Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-21-2019 7:04 AM
15 online now:
14174dm, PaulK (2 members, 13 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,669 Year: 6,706/19,786 Month: 1,247/1,581 Week: 69/393 Day: 2/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
33NextFF
Author Topic:   Is Jesus God?
Peg
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 1 of 492 (548002)
02-24-2010 6:53 PM


The question as to the identity of Jesus (Is he God or Gods Son) has been a debate that has raged for thousands of years. It is the very question that caused the church to become divided and turned members against each other to the point of executing those who became viewed as heretics for not believing in the trinity. It became an ugly chapter in the history of christianity and christians are still divided over the issue today.

From the 'Jesus is a failure' thread, EMA made the comment as follows

EMA writes:

All angles, prophets and Apostles rejected worship and deity designations, unlike Christ, who humbly accepted those actions by individuals, like Thomas, "My lord and my God".

the NT (especially the gospels)is simply to repleat, to desinate christ as anything but God. "In him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". he si9mply was God here

There is good reason why this idea was, and is, strongly fought against. Early christians recognized that the teaching that Jesus was God, did not come from the writings of the Apostles or the words of Jesus. The catholic encyclopedia acknowledges this fact by stating the following:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) “The Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. . . . The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.”

Even those who teach the trinity have acknowledged that it is not an idea that comes from the scriptures. An Anglican bishop named John Robinson in his book 'Honest to God' wrote:

“In practice popular preaching and teaching presents a supranaturalistic view of Christ which cannot be substantiated from the New Testament. It says simply that Jesus was God, in such a way that the terms ‘Christ’ and ‘God’ are interchangeable. But nowhere in Biblical usage is this so. The New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says that Jesus is the Son of God; but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that.”

Because trinitarians use certain scritpures to back their claim, I think it would be good to compare the scritpures that trinitarians use. I beleive that every scritpure they may use, can be shown to not convey the meaning that trinitarians put to them.

the first scripture i'd like to put forward is EMA's verse from John where Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and My God" and reasons that because the apostles called Jesus God, that means he is God.

John 20:24-29 writes:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called The Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 Consequently the other disciples would say to him: “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will certainly not believe.”

26 Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst and said: “May YOU have peace.” 27 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” 28 In answer Thomas said to him: “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him: “Because you have seen me have you believed? Happy are those who do not see and yet believe.”

What could Thomas have meant by calling Jesus 'God' and is it wrong to do so? No i dont think it is for the fact that 'God' is just a title that means 'Mighty/Divine One'

Jesus was surely of divine origin and so Thomas could have been recognizing this fact. When we compare scritpures about the Messiah, he is called 'Mighty God' at Isaiah 9:6  For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace

its important to note that 'El Gib.bohr' is the hebrew word for 'Mighty God' whereas when the Hebrew speaks of the 'Almighty God' YWHY, it uses a different hebrew word which is 'El Shad.dai' as at Ge 17:1

So even when the hebrew writers spoke about the Messiah, they called him God, yet differentiated him between the 'Almighty YWHY'

John also calls Jesus a god in John 1:1 but he differentiated between THE God because he used the definite article 'ton' before one but not the other which indicated that he was speaking of two different Gods.

John gave further evidence that these two are different beings in 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

So to understand Thomas's words, its a matter of understanding that the Messiah was of divine origin and could rightly be called, a god. 'god' is a title that means a divine being. Jesus was certainly a divine being for he even said that he was from heaven and that he existed with God before the founding of the world.

John 8:22 Jesus says writes:

‘Where I am going YOU cannot come.’” 23 So he went on to say to them: “YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world

If anyone has more scriptures, please put them on the table and im pretty sure they can be shown to not mean what they are purported to mean.


Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2010 5:10 PM Peg has responded
 Message 9 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 1:27 AM Peg has responded
 Message 10 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 1:45 AM Peg has responded
 Message 26 by Buzsaw, posted 02-26-2010 11:00 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 11:27 PM Peg has responded
 Message 29 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 12:01 AM Peg has responded
 Message 30 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2010 12:21 AM Peg has responded
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 03-03-2010 11:01 PM Peg has responded
 Message 96 by kbertsche, posted 03-03-2010 11:28 PM Peg has responded
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 03-04-2010 12:08 AM Peg has responded
 Message 354 by adelpit346, posted 04-09-2010 10:28 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 492 (548053)
02-25-2010 7:41 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Is Jesus God? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by hERICtic, posted 02-25-2010 4:43 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2653 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 3 of 492 (548113)
02-25-2010 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPD
02-25-2010 7:41 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
I believe if it was not for John 1:1, few would actually come to the conclusion that Jesus is god. He never admitted he was. In fact, he clearly stated he was sent by god, as a messanger of god, who message was not his own-but god's, who is (Jesus) not all powerful, who is but a man, can do nothing without god...

There are so many verses in the NT which obviously show Jesus was the messiah, never in fact, god.

Two of my favorites:

Here are two of my favorites:

Jesus in heaven, with god -stating he has a god.

Reve. 3:12 "‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine. 13 Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.’

Jesus saying that his father is his god.

John 20:17 "...Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 02-25-2010 7:41 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Peg, posted 02-25-2010 6:09 PM hERICtic has not yet responded
 Message 183 by John 10:10, posted 03-15-2010 11:08 AM hERICtic has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 4 of 492 (548116)
02-25-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
02-24-2010 6:53 PM


quote:
John also calls Jesus a god in John 1:1 but he differentiated between THE God because he used the definite article 'ton' before one but not the other which indicated that he was speaking of two different Gods.

This is a misunderstanding of the Greek grammar. The phrase at the end of the verse not only omits the definite article, it also reverses the normal word order, placing the predicate before the subject. This Greek construction is used to stress quality or essence. It is usually rendered "and the Word was God", but a better rendering would be "and the Word was DEITY" or "and what God was the Word was." For a detailed discussion of this, see the translator's note in the NET Bible.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 02-24-2010 6:53 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 02-25-2010 6:13 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 5 of 492 (548128)
02-25-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by hERICtic
02-25-2010 4:43 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Hi hERICtic,

i agree that John 20:17 is a great scripture in refuting the trinity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hERICtic, posted 02-25-2010 4:43 PM hERICtic has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 6 of 492 (548129)
02-25-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by kbertsche
02-25-2010 5:10 PM


hi Kbertsche

Kbertsche writes:

This Greek construction is used to stress quality or essence. It is usually rendered "and the Word was God"

thats right, the essence of Jesus is that he was 'divine'

some bibles actually use the word divine because its a description of the essence of him as opposed to his identity.

my bible puts it

'and the word was A god'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2010 5:10 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by hERICtic, posted 02-25-2010 9:12 PM Peg has not yet responded

    
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2653 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 7 of 492 (548150)
02-25-2010 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peg
02-25-2010 6:13 PM


I am not sure if this is allowed, but if its against policy, I will delete it.

I do NOT know the author of this work. I gathered it from another debate site awhile ago. I've gone through my "saved" files and although I have a few more works from the same "author", I do not have his name.

Here is one page of his work, of three:

1. First we need to understand how the NT Greek word theos (and elohim in Hebrew) was understood by the original Bible writers and their readers.

Numerous recognized scholars and translators (mostly trinitarian) agree that both these words may be understood as "God" or "a god." Furthermore, they tell us that "god" may be used for angels, certain men who have been appointed to do God's work (such as the judges, kings of Israel), and, of course, false gods.

2. Furthermore, most will admit that when the NT writer intended the meaning of "God," he used the definite article with it ('the god' in literal English translation).

And since the indefinite article ('a' or 'an') was not used in NT Greek, the word for 'a god' (theos) is the same word as used for 'God' ('the god'- o theos) but without the definite article ('the').

