Post Reply
Page 7 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Unambiguous assertions of Jesus's divinity
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 10:02AM #61
amcolph
Posts: 17,322

If it's unambiguous, why has this discussion gone on so long?


If it is ambiguous, why would that be a problem?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 10:16AM #62
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:15AM, Ed.W wrote:

No, that is not what happened even generally, let alone "precisely".


I've already dealt with your favorite proof text, Mario.  I'm willing to bet you didn't even give those posts any thought at all, however.  I know you wouldn't have changed your opinion on their meaning; but I'm only betting that you didn't give them any thought at all.  Your arrogance is what will lead to your destruction.


Once again, what happened "as a result of" Jesus going to the cross was NOT his becoming deity or becoming pleasing to God.  What happened "because of this" was that men/people the world over revered him as Lord and worshipped him as Lord/God.


Perhaps your intentional misinterpretation of this passage serves a dual purpose for you, Mario.


Not only is it your unique theology in a nutshell (Big Daddy knights Junior after he dies for him --scripture has the Father pleased with Junior long before his death, at his baptism and at the transfiguration.)


But this odd exegesis of yours distracts from what your real problem with the verse is.  I'll quote myself rather that digging up the verse:


What happened "because of this" was that men/women the world over revered him as Lord and worshipped him as Lord/God.


That's the part you don't like about it:  That "because of this", at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend, that "because of this" everyone shall call him Lord.  That's what the text says.


Nowhere does it say because of this, his relationship with the Father changed one iota.


Of course I gave your "trinitarian" apologetic posts my thought. In fact I have systematically debunked them: check ...


There is (should be) a limit to how "trinitarians" are (should be) allowed to butcher, in one fell swoop, logic, common sense and the English language.


This is what the relevant verses says ...


9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth –11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11 - emphasis and underlining by MdS)


... which is MOST CERTAINLY NOT what you would want it to reduce it to say ...


... as a result ... men/people the world over revered him as Lord and worshipped him as Lord/God.


... accept the evidence of facts ... EmbarassedSurprisedYellCool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 10:56AM #63
Ed.W
Posts: 9,426

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:



... accept the evidence of facts ...


MdS




Request denied.  We must let scripture interpret scripture.


What you are saying is that Jesus was not Lord (Christ) before his death?


Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; (Kyrios; Mt 17,4)


"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am;  (Mk 14,61)


Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.(Mt 16,16f)



Since these conversations occurred before Junior's knighting, I'd say your "knighting theory" fails. 

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 12:13PM #64
jlb32168
Posts: 13,209

Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

Obviously.  But I also remember your quotation from Enoch which gave the definition for the Son of Man, but you decided it was proof that Jesus is God despite the omission of that l'il fact.


No, I said that it was evidence for Jesus being God.  Was it conclusive evidence (which seems to be the only kind of evidence most people on this board think counts as evidence) – no, but it is evidence.


As I’ve said already, the OP asked for unambiguous scripture.  John’s Prologue is just that.  Perhaps you can offer other scriptures that suggest something else, but at best we can say that Scripture sends mixed messages, but you can’t say that John’s Prologue is unclear – not if we’re operating under standard definitions for “logical” and “reasonable”.


Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

You are going to force your point of view even where there is absolutely no reasonable evidence to support it.


[P1]God is the Word.  [P2]Jesus is the Word. [C]Jesus is god.  The Conclusion [C] is entailed by two true premises [P1] & [P2]; therefore, it qualifies as “reasonable evidence”, Jen – unless you’re defining the term “reasonable” in some novel and innovative way unique to you.


Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

I think that Christians get the wrong idea of the nature of God from their focus on Jesus as God.


And I think that people who deny God became a human get a wrong idea of not only the nature of God, but of God’s creation.  To say it limits God’s nature to think that an omnipotent deity would become a man, sounds to me like a minimum profession of faith that’s used to mask an actual belief in little or even nothing – certainly not a belief in an omnipotent deity that is personally involved in his creation.


Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

Actually, no, I don't think so. I reiterate, if it had been important to Jesus that we understand that he is God, then there would be a lot more solid quotes to lean on.


