- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi Is 1.18,
I cannot either predict or influence what you see in the words of scripture.If Jesus was called “God” in scripture would you agree he is a god?
If scripture presents the begettal of the Son prior to saying he was brought into the world would it cause you to think that is the order of events as they happened?
If the Son of God was sent into the world does that suggest to you he was a son before he was sent?Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,04:44) He he. Might take 20 minutes to demonstrate the scriptural basis for this belief, but a life time to defend it though. The prooftexts used to argue for pre-existence are very difficult to explain away IMHO. 
Well, let's see what Nick comes up with
Hi Is 1.18,
What we do here is not convince anyone of anything. We love scripture. We have been told it is the truth. We mine it and test it and hold the jewels or glass, gold or iron pyrites up to the light to try to add to the collection we have and help others in their search too.We all offer scriptures and try to illuminate them by the use of similar verses and that exercise in itself is good for all of us. Truth is the target for all and the process often is by different paths.
It is grasping of the interlacing knowledge of truth, and the wisdom deeper buried yet, that is our “holy grail”. That key is written in the Word in harmony and if we are not distracted by side issues and the pursuit of speculative butterflies we may give joy to the One Who has hidden it there for us to find.
And it is not any cleverness or guile of ours that reaches others but the power within the Word itself that speaks to the heart and that the spiritually hungry fall on as if starving. But there will always be the already fed cynics who are not really interested except in debate and I do not include you among them.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,05:06) Hi Is 1.18,
I cannot either predict or influence what you see in the words of scripture.
No. But you can explain the biblical basis for your doctrines, so I can ascertain their merit. Is not unreasonable or unfair for me to as you those two questions. Why won't you answer them?Quote If Jesus was called “God” in scripture would you agree he is a god?
No. I wouldn't.'gods' were created.
'God' is Creator.Therein lies the difference.
Hi Is 1.18,
I do not write for your ascertainment and amusement. I suggest you search yourself.So if a being is involved in creation that is your definition of a GOD?
Does scripture, as originally written, capitalise words?
We know our God is the Creator.
We know He created all things through His Son.
The Logoo was never The Creator so falls outside your definition of God
Likewise he is uncreated so falls outside again.
No disrespect to God but is God not “a god?”, a divine being?Ps 86.8
“There is no one like You among the gods..?”Heb 1.8
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…..
therefore God, your God, has anointed you..”If the Spirit of God through the psalmist calls the Son “God” that is good enough for me to say he is a god.
Have you not applied your knowledge about God to scripture to state that if written “God” it means “creator God” instead of letting scripture interpret itself ?
Hi Is.1.18,
It has to be your exacts words?
Sorry scripture is not written to order.
Are you a being?
Is Jesus a being?Hi Is 1.18,
I tire of your superior attitude. A little give and take and less of the schoolmaster approach would be appreciated.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 29 2006,04:01) Quote (kenrch @ May 29 2006,02:53) Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee With the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Therefore God (Jesus) THY God (Jehovah), hath anointed thee with ……
Jesus is the ONLY begotten of the Father and IS God. But His God Jehovah is greater than He.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Christ the head of man
man the head of woman
Jehovah the head of ChristI believe Christ IS the Son of God which makes Him God but not equal with the Father.
Hmmm, interesting Kenrch. Can you tell me specifically what you understand “greater” to mean?
Hi Is 1.18,
Jn 10.29
“My Father, who has given them to me is greater than all..”
That includes the speaker Jesus Christ.
Jn 13.16
“Truly truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater that his master, nor is the one who is sent greater than the one who sent him”[see also Jn 15.20]
A masterly understatement. A slave is less in authority that his master and utterly dependant on his master for all things.
Jn 14.28
“..If you loved me you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”
No confusion there.
Jn 15.13
“Greater has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends”Greater 3173 MEGAS Great
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,11:16) Hi Is 1.18,
I tire of your superior attitude. A little give and take and less of the schoolmaster approach would be appreciated.
Superior attitude? I don't consider myself superior to you or anyone else here. And I don't think the tone I used with you was any different to the one you use with me in posts, or others at various times.I just want equitability in our exchanges. It seems to me that when you and I dialogue inevitably you will assume the position of question poser and expect me to come up with direct answers….time after time. But when I try to right the balance and request some direct answers from you, you become evasive and aggressive. Why?
We both know that not only is it far easier to ask questions relative to answering them, and that its a much safer prospect. When anwering questions you actually expose your theology (and yourself) to scrutiny. But if you're continually asking them then your safeguarded from this. I didn't think it was unfair and unreasonable to ask you those questions…How can I possibly even begin to understand your beliefs on those matters if you refuse to give me the biblical basis for them?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 29 2006,20:33) Jn 10.29
“My Father, who has given them to me is greater than all..”