3. I have gone through the Gospel of John examining every use of theos and found this to be true for every use (with a very few exceptions, such as an added prepositional modifier: 'of me,' 'to you,' etc., which are explained in grammars of NT Greek) of theos where it is used as a subject/predicate noun (as it is used in John 1:1c).

In other words, when John intended the meaning of "God," he wrote "the god" (when used as a subject or predicate noun). When he intended "a god," he wrote "god" (without the article, "the").

So when he wrote at John 1:1c: "and god was the word," it literally meant "And the Word was a god [one appointed by God for a special purpose]."

4. As for any 'grammatical rules' concerning word order concocted in the last century or two, they are simply false. Consider the following which have the same 'unusual' word order as John 1:1c. Notice that trinitarian Bible translators have not worded these any differently than they would if they were in the 'normal' word order.

1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations
2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all

3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all

4. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all

5. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all

6. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all

7. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all

8. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all

9. John 18:37 a - indefinite ("a king") - all

10. John 18:37 b - indefinite ("a king") - in Received Text

So, we can see that the literal translation of John 1:1c is, "And the Word was a god." Although noted trinitarian scholars refuse to admit that this is what John intended, nevertheless many will admit that this is the literal rendering.

Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peg, posted 02-25-2010 6:13 PM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 12:07 AM hERICtic has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 8 of 492 (548167)
02-26-2010 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by hERICtic
02-25-2010 9:12 PM


quote:
4. As for any 'grammatical rules' concerning word order concocted in the last century or two, they are simply false. Consider the following which have the same 'unusual' word order as John 1:1c. Notice that trinitarian Bible translators have not worded these any differently than they would if they were in the 'normal' word order.

Your author does not like the implications of this grammatical rule, so he wants to deny that the rule exists--not surprising. He is wrong, of course. Most grammars (e.g. Dana and Mantey) give plenty of support for these grammatical rules--too much to reproduce here. Instead, here is an excerpt from NET note #3 for John 1:1 which describes the rule and its implications here:
NET notes writes:

... the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. ... From a technical standpoint ... it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous theos in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266–69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too.

quote:
1. John 4:9 (a) - indefinite ("a Jew") - all translations

Yes, but the Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a Jew, and this is somewhat lost in the English. A better translation might be "being Jewish."

quote:
2. John 4:19 - indefinite ("a prophet") - all

Yes, but the Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a prophet, and this is somewhat lost in the English.

quote:
3. John 6:70 - indefinite ("a devil"/"a slanderer") - all

No, NET translates this as "the devil," similar to "(the) God" in Jn 1:1c.

quote:
4. John 8:48 - indefinite ("a Samaritan") - all

The Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a Samaritan, and this is somewhat lost in the English. The NLT captures this fairly well as "You Samaritan devil!"

quote:
5. John 9:24 - indefinite ("a sinner") - all

Yes, but the Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a sinner, and this is somewhat lost in the English. Perhaps a better translation here would be "sinful."

quote:
6. John 10:1 - indefinite ("a thief and a plunderer") - all

Yes, but the Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a thief, and this is somewhat lost in the English.

quote:
7. John 10:33 - indefinite ("a man") - all

Wrong--not the same grammatical construction as Jn 1:1c, so not applicable.

quote:
8. John 18:35 - indefinite ("a Jew") - all

Yes, but the Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a Jew, and this is somewhat lost in the English. Perhaps a better translation here would be "Jewish."

quote:
9. John 18:37 a - indefinite ("a king") - all

Yes, but the Greek is stressing the quality or essence of a king, and this is somewhat lost in the English. Instead of "a king," perhaps a better translation here would be "royalty."

quote:
10. John 18:37 b - indefinite ("a king") - in Received Text

As above; "royalty" is perhaps a better translation.

quote:
So, we can see that the literal translation of John 1:1c is, "And the Word was a god."

