take a more detailed look at the wording of Scripture.
-
Christians are anti-trinitarians. Why?
Christians Follow Jesus Christ
Trinitarians follow the trinity.
However, on the same thought. Trintarians are anti-christians. Ask a trinitarian who was that person who came in the flesh and they will tell you God. But what does the Bible say about that? When Jesus was in his flesh, he stated God is a Spirit. (John 4:24)
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)
-
You landed among a microcosm of the real world.
Correction: a microcosm of Bedlam.
-
@C Mc posted:
I know it's an enigma, to say the least. They are hard dye-in-the-wool anti-christ (gk-"against," "opposite," or "opposed") when it comes to the Divinity of Christ. Their opinion and presuppositions take president over the "inspired" Word of God. ...
Take hope. A small light in a very dark room shines brightly. So it is in a forum with most of the active participates are anti-christ.
At a convention in 1991, I asked a person who at the time was one of our denomination's leaders how we could bridge the divide between the evangelical and mainline pieces of our body. In advice I will never forget, he said that among the steps the two groups could take was to allow each other to self-identify - to call others what they wanted to be called.
In practice, that principle called for the rejection of name-calling, and a willingness to request and employ the name(s) others sought for themselves. No more "right wingers" or "radical liberals," for example. For me, at least, the advice landed constructively and has ever since helped shape my rhetorical approach to referring to people with whom I disagree.
I cite my experience from 30 years ago in order to call out your use of the term "anti-Christ" to describe those who do not believe Jesus was God. Though you then narrow the scope of your reference to "when it comes to the Divinity of Christ," later in the same paragraph you return to the broader indictment when you describe "a forum with most of the active participates [sic] are anti-christ [sic]." Risking error by speaking for others, I contend that we are not anti-Christ. We would never self-identify as anti-Christ, any more than CD participants who believe Jesus was God would self-identify as "anti-Scripture," were one of our "anti-christers [sic]" to attach such a label on them. How about calling us people who don't believe Jesus was God instead of people who are "anti-christ [sic]"?
Discuss the Bible and uplift Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, The Savior of humanity, with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (our comforter and guide).
FWIW, I agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and the savior of humanity. And I covet the empowerment of the Holy Spirit.
They want you to think otherwise and to leave like a whipped dog with its tail between its legs.
Who told you our mission statement?! ... Actually, this is NOT what we want. Light and hope are good things for all followers of Jesus, those who agree with our Christologies and those who don't.
They can't accept that God is so much bigger and wiser than their little minds can process.
FWIW, I agree that God is much, much bigger than my mind can process (your mind too, I bet). Given that you likely use the adjective to diminish those who view the divinity of Christ differently than you do, I don't accept your use of the word "little" to describe our minds and would not use such a word to describe the minds of those who view the divinity of Christ differently than I.
-
The term Antichrist is offensive to a person bearing this label. The term is also Biblical.
Christ refers to Jesus as messiah. Biblically, if Jesus is not God, then Jesus is not a savior. The person who denies the biblical identity of Jesus as God is Antichrist.
-
Not true. The trinity and its followers reject Jesus as the Christ the Son of the living God. Show me any trinity doctrine that declares Jesus as the Christ. ZERO. The triinity Never ackowledges Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. Trinitarians changed scripture to claim God manifested in the flesh but that is a decpetion.
"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)
Question: He said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” (Matthew 16:15) ego'eimi
What was Peter's Answer? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16) Peter identifies Jesus as “the Christ” (Greek, ho Khri·stosʹ), a title equivalent to “the Messiah” (from Hebrew ma·shiʹach), both meaning “Anointed One.”
Modalisits who hide behind the veneer of trinitarians lie and say Jesus is the Father in the flesh... FALSE. They don't even realize they deny the trinity doctrine of 'three seperate persons' when they claim Jesus is God. All that time they are rejecting Jesus as the Christ. People who do believe in the trinity would say no.. no... the Son is the second person of the trinity which again is absent from the pages of ALL BIBLES.
-
@byGeorge posted
Christ refers to Jesus as messiah. Biblically, if Jesus is not God, then Jesus is not a savior. The person who denies the biblical identity of Jesus as God is Antichrist.
Yes, Christ refers to Jesus as messiah. To my awareness, however, Christ does NOT refer to Jesus as God.
And the specific term used earlier in this thread was not the noun "antichrist," as in the New Testament passages listed below, but the adjective "anti-christ" [sic]. I know of no New Testament verse that refers to a person's being "anti-Christ" (NOTE: 1 Corinthians 8.12 comes close in its reference to "sinning against Christ" by contributing to another person's stumbling by approach to food served/sacrificed in idol worship.)
1 John 2.22: Who is the liar except the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This person is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
I know of no one in these forums who "denies the Father and the Son."
1 John 4.2-3: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
I know of no one in these forums who doesn't confess that Jesus is from God. But notice, John doesn't say "every spirit that does not confess that Jesus IS God" is the spirit of the antichrist; the phrase John uses refers to Jesus being FROM God.
2 John 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist!
I know of no one in these forums who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
My previous point remains: We foster constructive dialogue when we allow people to self-identify (call them what they want to be called).
