|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Jesus God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3025 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
John declares this in John 4,
23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." In Acts 2:36 Peter declares this, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ - this Jesus whom you crucified." Paul declares this in 2 Cor 3. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart ;16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. There is a veil that remains even to today over the eyes and hearts of those who deny that Jesus is Lord God. If they deny that Jesus is Lord God, God's Spirit cannot, nor will not take the things of Jesus and disclose them to us (John 16:15). If we deny Jesus is Lord God, He will deny us (2 Tm 3:12). There is only one work that man can do, as declared by John 6, 28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God ?"29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." When man chooses to believe in "another Jesus" other than the ONE revealed in Scripture, there is no salvation in any other NAME (Acts 4:12).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: Sorry, but your references are not stating the Granville Sharp rule precisely enough, and my excerpt from Wikipedia was not precise enough, either. Here is a better explanation of the Granville Sharp rule:
Daniel Wallace writes:
Note the requirements NOT PROPER NAMES and SINGULAR IN NUMBER. The only verse you mention which meets these requirements is Eph 5:5.
...Sharp’s expanded definition of it is as follows. "When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article oJ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . ." In the statement of this rule, Sharp only discussed substantives (i.e., nouns, substantival adjectives, substantival participles) of personal description, not those which referred to things, and only in the singular, not the plural. But whether he intended the rule to apply to impersonal nouns and/or plurals can hardly be determined from this definition. As well, he did not clearly exclude proper names from the rule’s application. However, a perusal of his monograph reveals that he felt the rule could be applied absolutely only to personal, singular, non-proper nouns. ... In other words, in the construction article-noun-kaiv-noun, Sharp delineated four requirements which he felt needed to be met if the two nouns were necessarily to be seen as having the same referent:17 both nouns must be (1) personali.e., they must refer to a person, not a thing; (2) common epithetsi.e., not proper names; (3) in the same case;18 and (4) singular in number.19 The significance of these requirements can hardly be overestimated, for those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule have done so almost without exception because they were unaware of the restrictions that Sharp set forth.(Sharp Redivivus? - A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule | Bible.org) quote:Of course not. Except for Eph 5:5, the verses do not meet the requirements. quote:Because except for Eph 5:5, none of the verses you listed fit the requirements of the rule. Your JW references are among "those who have misunderstood Sharp’s rule." If you want to understand it, I'd recommend the detailed article by Wallace referenced above. If you want to try to disprove with the Granville Sharp rule, the passages that you use must satisfy its requirements! So let's look at Eph 5:5, which meets the Granville Sharp requirements, and see how modern translations render it:
NET: Eph. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason. NASB: Eph. 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. NIV: Eph. 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person such a man is an idolater has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. ESV: Eph. 5:5 For you may be sure of this, that ueveryone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (vthat is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. HCSB: Eph. 5:5 For know and recognize this: no sexually immoral or impure or greedy person, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of the Messiah and of God. NKJV: Eph. 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. NLT: Eph. 5:5 You can be sure that no immoral, impure, or greedy person will inherit the Kingdom of Christ and of God. For a greedy person is really an idolater who worships the things of this world. Weymouth: Eph. 5:5 For be well assured that no fornicator or immoral person and no money-grubberor in other words idol-worshipperhas any share awaiting him in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : Realized that Eph 5:5 DOES meet the requirements
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
kbertsche writes: The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason. if they are trying to convey the idea that they are relating to one person, why would they use the term 'of Christ AND OF God' In english, i would read that as refering to two individuals, not one. This is exactly why the list of translations i posted in msg 275 show that the verse is rendered as two indivduals by many translators
1934 of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus The Riverside New Testament,Boston and New York. 1935 of the great God and of our Saviour Christ JesusA New Translation of the Bible, by James Moffatt, New York and London. 1957 of the great God and of our Savior Jesus ChristLa Sainte Bible, by Louis Segond, Paris. 1970 of the great God and of our Savior Christ JesusThe New American Bible, New York and London. 1972 of the great God and of Christ Jesus our saviourThe New Testament in Modern English, by J. B. Phillips, New York. kbertsche writes: The GS rule says that "Christ" and "God" refer to the same person here. NET, NASB, ESV, and NKJV all respect the GS rule in their translations. But the others do not for some reason. i would say the others do not respect the GS rule because they do not believe it is accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
John 10:10 writes: When man chooses to believe in "another Jesus" other than the ONE revealed in Scripture, there is no salvation in any other NAME (Acts 4:12). Not even in Jehovah....the God whom Jesus preached?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John 10:10 Member (Idle past 3025 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
Your argument lies not with me, but with the revealed Word of God.
