On December 19, the small group Bible study I lead completed what turned out to be a 110 session, nearly 2-1/2 year review of the New Testament's witness as to the question of whether Jesus was God. In total, we examined approximately 450 passages comprising more than 40% of all the verses of the NT.
The concluding session of our NT review on Sunday contained something of a mid-season assessment of our discoveries to-date (we'll launch a review of 125-150 OT passages in January). The consensus view of those present distinguished between Jesus the human being and Jesus the resurrected, glorified one who sits at the right hand of God. No one believed the NT teaches that Jesus was God while on earth. Instead, group members said, the NT makes a clear distinction between God and the person Jesus through whom God worked.
On the other side of the resurrection Jesus was no longer a human being, but rather the one raised by God to a unique and eternal position of authority. Even in such exalted state, however, according to the mid-season view of group members, Jesus wasn't God's equal, but rather one elevated above everyone and everything other than God.
Study participants expressed unresolved questions after their first 110 hours of discussion - for example, about the verses and passages in the NT that declare the pre-existence of Jesus - and welcomed such an inconclusive status. In fact, throughout our journey I've quasi-demanded that the group not reach any definitive conclusions about our core question until we've completed our biblical review. Hence, yesterday's observations were clearly interim, not final, in nature.
The group member who came into the study with Christological views most inline with Trinitarian theology voiced the most obvious change of position. In the early months of our study, he spoke clearly and with authenticity about Jesus as God. He now believes Jesus was not God, but was a human on earth, but also (somehow) the one through whom God created everything (the pre-existence material) and the one who now reigns with God, just below God in eternal authority.
You might want to credit/blame me as the group's leader and the church's pastor for both that gentleman's change of views and the group's consensus opinion. The truth is not once have I declared to the group my views on the question, I have assiduously avoided drawing broad conclusions from the texts we've reviewed, and I have made every effort to point out the verses/passages the various sides of the debate rely on to support their views. Hence, the biblical text and our group's very active discussion of it have most affected his views, not I.
You may strongly disagree with my Christology; if you do, I respect your views and celebrate the faith that undergirds them. But I hope you will celebrate with me the good news of a group of lay Christians investing 2-1/2 years of study (so far) in intentional Bible study on such a specific and profound matter.
I will soon post a link to the OT texts we will review in the next phase of our study. Thanks again to those who responded in another thread to my request for suggested texts.
I have now posted to our church's website both the citations to and the NLT content of the 138 Old Testament passages our Sunday group Bible study will examine when it resumes its journey on January 9. If you're interested, you can view/download the PDFs (two pages and 47 pages respectively) from our downloads page, found HERE.
As I told the group in an email to them announcing the release of the two documents,
Not sure how many are in your group. I think Jonestown reached over 900.
Jonestown started near you in Indianapolis as a Bible study for enlightenment in which most participants appeared to reach the same or newly the same conclusion, leading to death. Jonestown took something like 20 years to reach destruction, though 1/10 that time might have been enough; more time produced bigger numbers. Curiously, that group also had an affinity for liberal and socialist political issues.
Jonestown didn’t end well. Such ventures never do.
Nevertheless, it is better that only the body should die than that the soul should die and be cast into eternal Hell.
Who comes (rides) on the clouds ?
Logos Bible Search (come OR ride) NEAR clouds
Jesus in human flesh did not need to convince other humans about Jesus being human, but Jewish Rabbi Jesus did need to prove what spiritually dwelt inside His Holy human body (spiritually different than all other humans on earth). Daniel 7 is written in Aramaic (Daniel 8 is written in Hebrew, like most of the old covenant). Ezekiel has phrase "son of man" spoken by יהוה Lord to Ezekiel (in Hebrew), but not "the son of man".
Logos Bible Search (a OR the) BEFORE 1 WORD "son of man" finds Daniel 7:13 along with New Testament references to Daniel 7:13
What does the phrase "the Son of Man" mean ?
Philippians 2:5-11 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) => Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of אלהים God, did not consider being equal with אלהים God something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, by becoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, that is, death on a cross. Therefore also אלהים God exalted him and graciously granted him the name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is יהוה Lord, to the glory of אלהים God the Father.
Who is יהוה Lord Jesus ?
Keep Smiling 😊
How ridiculous!
Reading coprolite into the scriptures!
Do you REALLY believe that Jesus taught THAT?
themadjw.weebly.com
253-652-4443
re: "An update on my Bible study group's Christology study."
Bill, I believe this is not a "Christology Study" Group. This GroupGroupaymen is vulnerable and unskilled, many with good intentions being led astray from Christ-like sheep to the slaughter. They are being led astray by one who should know better by age, time, training, and spiritual development. A new year has not changed my opinion of what we are and have done.
This is not a study of Christ. This is pure evil and diabolical! To drag innocent people down the gangway to doubt Christ's Divinity is spiritual murder! You're making yourself a tool of Satan. If you don't check yourself, practice Biblical skills and humble yourself by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, this group will be ripened to become a "Synagogue of Satan." You and this so-called Christological Study Group are marinating yourself to morph into the latest Twenty-first Century Cult.
This is not "critical thinking" or biblical criticism. It's an attempt to dismantle the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in broad daylight and hopes no one will call you out on it. Some may label your years of work and thousands of posts relegating the status of Christ, equivalent to spreading excrement on the name, power, holiness, and sacrifice. I would be inclined to concur with them.
Stop this madness! A man of the cloth and church Pastor has become a "silver-tongued" peddler of destruction. @Bill_Coley, what you are doing violates every principle of Biblical Interpretation. Cherry-picking texts out of context is different from understanding who Christ is. The method you have chosen alone leans itself to turn one away from Christ. Your presupposition disqualifies you from doing or leading this group to do a so-called "Christology Study ." This is a joke and a Spiritual travesty.
Please review a proper method of Biblical Interpretation. That is "Hermeneutics" (the science of Biblical Interpretation). It's a sacred duty to lead men and women to study to increase their faith in Christ.
See the Source list below. I want you to know better to do better. The famous and time-honored Reformation principle repeated in modern times, namely that "Scripture is its own interpreter" or "the Bible is its own expositor" derives entirely from Scripture (for example, Luke 24:27; l Cor 2:13; 2 Pet 1:20). It means that "Scripture interprets Scripture" that one portion of Scripture interprets another, becoming the key to other, less clear passages. This procedure involves collecting and studying all parts of the Bible of passages dealing with the same subject so that each may aid in interpreting the other. CM
SOURCES:
@Bill_Coley December 2021 You might want to credit/blame me as the group's leader and the church's pastor for both that gentleman's change of views and the group's consensus opinion. The truth is not once have I declared to the group my views on the question, I have assiduously avoided drawing broad conclusions from the texts we've reviewed, and I have made every effort to point out the verses/passages the various sides of the debate rely on to support their views. Hence, the biblical text and our group's very active discussion of it have most affected his views, not I.
Curious if your comments about verses were included in discussions ? If so, could your faith belief ideas have been implicitly declared ?
Jeremiah 17:9-10 reminds me of my own heart being deceitful (I need Holy God's help to ❤ Love Holy God with all of me as my heart lies to me).
Personally I am puzzled by intense Scribe & Pharisee scripture study that lost ❤ Loving Holy God first & most (in spite of "The Shema" being recited 2+ times daily), which received Woe rebukes from Holy God's Righteous ❤ Love in Matthew 23:1-16 (& reminds/terrifies me to guard my heart ❤ in daily spiritual warfare: the only worthwhile self focus is first ❤ Loving Holy God with all of me so Holy God's Living ❤ Love can flow through me to ❤ Love myself and ❤ Love my neighbors as myself).
Belief idea question: Did τὸν θεόν The Most High God make a mistake in this spoken command to followers of יֵשׁוּעַ Jesus:
πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (John 14:1 Greek spoken by יֵשׁוּעַ ) ?
Be Ye Believing in The אלהים God, also in Me Be Ye Believing
Why did τὸν θεόν The Most High God command followers of יֵשׁוּעַ Jesus to Be Believing in יֵשׁוּעַ Jesus the same as Be Believing in τὸν θεόν The Most High God ?
To me, the idea of Jewish Rabbi Jesus knowing he was only an annointed human being prior to death & resurrection has a falsehood implication for the John 14:1 Be Ye Believing command (prior to death & resurrection) that would disqualify Jesus from being God's Salvation for anyone.