-
the specific term used earlier in this thread was not the noun "antichrist," as in the New Testament passages listed below, but the adjective "anti-christ"
The term I used was antichrist. This term is likely intended to be identical in meaning to anti-christ.
I know of no one in these forums who doesn't confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
The meaning is the passage above is that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh. Some here deny that Jesus is the Christ [God] come in the flesh. By definition they are messiah deniers, or antichrist.
My previous point remains: We foster constructive dialogue when we allow people to self-identify (call them what they want to be called).
Your practice is fine for your purpose. I present a biblical term of antichrist and its definition.
-
@byGeorge posted:
The term I used was antichrist. This term is likely intended to be identical in meaning to anti-christ.
My point was that the NT refers to the noun form of the word "antichrist," not the adjectival form, which you used in your previous post ("The person who denies the biblical identity of Jesus as God is Antichrist."
The meaning is the passage above is that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh. Some here deny that Jesus is the Christ [God] come in the flesh. By definition they are messiah deniers, or antichrist.
2 John 7 neither says nor means that Jesus Christ is God. I welcome you to read that into the text, but that's not what the text says.
-
My point was that the NT refers to the noun form of the word "antichrist," not the adjectival form, which you used in your previous post ("The person who denies the biblical identity of Jesus as God is Antichrist."
As used above, Antichrist is a noun. However, your error further clarifies my point above: those who reject Jesus as the divine messiah (God) are anti-Christ and thus an antichrist.
2 John 7 neither says nor means that Jesus Christ is God. I welcome you to read that into the text, but that's not what the text says.
If you personally reject all passages that explain Jesus to be God, then you will reject that one also. Such rejection adds light to understanding anti-Christ.
-
However, your error further clarifies my point above: those who reject Jesus as the divine messiah (God) are anti-Christ and thus an antichrist.
Oh dear ... @byGeorge, the Messiah can NOT be God because the Messiah was a promised human being ("seed of the woman", "born of a woman" ... the quite big error is on you side. When you claim that the Messiah is God, you are the one who is positioning himself anti Christ, and be an antichrist.
-
As you say, Jesus was the promised human being, the "seed of a woman." He was also without a human father. God was His "Father" who engendered Jesus in Mary. Because God fathered a fleshly being in Mary, is one reason we call Jesus the "Son of God."
When you claim that the Messiah is God,
There is no messiah that can save from sins but God. Jesus is that messiah.
-
As you say, Jesus was the promised human being, the "seed of a woman." He was also without a human father. God was His "Father" who engendered Jesus in Mary. Because God fathered a fleshly being in Mary, is one reason we call Jesus the "Son of God."
The MAN Jesus ... there is no God Jesus in existence, except in some human's theological fantasy such as you display here.
There is no messiah that can save from sins but God.
Please provide scripture for your claim ... that God is actually the Messiah whom He supposedly sent. I venture to say that there is no such scripture for reason that God is not dumb and irrational or "loony" contradicting himself.
-
Arguing probably won't convince you. You believe that Jesus is God or you don't. You don't. So, your understanding is limited to what you can believe. That is true for each of us.
-
Jesus was begotten. To claim God was begotten is a theological error. God is eternal. (John 3:16)
Since Jesus is Begotten, then at one time he did not exist. But was brought forth by Someone else who already existed.
One can point out this scripture found in the Bible at John 3:16 (LEB) is decpetive and misleading since it removed the word begotten from the Bible. Compare it with one of its scirpture at
Job 38:7 (LEB)
when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
You will Note sons of God in plural...
-
Arguing probably won't convince you.
In a different post I mentioned that proper biblical text based arguments have caused me to be convinced of a different understanding from a currently held understanding. So then, why are you almost call me a liar? Are you "precautionary" evading setting forth biblical text because you know your interpretation of such passages is unconvincing due to more or less incorrect reading or reasoning?
In addition, don't worry about "convincing" in the first place ... true conviction always comes from inside. Ever heard a saying like, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"?
You believe that Jesus is God or you don't.
So you advocate blind faith acceptance of majority tradition rather than biblical text?
You don't. So, your understanding is limited to what you can believe. That is true for each of us.
This may be true of you ... it is not true of me, as I am willing to consider points and reasoning outside my current understanding and what I currently believe and am willing to change IF a different understanding seems to be more biblically accurate.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Arguing probably won't convince you. You believe that Jesus is God or you don't. You don't. So, your understanding is limited to what you can believe. That is true for each of us.
- If "arguing" on significant theological issues consists of single- and few sentence posts, then I agree that it likely won't convince anyone of anything... other than that single- and few sentence posts rarely make substantive contributions to discussions of significant theological issues.
- As for options on the matter of whether Jesus is God, I think there's a third one: uncertainty. The Bible study group I lead on Sunday held its 100th hour-long session on the question was Jesus God. We've examined just more than 400 NT texts to-date and have about about 35 to go. I think it's fair to say group members are deeply engaged, VERY aware, especially for laypeople, and at the moment uncertain as to how to answer the question. Uncertainty is okay, as long as one stays on the road toward deeper understanding; such roads usually lead to good outcomes.
