Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus God?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 31 of 492 (548351)
02-27-2010 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 10:58 PM


Re: Mk 2:5
Kbertsche writes:
If your contention is correct (that priests can actually forgive sins), why didn't the experts in the Law understand this? And why didn't Jesus point out their error?
well he did point out their error when in response he said to them:
Matthew 9:2-8 writes:
‘Why are you thinking wicked things in your hearts? For instance, which is easier, to say, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up and walk? However, in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins’ then he said to the paralytic: ‘Get up, pick up your bed, and go to your home.’ And he got up and went off to his home. At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear,
and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.
Notice Jesus didnt say I am the authority and the source of forgiveness, he said
"The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"
This is in harmony with the prophecy in Isaiah about the Messiah being given all authority on earth and bringing mankind into a righteous standing before God.
Now if the Messiah was 'given' authority, we cannot assume that he IS the authority....otherwise the prophecy would make no sense, nor would Johns words found here
John 5:25-27 writes:
25Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. 26For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is.
Nor would Jesus own words where he said that he was 'given' authority at Matt 28:18
And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.
Also, just on the point of the High Priest that i mentioned earlier, you may like to look at Pauls words (and Paul was a very well educated Pharisee and a lawyer of the mosaic law, so he understood it very well)
Hebrews 5:1-3 writes:
For every high priest taken from among men is appointed in behalf of men over the things pertaining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2He is able to deal moderately with the ignorant and erring ones since he also is surrounded with his own weakness, 3and on its account he is obliged to make offerings for sins as much for himself as for the people
If it werent for the high priest, not forgiveness of sins would have ever taken place because he was 'appointed' by God for that purpose. Paul goes on to explain that Jesus was also appointed for that purpose of gaining forgiveness of sins and that he was now the approach to God.
In verses 8-10 he says:
8Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered; 9and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting salvation to all those obeying him, 10because he has been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Mel‧chiz′e‧dek

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 10:58 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 8:13 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 32 of 492 (548353)
02-27-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 11:27 PM


Re: John 8:58
Kbertsche writes:
How do you explain Jesus' claim to pre-exist Abraham, and the further suggestion that He is eternal?
The expression used at John 8:58 is far different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. He did have a prehuman existence because he is the 'son of God'
to be a son of God he must have lived in the heavens with God before he came to earth as a man. The heavens are full of other 'sons' of God and these are called Angels. They also lived before Abraham existed. We read at
Job 38:4-7
Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding...
7When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
But you should know that John 8:28 is not rendered as 'I am' by all translators.
non exhaustive list of alternate renderings of john 8.28 writes:
4/5th Century SyriacEdition: before Abraham was, I have been
A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac ofthe Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894.
5th Century Curetonian SyriacEdition: before ever Abraham came to be, I was
The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1,
Cambridge, England, 1904.
5th Century Syriac PeshittaEdition: before Abraham existed, I was The Syriac New Testament Translated into English from the Peshitto Version,
by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London, 1896.
5th Century GeorgianEdition: before Abraham came to be, I was The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John, by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brire, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950.
6th Century EthiopicEdition: before Abraham was born, I was Novum Testamentum ... thiopice (The NewTestament ... in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
1869: From before Abraham was, I have been. The New Testament, by G.R.Noyes.
1935: I existed before Abraham was born! The BibleAn American Translation, by J.M.P.Smith and E.J.Goodspeed.
1965: Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am. Das Neue Testament, by Jrg Zink.
1981: I was alive before Abraham was born! The Simple English Bible.
1984: Before Abraham came into existence, I have been. New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
So I would be questioning the rendering of "I Am" in whatever bible you are using. My guess is its a trinitarian translator again.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 11:27 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2010 11:42 AM Peg has replied
 Message 43 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 8:35 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 492 (548354)
02-27-2010 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
02-27-2010 12:01 AM