No, this is a very poor translation. Much better is "and the Word was DEITY."

quote:
Although noted trinitarian scholars refuse to admit that this is what John intended, nevertheless many will admit that this is the literal rendering.

I don't believe it. Please list the "many" "noted trinitarian scholars" who "will admit that this is the literal rendering."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by hERICtic, posted 02-25-2010 9:12 PM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peg, posted 02-26-2010 2:24 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 15 by hERICtic, posted 02-26-2010 8:08 AM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 9 of 492 (548173)
02-26-2010 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
02-24-2010 6:53 PM


Mt. 13:41
quote:
If anyone has more scriptures, please put them on the table and im pretty sure they can be shown to not mean what they are purported to mean.

There are many, many passages that testify to the deity of Christ (that Jesus was truly and fully God). I'll start posting a few, but will include only one argument per post to make things easier to follow.

First one:

NET Bible writes:

Mt. 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers.


"Son of Man" was a term that Jesus used of Himself. Note that He claims that these are HIS angels and HIS kingdom. But other places in the Gospels refer to angels as "angels of God" (e.g. Lk 12:8-9; Jn 1:51). And the Gospels quite often refer to the kingdom as the "kingdom of God" (e.g. Mt. 12:28; 19:24; many others).

Jesus seems to be equating Himself with God in saying that God's angels and God's kingdom are His angels and His kingdom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 02-24-2010 6:53 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 02-26-2010 3:17 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 16 by hERICtic, posted 02-26-2010 8:19 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 268 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 10 of 492 (548175)
02-26-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peg
02-24-2010 6:53 PM


Mk 2:5
quote:
If anyone has more scriptures, please put them on the table and im pretty sure they can be shown to not mean what they are purported to mean.

What about Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sin?

NET Bible writes:

Mark 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

The scribes understood that this was a claim to Deity:

NET Bible writes:

Mark 2:7 “Why does this man speak this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Jesus heard them, and had a perfect opportunity to correct them if they had misunderstood His implication or had misinterpreted the Old Testament regarding forgiveness of sin. But He did NOT correct them. Instead He reinforced his claim to be able to forgive sin:

NET Bible writes:

Mark 2:8b-11 he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”–he said to the paralytic– “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.”

Here Jesus made a clear claim to be able to forgive sin, a prerogative that belongs to God alone. In doing this, He is claiming to be God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peg, posted 02-24-2010 6:53 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peg, posted 02-26-2010 3:00 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 14 by hERICtic, posted 02-26-2010 8:05 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 11 of 492 (548183)
02-26-2010 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 12:07 AM


Hi Kbertsche

Kbertsche writes:

Your author does not like the implications of this grammatical rule, so he wants to deny that the rule exists--not surprising.

The Authorized Version or Douay Version of John 1:1 reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”

Surely John was not so unreasonable as to say that someone (“the Word”) was with some other individual (“God”) and at the same time was that other individual (“God”). I dont think the greek grammar could be so backward as to actually make this possible.

Many have clued onto this. In the book “The Patristic Gospels—An English Version of the holy Gospels as they existed in the Second Century,” by Roslyn D’Onston. In John 1:1 this version reads: “and the Word was God.” but it has this footnote: “The true reading here is, probably, of God. See Critical Note.”—Page 118.

Now here is the critical note word for word from page 118 and the last sentence shows that trinitarians are the ones who ignore the greek gramma in favor of their theology.

Critical Note as found on page 156 writes:

"There are three distinct reasons for believing of God to be the true reading. First, the manuscripts, as stated in that Note; secondly, the logical argument, because if the Evangelist meant ‘was God,’ there would have been no occasion for the next verse; thirdly, the grammatical construction of the sentence: for ‘was God,’ would he not have written ho lógos ēn theós, which would, at any rate, have been more elegant? But if we read it, kai theoû ēn ho lógos, the theoû is in its proper place in the sentence.
I have refrained from correcting the text of this passage at the express desire of the late Bishop Westcott.”


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 12:07 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 9:11 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 12 of 492 (548187)
02-26-2010 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 1:45 AM


Re: Mk 2:5
Kebertsche writes:

What about Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sin?

Thats a good one. I guess the rabbis believed that only God could forgive sins and yet their own writings stated that thru their Messiah, their sins would be forgiven.
Isaiah 53:11 says
By means of his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will bring a righteous standing to many people; and their errors he himself will bear

The Messiah was given the authority to forgive sins because his purpose was to bring an end to sin.

The writings of Paul shows that thru the sacrifice of Jesus, many people would have their sins forgiven

Romans 5:18 So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were constituted sinners, likewise also through the obedience of the one [person] many will be constituted righteous

John also spoke of forgivness thru Jesus sacrifice at 1John2:1-2

“I am writing you these things that you may not commit a sin. And yet, if anyone does commit a sin, we have a helper with the Father, Jesus Christ, a righteous one. And he is a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, yet not for ours only but also for the whole world’s.”

Kbertsche writes:

Here Jesus made a clear claim to be able to forgive sin, a prerogative that belongs to God alone. In doing this, He is claiming to be God.

and yet the high priest had authority to forgive the sins of the whole nation... are we to assume that the high priest was also God?? Im sure you would not assume such a notion.

The fact that Jesus could forgive sins does not mean he had to be God Almighty. It simply means that as the chosen one, God had granted Jesus the authority to do so just as he had granted that authority to the high priest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 1:45 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 9:12 AM Peg has responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3066 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 492 (548189)
02-26-2010 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 1:27 AM


Re: Mt. 13:41
Kbertsche writes:

Jesus seems to be equating Himself with God in saying that God's angels and God's kingdom are His angels and His kingdom.

the prophecy in Daniel 7 clearly identifies the arrangement of Gods Kingdom.

Daniel 7:13-14 writes:

“I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One.  And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin.

Notice that the kingdom is Gods kingdom, but he gives the rulership of the Kingdom over to the 'son of man'

This scripture clearly shows that Jesus authority in the kingdom was bestowed upon him, it wasnt always his. The angels you speak of were given to Jesus in order for him to fulfill his role just as a government will hand over the authority of the army to those who are put in charge of the military.

Also, Jesus rulership of this kingdom is only temporary according to 1Corintians 15:24 where Paul clearly explains that Jesus will rule until all of the kingdoms enemies are defeated and then he will 'hand back the kingdom to his God and Father'

24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone

and you may notice in verse 27 Paul clarifies that God himself is not subjected to Jesus when he says "it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him"

and he finishes by saying that Jesus will then subject himself to God
"then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him"

So just because Jesus is the head of the Kingdom of God, does not mean that he has to also be God Almighty. These scriptures clearly show that Jesus is subject to God and that the kingdom was bestowed upon him for a specific length of time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 1:27 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2653 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 14 of 492 (548207)
02-26-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 1:45 AM


Re: Mk 2:5
KB writes:

Mark 2:8b-11 he said to them, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up, take your stretcher, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,”–he said to the paralytic– “I tell you, stand up, take your stretcher, and go home.”

Here Jesus made a clear claim to be able to forgive sin, a prerogative that belongs to God alone. In doing this, He is claiming to be God.

True, only god can actually forgive sins, unless he has given that authority to someone else.

Matthew 9:1-8
(1) Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town.
(2) Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
(3) At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"
(4) Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?
(5) Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'?
(6) But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
(7) And the man got up and went home.
(8) When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.

Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 1:45 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

    
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2653 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 15 of 492 (548208)
02-26-2010 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by kbertsche
02-26-2010 12:07 AM


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although noted trinitarian scholars refuse to admit that this is what John intended, nevertheless many will admit that this is the literal rendering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KB writes:

I don't believe it. Please list the "many" "noted trinitarian scholars" who "will admit that this is the literal rendering."