The writer of Hebrews declares this in Heb 1, 1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. These Scriptures declare the worlds were made thru Jesus.These Scriptures declare Jesus is the exact representation of His heavenly Father. These Scriptures declare the Jesus upholds all things by the word of His power. These Scriptures declare Jesus made purification of sins. These Scriptures declare the LORD Jesus sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. The more excellent name Jesus was given is LORD in the Godhead acording to Acts 2:36. Yes, the Lord Jesus is the exact representation of God the Father, and this is the Lord Jesus God the father honors with His salvation. There is no salvation in "another" JW Jesus. Edited by John 10:10, : spelling error Edited by John 10:10, : added sentence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
CD writes:
Yawn Well since you sleep through everything else, why not the rest of the arguments and the evidence.
I was demolishing Jaywill's "proof" which concerned Titus 1-3. Anything to add regarding Titus 1-3? No, thought not. Back-peddling befits you well. Yes I am aware of the fact you were responding to Jaywillsarguments. You have a very high opinion of yourself, demolishing CD, please get real. As I was explaining to Peg and to which there is never a reply, the complete Deity of Jesus is not contained in one verse. I was simply trying to give you an opportunity to respond to the arguments presented thus far, and I put them in a form of a question(s). As usual you replaced responses with insults and humor. Just answer the questions I put toyou in the last post. here is another curious point. Here is a man in the form of CD, that rejects the existence of God, denies with all of his being that the Bible is Gods word, does not believe any of it in English, but demands to see it in the Greek, as if this will throw him over the top. Hmmm? The explanation of the verses in Titus are found in all the other verses asserting the God nature of Jesus. If one has any concern as to what Philippians 2 means, he simply needs to read John 1:1 and Colosians chapter 1. "In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" The word usage in these passages is unmistakable. The word usage is so specific that to apply them to any created being is simply idiocy. John clarifies even further, drives the point HOME by making it clear that Nothing that is made or was made, was made without him. On needs to rearrange these passages to work in that Jesus was a created being John 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it See if both verses dont clarify and compliment each other. See if both verses dont explaing who and what Christ was and is. One simply needs to remove the word NOTHING, to make it say something else. Before however one removes the word NOTHING, one needs to insert the greek article (a) into the first verse to make Christ less than God himself. So much maneuvering to support a doctrine. after one inserts the greek article (a) into the original language in the first verse, then an alternate explanation is required for the second verse, which is plain, when unaltered before hand. Such maneuvering to support a doctrine. All of the verses concerning his existence as only God, are plain and simple and compliment eachother so that nearly 98% of believers have come to the correct conclusion concerning Christ. There are however, a few contentious ones that will not let go of thier false doctrine. EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
peg writes
if they are trying to convey the idea that they are relating to one person, why would they use the term 'of Christ AND OF God' In english, i would read that as refering to two individuals, not one. This is exactly why the list of translations i posted in msg 275 show that the verse is rendered as two indivduals by many translators There may be some ambiguity that one can play with in these verses but there is no ambiguity in the ones you and i have discussed. Please dont forget about post 276, my last response to you and where we left off, thank you EAM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Perhaps. Wallace says that "Sharp’s rule has been almost totally neglected, discounted, or misapplied in recent discussions on these passages." I would recommend reading Wallace's discussion of the rule, if you haven't already. He makes a strong, reasoned defense that the Grqnville Sharp (GS) rule IS accurate. He also notes that the early church Fathers viewed "God" and "Christ" as referring to the same person in Eph 5:5. This supports the GS rule for this passage.quote:i would say the others do not respect the GS rule because they do not believe it is accurate. But Wallace also points out another possibility for Eph 5:5; some scholars consider the word "Christ" as used in the Epistles to be a proper name. If this is so in Eph 5:5, then this passage does not meet the requirements for the GS rule. So it is somewhat questionable whether or not the GS rule should apply to Eph 5:5. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule, and show that the rule does not work for these passages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 262:
thats right....yet if Jesus WAS the father, then everything would be his own will and his comment "I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative" is a contradiction. If Jesus was the father, then everything was Jesus will. We don't think Jesus was the Father... he is the Son Like I said in Message 252:
quote: ...