Re: Hebrews 1:8
Kbertsche writes:
What about Hebrews 1? The writer is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels, and then applies Psalm 45:6 to Jesus:
NET Bible writes:
Heb. 1:8 but of the Son he says,
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
Thus the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus is God.
Is this really a claim that Jesus is God Almighty?
Read from vs 1 right thru to 9 and you'll see that this is not a claim that Jesus is God, but once again that he is the Son of God, the one appointed by God.
Hebrews 1:1-9 writes:
God, who long ago spoke on many occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets,
2has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.
3He is the reflection of [his] glory and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power; and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.
4So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.
5For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: You are my son; I, today, I have become your father? And again: I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son?
6But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.
7Also, with reference to the angels he says: And he makes his angels spirits, and his public servants a flame of fire.
8But with reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
9You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.
What Paul is really explaining here is the position that Jesus has obtained thru his loyalty to his father. God is his throne forever does not mean that Jesus IS God, but rather that Jesus has obtained that position on Gods throne. This is spoken of in Revelation 3:21 where Jesus says that those who conquer, he will do for them what God has done for him.... sat him on the throne.
21To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne
this is Co-Rulership...and its in perfect harmony with those earlier verses that speak of Jesus being given all authority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 12:01 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-27-2010 5:36 PM Peg has replied
 Message 44 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 9:10 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 34 of 492 (548356)
02-27-2010 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 11:16 PM


Re: Jn 1:1
Kbertsche writes:
Not at all. The indefinite article is not an ideal translation for any of these passages. It does not adequately capture the implications of the Greek
well then you should be asking why they are using it at all because they DO use it in the verses i mentioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 11:16 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 35 of 492 (548357)
02-27-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by kbertsche
02-27-2010 12:21 AM


Re: Revelation 22:13
Kbertsche writes:
The titles "Alpha and Omega", "Beginning and End", and "First and Last" are titles for God in Scripture.
But Jesus applies all three of these titles to Himself:
NET Bible writes:
Rev. 22:12-13 (Look! I am coming soon,
and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!
I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last,
the beginning and the end!)
In claiming divine titles for Himself, Jesus is claiming to be God.
You are applying Rev 22:12-13 to Jesus whereas the context of the scripture shows that it is God Jehovah who is speaking, not Jesus.
Have a look at the verse from Vs 6 onward and you will see that it is not actually Jesus speaking here
Rev 22:6-13 writes:
6And he said to me: These words are faithful and true; yes, Jehovah the God of the inspired expressions of the prophets sent his angel forth to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place.
7And, look! I am coming quickly. Happy is anyone observing the words of the prophecy of this scroll.
8Well, I John was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been showing me these things.
9But he tells me: Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is a fellow slave of you and of your brothers who are prophets and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God.
10He also tells me: Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, for the appointed time is near. 11He that is doing unrighteousness, let him do unrighteousness still; and let the filthy one be made filthy still; but let the righteous one do righteousness still, and let the holy one be made holy still.
12‘Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. 13I am the Al′pha and the O‧me′ga, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.
Now we know from earlier passages that it is in fact Jesus who is 'coming quickly' but this isnt because he IS God, it is because he is the one who God has placed in charge of the Kingdom and who will take the lead in defeating Gods enemies.
He is coming in Gods name, as Gods representative king and so God can say that he himself is coming quickly because thru Jesus, his judgements are to be carried out.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 12:21 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 9:40 PM Peg has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 36 of 492 (548385)
02-27-2010 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by kbertsche
02-27-2010 12:01 AM


Re: Hebrews 1:8
KB writes:
What about Hebrews 1? The writer is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels, and then applies Psalm 45:6 to Jesus:
NET Bible writes:
Heb. 1:8 but of the Son he says,
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
Thus the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus is God.
Not at all. In fact, its lifted from Pslams 45. The psalmist is writing about King David...but obviously he is not calling David god.
1 My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.
2 You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.
3 Gird your sword upon your side, O mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in behalf of truth, humility and righteousness;
let your right hand display awesome deeds.
5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king's enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
6 Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 12:01 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2010 12:15 AM hERICtic has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 37 of 492 (548396)
02-27-2010 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peg
02-27-2010 1:15 AM


Re: John 8:58
The expression used at John 8:58 is far different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. He did have a prehuman existence because he is the 'son of God'
to be a son of God he must have lived in the heavens with God before he came to earth as a man. The heavens are full of other 'sons' of God and these are called Angels. They also lived before Abraham existed. We read at
Job 38:4-7
Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding...
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
But you should know that John 8:28 is not rendered as 'I am' by all translators.
Now that I am unsuspended I think I can bring all of this in to clarity with stinging accuracy and specification.
Funny i didt even realize why i had been suspended until I took a closer look. I felt like Homer filling out Lis'a application for a beauty contest in which it said "do not write in this block", he put "OK" in the block"
As I have been following the debate I see that you have made two or three ASSUMTIONS and ASSERTIONS Peg that have not been substantiated in any real fashion. the first is that deity can come in parts. since the scriptures describe God as everlasting or eternal and as you have admitted Christ is deity, then you would of course need to substantiated that Christ is only a part of God as deity.
second you have assumed that Christ was created before his incarnation. Another assumption that needs to be demonstrated.
Thirdly you have assumed through out the debate, that the terms FATHER and Son have any application before the incarnation. it should be easliy understood that these terms are athropomorphic in usage. There is not a single passage to support the idea that there was anything in existence before his incarnation or creation itself, besides simply God, or that he is actually a Son in comparison to the Father.
Simply put these are terms that have meaning only after the incarnation.
In reference to the passage where Christ said IAM, the rest of the context about them being upset would make no sense if he were simply saying I existed in some form before Abraham, they KNEW EXACALLY WHAT HE WAS CLAIMING.
It is sometimes translated, "I am WHO IAM". instead of "I Am THAT IAM". the first is a lazy translation. The first only shows distinction, whereas the second shows existence itself.
christ was claiming existence of all that there was and they knew that and they knew he was claiming to be God himself.
Since you have admitted that he pre existed and that he was deity in some form, it behooves you from scripture to demonstrate that he was created and that God can come in parts.
It should be understood that every expression relating to God in human understanding is anthropomorphic in nature. God does nto Go or come here or there. God does need to literally see anything, or know this or that,even thought he scriptures represents him in that fashion.
this is the only way we can understand how things are communicated.
Christ was not a son before his incarnation, he was simply God. God humbled himself, reorganized God material to become (weak term) something changed God material to represent itself to mankind
Now I am not saying that God did not literally live and die as a man. God comes in two parts essence and thought (or the mental or thinking part produced by the essence, eternal in character.
Personalites are a way for humans to understand DISTINCTIONS IN EXISTENCE. It may be that personalites as described in God are a way for us to understand Gods natur and character that we cannot. While the scriptures make clear distinctions in God from a human standpoint, there is absolutley no indication, that there is a son and father relationship before incarnation.