- I dispute your claim that our understanding is limited to what we can believe. In my view, understanding precedes and is necessary for authentic belief. If I don't understand a claim, how can I accept or reject it? That is, I contend you have it backwards: Our understanding isn't limited to what we can believe. Our beliefs are limited to what we can understand.
-
In addition, don't worry about "convincing" in the first place ... true conviction always comes from inside.
Right. Other than brief reasoning, I won't invest time to convince you. Conviction is what matters.
So you advocate blind faith acceptance of majority tradition rather than biblical text?
I did not mention blind faith or majority tradition. I advocate biblical text, learning from others, and the spirit of God. All three have biblical foundation. Your suggestions of blind faith and majority tradition do not.
This may be true of you ... it is not true of me, as I am willing to consider points and reasoning outside my current understanding and what I currently believe and am willing to change IF a different understanding seems to be more biblically accurate.
Your wording was better than mine. I considered your reasoning and changed my understanding. Thanks. What you describe is different from believing what you do not understand.
Post edited by byGeorge on -
I acknowledge reading all bullet points of your post.
understanding precedes and is necessary for authentic belief
Your statement contradicts faith. Do you understand God?
Further, you do not understand that Jesus is God, so you are unable to believe. There could be other sources of unbelief.
I am sure that we could readily list 100 authentic beliefs we both hold for which we do not have good understanding. Understanding sometimes precedes belief but is not necessary for authentic belief.
I reassert that a person's understanding is limited to what a person can believe: one does not understand a thing to exist which they cannot believe to exist. It is possible that your understanding that Jesus is God is limited because you cannot believe.
It is also true and a different meaning that a person can believe what they understand--which is why we have a Bible, preachers, and forums.
-
@byGeorge posted:
Your statement contradicts faith. Do you understand God?
Further, you do not understand that Jesus is God, so you are unable to believe. There could be other sources of unbelief.
It's not a lack of understanding that undergirds my decision not to believe Jesus is God. I don't believe Jesus is God because, in my view, Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is not God. I'm confident that you have reached a very different conclusion based on the same Scriptures - and I welcome you to your views - but to say I don't believe Jesus is God because I don't "understand that Jesus is God" is at best misleading. I don't believe Jesus is God because I have concluded Scripture teaches that Jesus is not God. In my view, accepting Scripture's teaching on the divinity of Jesus does not contradict faith.
I am sure that we could readily list 100 authentic beliefs we both hold for which we do not have good understanding. Understanding sometimes precedes belief but is not necessary for authentic belief.
The distinction between "understanding" and "belief" here is hard to discern, and might be more semantics than substance. When disciples of John the Baptist asked Jesus whether he was the Messiah they had been expecting, Jesus replied,
"Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised, and the poor have good news announced to them." (Matthew 11.4-5)
Jesus didn't tell them to just believe by "faith." He told them to consume, consider, and perhaps even "understand" the available evidence.
Certainly faith requires consent without intellectual certainty, but it also includes one's awareness of God's previous activity.
When the armies of Midian and Amalek as well as other adversaries united against Israel, Gideon didn't simply accept his leadership role. He twice asked God for proof that God intended to use him (Judges 6.36-40). Gideon surely acted in faith, but it was not faith absent evidence/understanding.
As I say, though, much of this is semantics more than substance.
I reassert that a person's understanding is limited to what a person can believe: one does not understand a thing to exist which they cannot believe to exist. It is possible that your understanding that Jesus is God is limited because you cannot believe.
See above.
I don't find your "it is possible" argument compelling because lots of things that are "possible" are not relevant, and in my case, I don't believe Jesus is God because I DO understand the teaching of Scripture, or at least in my view I understand the teaching of Scripture (as I'm sure in your view you understand the teaching of Scripture).
In my case, as I'm sure is true in your case, it's not a lack of belief or faith that results in the conclusion I draw about Jesus as God.
-
Rom 10:17 (NASB) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Rom 10:17 (ESV) So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Without hearing (and understanding what one hears) there is no believing, no faith possible, since one would have nothing to believe or in what to have faith.
-
Yes, faith comes by hearing. faith also comes before full understanding. What is fully understood is not of faith.
From a dictionary we understand: Faith is based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
From the Bible we understand: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Post edited by byGeorge on -
Have you overlooked key texts? Come on, this is the question you want ask, but is afraid of the Bible's answer:
Was Jesus eternally pre-existent?
Mic 5:2 — “Bethlehem...out of you will come...ruler over Israel, whose goings out are from of old, from days of eternity.”
John 1:1 — In the beginning was the Word [Creation is not mentioned until vs.3] Col 1:17 — He is before ALL things
Col 1:17 — He [Jesus] is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Heb 7:3 — [Melchizedek]...having neither beginning of days...like the Son of God
Keep studying. CM
-
@BroRando English "begotten" is not commonly used and the meaning is not clear to some people. Begotten is one English translation of the Greek monogenes. The meaning of monogenes is exceptionally clear, with virtually no ambiguity. It means unique or unlike any other, particularly in relationship. It does not mean made or created.
Begotten, yes.
Made, no.
Monogenes, yes.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