What did the Transfiguration of Jewish Rabbi Jesus (prior to death & resurrection) in Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, & Luke 9:28-36 show about the spirit/soul residing inside the Holy human body ?
To me, the transfiguration is consistent with the Shroud of Turin, which I believe was created by dark demons pressing the cloth against the dead human body trying to prevent resurrection. The three dimensional negative image in the Shroud of Turin is consistent with the Transfiguration.
@C Mc January 23 Stop this madness! A man of the cloth and church Pastor has become a "silver-tongued" peddler of destruction. @Bill_Coley, what you are doing violates every principle of Biblical Interpretation. Cherry-picking texts out of context is different from understanding who Christ is. The method you have chosen alone leans itself to turn one away from Christ. Your presupposition disqualifies you from doing or leading this group to do a so-called "Christology Study ." This is a joke and a Spiritual travesty.
@C Mc January 23 * Interpreting the Bible from personal interests blurs reality and hinders progress toward Truth.
@C Mc January 23 * You don't allow the Bible to express itself without conditionality
@C Mc January 23 Please review a proper method of Biblical Interpretation. That is "Hermeneutics" (the science of Biblical Interpretation). It's a sacred duty to lead men and women to study to increase their faith in Christ.
Curious about purpose of ad hominem words for @Bill_Coley ? What reason(s) does @Bill_Coley have for obeying @C Mc exhortation ?
My experience with humans is learning of being incredibly stubborn (with lots of onion like layers, a number of them stink). My understanding is thoughts congeal into beliefs, which flow out in words & actions that will be righteously judged by our Holy Lord God, who is truly King of the Universe. To me, every human filters & interprets the Bible using their own belief ideas & conditionality.
Changing human belief ideas can be done slowly as described in Romans 12.
Every translation is an intersection of source language range of meaning & target range of meaning within translator belief bounds. Hence my desire to learn original Biblical language expression & my regret for not learning Hebrew verbal expression sooner. Thankfully two Logos resources: The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users & The Biblical Greek Companion for Bible Software Users have helped my Biblical understanding.
English verbs have a primary focus of time: past, present, & future.
Hebrew & Aramaic verbs have a primary focus of action kind: happened/ing, imperative, volitional, once with ongoing results
Greek verbs have a primary focus of action kind: happened/ing, imperative, volitional, once with ongoing results, continous while having secondary aspect of time. Translation of Hebrew & Aramaic words into Greek embed translators belief for secondary time aspect (because Hebrew & Aramaic verbs have no sense of time).
Translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek verbs into English embed translators time belief while often lacking kind of action expression.
Knowing original language expression still has opportunity for human to freely choose something other than Holy God to ❤ Love the most. Fundamental idea issue for every human is choosing what to believe/trust/love the most. Holy God appropriately rewards everyone who really want to ❤ Love Holy God the most, which shows in human words & actions.
An observation of @C Mc synopsis writing style is me not knowing which ideas flow from @C Mc & which ideas are compiled from list of Sources. My quirkiness is using quotes from source(s) to show ideas from someone else.
Keep Smiling 😊
Thanks for your response above on the valued pointers and resources on Greek and Hebrew texts.
What reason(s) does @Bill_Coley have for obeying @C Mc exhortation?
I can think of several:
What's yours, @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus?
Your quote above seems to be your primary concern. "My quirkiness" usage is a combination (of "compiled from a list of Sources," further reading on the subject matter, personal views, and "using quotes from source(s) to show ideas from someone else."
Does it matter? The bottom line is, what is true? Are you suggesting my contributions have no value in these forums? But most of all, despite the limited posters, is there no place for me in these forums? Like it or not, I try to cut through the stuffy terms and sometimes oversized words to understandable "the common people's language." Even if one doesn't think I am doing an excellent job at it, this is my intention. I will continue to share in light of the support of the biblical text. Besides, if I err in my quest, I leave behind other voices of scholars and references for the reader to explore independently similarly, as you do with less rank.
We say things in these forums that annoy one another, seemingly intentionally and unintentionally. Through it all, principle truth flows, upholding the unadulterated biblical veracity. e.g., your overuse of the red heart, "the term "Messiah Jesus," an exceedingly long excerpt from your library sources, etc. Like it or not, I am sure you intend to enlighten and be of help. It is like a marriage without the "forever." We adjust to one another, and change comes over time and without coercion.
Each poster's contribution, regardless of how distinctive, benefits the conversation. However, eternal truth remains the goal to be proclaimed. CM
@C Mc posted:
This is not a study of Christ. This is pure evil and diabolical! To drag innocent people down the gangway to doubt Christ's Divinity is spiritual murder! You're making yourself a tool of Satan. If you don't check yourself, practice Biblical skills and humble yourself by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, this group will be ripened to become a "Synagogue of Satan." You and this so-called Christological Study Group are marinating yourself to morph into the latest Twenty-first Century Cult.
Well, that's some kind of paragraph! I'm not going to dignify with a response either it, its companion paragraphs, or the spirit evident to me throughout the post in which you presented them, but I will use this opportunity to update the status of our study group's work.
Since July 7, 2019, we've held more than 160 sessions, their hours invested in a review of around 600 Bible texts (approx. 150 OT and 450 NT), the viewing of a portion of an on-topic video series, a presentation on the history of the development of the Trinity as Christian doctrine, and, currently, as we move toward our study's end, an assessment of summary cases I created in support of the two principal responses to our work's central question, "Was Jesus God?" For this forum's review, I have attached below the case I created in support of a "Yes" answer to the question.
It's been an amazing journey, our group's study. Group members' powers of textual observation -- i.e. their ability to identify both obvious and nuanced content -- and their capacity to discern connections between texts/themes found in disparate pieces of the same, perhaps even in the other, Testament, has blessed me frequently. What in your post to me you called this "GroupGroupaymen," @C Mc, is anything but a bunch of "vulnerable and unskilled" people being led "like sheep to a slaughter." They stand up very well for themselves, for each other, and the community they have helped create.
My guess is that we have no more than six or eight sessions remaining in our study. We have already lined up another controversy-rich matter as our next focus, but I won't bother these forums with that information.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Curious if your comments about verses were included in discussions ? If so, could your faith belief ideas have been implicitly declared ?
Yes, I've commented on the texts we've covered; as group leader/convener/teacher, such comments are part of my role. However, I have intentionally filtered my comments so as to maintain at least an obvious veneer of objectivity. Of the nine people who sat with me for last Sunday's session, only one of them knows my Christological views, and he knows only because apparently, several months before we birthed the study, he asked me about the subject and I told him enough to surmise my answer to the study's central question. But I've kept my views veiled throughout the last 43 months, and as the attached "yes" case will suggest, I've been willing to demonstrate authentic respect for points of view different from mine.
Belief idea question: Did τὸν θεόν The Most High God make a mistake in this spoken command to followers of יֵשׁוּעַ Jesus:
πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (John 14:1 Greek spoken by יֵשׁוּעַ ) ?
Be Ye Believing in The אלהים God, also in Me Be Ye Believing
Why did τὸν θεόν The Most High God command followers of יֵשׁוּעַ Jesus to Be Believing in יֵשׁוּעַ Jesus the same as Be Believing in τὸν θεόν The Most High God ?
In these threads over the years you and I have examined and debated the meaning of John 14.1 (and countless other texts!) on multiple occasions. We still disagree, and I still respect your views.
Curious about purpose of ad hominem words for @Bill_Coley ? What reason(s) does @Bill_Coley have for obeying @C Mc exhortation ?
I can't think of any.
@C Mc January 24 What's yours, @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus?
Like our Holy Lord God, I have no desire for anyone to spend the rest of eternity away from Holy God's ❤ Love. Every creature currently being tormented freely choose to believe/trust & ❤ love something more than Holy God.
My primary concern is guarding my heart ❤ in daily spiritual warfare: the only worthwhile self focus is first ❤ Loving Holy God with all of me so Holy God's Living ❤ Love can flow through me to ❤ Love myself and ❤ Love my neighbors as myself ❤
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus January 23 An observation of @C Mc synopsis writing style is me not knowing which ideas flow from @C Mc & which ideas are compiled from list of Sources. My quirkiness is using quotes from source(s) to show ideas from someone else.
@C Mc January 24 Your quote above seems to be your primary concern. "My quirkiness" usage is a combination (of "compiled from a list of Sources," further reading on the subject matter, personal views, and "using quotes from source(s) to show ideas from someone else."
An observation is synopsis summary can cherry pick ideas from a variety of sources (with @C Mc belief ideas embedded, which is similar to @Bill_Coley embedding personal faith belief ideas in verse commentary).
To me, quoting from source(s) shows something to consider without my belief ideas embedded. Also my quotes show source(s) NOT participating in this discussion.
@C Mc January 24 Does it matter?
Curious about something being hidden or protected ?
@C Mc January 24 The bottom line is, what is true?
My desire is discerning Holy God's eternal truth. Our spiritual adversary is a master manipulator of twisting truth with falsehood(s).
@C Mc January 24 Are you suggesting my contributions have no value in these forums?
No suggestion made. FWIW: I choose to inquire about purpose of ad hominem words for @Bill_Coley (instead of flagging January 23 reply for Christian Discourse guideline review) while wondering how much of @C Mc was described in exhortation ?
Humanly is easier to see specks in someone else as described in Matthew 7:1-5 LEB =>
“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For by what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and by what measure you measure out, it will be measured out to you. And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold, the beam of wood is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye!
Thankfully Celebrate Recovery is helping me to remove the beam of wood from my own eye. My third step study is nearing completion of Participant Guide 2, which focuses on Principle 4: Openly examine and confess my faults to myself, to God, and to someone I trust. "Blessed the pure in heart, because they will see God." (Matthew 5:8) with Step 4: We made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. "Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD." (Lamentations 3:40).
At times, red heart ❤ reminds me of Holy blood shed in the scourging & crucifixion of our Righteous King יהוה Yeshua HaMashiach, which helps me imagine God's Holy blood cleansing my sin away from me after my repentance choice from sin & agreement with Holy Lord God (with remorse desire to stay turned away from sin). With Holy God's help, the only person I can change is me while 🙏 praying for Holy God's healing experience in all life domains for everyone.
Keep Smiling 😊
@C Mc posted:
Stop this madness! A man of the cloth and church Pastor has become a "silver-tongued" peddler of destruction. @Bill_Coley, what you are doing violates every principle of Biblical Interpretation. Cherry-picking texts out of context is different from understanding who Christ is. The method you have chosen alone leans itself to turn one away from Christ. Your presupposition disqualifies you from doing or leading this group to do a so-called "Christology Study ." This is a joke and a Spiritual travesty.
and...
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
Curious if your comments about verses were included in discussions ? If so, could your faith belief ideas have been implicitly declared ?
AN ADDENDUM TO MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE:
A couple of things for your information:
1) Today I received an email from one of our study group members reporting that she and her great friend who is also in our study disagree as to my answer to our study's central question, was Jesus God? The person who sent the email believes my answer is "no," while her friend believes my answer is "yes." Both of those ladies are informed, thoughtful, and passionate Bible students. Both of them have spent a lot of time at our Sunday morning discussion table. Yet they have come to different conclusions as to my answer to the question. I think that's pretty good evidence that, at the very least, I've kept my views on the subject out of our study's spotlight.
2) @C Mc, in my previous response to you, I intended but failed to inform you that I will share your critique, in full, with our study group. My current plan is to close our journey with sessions devoted members' sharing their answers to our central question and, if they choose, how they arrived at those answers. After all groups members have had their say, I will present my views and how I have come to them. At the end of my presentation, I will distribute copies of your post, indicating to our group that my views evidently aren't shared by everyone. When that time comes, I will post in this thread a summary of the group's reactions to your post.
You said, in response to my Jan 23 post:
It's been an amazing journey, our group's study. Group members' powers of textual observation -- i.e. their ability to identify both obvious and nuanced content -- and their capacity to discern connections between texts/themes found in disparate pieces of the same, perhaps even in the other, Testament, has blessed me frequently. What in your post to me you called this "GroupGroupaymen," @C Mc, is anything but a bunch of "vulnerable and unskilled" people being led "like sheep to a slaughter." They stand up very well for themselves, for each other, and the community they have helped create.
Bill, until I have time to respond to your post, I must set the record straight on one matter.
@Bill_Coley said to @C Mc, "What in your post to me you called this "GroupGroupaymen," @C Mc, is anything but a bunch of "vulnerable and unskilled" people being led "like sheep to a slaughter."
In my post, the word that appeared as "GroupGroupaymen" is a typo -- a mistake. It should have read,
This group of laymen is vulnerable and unskilled, many with good intentions, being led astray from Christ; --like "sheep to the slaughter."
I stand behind the sentence with the correction of the three words and the quotation marks. What I meant by "laymen" are those not trained or degreed in any formal study of biblical Greek or Hebrew -- non-clergymen or women. If there are some in the group, I stand to be corrected. Regardless, you're the leader. I have no rebuke for the group. My heart goes out to them with compassion and sympathy.
In your sharing, please include my correction and clarification of the typo ("GroupGroupaymen") for the correction words (group of laymen) without editing or embellishments. I will respond to other portions of your reply to my original post later. CM
PS. @Bill_Coley, have you considered asking the "group" to join CD (if they can) or, at least, respond to me directly via personal messages? CM
@C Mc posted:
In your sharing, please include my correction and clarification of the typo ("GroupGroupaymen") for the correction words (group of laymen) without editing or embellishments.
I will do so.
have you considered asking the "group" to join CD (if they can) or, at least, respond to me directly via personal messages?
On multiple occasions over the years I have referred the group to these forums. Though it's possible that some members have visited this or other CD threads, no one has ever said anything to me or the group that reported such a visit.
@Bill_Coley January 25 For this forum's review, I have attached below the case I created in support of a "Yes" answer to the question.
An observation is "strongly suggests" wording embeds personal doubt about the spirit/soul inside the Messianic (anointed) Holy human body being fully God. Believing command in John 14:1 is notable missing from "Yes" case as is Emmanuel "God with us" in Matthew 1:23. Hence this reply is offered as one more post for group discussion by a lay person (with one semester of seminary) who believes scripture truly says "Yes".
Thankfully Logos Bible Software https://www.logos.com has powerful search capabilities along with Faithlife Corporation offering over 100,000 resources to purchase (free Basic Bible study resources are amazing). Thankfully a Pastor strongly encouraged his congregation to become Bible experts (shortly before he left to pursue being a seminary professor preparing preachers). Thankfully the Israel Bible (Old Covenant) produced by Israel365 has many verses with Hebrew transliteration showing accented syllable using CAPITAL letters.
The most important Bible lesson I learned during my one seminary semester => Every word has context in a sentence. Every sentence has context in a paragraph. Every paragraph has context in a larger unit. Imperative & Important to know the appropriate Bible context. The Bible Love story is unified.
FWIW: the doctrine of "once saved = always saved" has many Bible passages to consider: e.g. hearing & obeying to follow Jesus in John 10:22-30 LEB => Then the feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple in the Portico of Solomon. So the Jews surrounded him and began to say to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly!” Jesus answered them, “I told you and you do not believe! The deeds that I do in the name of my Father, these testify about me. But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep! My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them eternal life, and they will never perish forever, and no one will seize them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one can seize them from the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.” (observation is hands do not have a fence to keep someone from sinfully choosing to leave)
Some language background summarized from many grammar resources: (one seminary class had me translate Jude from Biblical Greek to English so I learned nuanced verbal expression has translation challenges)
English verbs have a primary focus of time: past, present, & future.
Hebrew & Aramaic verbs have a primary focus of action kind: happened/ing, imperative, volitional, completed with ongoing results. (my regret is not pursuing Hebrew language learning sooner)
Greek verbs have a primary focus of action kind: happened/ing, imperative, volitional, completed with ongoing results, continous with a secondary aspect of time. Translation of Hebrew & Aramaic words into Greek embed human translator's belief for secondary time aspect because Hebrew & Aramaic verbs have no sense of time (contextual Hebrew & Aramaic words are the only indicators for verbal action timing).
Original Bible language texts do not have chapter & verse numbering, which has numerous alignment issues with original sentences: e.g. Philippians 4:6 is in the middle of a Greek sentence that begins "The Lord is near: ... (where italics show a verb added for smooth English)
The free Lexham English Bible (LEB) published by Lexham Press (Faithlife Corporation) began as interlinear English for original language text. LEB is a modern English translation designed to be used side by side with original language Bibles. LEB sentence punctuation shows lengthy sentences: e.g. Ephesians 1:3-14 & Colossians 1:9-20
=> 1st question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): How does the firstborn preeminences in Colossians 1:9-20 relate to divinity ?