That’s called “Denying the antecedent” (e.g. if Christ’s deity had been important to Him, He’d have spoken a lot more solidly on it.  He didn’t; therefore, He wasn’t divine”, and it’s an illogical argument.  The fact of the matter is that, for all we know, the teaching in John’s Prologue was Christ’s teaching.  That is the teaching of the Church and I accept it since Christ moved the Disciples to write that He would remain with his Church.


Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

The words at the beginning of John are among my favorite in the Bible, however, if the question was raised as to whether or not it is ambiguous, which to me includes a later construct, then it is of dubious value.


Then start a thread on it.  The OP asked for unambiguous scripture.  John’s Prologue is unambiguous; therefore, you want it excluded since you don’t think it should be a part of Christ’s teaching.  Only Christ’s words should be.


Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

There is a lot of scrounging going on to prove that Jesus is God.  There is a lot of ignoring of other verses.   It was an interesting suggestion to look at the ones that don't prove it or contradict it.  I'd like to see that.


Start a thread on it then. 


Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Jenandew7 wrote:

I'm obviously not a liberal skeptic.  I'm a contemplative.


Tomato, ToMAHto.

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 5:15PM #65
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,050

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:56AM, Ed.W wrote:

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... accept the evidence of facts ...


[a] Request denied. [b] We must let scripture interpret scripture.


[c] What you are saying is that Jesus was not Lord (Christ) before his death?


Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; (Kyrios; Mt 17,4)


"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am;  (Mk 14,61)


Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.(Mt 16,16f)


Since these conversations occurred before Junior's knighting, I'd say your "knighting theory" fails.


[a] LOL! If you refuse the plain evidence, then, your bad!


[b] But you do NOT do that: you add to Phil 2:9-11 your ludicrous spin ...


[c] First, you are (deliberately?) confusing Lord and Christ, which are two different concepts.


Second, while his Apostles recognized Jesus as both Lord and Christ, this is what the Scripture says Peter said, after Jesus was dead, resurrected AND ascended:


32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear.  34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,


The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’


36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:32-36 - emphasis by MdS)


Now you may say ...


"We must let scripture interpret scripture"


... BUT I say, first ...


"Let Scripture speak for itself."


Take care. Surprised


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 8:15PM #66
Blü
Posts: 24,834

Adelphe


YHWH is NOT just the Father but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit


God is / gods are a story.  The story changes with perceived political need and public taste.  It began in one form and never stopped changing, right up to the present.  It can split and go on different directions for the same reason.


From ~1500 BCE on, Yahweh has been the god of the tribe that becomes the Jews, from ~1000 BCE on (in their view) the chief god of the Semitic pantheon, and from ~500 BCE the only god.


Given Jesus existed, he was a Jew who ended up leading a sect of Judaism and was crucified, perhaps ~33 CE.  Yahweh was his god.


By ~100 CE Christianity has split from Judaism. Divinity is attributed to Jesus but Yahweh's still the chief god.


~180 BCE the Trinity's invented and 'God' is said to be composed of Father, Son and Ghost as co-equals, but since the Father's called God ('God sent his son' &c) and Jesus and the Ghost aren't, the identity of Yahweh = God = Father is undisturbed.  In fact it's so undisturbed that even Trinity fans admit the Trinity's hocus-pocus nonsense (using the politer badge 'mystery').


The story still unfolds.  The Roman Cathoiic Yahweh has changed sides on slavery, democracy, Fascism &c, turns a blind eye to divorce and the use of contraception, and will, I dare say, slowly adapt to obedience to state laws, tolerance of homosexuality, married priests &c but not yet.  Other Yahwehs have held, hold, and will hold, a huge range of other views.


This is also true of Jesus, who's marketed in all shapes, colors and sizes.


(The Ghost, however, is still just the messenger.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 14, 2012 - 8:58PM #67
Ed.W
Posts: 9,426

Apr 14, 2012 -- 5:15PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:56AM, Ed.W wrote:

Apr 14, 2012 -- 10:16AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

... accept the evidence of facts ...


[a] Request denied. [b] We must let scripture interpret scripture.


[c] What you are saying is that Jesus was not Lord (Christ) before his death?


Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; (Kyrios; Mt 17,4)


"Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am;  (Mk 14,61)


Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.(Mt 16,16f)


Since these conversations occurred before Junior's knighting, I'd say your "knighting theory" fails.


[a] LOL! If you refuse the plain evidence, then, your bad!


[b] But you do NOT do that: you add to Phil 2:9-11 your ludicrous spin ...