Yes I am aware of the passage in Daniel, but it must be understood that this is written from God and for human understanding again, with a view to Christ's (God)incarnation.
Just like Pauls vision, (caught up in the third heaven)Daniels had to be put in a form that he could understand in his limited mind. secondly it is a visionary prophecy of what god would accomplish in christ, Immanuel, God with us.
take this as an example. imagine how God represents himself in heaven, setting on a throne, with Christ beside him. While this may actually be visible to the heavenly host, it is simply a manifestation of Gods TRUE NATURE, which is Spirit, something undefinable and explainable to any and all of Gods creation, angels or otherwise. God manifests himself and a heavenly court for his creation to exist and understand because none can truely understand Gods actual existence.
to be a son of God he must have lived in the heavens with God before he came to earth as a man. The heavens are full of other 'sons' of God and these are called Angels. They also lived before Abraham existed. We read at
Job 38:4-7
Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth?
Tell [me], if you do know understanding...
7 When the morning stars joyfully cried out together,
And all the sons of God began shouting in applause?
Yes it is true that we are all God material, but Christs claims go much deeper and are much more direct than simply being material, he claims to be God Himself. Please provide passages where CREATED BEINGS, ANGELS HUMANS OR WHATEVER, EVER MADE OR IMPLIED WHAT CHRIST DID.
the scriptures,not another being represent angles as sons of god. Christs calims are much more bold and deliberate.
example. In the instance where christ said which is it easier to do, tell the man his sins are forgiven or tell him to stand up and walk, christ should have presentesd the person to the priest for forgiveness of sins, yet he circumvented that rule, only because he was God that had established the rule in the first place, ie,
"the son of man is Lord even of the sabbath". etc
No angel or man ever made such bold assertions, claims or conditions.
Certainly you can see that God cannot created more eternal God, yet Paul said. "In him dwelt ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY"
"Let this mind be In you which was also in Christ Jesus who being in the FORM of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made of himself no reputation AND TOOK ON THE FORM OF A SERVANT and became obedient, EVEN UNTO DEATH'
peg God is NOT OBEDIENT TO GOD, he is equal with God and only God chose the form of a servant and decided to do this BECAUSE OF HIMSELF and for himself and his creation Every single detail from God to man while literal and menaingful is ANTHROPOMORPHIC
there is only God doing stuff, he was not literally A SON before HE decided to take on Human form
there are equally as many scriptures that represent Christ as purely and only God and those that represent him as a son. so if we take them collectivley, no angels or men made his claims or assertions. the only real possible solution with them collectively is that it is simply God manifesting himself, in terms we can comprehend. DONT OVER EXTEND, THE LITERALNESS OF HIS INCARNATION TO A TIME PREVIOUS.
Here is a pretty good article covering some of the usages and references to Christ as God
GoDaddy Security - Access Denied
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 1:15 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 5:11 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 40 by hERICtic, posted 02-27-2010 6:05 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 41 by hERICtic, posted 02-27-2010 6:08 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 38 of 492 (548441)
02-27-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2010 11:42 AM