Observant Jews pray "The Shema" (Deuteronomy 6:4–9; 11:13–21; Numbers 15:37–41) at least twice daily, I wonder how many times the Jewish man born blind (in John 9) prayed "sh’-MA, yis-ra’-AYL! a-do-NAI e-lo-HEI-nu, a-do-NAI e-KHAD" [Hear, Isra’el! ADONAI our God, ADONAI is one] that could also be translated [Hear, Isra’el! ADONAI our God, ADONAI alone] ... and you must Love a-do-NAI your God with all of your ❤ heart ....
LORD/Master in Hebrew is a-do-NAI אדון that was spoken instead of יהוה by Jews outside of the Jewish Holy Temple to avoid Exodus 20:7 & Deuteronomy 5:11 punishment for uselessly using God's Most Holy Name. English translation of "Hear" for "sh’-MA" misses part of Hebrew verb meaning due to English having Western culture words that separate thought and action. Essence of "sh’-MA" (Hear & Do) is expressed in James 1:22 (NLT) "But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says."
Revelation 4:8 expresses the meaning of יהוה name in the phrase "the one who always was, who is, and who is still to come.” (simultaneously past, present, future) Aha moment during my reply composition was realizing Hebrew verbless clauses express timeless existence, which avoids confusing יהוה with verbal variants. Holy God's answer to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is 1st person verbal variant of יהוה "I was, I am, I will be" with 3rd person יהוה being used in the rest of the Hebrew Bible for Holy God's name.
Psalm 23:1 LEB phrase "Yahweh is my shepherd; " translates two Hebrew words: " יהוה רעי " so " Yahweh shepherding me " literally expresses "to shepherd" verbal participle with suffixed 1st person pronoun. The 1560 Geneva Bible shows "is" in Psalm 23:1 was inserted for smooth English.
Psalm 23 reminds me of the Good Shepherd in John 10:1-18 LEB => “Truly, truly I say to you, the one who does not enter through the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up at some other place — that one is a thief and a robber. But the one who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. For this one the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. Whenever he sends out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him because they know his voice. And they will never follow a stranger, but will flee from him, because they do not know the voice of strangers.” Jesus told them this parable, but they did not understand what it was that he was saying to them. Then Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All those who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep do not listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters through me, he will be saved, and will come in and will go out and will find pasture. The thief comes only so that he can steal and kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and have it abundantly. “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand, who is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf approaching and abandons the sheep and runs away — and the wolf seizes them and scatters them — because he is a hired hand and he is not concerned about the sheep. “I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep which are not from this fold. I must bring these also, and they will hear my voice, and they will become one flock — one shepherd. Because of this the Father loves me, because I lay down my life so that I may take possession of it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down voluntarily. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take possession of it again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
=> 2nd question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): What is relationship of divinity and having authority to take possession of life again ?
Plural e-lo-HEI-nu אלהינו is the Hebrew word e-lo-HEEM אלהים (plural God) with construct formation "of" & plural personal suffix "we".
Plural e-lo-HEEM אלהים in the Hebrew Bible usually describes our Holy God (2,335 times) while 266 e-lo-HEEM אלהים occurences do not: e.g. Isaiah 44:6 LEB Thus says יהוה Yahweh, the king of Israel, and its redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts: “I am the first, and I am the last, and there is no אלהים god besides me.
To my reading, Isaiah 44:6 has dual subjects with a singular verb that shows unified speaking by One unique plural God centuries before יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua was born. Jesus is the Latin name for Yeshua, whose name means " יהוה Salvation " that is consistent with " redeemer, יהוה Yahweh of hosts ". Haggai 2:1-23, Zechariah 1:7-17 & Malachi 2:10-17 has words from both יהוה Yahweh, the God of Israel, and יהוה Yahweh of hosts.
Genesis 14:18 begins with "... ומלכי-צדק מלך שלם" "u-mal-kee TZE-dek ME-lakh sha-LAYM ..." "and King Righteousness King Shalom ..."
Psalm 110:4 LEB => יהוה Yahweh has sworn and he will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.” has allusion in Hebrews 5:6 LEB => just as also in another place he says, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek,”
Melchizedek (King Righteousness) Jesus forever shares eternal Holy יהוה name as it is written in Jeremiah 23:5-6 LEB => “Look, days are coming,” declares יהוה Yahweh, “when I will raise up for David a righteous branch, and he will reign as king, and he will achieve success, and he will do justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell in safety, and this is his name by which he will be called: ‘יהוה Yahweh is our righteousness.’
Hebrew noun צדקנו tzid-KAY-nu for righteousness has pronoun, suffixed, 1st person, plural (construct => of) whose literal translation is: 'Yahweh Righteousness of We'.
Singular e-LO-ha אלוה occurs 58 times in the Hebrew Bible: e.g. Isaiah 44:8 LEB You must not tremble, and you must not be paralyzed with fear. Have I not made you hear from of old and declared it, and you are my witnesses? Is there a אלוה god besides me? And there is no rock! I know none!”
Singular AYL אל (first two consonants of e-LO-ha אלוה & e-lo-HEEM אלהים) occurs 230 times in the Hebrew Bible along with four plural (אלים gods) occurences: e.g. Daniel 11:36 LEB “Then the king will do as he pleases, and he will exalt himself and will consider himself above any אל god, and he will speak horrendous things against the אל God of אלים gods, yet he will succeed until the period of anger is finished, for what is determined will be done.
Hebrew nouns have three spelling variations: singular, dual (eyes, ears, ...), & plural.
=> 3rd question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): What is plural in God alone ?
Learning for Jewish Scribes and Pharisees included memorizing every letter in the five books of Moses, the Torah (Teaching) as part of their preparation to be Jewish religious lawyers and judges. The Sanhedrin was/is the Jewish Supreme Court. Observant Jews read through the Old Covenant (Testament) every year along with participating in Jewish Holy days. Hence, my next two language translation questions are rhetorical:
How many in the Jewish audiences hearing Jewish Rabbi Jesus knew יהוה occurences (6,828) in the Hebrew Bible had been usually translated into Greek Septuagint (LXX) as κύριος Lord (92%) & sometimes as θεός God (4%) a couple centuries earlier ?
Likewise how many in the Jewish audiences hearing Jewish Rabbi Jesus knew אלהים (plural God) occurences (2,601) in the Hebrew Bible had been usually translated into Greek Septuagint (LXX) as masculine singular θεός God (87%) & sometimes as κύριος Lord (4%) & twice as feminine singular θεῖος (goddess in Exodus 31:3 & Proverbs 2:17) a couple centuries earlier ?
Acts chapters 21 & 22 document the Apostle Paul speaking Koine Greek and Aramaic along with Pharisee learning earlier in his life.
Jeremiah 23:5-6 King fulfillment is part of the angelic message to Mary in Luke 1:30-33 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) => And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with אלהים God. And behold, you will conceive in the womb and will give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus. This one will be great, and he will be called the Son of the Most High, and the יהוה Lord אלהים God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.
Matthew 2:2 has a question "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?"
The name Bethlehem (bayt LE-khem בית-לחם) means "House of Bread" where "The Bread of Life" (John 6:35 & John 6:48) was born in fulfillment of Micah 5:2 LEB => But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, too small to be among the clans of Judah, from you one will go out for me, to be ruler in Israel; and his origins are from of old, from ancient days.
=> 4th question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): At age 12 (in Luke 2:41-52), who did Jesus identify as His Father when Joseph & Mary found Jesus in the Jewish Holy Temple ?
Biblical (Koine) Greek is a highly inflected language whose word spelling shows grammatical usage: e.g. τὸν θεόν is the accusative grammatical spelling of ὁ θεός (the God). The most common accusative usage is direct object. Grammatical spelling with a preposition indicates prepositional meaning. In John 14:1 the preposition εἰς (eis) points to the direct object of believing (present tense imperative verb is primarily continous action with secondary aspect of present time).
πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε (John 14:1 Greek spoken by יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua to his Jewish disciples)
Be Ye Believing in The God, also in Me Be Ye Believing (archaic Ye shows plural You in suffix spelling of πιστεύετε)
=> 5th question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): What is Holy God's command purpose for disciples of יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua (Jesus) to Be Believing in (me) יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua also as Be Believing in The God ?
To me, the idea of Jewish Rabbi Jesus knowing he was only an annointed human being (NOT God) prior to death & resurrection has a falsehood implication for the John 14:1 Be Ye Believing command that would disqualify Jesus from being Holy God's Salvation for anyone along with subsequent doubt for John 14:6-7 LEB => Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you know him and have seen him.”
Also the Transfiguration of Jesus (prior to death & resurrection) is consistent with the unique Shroud of Turin, which I believe was created by dark demons pressing the cloth against the dead Holy human body of Jesus trying to prevent resurrection. The three dimensional negative image in the Shroud of Turin is the remnant of a dark & light battle. Body image completeness shows sinless light bursting forth everywhere.
=> 6th question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): What did the Transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, & Luke 9:28-36 show about the spirit/soul residing inside the Holy human body ?
On the Road to Emmaus in Luke 24:13-35, my speculation for beginning from Moses is Genesis 3:15 LEB => ' And I will put hostility between you and between the woman, and between your offspring and between her offspring; he will strike you on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.” ' that has expansion in Isaiah 9:6-7 LEB => ' For a child has been born for us; a son has been given to us. And the dominion will be on his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His dominion will grow continually, and to peace there will be no end on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it with justice and righteousness now and forever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts will do this. ' with offspring of a woman fulfillment in Matthew 1:22-23 LEB => ' Now all this happened in order that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled, saying, “Behold, the virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Emmanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” ' and heel strike fulfillment in crucifixion of Jesus The Messiah (Anointed One), The Christ.
Sometimes prophecy has ~2,000 years between adjacent words: e.g. Zechariah 9:9-10 LEB => Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Look! Your king comes to you; he is righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, and on a male donkey, the foal of a female donkey! And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem; the battle bow will be cut down, and he will announce peace to the nations. His dominion will be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.
On Palm Sunday, Jesus humbly rode a donkey colt into Jerusalem as part of The Triumphal Entry in Matthew 21:1-11, Mark 11:1-11, Luke 19:28-40, John 12:12-19
=> 7th question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): What Old Covenant (Testament) prophecies did Jesus fulfill ~2,000 years ago ?
The first class for learning Biblical Greek in a number of colleges & universities uses a textbook that has John 1:1 exegetical insights in Chapter 6:
Chapter 6
Nominative and Accusative; Article
(First and Second Declension Nouns)
Exegetical Insight
The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the article, it is the subject.
As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) Why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?
In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of the article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of the article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.
To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God” (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)
καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god” (Arianism)
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God” (orthodoxy).
Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Daniel B. Wallace
William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge and Christopher A. Beetham, Fourth Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2019), 33–34.
The verb ἦν is the imperfect tense that has primary aspect of continuous action with secondary aspect of past time. My literal translation of "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" is "and God being (was) The Word" because the English translation "was" for ἦν lacks primary continuous kind of action expression. Koine Greek has three other verb tenses whose secondary time aspect is past time, which have different primary kinds of action.
The priestly prayer in John 17 also includes verse 24 LEB => “Father, those whom you have given to me — I want that those also may be with me where I am, in order that they may see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
John 20:24-29 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) => Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the יהוה Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe!” And after eight days his disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Although the doors had been shut, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said, “Peace to you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Place your finger here and see my hands, and place your hand and put it into my side. And do not be unbelieving, but believing!” Thomas answered and said to him, “My יהוה Lord and my אלהים God!” Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
Philippians 2:5-11 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) => Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of אלהים God, did not consider being equal with אלהים God something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, by becoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, that is, death on a cross. Therefore also אלהים God exalted him and graciously granted him the name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is יהוה Lord, to the glory of אלהים God the Father.
=> 8th question to prayerfully ponder (Psalm 119:18): Who is יהוה Lord Jesus ?
Thomas was martyred for his belief "My יהוה Lord and my אלהים God":
XIII. St. Thomas
He was called by this name in Syriac, but Didymus in Greek; he was an apostle and martyr, and preached in Parthia and India, where displeasing the pagan priests, he was martyred by being thrust through with a spear. His death is commemorated on the 21st of December.
John Foxe, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000).
Keep Smiling 😊
I got your intent to inform, but failed to grasp your message or point. Your "one seminary class" of Greek work is evident, seemingly, in your attempt to reproduce it in your last post. It was like a plant-based meat substitute with too much fillers, I missed point and the benefits.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, please summarize in simple understandable English what you said in your January 29 post above. I remain. CM
PS. Citing Greek and Hebrew is good, but it's better to be understood. Too much of a good thing is good for nothing. CM
What is your biblically-based argument for "Yes" answer to the question: "Was Jesus God ?"
The two page "Yes" handout posted by @Bill_Coley on January 25 for CD forum review has six numbered points with many scripture snippets.
When I was composing my January 29 post, I had the "Yes" handout by @Bill_Coley open while prayerfully pondering scripture truly saying "YES".
@C Mc January 23 Bill, I believe this is not a "Christology Study" Group. ...
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus January 23 Curious about purpose of ad hominem words for @Bill_Coley ? What reason(s) does @Bill_Coley have for obeying @C Mc exhortation ?
@Bill_Coley January 25 I can't think of any.
Notably missing from previous @C Mc posts in this discussion are scripture reason(s) to believe like Thomas about Jesus: "My יהוה Lord and my אלהים God", especially biblically-based divinity reasons before the death, burial & resurrection of Jesus: e.g. Mark 4:35-41 LEB => And on that day, when it was evening, he said to them, “Let us cross over to the other side.” And leaving the crowd, they took him along, as he was, in the boat. And other boats were with him. And a great storm of wind developed, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already being filled with water. And he was in the stern sleeping on the cushion, and they woke him up and said to him, “Teacher, is it not a concern to you that we are perishing?” And he woke up and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Be quiet! Be silent!” And the wind abated and there was a great calm. And he said to them, “Why are you fearful? Do you not yet have faith?” And they were terribly frightened and began to say to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”
Keep Smiling 😊
@C Mc may not see this comment, given these forums' lack of recent activity, but I leave it for him/you anyway:
Tomorrow, February 26, our Sunday group Bible study group will hold its 167th and final session on the subject of the deity of Christ, a session that will allow me to conclude the presentation of my personal views that I began last week. After a concluding discussion of our epic journey, we will take a final secret ballot vote and then I will present to the group the unedited text of the critique of our study that you posted on January 23 (unedited save for the correction of one typo, as you requested). Sometime later in the day tomorrow, or perhaps on Monday, I will post a summary of the group's reactions to your critique, as well as the results of our final vote.
@C Mc posted
Bill, I believe this is not a "Christology Study" Group. This GroupGroupaymen is vulnerable and unskilled, many with good intentions being led astray from Christ-like sheep to the slaughter. They are being led astray by one who should know better by age, time, training, and spiritual development. A new year has not changed my opinion of what we are and have done.
Today we concluded our study on the deity of Christ in a session the last agenda item of which was a review of the critique you posted on January 23 of me, my stewardship of the group's learning journey, and the group's participants. It will likely not surprise you that the group did not respond favorably to your comments.
No constructive purpose would be served were I to detail all the responses group members offered, so I will instead summarize their reactions this way:
And in today's final session we also took one last secret ballot vote on the question, Was Jesus God? Today's results: 2-Yes, 8-No, 1-undecided. For comparison, the first ballot we took was a 4-2 majority "yes" vote, so some views changed. In full disclosure, today's vote came after I concluded a presentation of my views. No doubt I had some impact on the vote, which is why I used a secret ballot to make it easier for people to speak the truth in their votes.
In two weeks we move to our next great Bible study adventure, the focus of which already has people buzzing. Moral of the story: When The BODY is in the Bible, great things can happen. Praise God!
Bill said:
And in today's final session [,] we also took one last secret ballot vote on the question, Was Jesus God? Today's results: 2-Yes, 8-No, 1-undecided. For comparison, the first ballot we took was a 4-2 majority "yes" vote, so some views changed. In full disclosure, today's vote came after I concluded a presentation of my views. No doubt I had some impact on the vote, which is why I used a secret ballot to make it easier for people to speak the truth in their votes.
When the Inspired Word of God (Bible) is relegated to a group of people voting on Jesus' divinity is a sad day in Society in all of Christendom. What right does this group have to empower themselves to usurp God's revelation, inspiration, and authority?
Bill, just because you and the group supposedly "examined 600 texts/passages (150 OT; 450 NT)" and met over "167 times" is no authoritative guarantee of correct methods of biblical interpretation. How many in the group, perhaps, besides yourself, know or were made aware of Facts about the Bible? For starters, were they aware of the Chapters and Verses? In the KJV Bible, there are 31,102 verses, paled in comparison to your "600 texts/passages (150 OT; 450 NT)". "All Scriptures are given by inspiration of God." "Cherry-picked" or not, your sample was too small for you and the group's conclusion. A text can't be studied without context!
Were they aware or you taught them these facts befoor the study commenced?
The above is about the King James Bible, not to speak of other Bibles used. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses NWT, paraphrases, Bibles with or without the Apocrypha, etc. As for the group you lead, many things were unknown to me and the posters of this forum. For example:
These and other matters are important when it comes to studying the Bible in general and Christ's divinity in particular. Literary genre and writers' idiomatic expressions must be considered when interpreting selected passages as you and the group have done.
So, Bill, my "beef" is not with your group but with you. They have no cause to be angry with me because they don't know me, either seen all that you or I have written in these forums. You should explain this to them. Please don't make me a scapegoat. It's how they were led to interpret Scripture and what they should be upset about. You were not a suitable subject (although the church leader) to lead this group on the Divinity of Christ Study with your established pre-conclusions on Christ and your pregnant-laden presuppositions of the Bible, etc.
In grade school, when given math homework, the teacher instructed us not only to give the answers to the problems but "show our work," the steps, or the process. Unseen works you have yet to do or promise to produce. The lack of steps taken is why you or this unknown group (to me) have no justifiable anger toward this peace-loving CD Poster. My statement to you about them was made without seeing their works. Especially since they drew their conclusions, as a small-town rural community jury, with its two-tier vote on Christ's divinity, highly influenced by its facilitator, teacher/guide. CM
@C Mc posted:
When the Inspired Word of God (Bible) is relegated to a group of people voting on Jesus' divinity is a sad day in Society in all of Christendom. What right does this group have to empower themselves to usurp God's revelation, inspiration, and authority?
Our group's vote didn't relegate anything, let alone the Word of God, to anyone.
Group members had the right to their views and also, at least in our setting, the right to express those views both in group discussions and the secret ballot votes. None of our views, however expressed, had either the ability or the intention to "usurp God's revelation, inspiration, and authority."
Bill, just because you and the group supposedly "examined 600 texts/passages (150 OT; 450 NT)" and met over "167 times" is no authoritative guarantee of correct methods of biblical interpretation. How many in the group, perhaps, besides yourself, know or were made aware of Facts about the Bible? For starters, were they aware of the Chapters and Verses? In the KJV Bible, there are 31,102 verses, paled in comparison to your "600 texts/passages (150 OT; 450 NT)". "All Scriptures are given by inspiration of God." "Cherry-picked" or not, your sample was too small for you and the group's conclusion. A text can't be studied without context!
In your view, what actions could/should we have taken to have provided an "authoritative guarantee of correct methods of biblical interpretation"?
Group members and I are "aware of facts about the Bible":
Our 600 texts provided too small a sample? When was the last time you created/led/participated in a Bible study about the divinity of Christ? How many distinct Bible passages did you examine during that study? Do you have a list of those passages so that we can compare our group's list with yours? (And while I'm asking about it, how many hours, in round numbers, did that Bible study require?) . . . And as for context, I took intentional care to include complete pericopes - that is, proper context - to all the passages I chose. You might well have chosen different beginnings and ends to those pericopes, but such differences are not uncommon.
The Bible has/contains/etc
An impressive array of information that in the main is not relevant to the study we collected.
As for the group you lead, many things were unknown to me and the posters of this forum. For example:
I'll answer at least some of your questions once you answer the questions I asked above: When was the last time you created/led/participated in a Bible study about the divinity of Christ? How many distinct Bible passages did you examine during that study? Do you have a list of those passages so that we can compare our group's list with yours? (And while I'm asking about it, how many hours, in round numbers, did that Bible study require?)
So, Bill, my "beef" is not with your group but with you.
The group will be relieved.
They have no cause to be angry with me because they don't know me, either seen all that you or I have written in these forums. You should explain this to them. Please don't make me a scapegoat. It's how they were led to interpret Scripture and what they should be upset about.
I think it's fair to say group members were not angry or upset with you. They were disappointed by and expressed great disapproval of the tone and content of your post, but there was no personal animus whatsoever.
You were not a suitable subject (although the church leader) to lead this group on the Divinity of Christ Study with your established pre-conclusions on Christ and your pregnant-laden presuppositions of the Bible, etc.
My bad. I should have requested permission to use YOUR "established pre-conclusions on Christ" and YOUR "pregnant-laden presuppositions about the Bible." Though I'd have to research how to "laden" presuppositions with "pregnant." Yet ANOTHER elective I regret not having taken in seminary.
In grade school, when given math homework, the teacher instructed us not only to give the answers to the problems but "show our work," the steps, or the process. Unseen works you have yet to do or promise to produce.
I made the lists of both the OT and NT passages we reviewed available to this group from the moment I created them. Such was the textbook of our class work. I look forward to comparing our lists to the list of passages you used the last time you created/led/or participated in a Bible study on the divinity of Christ.
The lack of steps taken is why you or this unknown group (to me) have no justifiable anger toward this peace-loving CD Poster. My statement to you about them was made without seeing their works. Especially since they drew their conclusions, as a small-town rural community jury, with its two-tier vote on Christ's divinity, highly influenced by its facilitator, teacher/guide.
You made judgments about our group's process and results without seeing the work that you judged. SOME people might find that to have been unfair to our group.
And in support of accurate demographics, we're NOT a "small-town rural community" church. We ARE a small church in a 400,000 population metro area, but we're not "rural." ALL PROPS IN THE WORLD TO RURAL CHURCHES!! But we're not one of them.
Just an observation from reading this entire thread.
I'm guessing that background research was not a priority to writing your comments on this thread. It would be, in my opinion, a great value to know certain information when theologically engaging with Bill regarding the "Is Jesus God?" study group.
The First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), of which there are a total of four churches within the Quad Cities (approx. +/- 400,000 pop.), is probably not best described as you put it, "a small-town rural community". I'll leave it to you to research into the history and associated theological belief and doctrine of this denomination. I believe in doing that you will better appreciate the content, and consistency, in Bill's first post aligning with their congregational beliefs even though you won't agree theologically with it.
Therefore, considering the above, it would be in my estimation irrational to suggest that Bill is "not a suitable subject to lead this group..."; when, in fact, he is consistent with denominational belief and practice.
That said, I don't mean having an understanding of another's belief and doctrine then requires to have theological agreement with them – as I do not agree on all theological issues with Bill and others – but, it is most helpful in communicating on specific points of doctrine.
I see @Bill_Coley has responded and mentioned the "rural" misnomer.
@Pages posted:
Just an observation from reading this entire thread. . . .
That said, I don't mean having an understanding of another's belief and doctrine then requires to have theological agreement with them – as I do not agree on all theological issues with Bill and others – but, it is most helpful in communicating on specific points of doctrine.
Thanks for your post.
I'll leave it to you to research into the history and associated theological belief and doctrine of this denomination. I believe in doing that you will better appreciate the content, and consistency, in Bill's first post aligning with their congregational beliefs even though you won't agree theologically with it.
If you've discerned our denomination's theological position is on . . . ANYTHING, please tell me so we'll both know! 😀
We Disciples have a long history of valuing congregational autonomy, which is in keeping with our commonly held view that each person is accountable for and free develop his or her personal theology. I led 166 sessions of our Jesus/God Bible study without once revealing my conclusions on the matter in the main so that people were as free as possible to reach their own conclusions. Group members occasionally express amazement that I operate in such a manner, but they'll tell you they wouldn't have it any other way.
@Pages said:
Just an observation from reading this entire thread.
I'm guessing that background research was not a priority to writing your comments on this thread. It would be, in my opinion, a great value to know certain information when theologically engaging with Bill regarding the "Is Jesus God?" study group.