That includes the speaker Jesus Christ.
Jn 13.16
“Truly truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater that his master, nor is the one who is sent greater than the one who sent him”[see also Jn 15.20]
A masterly understatement. A slave is less in authority that his master and utterly dependant on his master for all things.
Jn 14.28
“..If you loved me you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I”
No confusion there.
Jn 15.13
“Greater has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends”Greater 3173 MEGAS Great
Yes, but what does the word 'greater' mean to you in these verses? Can you tell me please?Hi Is 1.18,
The mutual search should be for truth, biblical truth. First you have to believe it is the only God guaranteed source that is going to teach us truth. But your basis of truth is not the bible but theology. You have tried to build on a wrong and unstable foundation.You seem to have a twisted trinitarian understanding of God which you apply to the bible and then are constantly looking for biblical justifications for that basis. Then when we show you it cannot stand you use all sorts of games to frustrate any useful purposes. It is not possible to dialogue on this basis.
“How can two walk together unless they agree?”
We believe in the bible. We try to abide in that truth. We are biblically based and test scripture against scripture to build on that sound foundation.
Only the Spirit of truth can give you the light you need. I pray that you will be so blessed that we can walk together.
.NH,
When you can actually substantiate from scripture what you teach as truth I will take a post like this more seriously. Since you've made it clear that you consider it fruitless to discuss these matter with me, I will stop posting you.Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Hi WIT, sorry it's taken me a while to respond, hard to find the time to sit down, collect and annotate my thoughts atm. I'm also working on several posts concurrently, which doesn't help. Hope this finds you well. I have been busy as well, so I understand completely. If it had been more than a week, and you were posting to other threads, I might have wondered what happened. But, as it is, you have been more than prompt with your replies.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote If the verse challenges a plurality within unity concept of God, I don’t see how. The two persons of the Father and Son are discretely identified – yes. This would soundly refute the modalist position, but not the binatarian or trinitarian one – they acknowledge, and in fact affirm, this distinction. There is not make even a hint of an intended conveyance of ontological disparity in 1 Tim 6:13. This is precisely where I think that you are missing the point. This passage does not discretely identify Father and Son. It “discretely identifies” God and “Jesus”. You are assuming that “God” in this passage means “Father”, but nowhere is that actually indicated. There are indeed two persons “discretely” identified in this passage. One is God, and the other is “Jesus Christ”. In other words, in this passage, God is clearly a single person.
There are many, many other passages where God is similarly referenced as a single person. I have yet to see a passage where the term “God (theos)” is clearly in reference to a multi-person being. That suggests to me that the authors of the NT overwhelmingly saw God as a single person.
Is 1:18 wrote
Quote He he, I can see where this is going…..I was actually trying to convey that more than one NT writer made these types of emphatic statements of deity – but that was evidently unclear due to my sloppy language. I will happily concede that explicit statement of deity are not found in every book of the NT. John confers a very elevated Christology, Mark a low one. Some letters, like James for instance, are more themed on practical aspects the Christian faith, and basically ignore issues pertaining to Christ's nature and identity completely. I have gone on record with this assertion:
Quote Pg 24 of this thread:
If I call Him:“God” – John 1:1
“My God” – John 20:28
“O God” – Heb 1:8 (definitive article used)
“Mighty God” – Isaiah 9:6
“Great God” – Titus 2:13
“First and Last” – Revelation 1:17, 2:8….
“Alpha and Omega” – Revelation 22:13
“I AM” – John 8:24, 28 & 58
“The YHWH or Righteousness” – Jeremiah 23:6
“Lord of Lords and King of Kings” – Revelation 19:16
“Most High” – Dan 7:18, 22, 25, 27.
or even “YHWH” or “YHWH of Hosts” (Zech 14)…I am being entirely scriptural. These are all appellatives assigned directly to Jesus in the Bible.
I stand by what I wrote here.Assuming that your assertion here is correct, (which I obviously do not believe personally), I count only four verses in three books of the NT that call Jesus “God”. As you know, there are 27 books in the NT and 7956 verses. It would appear that the entire NT has a “low Christology”.
By the way, why would any NT writer have a “low Christology” given how important Messiah's deity is to Trinitarians? Why would an “inspired” writer not sound Messiah's deity from the mountaintops if it is such a critical component of faith?
The bottomline is that I don't think that you can produce a single verse that says in “very explicit and unambiguous language” that Yashua is God. None of the verses in your list explicitly refer to Yashua as God.