Re: John 8:58
Hi EMA,
I didnt know you had been banned either, so who did you annoy lol?
EMA writes:
As I have been following the debate I see that you have made two or three ASSUMTIONS and ASSERTIONS Peg that have not been substantiated in any real fashion. the first is that deity can come in parts. since the scriptures describe God as everlasting or eternal and as you have admitted Christ is deity, then you would of course need to substantiated that Christ is only a part of God as deity.
I dont claim that he was a part of God. Jesus is a completely separate individual to God his Father. Just as the rest of the Angels are separate individuals to God.
Think about this, if Jesus was really a part of God, why would he explain his total dependence upon God? if he was God, he would have been doing everything of his own initiative.
why would he have said the following about where he stood in relation to God?
John 5:19 writes:
Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.
EMA writes:
second you have assumed that Christ was created before his incarnation. Another assumption that needs to be demonstrated.
Thirdly you have assumed through out the debate, that the terms FATHER and Son have any application before the incarnation. it should be easliy understood that these terms are athropomorphic in usage. There is not a single passage to support the idea that there was anything in existence before his incarnation or creation itself, besides simply God, or that he is actually a Son in comparison to the Father.
I find your 3rd query a little strange because Jesus specifically told his diciples that he had existed before he became a man. He told the religious leaders "before Abraham existed, I have been" And the scriptures constantly call him a 'son' in comparison to a 'father'
Proverbs 8:22 Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth....30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time"
Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation"
Revelation 3:14 And to the angel of the congregation in La‧o‧di‧ce′a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness (Jesus), the beginning of the creation by God"
John 1:1a "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."
John 1:14 "So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father"
John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son"
John 4:9 "By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world"
EMA writes:
Since you have admitted that he pre existed and that he was deity in some form, it behooves you from scripture to demonstrate that he was created and that God can come in parts.
your idea is that Jesus is a part of God, that is not how I view him at all. God doesnt come in parts, he is a whole individual. His creation, made in his image, do not come in parts....we are also whole individuals. I dont believe there is any scripture that describes God as coming in 'parts' but if you have one, please post it.
EMA writes:
While the scriptures make clear distinctions in God from a human standpoint, there is absolutley no indication, that there is a son and father relationship before incarnation.
Proverbs 8:22, which can only be a description of Jesus in his pre human existence, certainly shows him to be in the posiiton of a 'son' in relation to his father.
EMA writes:
Yes I am aware of the passage in Daniel, but it must be understood that this is written from God and for human understanding again, with a view to Christ's (God)incarnation.
Just like Pauls vision, (caught up in the third heaven)Daniels had to be put in a form that he could understand in his limited mind. secondly it is a visionary prophecy of what god would accomplish in christ, Immanuel, God with us.
Daniel is very clear in showing that two individuals are involved. If he was trying to make it easy for simple minded humans to understand, it would have been much clear to simply state that " I am God Almighty and I am Coming into the world", dont you think?
Yet what we see over and over is an Almighty God who is sending somone else, that someone will be given rulership to bring the nations back to God.
EMA writes:
Certainly you can see that God cannot created more eternal God, yet Paul said. "In him dwelt ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY"
and yet even the diciples were said to be 'filled with holy spirit'
So why is it so strange the Jesus would be full of God? Jesus imitated his father perfectly and Gods goodness and love and peace was a part of Jesus personality, just as it can be a part of ours. It doesnt make us God though. We are still individuals...we have simply put on the personality of God. Just as wicked people can put on the personality of the Devil.
[b]Ephesians 4:22-24, Put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct and which is being corrupted according to his deceptive desires; but ... be made new in the force actuating your mind, and ... put on the new personality which was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loving-kindness.
EMA writes:
"Let this mind be In you which was also in Christ Jesus who being in the FORM of God , thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made of himself no reputation AND TOOK ON THE FORM OF A SERVANT and became obedient, EVEN UNTO DEATH'
peg God is NOT OBEDIENT TO GOD, he is equal with God and only God chose the form of a servant and decided to do this BECAUSE OF HIMSELF and for himself and his creation Every single detail from God to man while literal and menaingful is ANTHROPOMORPHIC
according to your verse above, the opposite is true. Jesus did not view himself as equal to God. Jesus was 'obedient' and took the form of a 'servant' ...this is the opposite of what your theology is saying.
So Jesus WAS obedient to God. If Jesus was God as you say, then he could not have been obedient to himself....his actions would have been his own, yet even he said that his actions were not his own. "I do not act of my own initiative" is what he said.
EMA writes:
there is only God doing stuff, he was not literally A SON before HE decided to take on Human form
thats exactly right...God is not the Son and the Son is not God.
They are two separate individuals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2010 11:42 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-28-2010 1:39 PM Peg has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 492 (548444)
02-27-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
02-27-2010 1:31 AM