@C Mc: Thanks, Pages, for sharing the conversation between Bill and me. Your suggested/ “opinion” is appreciated. Your point of concern on behalf of Bill is noted. However, to speak for one without being a designated surrogate or mouthpiece brings liability. That is, saying too much, too little, or exacerbating a situation (idiomatic expression) beyond its original intent. Notwithstanding, Bill is most capable of expressing himself at the time, manner, interest, and depth of his choosing. Besides, let’s “keep the main thing, the main thing,” Biblical Hermeneutics -- a correct method.
As you have read, my address was not toward the group or “The First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” My intent was to convey to Bill my disagreement with his method of Biblical interpretation. His chosen method is seemingly unorthodox, regardless of denomination. I intended to avoid the appearance of attacking his or any religious group. Considering your words, the differences in approach to biblical interpretation would be noticeable and less censure if it were limited to his people and denomination -- The First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
However, your contribution would have been of more value in this forum if you were to give insights into standard biblical interpretation applicable across Christendom than on one man guiding his flock in a specific denomination. The size of the town or population emphasis is a detraction away from the core exchanges.
Therefore, considering the above, it would be in my estimation irrational to suggest that Bill is "not a suitable subject to lead this group..."; when, in fact, he is consistent with denominational belief and practice.
@C Mc: Your point is sustained if you suggest Bill is “consistent with [his] denominational belief and practice.” Again, my statement rested on using standard hermeneutical guidelines applicable to all exegetes across denominations. Hopefully, we can explore some of them as time goes by.
“…it is most helpful in communicating on specific points of doctrine”.
@C Mc: This sounds good, but has that ship sailed here in CD? Look at its historical pages. Do we have a mutual understanding of a self-authenticating resource? Is there a standard of truth for all to work from? You suggest we communicate on “specific points of doctrine.” Whose doctrines? The Bible or a specific denomination? What doctrine is essential? Which one should be studied first? CD’s pages reflect too much doubt about the Bible, its authority, inspiration, and revelation; the questioning of God’s will, power, and manifestations; too little faith in what’s beyond man’s ability and comprehension; and the abundance of headstrong opinions and religious traditions, I am afraid we’ll go through another year of beating up our electronic/virtual gums. In “communicating on specific points of doctrine” in CD, making your suggestion a reality, we must bridge the chasm between us with planks of sound standards of biblical interpretation. CM
Repeating question from January 30 for @C Mc:
What is your biblically-based argument for "Yes" answer to the question: "Was Jesus God ?"
What Bible passages provide reason to believe & say " Jesus Christ יהוה " (Philippians 2:5-11) who shares יהוה name with The Father (Jeremiah 23:5-6).
Noticed @C Mc reply on March 23 had information about Bible Books after Martin Luther in 1545 set apart "apocryphal" books in the Old Testament, which was later adopted by many Western church groups.
The Orthodox Study Bible has 76 Books: 49 Old Testament & 27 New Testament, which has a page comparing Orthodox, Catholic, & Protestant books in the Old Testament. The year 1054 had a Great Schism that divided Eastern & Western church groups.
In hindsight is my apology to @Bill_Coley for not reviewing Bible verse list for group study. After last vote had my realization of Bible verses for solid "Yes" answer to the question: "Was Jesus God ?" could have been excluded from group study (blindly skip over relevant verses).
Keep Smiling 😊
Thanks for your post.
Glad you came across it.
If you've discerned our denomination's theological position is on . . . ANYTHING, please tell me so we'll both know! 😀
We Disciples have a long history of valuing congregational autonomy, which is in keeping with our commonly held view that each person is accountable for and free develop his or her personal theology. I led 166 sessions of our Jesus/God Bible study without once revealing my conclusions on the matter in the main so that people were as free as possible to reach their own conclusions. Group members occasionally express amazement that I operate in such a manner, but they'll tell you they wouldn't have it any other way.
Exactly!
The value and consistency of personal autonomy within the congregation applied in theology is, itself, a certain distinctive of the Disciples faith and practice – without researching this, one outside the Disciples would not know or perhaps even expect this to be the case.
You are welcome to your opinions and the expressing of those opinions.
"However, to speak for one without being a designated surrogate or mouthpiece brings liability. That is, saying too much, too little, or exacerbating a situation (idiomatic expression) beyond its original intent. Notwithstanding, Bill is most capable of expressing himself at the time, manner, interest, and depth of his choosing."
Certainly Bill can speak for himself and has done so. Contrary to your mistaken conception of me speaking for Bill; I am, myself, on my own behalf, speaking directly to you regarding your own writing – a feature of forums.
"Besides, let’s “keep the main thing, the main thing,” Biblical Hermeneutics -- a correct method."
"As you have read, my address was not toward the group or “The First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” My intent was to convey to Bill my disagreement with his method of Biblical interpretation. His chosen method is seemingly unorthodox, regardless of denomination. I intended to avoid the appearance of attacking his or any religious group. Considering your words, the differences in approach to biblical interpretation would be noticeable and less censure if it were limited to his people and denomination -- The First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)."
"However, your contribution would have been of more value in this forum if you were to give insights into standard biblical interpretation applicable across Christendom than on one man guiding his flock in a specific denomination."
Had you taken the time to research this denomination's distinctive belief and practice you wouldn't have been surprised with what seems unorthodox in your mind. Had you even read Bill's reply to me, which was posted prior to your writing to me, you would have had the very answer to that puzzlement.
"The size of the town or population emphasis is a detraction away from the core exchanges."
From your previous post to this one you stated:
If a distraction, as you say, then why write using a phrase that can very well be considered condescending, pejorative, and not true? It takes away from your veracity. Also, I will point out that the above is made in reference to the study group themselves.
"Your point is sustained if you suggest Bill is “consistent with [his] denominational belief and practice.”
"His" is correct.
"Again, my statement rested on using standard hermeneutical guidelines applicable to all exegetes across denominations. Hopefully, we can explore some of them as time goes by."
This may be the case; but, using "standard hermeneutical guidelines" is generally governed by each denomination to an extent, having some overlap between certain denominations – hence, we are still left with the same issue as at the beginning. In other words, we still have for example trinitarian, modalism, unitarian, and etc., forms of hermeneutical grids using the same, or nearly the same, text. Prior to the return of Christ we will not enjoy a unity of hermeneutics.
"This sounds good, but has that ship sailed here in CD? Look at its historical pages. Do we have a mutual understanding of a self-authenticating resource? Is there a standard of truth for all to work from? You suggest we communicate on “specific points of doctrine.” Whose doctrines? The Bible or a specific denomination? What doctrine is essential? Which one should be studied first? CD’s pages reflect too much doubt about the Bible, its authority, inspiration, and revelation; the questioning of God’s will, power, and manifestations; too little faith in what’s beyond man’s ability and comprehension; and the abundance of headstrong opinions and religious traditions, I am afraid we’ll go through another year of beating up our electronic/virtual gums. In “communicating on specific points of doctrine” in CD, making your suggestion a reality, we must bridge the chasm between us with planks of sound standards of biblical interpretation. CM"
"Methinks you doth protest too much", as someone once said. In general, what you describe above for this forum is life as we know and experience everyday. It is advisable to know what we believe, why we believe it, and how to communicate that belief. It is also, in my opinion, valuable to understand another's belief system in being able to communicate effectively with one another theologically, or otherwise.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus posted:
In hindsight is my apology to @Bill_Coley for not reviewing Bible verse list for group study. After last vote had my realization of Bible verses for solid "Yes" answer to the question: "Was Jesus God ?" could have been excluded from group study (blindly skip over relevant verses).
I'm not certain as to the meaning of this paragraph, but I think it means you drew conclusions/realizations about the texts I chose for our Christology group to review without first reviewing the text lists. If that's what it means, then thanks for the candor and the apology (apology appreciated but not needed).
I made good faith efforts to include in the lists all passages recommended by the sources I consulted, especially passages in support of the "yes" answer to the study's central question. I claimed no infallibility to my process, but I'm confident that the lists offered a rich and comprehensive collection of passages that accurately reflected Scripture's teaching writ large on the subject. I'll gladly review any texts not on the lists that you or anyone else believes I should have included.
@C Mc posted:
My intent was to convey to Bill my disagreement with his method of Biblical interpretation. His chosen method is seemingly unorthodox, regardless of denomination.