John 1:18 "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him" Yeah, I'm not sure what John is talking about. But from that same chapter we have this:
quote: From Message 266:
please dont get me wrong, i certainly DO believe Jesus was divine. Do you think he was "a" god? As in polytheism? Or was he just divine like an angel or something?
I just dont believe he is Jehovah, the Creator, the God of the OT. Well John says that the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (= Jesus) so therefore, Jesus is God. There's been plenty of passages shown that say that Jesus is God, but yeah, you don't have to believe them if you don't want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
John 10:10 writes: Your argument lies not with me, but with the revealed Word of God. The writer of Hebrews declares this in Heb 1, 1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. i completely agree, i have no argument with the scriptures at all. I accept them 100% As Hebrews 1 says, God spoke thru the prophets long ago and then he sent his son to speak on his behalf. Exactly. Now if you think that the Son is God because of what hebrews says, then you must also think that the prophets were God too, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
EMA writes: Your kidding right Peg. Alpha and Omega mean beginning and end, the first and the last. There is no other significance to the these words usages in another language, that they do not convey in English. you are only assuming that the first and the last in Rev chpt 2 means the alpha and omega. As i showed, Jesus was actually called the first and last for other reasons. So why do you assume that the apostle John is not making reference to these? I find no reason in the text to assume John meant alpha and omega and if he did, why didnt he simply write it as alpha and omega???
EMA writes: Secondly, Isa 44:6 when speaking of God does not state Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, it simply says first and last Should we therefore conclude that God is not God also, because the other phrases are not mentioned here is this passage? Or should we conclude that the writer means the samething concerning God as he does Christ. The simplest reason i can express for why Alpha and Omega is not a reference to Christ is this... Revelation 1:8 states: The Lord God says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty!’ Jesus is never called the Almighty. Only Jehovah is called the Almighty.
EMA writes: Question Peg. Why do you think John used very spcefic language concerning the fact that, "There is NOTHING made that is MADE, that was not made, by and through him" he is trying to show you who and what Christ is. Its for this reason that we need to know exactly what jesus role in the creation was. This is why Proverbs 8 is such an important passage for understanding that. Jesus was beside God as a master worker, God gave Jesus creative ability and this is why John says that all things came into existence thru him and by him... but tell me this. If the one mentioned in Prov 8 is not Jesus (and its certainly not wisdom because wisdom is someone who can act and think and love) then who is it? Because if its not Jesus, then there is someone greater then Jesus who sat beside God as a master worker. I think Johns words about Jesus being a creator add weight to the identity of the one who was beside God in Prov 8.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
kbertsche writes: So it is somewhat questionable whether or not the GS rule should apply to Eph 5:5. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule, and show that the rule does not work for these passages. i already did that All the verses that have the same construction (meaning there is a single article preceding two nouns that are joined by the conjunction) i posted in msg 281. Acts 13:50 is a good example of how it doesnt work because there is no way to mistake the women and the men of the city as being the same person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No, you did not. Where did you present ANY passages which "undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule"?quote:i already did that quote:That's nice, but irrelevant. This does not meet the requirements of the rule as laid down by Granville Sharp. For these requirements, see Message 287. quote:Acts 13:50 is a good example of a verse which does not meet the requirements of the rule as laid down by Granville Sharp. If you really want to dispute the validity of the GS rule, you should start with passages which undisputedly meet the requirements for the rule. So far you have not suggested ANY!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: Do you think he was "a" god? As in polytheism? Or was he just divine like an angel or something? what do you think a god is? Moses was made a god to PharoahThe angel who saved the hebrews from Nebudchudnezzas fire was called a god Jesus was called a god The jews were called gods to the nations god literally means a 'mighty one' in the hebrew language. Yes i believe jesus was a mighty one...just as the angels are mighty ones.It is not polythiestic to believe Jesus was a god...or the angels are gods. They are such because God Almighty makes them such. Catholic Scientist writes: Well John says that the Word was God and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (= Jesus) so therefore, Jesus is God. have you done any research into the rendering of John 1:1? Did you know that there are many translations who render the verse as 'a' god.? Are you interested why they render the verse as such?
1808 and the word was a god
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon theBasis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 1864 and a god was the WordThe Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 1935 and the Word was divineThe BibleAn American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950 and the Word was a godNew World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 1975 and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the WordDas Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz,Gttingen, Germany. 1978 and godlike sort was the LogosDas Evangelium nach Johannes,by Johannes Schneider,Berlin. 1979 and a god was the LogosDas Evangelium nach Johannes,by Jrgen Becker, Wrzburg, Germany.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
you are only assuming that the first and the last in Rev chpt 2 means the alpha and omega. As i showed, Jesus was actually called the first and last for other reasons. So why do you assume that the apostle John is not making reference to these? I find no reason in the text to assume John meant alpha and omega and if he did, why didnt he simply write it as alpha and omega??? As I have been pointing out to you my old friend, I am not mad. perhaps WE should bring down our tone with eachother. Your problem is, in this statement, "I find no reason in the Text that John meant Alpha and Omega" As I pointed out before One cannot find the meaning ALWAYS in one text, it takes all of them to come to a conclusion. So the reason I KNOW he means Alpha and Omega, is because Jesus said, "before Abraham was I AM". this tells me that he is the Alpha and the Omega. But my friend from down under over at Melbourne, it cant be derived from one text You say Jesus is first because he was created first, he is last because he was the last Adam Then answer me this miss smarty pants. What was Jesus the IAM of? if the the First and Last have a correspondant then what was he the IAM of? Im just kidding about the smarty pants comment I guess I should just be happy you didnt change the wording In Revelations 2:8, from first and last to something else, to make the words themself mean something else, as you do with IAM to IWAS If Last and first do not refer to Christ as God and IAM, when spoken by Christ, does not mean God, then what is he the IAM of? Is he the IAM of the real IAM
The simplest reason i can express for why Alpha and Omega is not a reference to Christ is this... Revelation 1:8 states: The Lord God says, ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the One who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty!’ Jesus is never called the Almighty. Only Jehovah is called the Almighty. But he is peg, your just not looking at all the places. Jesus called himself the great IAM. Now watch this Peg. If Jesus said the before Abraham was I was, there would be no need for alarm on the Jews part, because they would simply thought he was a lunitic, caliming to be older than Abraham or was claiming preexistence of some sort, angelic or whatever. The text makes it clear he used the expression IAM, resulting in thier comments that he making himself equal to God. They charged him with blasphemeous statements not crazy ones. You simply have to look in the right places where Christ is called the almighty. It does not have to use excally that word Secondly, revelations is a LETTER Peg, not a book. Its not necessary for the writer to keep repeating traits of the same person, over and over in the same way for it not to be about the same person Thats why in Revelations 2 you get the condensed statement about first and last, without repeating again, Alpha, Omega, b and E, the Almighty, still refering to the same person Notice in revelations 22:12, the expression Almighty is left off "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. " So who is this refering to Peg? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024