Re: Hebrews 1:8
Peg writes:
"21 To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne "
this is Co-Rulership...and its in perfect harmony with those earlier verses that speak of Jesus being given all authority.
Jesus now sits on the right hand of God on God's throne in Heaven. Jesus will come back to planet earth, his feet will light upon the Mt of Olives from where he ascended and he will set up his throne on Mt Zion, the Temple Mt in Jerusalem. The sharing of Jesus's throne, i.e. the messianic throne right handed down from David is not the sharing of God's throne. This is all as per the literal reading of the messianic scriptures. This is just one of very many scriptures which JWs do not take literally. Thus it's simply picking and choosing what you want to take literally and what you don't. It's a very precarious way of handling scripture because it's all concocted up from the imaginations of man and not the literal reading of the scripture. This, imo, is why the majority of Christians regard JW as a cult because it interprets far out from what is written in some key doctrinal scriptures.
Peg, you need to take a real good look at Revelation 1:3 where Jesus via John spells out, in a few words, the secret of interpretation prophecy.
Rev 1:3 ASV
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: ......
Especially note the phrase, "keep that which is written."

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 1:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 9:19 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 40 of 492 (548449)
02-27-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2010 11:42 AM


Re: John 8:58
Its almost universal, when a trinitarian uses scripture to show Jesus is god, its out of context. Seldom the reverse though. Its quite concrete that the NT is overflowing with verses that clearly show Jesus is not god. The few verses that perhaps show Jesus IS god, are quite ambigious.
If "I AM" means the name of god, does it make sense for Jesus to state Before Abraham, Yawheh? Its quite awkward. But if Jesus was refering to his pre-existance, it makes perfect sense. Also, examine the context.
Jesus calls the Jews children of Satan! Do you think they would be quite upset with him? He angers them so that they think he is demon possessed. So already, two reasons why they would want to stone him.
Also: "Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus in order that they might put him to death; .... And the high priest said to him, 'I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God.'"
If equating oneself with god is a punishable offense, why didnt the chief priests and the council bring this up? Instead they ask if he is claiming to be the messiah. Not once to they accuse him of being god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2010 11:42 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 41 of 492 (548450)
02-27-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dawn Bertot
02-27-2010 11:42 AM


Re: John 8:58
EMA writes:
It is sometimes translated, "I am WHO IAM". instead of "I Am THAT IAM". the first is a lazy translation. The first only shows distinction, whereas the second shows existence itself.
But "I am" is never traslated as "I AM WHO I AM".
EMA writes:
Christ was not a son before his incarnation, he was simply God. God humbled himself, reorganized God material to become (weak term) something changed God material to represent itself to mankind
Yet not once does scripture ever state this. Jesus is quite clear- he is the messiah, sent by god, not equal, not all knowing, not all powerful, a man, whos message is not his own but gods, prays to god, admits he has a god and the list goes on. Even in heaven, Jesus admits he has a god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-27-2010 11:42 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 42 of 492 (548478)
02-27-2010 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peg
02-27-2010 12:45 AM


Re: Mk 2:5
quote:
Notice Jesus didnt say I am the authority and the source of forgiveness, he said
"The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins"
Yes, He has authority to forgive sins. I.e., Jesus can actually forgive sins.
He did NOT tell them that all priests have the authority to forgive sins, because this is not true.
According to the OT, it is only GOD who can forgive sins:
NET Bible writes:
Psa. 25:18 See my pain and suffering!
Forgive all my sins!
Psa. 79:9 Help us, O God, our deliverer!
For the sake of your glorious reputation, rescue us!
Forgive our sins for the sake of your reputation!
I can find no passage which says that priests can forgive sins, and you have yet to show any. The priests were to act as intermediaries between man and God. They were to offer sacrifices to God so that God would forgive sins:
NET Bible writes:
Num. 15:28 And the priest must make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally—when he sins unintentionally before the LORD—to make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.
The OT priests did not do the forgiving--they were a conduit for God's forgiveness.
Yes, Christ is a priest (and a prophet and a king). But none of these titles give him the authority to forgive sins. No prophet, priest, or king in the OT could forgive sins. He has authority to forgive sins only because He is God, as the experts in the Law well understood:
NET Bible writes:
Mark 2:7 Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 12:45 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 10:11 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 43 of 492 (548482)
02-27-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peg
02-27-2010 1:15 AM


Re: John 8:58
quote:
The expression used at John 8:58 is far different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. He did have a prehuman existence because he is the 'son of God'
I was not arguing that Jesus was applying this title of God to Himself (though I do believe this was part of His implication as well.) Rather, I was looking only at the grammar of "Before Abraham was, I am," with the unusual use of a present-tense verb where a past-tense would normally have been used. By doing this, Jesus claims that to Him, all past time is in the present. This is a claim to more than just pre-existence.
quote:
to be a son of God he must have lived in the heavens with God before he came to earth as a man. The heavens are full of other 'sons' of God and these are called Angels. They also lived before Abraham existed.
But if this is all that He meant, He would have used the past tense as does the passage you quote from Job 38. His use of the present tense suggests something more--it suggests eternality.
quote:
But you should know that John 8:28 is not rendered as 'I am' by all translators.
No, I did not know this. Perhaps they are paraphrasing it a bit to try to make it flow better in English?
The Greek is clearly in the present tense, I am (egw eimi). There is no dispute about this and no major Greek manuscript variants that have anything other than the present tense. The proper translation is "I am," whether one is trinitarian or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 1:15 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 10:53 PM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 44 of 492 (548486)
02-27-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
02-27-2010 1:31 AM


Re: Hebrews 1:8
Ah, it looks like your translation (New World?) has changed the sense of this passage!
Peg's translation (New World?) writes:
Heb. 1:8 But with reference to the Son: God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.
The Greek literally says, "Your throne, God, to the age of the age." This is a quote of Ps. 45:6, which says essentially the same thing in the Hebrew. In both languages, the word "is" is implied and must be added for the English translation to make sense. But where should it be added?
Your translation places the "is" between "throne" and "God." While this is technically possible, it doesn't make sense. Nowhere else in Scripture is God called a "throne." He has a throne, but nowhere does it say that He is a throne. Further, this translation does not make sense in the flow of the author's argument where he is showing how Jesus is superior to the angels.
Much better is to place the "is" between "God" and "to the age of the age." This is what the standard (non-JW) translations do:
NET: but of the Son he says,
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.
NASB: But of the Son He says,
YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
NIV: But about the Son he says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
ESV: But of the Son he says,
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
KJV: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
YLT: and unto the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy reign;
The NET Bible translator's note on this phrase is very helpful:
NET Bible note writes:
Or possibly, Your throne is God forever and ever. This translation is quite doubtful, however, since (1) in the context the Son is being contrasted to the angels and is presented as far better than they. The imagery of God being the Son’s throne would seem to be of God being his authority. If so, in what sense could this not be said of the angels? In what sense is the Son thus contrasted with the angels? (2) The (mende) construction that connects v. 7 with v. 8 clearly lays out this contrast: On the one hand, he says of the angelson the other hand, he says of the Son. Thus, although it is grammatically possible that (theos) in v. 8 should be taken as a predicate nominative, the context and the correlative conjunctions are decidedly against it. Hebrews 1:8 is thus a strong affirmation of the deity of Christ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 1:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 02-27-2010 11:21 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 45 of 492 (548489)
02-27-2010 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
02-27-2010 5:36 PM


Re: Hebrews 1:8
Buzsaw writes:
Jesus now sits on the right hand of God on God's throne in Heaven. Jesus will come back to planet earth, his feet will light upon the Mt of Olives from where he ascended and he will set up his throne on Mt Zion, the Temple Mt in Jerusalem. The sharing of Jesus's throne, i.e. the messianic throne right handed down from David is not the sharing of God's throne. This is all as per the literal reading of the messianic scriptures. This is just one of very many scriptures which JWs do not take literally. Thus it's simply picking and choosing what you want to take literally and what you don't. It's a very precarious way of handling scripture because it's all concocted up from the imaginations of man and not the literal reading of the scripture.
thats a fair enough point you make, however, have you looked at the reasoning behind why Jesus return to Mount Zion is not taken literally?
Firstly, the word return can mean something else besides a going back bodily to a previous geographical location. For example, we might say that a person has returned to good health, or that the previous government has been returned to power
The Bible’s use of the word at Genesis 18:10 is where God told Abraham: I am surely going to return to you next year at this time, and, look! Sarah your wife will have a son. The following year, God didnt make a literal visit to Sarah, but in Gen 21.1 we see the way in which he 'returned'. He extended his power toward her so that she could conceive and give birth to Isaac. So he returned, but not physically.
The reason why we say that Jesus wont return physically is because in John 14:19 he specifically said that 'a little while longer and the world will behold me no more'
Would Jesus had said this if he knew that the world was going to behold him again in the future?
I dont think Jesus would lie, or deliberately mislead people, about something so serious, do you?
Now I believe the verse about Mount Zion is Revelation 14.1
And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.
Yet if you look at what Paul said about where this Mount Zion is located, you'll hopefully see that he understood it to not be an earthly location:
Hebrews 12.22-23 writes:
But YOU have approached a Mount Zion and a city of [the] living God, heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, in general assembly, and the congregation of the firstborn who have been enrolled in the heavens
So according to Paul, heavenly Jerusalem is where Mount Zion is located. It is where Jesus rules from...at Gods right hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 02-27-2010 5:36 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 02-28-2010 11:54 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024