I remind you of the following content from one of your posts in which you conveyed your "disagreement with [my] method of biblical interpretation":
This is not a study of Christ. This is pure evil and diabolical! To drag innocent people down the gangway to doubt Christ's Divinity is spiritual murder! You're making yourself a tool of Satan. If you don't check yourself, practice Biblical skills and humble yourself by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, this group will be ripened to become a "Synagogue of Satan." You and this so-called Christological Study Group are marinating yourself to morph into the latest Twenty-first Century Cult.
This is not "critical thinking" or biblical criticism. It's an attempt to dismantle the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in broad daylight and hopes no one will call you out on it. Some may label your years of work and thousands of posts relegating the status of Christ, equivalent to spreading excrement on the name, power, holiness, and sacrifice. I would be inclined to concur with them.
Stop this madness! A man of the cloth and church Pastor has become a "silver-tongued" peddler of destruction. @Bill_Coley, what you are doing violates every principle of Biblical Interpretation. Cherry-picking texts out of context is different from understanding who Christ is. The method you have chosen alone leans itself to turn one away from Christ. Your presupposition disqualifies you from doing or leading this group to do a so-called "Christology Study ." This is a joke and a Spiritual travesty.
So your "disagreement" with my approach to biblical interpretation is that it is
I have to confess that neither I nor any of my purported "surrogates" or "mouthpieces" could figure out how to engage your "disagreement" in anything resembling a constructive discussion.
@Pages said:
Certainly, Bill can speak for himself and has done so. Contrary to your mistaken conception of me speaking for Bill; I am, myself, on my own behalf, speaking directly to you regarding your own writing – a feature of forums.
No, Pages, no mistake. I knew you had spoken directly without any promotion from anyone. You spoke boldly and from the heart. Thank you! My statement was to convey that many times there are unknown nuances when speaking on behalf of another without conferring or not having all the facts.
Pages said: Had you taken the time to research this denomination's distinctive belief and practice you wouldn't have been surprised with what seems unorthodox in your mind. Had you even read Bill's reply to me, which was posted prior to your writing to me, you would have had the very answer to that puzzlement.
My remarks were not so much based on Bill’s group or a specific denomination – “The First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)." They are based on his past and recent words/works, in these forums, on Christ, his nature, and divinity.
Pages, as a recent active participant, you may or may not have access to them. I currently don’t have them, and not clear how they can be obtained. Based on this past knowledge, in great part, was what prompted my original post in this thread. As reported by Bill, the outcome tilled in favor of his belief and staunched view that Jesus is NOT God. Despite the many “sessions,” OT/NT texts, and his supposedly “hidden views,” most of the group has a Godless Jesus. Who is He (Jesus)? From their conclusion, I am not sure. Is Jesus an angel, a man given special powers, a demon, a lunatic, liar, a demagog, or a deceiver? Bill and his group may share their new definition of who Jesus is. Do they still call themselves Christians? Do they look forward to His return?
Pages said: From your previous post to this one you stated:
· @C Mc said: "Especially since they drew their conclusions, as a small-town rural community jury, with its two-tier vote on Christ's divinity, highly influenced by its facilitator, teacher/guide. CM" (bold mine).
Pages said: If a distraction, as you say, then why write using a phrase that can very well be considered condescending, pejorative, and not true? It takes away from your veracity. Also, I will point out that the above is made in reference to the study group themselves.
Again, Because of the group’s reported action (voting), the “small-town” phrase was used in the contract to the millions worldwide who believe Jesus is Lord -God! They love Him, believe in Him, trust Him, pray to Him, and look forward to His second coming as promised. In one sense, I was channeling the pain, anger, and disappointment of so many people that a Pastor and church group could conclude that Jesus is NOT God. In my view, finite men devaluating (Jesus) God is no minor deal for millions and is equivalent to blasphemy on steroids. This calls for righteous indignation.
PAGES: "Methinks you doth protest too much", as someone once said.
CM:
Pages, I greatly respect your directness and honesty. However, I vehemently reject your characterization of my contributions in these forums as superfluous exaggerations. By implication, you conveyed this by the quote (above) from the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. The word was spoken by Gertrude, Hamlet’s mother, as she watched the scene in the play, as the character swears, she would never remarry if her husband died. Unless and until you have read all that I have written and to whom their responses over the years, your cited phrase from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet is premature, unfair, and unnecessary. Perhaps, the quote is designed to distract from the main point of biblical interpretation. Regardless, if you were just being “cheeky,” your premature critique of me took much of the luster from your candor toward me.
Am I not entitled to express my views in these forums freely and passionately? Did I oppose a beloved person, topic, or institution dear to you? Did you find my positions that caught your attention not true? It’s nice to know that you have acquainted yourself with my posts. However, it would be more beneficial if there were fewer critiques of me and more contributions to the various conversations. The freedoms and rights afforded me in these forums are extended to you. Given that I am not a “free space” on a Bingo Card poster on CD, you, too, can be seen and heard across the various categories in these forums.
Like snowflakes or leaves on a tree, they are all different, yet each one helps make up the whole, holds value, and has a place. Therefore, I can equally say, perhaps, you don’t “protest” enough, and we, both, will be “ok.” If you say I “protest too much” when it comes to principal truth with conviction and passion on a topic, I take it as a badge of honor. If it’s for another reason and you anticipate a change from me, I await your truth in a PM.
CM--"Again, my statement rested on using standard hermeneutical guidelines applicable to all exegetes across denominations. Hopefully, we can explore some of them as time goes by."
Pages said: This may be the case; but, using "standard hermeneutical guidelines" is generally governed by each denomination to an extent, having some overlap between certain denominations – hence, we are still left with the same issue as at the beginning.
Pages, I saved the best for last. You have identified the problem in these forums and why so many denominations exist. How one interprets the Bible is the leading cause of most problems in this world. The Enemy (Satan) is at work to keep us divided and in darkness.
Pages said: In other words, we still have for example trinitarian, modalism, unitarian, etc., forms of hermeneutical grids using the same, or nearly the same, text. Prior to the return of Christ, we will not enjoy a unity of hermeneutics.
Why? This reality needs to be explored with serious minds and determination. Has not God spoken in various means, men, and times? We need to listen to God anew through the sources He provided. Has man become too wise or “smart” for God? God “inspired” holy men to write as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. He is still willing and ready to illuminate “darken” minds today.
We must get back to the Bible! Let us be warned: Inheriting great wealth and being at the correct safe (Source/Bible) and the wrong combination number (method of interpretation); one remains poor and without a Savior. The theme of the Bible is Jesus (God). Let’s get to work and mine God’s special revelation to humanity. CM
See my last post to @Pages. It may help explain some of my word choices. CM
@C Mc March 27 We must get back to the Bible! Let us be warned: Inheriting great wealth and being at the correct safe (Source/Bible) and the wrong combination number (method of interpretation); one remains poor and without a Savior. The theme of the Bible is Jesus (God). Let’s get to work and mine God’s special revelation to humanity. CM
Repeating question for @C Mc => What is your biblical basis for "Yes" answer to the question: "Was Jesus God ?"
Noticeably absent from @C Mc March 27 reply is any Bible mining: e.g. Ephesians 4:25-5:6 LEB =>
Therefore, putting aside the lie, speak truth each one of you with his neighbor, because we are members of one another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun set on your anger, nor give place to the devil. The one who steals must steal no longer, but instead must labor, working with his own hands what is good, so that he may have something to share with the one who has need. No rotten word must proceed from your mouth, but only something good for the building up of the need, in order that it may give grace to those who hear, and do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. All bitterness, and rage, and wrath, and clamor, and abusive speech, must be removed from you, together with all wickedness. Become kind toward one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as also God in Christ has forgiven you. Therefore become imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, just as also Christ loved us, and gave himself for us an offering and sacrifice to God for a fragrant smell. But sexual immorality, and all uncleanness, or greediness, must not even be named among you (as is fitting for saints), and obscenity, and foolish talk, or coarse jesting (which are not proper), but rather thanksgiving. For this you know for certain, that every sexually immoral person, or unclean person, or greedy person (who is an idolater), does not have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.
Another Bible mining item is considering the promise in Genesis 3:15 about an offspring of The Woman => Who is the physical father of Jesus ?
Keep Smiling 😊