Part 2 (again, I do not know the author), but to answer your question:

5. Coptic was the Egyptian language used in the earliest centuries A.D. An early Coptic manuscript is considered a copy of the very earliest translation of the original NT Greek at a time when both languages were in use and well-known. What is significant about this language is that it does use an indefinite article ('a' or 'an' in English). So this early Coptic manuscript shows how those Christians in the 2nd century understood the NT Greek of John 1:1.
"Here the indefinite article is specifically employed. Thus, whereas some scholars impute ambiguity to the Greek of John 1:1c, this early Coptic translation can be rendered accurately as 'the Word was a god.' This is the careful way those 2nd century Coptic translators understood it. The Coptic expression for 'was a god,' ne-u-noute pe, [as found at John 1:1] is the same Coptic construction as found at John 18:40, where it says of Barabbas that he ne-u-soone pe, 'was a robber'" - An Early Coptic Translation and John 1:1c, Prepared by Solomon Landers, January, 2006. Also see http://copticjohn.blogspot.com/ and http://nwtandcoptic.blogspot.com/ .

Some of these trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God's angels as gods include:

1. Young's Analytical Concordance of the Bible, "Hints and Helps...," Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew & Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today's Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings' A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43,
Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; & p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; & Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 & Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown (John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor's Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

(also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik - http://www.blueletterbible.org/...c/1080614802-6850.html#132; Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John - http://www.blueletterbible.org/...dir/c/1080614376-7939.html)

Even distinguished NT scholar (trinitarian) Robert M. Grant, when discussing the writings of the noted 2nd century Christian, Theophilus, said that this respected early Christian wrote that if Adam had remained faithful, he would have become 'perfect' and would have been 'declared a god'! Dr. Grant then added that this corresponds with Jesus being 'declared a god' elsewhere in the Gospel of John! So this highly respected trinitarian NT scholar admits that Jesus himself was called a god in John's Gospel. - p. 171, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, The Westminster Press, 1988.

And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for "God"/"a god" about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus; the writer of "The Epistle to Diognetus"; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for "a god." And, as we saw above, many highly respected NT scholars of this century agree.

6. In addition to the greatest NT scholar of the first centuries A.D. (Origen), we should add the words of Hippolytus, "the most important 3rd century [he lived from about 170 A.D. - 236 A.D.] theologian of the Roman Church" (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint), who wrote, showing his understanding of the word "god" in relation to men and the Word [Logos]:

"The Creator did not wish to make him [man] a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, -be not deceived,- but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos." - Book X, Ch. XXIX, 'The Refutation of all Heresies' by Hippolytus as translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 151, vol. 5, Eerdmans.

In other words, Hippolytus, who is even considered by some to have contributed to the development of the trinity doctrine in Christendom, also considered the Logos (the Word) to be "a god."

7. Origen (185-254 A. D.) was "probably the most accomplished Biblical scholar produced by the early Church" (Universal Standard Encyclopedia) and "the greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church. ... not only a profound thinker but also deeply spiritual and a loyal churchman." (The History of Christianity, a Lion Book). "Origen, the greatest and most influential Christian thinker of his age" - p. 89, A History of the Christian Church, 4th ed., Williston Walker, Scribners, 1985. "The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts." - p. 229, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV, Eerdmans.

Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great work of Christian interpretation." Origen was certainly the most knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward.- and this was during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood! - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol. X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.

Origen had the unfortunate habit (as did most Christian writers of his time) of speculating about scriptural meanings, but when it came to the actual language of the NT manuscripts, he was certainly the most qualified to teach it and did so with greater accuracy than we can even hope for by today's best scholars.

Origen distinguishes between those who are called "god" and He who is called "God" by the use of the definite article ("the") being used with theos to mean "God" and by the definite article not being used with theos to


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 12:07 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kbertsche, posted 02-26-2010 9:23 AM hERICtic has responded

    
1
23456
...
33NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019