(Titus 2:13 is disputed. Hebrews 1:8 does not explicitly reference Yashua and is a quote of Psalm 45, which takes on different meaning in the context of the Psalm. John 1:1 is about the “word”, not explicitly about Yashua the man, as you have pointed out elsewhere. And John 20:28, is an exclamation uttered to Yashua but may have been only partly addressed to him, [reference 1 Corinthians 8:6].)
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Does the absence of the phrase “God the eternal being” disprove the fact that God is a ‘being’ who is ‘eternal’. I don’t see this as a legitimate argument WIT. The absence of a phrase used to encapsulate a biblical concept does not invalidate the concept itself… YHWH's eternality is stated explicitly throughout scripture. When you show me a verse that says explicitly, in some form or another, “Yashua is God”, then I will concede that “God the Son” is a perfectly biblical concept and phrase.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote WIT, I didn’t state or even imply that “kurios’ has an extremely narrow application and always designates deity, did I? Yes, its patently obvious that this word has a diversity of meanings. If you read what I wrote carefully you will see my point was that when ‘kurios’ was used to designate Yahshua in NT scriptures, I see no reason to interpret it as denoting non-deity. Neither do I have a good reason to think the Paul was connoting or denoting non-deity by using the name “Jesus Christ” in 1 Tim 6:13. I was simply refuting your statement:
“…I would find it difficult to accept that 'kurios' is a weaker appellative than 'theos'.”
“Lord” is indeed a “weaker appellative” presicely because, as you say, “its patently obvious that this word has a diversity of meanings”.
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote Yes I do accept that it wasn’t reasonable to ask you to prove a negative. I suppose I could re-phrase it to the positive, but you and I both know that it’s not possible to make absolutely dogmatic assertions about the true meaning of the references to the “One God” where it’s not abundantly clear whether Yahshua or The Father is the subject. There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states that God is a uni-personal or a multi-personal being, so it’s not possible to categorically prove it one way or the other, from the verses alone. I read into them compound unity, based on the scriptural evidence I think attests to this. While you read into them absolute singularity, based on the evidence you feel proves monarchial monotheism. On the contrary, there are many, many verses that use the term God to denote a single person. By contrast, the only place God shows up as a multi-person being is in your assumptions. I haven't come across a single v
erse that by context demands that understanding. Have you?Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote I don’t find [the phrase “God the Son”] “indispensable”. I almost never use it in identifying Yahshua. Do you find the term ‘anti-trinitarianism’ or ‘pre-existence’ indispensable when demonstrating the basis for your belief in those areas? Either way, what difference would it make? I’m sure we could find “glaring omissions” of a number of words or phrases that are almost universally used, by Christians, in reference to clearly-taught biblical concepts (omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence immediately come to mind). Does this challenge their validity? (Answering the question in bold:)
Not if the terms did not exist at the time scripture was written. If they did, and they were never used of YHWH, then there is a reasonable doubt that they apply to Him.Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote If I was the cynical type I would understand “respond if it seems appropriate” to mean ‘respond to the perceived weakest point(s) and ignore all the rest’. But I’m not quite that cynical….yet. I believe that I have responded to nearly every argument that you have produced on this bulletin board at one time or another. I am not going to waste time doing so again, especially given the fact that I will be readdressing “25 hours” worth of points. If you bring up something new, I will likely respond to it. However, if you think that I have dodged your “stronger points” in the past, (or am about to dodge them in the future), write a post to me that addresses these points, and I will do my best to respond.
ADDENDUM (to my last post):
Is 1:18 wrote:
Quote …you and I both know that it’s not possible to make absolutely dogmatic assertions about the true meaning of the references to the “One God” where it’s not abundantly clear whether Yahshua or The Father is the subject. There is no verse in the Bible that explicitly states that God is a uni-personal or a multi-personal being, so it’s not possible to categorically prove it one way or the other, from the verses alone. … Actually, there is one verse that identifies the One God as a “uni-personal” being:
1 Corinthians 8:6 reads:
“…for us there is one God, the Father … .”
Paul is making a doctrinal statement here in which he defines the One God as the Father for believers.
Can you imagine a trinitarian uttering those words? For a trinitarian, there is one god, the father, son, and holy spirit. Yet, for Paul, there is simply One God, the Father.
Why does Paul's doctrinal statement seem completely unlike something a trinitarian would profess?
Hi WIT,
2Thess 2 16
” Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself
and
God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word”But what use is it to offer scripture to those who do not know it as truth or have seemingly become immune to it's power?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