[c] First, you are (deliberately?) confusing Lord and Christ, which are two different concepts.


Second, while his Apostles recognized Jesus as both Lord and Christ, this is what the Scripture says Peter said, after Jesus was dead, resurrected AND ascended:


32 This Jesus God raised up, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 So then, exalted to the right hand of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you both see and hear.  34 For David did not ascend into heaven, but he himself says,


The Lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’


36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know beyond a doubt that God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:32-36 - emphasis by MdS)


Now you may say ...


"We must let scripture interpret scripture"


... BUT I say, first ...


"Let Scripture speak for itself."


Take care.


MdS




I see where you err.  You present Acts 2:36, and of course you want to bore in on the words "hath made" even thought the verse gives no indication that the making came at any precise time that is so crucial to your theology.


Of course if you back up to verse 29 and actually read the scripture in its full context, you will see that this passage is a comparison to David.  I can see another stumbling block where it says "received the promise of the Holy Spirit."  That has to do with the spirit being manifested in the believers as Jesus had promised them; NOT Jesus receiving the Spirit himself as he pleased Big Daddy by going all the way to the Cross.


Yes Jesus was "made" Messiah on the day of his conception (at the latest).  David was never to be the Messiah.  That's all you've got here: a comparison to David. 


Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 2:21AM #68
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Apr 14, 2012 -- 7:08AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:02AM, Adelphe wrote:

No, in fact it doesn't fit--at all.  It's simply irrelevant what you like to call yourself.  Big Daddy knights Junior conferring upon him deity for an, er, "job well-done."


In spite of your colorfully derogatory way of putting it, that is precisely what happened:



I'm afraid if you find it "derogatory", it isn't my fault--it's your fantasy fairy tale.


This desperate need for appending (now even multiple ...) tags on me only shows how utterly clueless the poor lady is ...


MdS




That you don't are unable to recognize your theology there is, on the contrary, (more) evidence of your cluelessness.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 4:11AM #69
Kwinters
Posts: 21,845

Apr 14, 2012 -- 9:57AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Apr 14, 2012 -- 5:46AM, Kwinters wrote:

As I noted, the son of the President is not the President.  That being said, he is afforded a lot of leeway and different treatment because of his close relationship to the actual source of power.


Poor logic ...


... how about "the son of a man is a man"?


How about "the son of a European man and of an Asian girl is Euro-Asian"?


How about "the son of God and of a human girl is God-man"?


MdS




Not the same things at all. Jesus never claimed to be a god or god (the son of a man is a man logic).  He claimed a title for himself that people believed could only be bestowed by a god (son of the President logic).


Acts, allegedly from the mouths of apostles themselves, is pretty clear that he had no authority himself:


Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you...

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 15, 2012 - 4:42AM #70
Kwinters
Posts: 21,845

It should be noted, however, that most English translations of John 1:1 (deliberately?) mistranslate the text to achieve a theological reading that does not exist in the original language:



1808 "and the word was a god" - The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishp Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London. 

1829 "and the Logos was a god" - The Monotessaron;or, The Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists, by John S. Thompson, Baltimore. 

1864 "and the god was the Word" - The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London. 

1935 "and the Word was divine" - An American Translation, by J.M.P. Smth and E.J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 

1950 "and the Word was a god" - New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn. 

1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Gottingen, Germany. 

1978 "and godlike sort was the Logos" -Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin. 

1979 "and a god was the Logos" -Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jurgen Becker, Wurzburg, Germany. 


"These translations use such words as "a god," "divine," or "godlike" because the Greek word [face=spionic] qeo/j [/face] (theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression [face=spionic] o( qeo/j [/face], that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. Therefore, John's statement that the Word, or Logos, was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" does not mean that he was the God with whom he was. It merely expresses a certain quality about the Word, or Logos, but it does not identify him as one and the same God himself. 

In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb (e.g. Mark 6:49,11:32; John 4:19, 6:70, 8:44, 8:48, 9:17, 10:1, 10:13, 10:33, 12:6, 18:37). In these places, translators insert the indefinite article "a" before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article "a" is inserted before the anarthrous [face=spionic] qeo/j [/face] in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read "a god." The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering. 

In his article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, on p. 85 Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."" 

Quoted from The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 18  •  Prev 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook