- This topic is empty.
- Posts
David,
Sorry if my response wasn't clear. I thought I pointed out directly that the Jews did accuse Jesus of being God in John 10:33, and that John 5:18 shows that Jesus being God's Son means that He is equal to God.
Tim
Quote In general, God means YHWH. No, not at all.
“In general” “God” is applied to YHWH.
This is the mistake so many make.
It's meaning isn't YHWH.
That's just wrong. Just wrong. Not right at all, and completely incorrect in every way. It's not provable or right. It's the opposite of right.
The meaning of “God” isn't YHWH. But God is applied to YHWH thousands of times, and so when one speaks of God it is taken to mean YHWH unless otherwise indicated.
“God” is a descriptive word and it doesn't mean “YHWH.”
If it did, then in what way are the angels YHWH?
In what way are the Israelite judges YHWH?The angels and judges were “mighty ones,” with respect to others.
Jehovah is a mighty one (Almighty in fact) with respect to everyone, even Jesus, HENCE, JEHOVAH IS THE GOD OF JESUS. Never the other way around.
Doesn't it seem odd that the holy spirit is never spoken of as being the God of Jesus or the God of the Father? Or that Jesus is never described as the God of the Father?
And it's not just that he was on earth. This also applied to when he was in heaven. The Father was still his “God.”
Why?Only one explanation. And it isn't the trinity.
Quote (Tim2 @ April 11 2007,16:47) Hi t8, Jesus calls the Father His God, and so He is. For as the Athanasian Creed says, Jesus is equal to the Father concerning his Godhead, but inferior to the Father concerning His manhood.
t8, I'm not exactly sure what you believe. Could you please explain who/what you think Jesus is?
Thanks,
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Do non catholics have to accept these traditional catholic creeds as well as scripture?Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 11 2007,17:02) Quote (Tim2 @ April 11 2007,16:04) Hi t8, I believe Scriptures that say Jesus came from God. I believe this means He came out of God (I understand that to be the literal meaning of “ek”). That's what it means for Jesus to be the Son. It means He was begotten out of the Father before all ages.
I believe that the Father is the only true God. I also believe that the Son and the Spirit are also the only true God. John 17:3 doesn't say, “only the Father is the true God.” Again, if you give up your assumption that God is one person, you will see this is consistent.
t8, do you believe that the so-called gods have the same nature as the Father? Does anyone else have the same nature as the Father? I know Scripture applies the word god to other beings, but it is always careful to distinguish them as idols, angels, judges. In general, God means YHWH. And YWHW is emphatic that there is no god beside Him, and that we cannot have any gods beside Him. If you believe Jesus is another god, then you are violating the first commandment, and I urge you to repent.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
So the Son was begotten from God in the beginning?
Or do you think the begettal never quite finished happening and he remained part of God?
Hi Nick,I believe that the begetting of the Son took place outside of time. It needed no time to begin, process, or finish.
I don't think the Son is part of God or that God has parts. God is undivided.
Tim
Quote David, Sorry if my response wasn't clear. I thought I pointed out directly that the Jews did accuse Jesus of being God in John 10:33, and that John 5:18 shows that Jesus being God's Son means that He is equal to God.
(John 10:33) “The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.””
(John 10:34-36) “Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”
The scripture cannot be nullified. If he called them “gods” then certainly Jesus could be called such. And yet, notice Jesus words and not the words of those who were blind: “because I said, I am God's Son.”
Quote (Tim2 @ April 11 2007,17:06) David, Sorry if my response wasn't clear. I thought I pointed out directly that the Jews did accuse Jesus of being God in John 10:33, and that John 5:18 shows that Jesus being God's Son means that He is equal to God.
Tim
Hi tim2,
Jn 5.18
“18Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.”OK so the Jews thought this was true.
Can you show us why they thought this?
Was it correct thinking?Of course they claimed that they were sons of God too so what gives?
John 8:41
Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.Quote (Tim2 @ April 11 2007,17:08) Quote (Nick Hassan @ April 11 2007,17:02) Quote (Tim2 @ April 11 2007,16:04) Hi t8, I believe Scriptures that say Jesus came from God. I believe this means He came out of God (I understand that to be the literal meaning of “ek”). That's what it means for Jesus to be the Son. It means He was begotten out of the Father before all ages.
I believe that the Father is the only true God. I also believe that the Son and the Spirit are also the only true God. John 17:3 doesn't say, “only the Father is the true God.” Again, if you give up your assumption that God is one person, you will see this is consistent.
t8, do you believe that the so-called gods have the same nature as the Father? Does anyone else have the same nature as the Father? I know Scripture applies the word god to other beings, but it is always careful to distinguish them as idols, angels, judges. In general, God means YHWH. And YWHW is emphatic that there is no god beside Him, and that we cannot have any gods beside Him. If you believe Jesus is another god, then you are violating the first commandment, and I urge you to repent.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
So the Son was begotten from God in the beginning?
Or do you think the begettal never quite finished happening and he remained part of God?
Hi Nick,I believe that the begetting of the Son took place outside of time. It needed no time to begin, process, or finish.
I don't think the Son is part of God or that God has parts. God is undivided.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
So the Son was begotten but wasn't?I find it somewhat remarkable that anyone would base their beliefs on what the ones who were blind and pitiful and wanted Jesus to be killed believed.
Clearly, their beliefs were wrong.
Would it not be better to accept Jesus words of correction?
David,
I agree that there are many so-called gods, but for me there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. It seems to me Paul isn't putting Jesus in the same class with all the so-called gods.
David, doesn't it strike you as odd that your religion is essentially “YHWH plus.” You believe in YHWH, but think there is this other created god who is necessary for salvation, when YHWH says that there is no other Savior besides Him? And your other created god calls himself, “The first and the last.” And this other god is the exact representation of YHWH's nature? I'm sorry, but this is blatant polytheism and a violation of the first commandment. I will have nothing to do with it.
Tim
Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ.
At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.”
Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression.
But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”
Quote (t8 @ April 11 2007,16:26) Hi Tim2. Paul taught clearly that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, the Lord Jesus Christ. You teach that there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit, and one Lord Father, Lord Jesus, and Lord Spirit.
There is a big difference in what you and Paul teach.
Yes, Jesus is a divine being who emptied himself of his former glory and took on human nature. After he died for us, he was resurrected to the highest place in Heaven to be seated at the right hand of his God and our God. He is now back to his former glory as the Word of God.
Now it is a mystery as to what will become of us, but scripture says that we will be like Christ. He is our brother and God is our Father. God is not our brother but Jesus is.
Do you also not realise that we will partake in divine nature. Yet even then we are not God in identity, even if we partake of his nature. So having or sharing God's nature is no reason to believe that we are God, the Almighty. Yet the Trinity doctrine teaches that God is a substance and that anything with the nature of God is God. But scripture teaches otherwise.
Remember that first comes the physical body (human nature) and then comes the spiritual body.
t8The scripture you are refering to is 1 Cor 8:6.
1 Cor 8:
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, “the Father”, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one “Lord Jesus Christ”, by whom are all things, and we by him.The distorted view of this scripture is obviously the foundational scripture for all Arians.
Even though there is no implication here that Paul is apposed to the deity of Christ.
So, you think by this scripture that there is “only one God, the Father”, therefore Jesus is not God.
But lets apply that logic to the whole verse, “there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ” therefore God is not Lord.This conclusion is ludicrous, since we know that God is Lord, so your invalid inference applied to this verse is evident.
Now lets look at the context…
Corinth was at this time a pagan city. Paganism and polytheism was the order of the day. But the Apostle Paul does an amazing thing in these verses. First he states in vrs 4…
“That there is none other God but one.” Somehow, those on this sight seem to always leave this one out!
Them in vrs 5 Paul speaks of “gods many and lords many”. Then emphatically declares “to US there is but one God”.
Then in vrs 6 without hesitation Paul glossed over “God” with the Father, and “Lord” (Kurios) with Jesus Christ, and then in the same breath ascribes a God like attribute to each…
“God” is the Father, “from whom are all things and we to him,” and the “Lord” is Jesus, “through whom are all things and we through him.”
If Paul was defending Unitarianism here against the polytheistic views of the Corinthians who believed in many gods and lords, he wouldn’t have mentioned Jesus as “Kurios” in the same breath, and ascribing a God like attribute to him, “through whom are all things and we through him.” .
Unless of course he knew and believed that Jesus the Word/God is Divinely and Uniqually ONE with the Father
Paul as a true Monothiest who called himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews knew that Jesus was God in the flesh.
Quote (Tim2 @ April 11 2007,17:15) David, I agree that there are many so-called gods, but for me there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. It seems to me Paul isn't putting Jesus in the same class with all the so-called gods.
David, doesn't it strike you as odd that your religion is essentially “YHWH plus.” You believe in YHWH, but think there is this other created god who is necessary for salvation, when YHWH says that there is no other Savior besides Him? And your other created god calls himself, “The first and the last.” And this other god is the exact representation of YHWH's nature? I'm sorry, but this is blatant polytheism and a violation of the first commandment. I will have nothing to do with it.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Jesus is our Lord.
Only those who claim he is another deity can be called polytheists.
I could name a few.Quote when YHWH says that there is no other Savior besides Him? I think you are confused:
Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying:
“God, our Savior THROUGH Jesus Christ our Lord.” (See also Acts 13:23.)
So please don't tell me this again. It's a distortion of truth. Jude 25 clears up your problems with understanding this. It shows us how God is our Savior.
At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh·shi′a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.
david
Quote And your other created god calls himself, “The first and the last.” Right and in each case it is explained in what sense he is first and last. Please see the Alpha and Omega thread.
Quote I'm sorry, but this is blatant polytheism and a violation of the first commandment. If you define polytheism as the worship of many gods, as some dictionaries do, then this doesn't fit me at all.
But if you define it as most:
Believing in the existence of more than one god.
the belief that more then one god exists.
etc,then let me ask you:
(John 10:34-35) “Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,”
I ask you, were these ones gods? Can the scripture be nullified?
Obviously the dictionaries definitions of God carry the thought of worship. But this isn't the basic meaning of “god” as used in the Bible. Those scriptures can't be nullified, no matter how hard you ignore them.
What does it mean that Moses was called God to Pharoah?
Are the scriptures right when they say this?
How does this fit into your definition of “god.”?
Hi David,
Paul also tells us the relationship in Titus 2:13 -“our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” Isaiah 43:11 says there is no saviour besides YHWH. But Jesus is our saviour. Jesus is YHWH.
Tim
Hi David,
“I am the first and the last” has a context? Good grief. YHWH is the first and the last. For anyone else to claim to be the first and the last is blasphemy.
I agree. There are many so-called gods. But to me there is only one God.
Which of these other other gods does YHWH ever say He needs to achieve salvation, to share His glory with, to make Lord of the world, for all men to bow down before? Doesn't YHWH assert that there is no god besides Him? I can't believe you're advocating, “YHWH plust this other god.”
Tim
Hi Tim2,
Then who is the Son of God?
It is not OK to read Jesus as God and state it as fact but then find others in scripture also called gods and to take a swerve and say because they are created or angels or men or lumps of stone they can safely be excluded. If you choose to follow one line of greek logic you must be consistent to have validity. You are adding interpretation.6E “Of the Great God and of [the] Savior of Us, Christ Jesus”
Tit 2:13—Gr., τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ
(tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′ Khri·stou′ I·e·sou′)
1934 “of the great God and of our The Riverside New
Savior Christ Jesus” Testament,Boston and
New York.1935 “of the great God and of our A New Translation of the
Saviour Christ Jesus” Bible, by James Moffatt, New
York and London.1950 “of the great God and of our New World Translation of
Savior Christ Jesus” the Christian Greek
Scriptures, Brooklyn.1957 “of the great God and of our La Sainte Bible, by Louis
Savior Jesus Christ” Segond, Paris.1970 “of the great God and of our The New American Bible,
Savior Christ Jesus” New York and London.1972 “of the great God and of The New Testament in
Christ Jesus our saviour” Modern English, by
J. B. Phillips, New York.In this place we find two nouns connected by καί (kai, “and”), the first noun being preceded by the definite article τοῦ (tou, “of the”) and the second noun without the definite article. A similar construction is found in 2Pe 1:1, 2, where, in vs 2, a clear distinction is made between God and Jesus. This indicates that when two distinct persons are connected by καί, if the first person is preceded by the definite article it is not necessary to repeat the definite article before the second person. Examples of this construction in the Greek text are found in Ac 13:50; 15:22; Eph 5:5; 2Th 1:12; 1Ti 5:21; 6:13; 2Ti 4:1. This construction is also found in LXX. (See Pr 24:21 ftn.) According to An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by C. F. D. Moule, Cambridge, England, 1971, p. 109, the sense “of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ . . . is possible in κοινή [koi·ne′] Greek even without the repetition [of the definite article].”
A detailed study of the construction in Tit 2:13 is found in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays, by Ezra Abbot, Boston, 1888, pp. 439-457. On p. 452 of this work the following comments are found: “Take an example from the New Testament. In Matt. xxi. 12 we read that Jesus ‘cast out all those that were selling and buying in the temple,’ τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας [tous po·loun′tas kai a·go·ra′zon·tas]. No one can reasonably suppose that the same persons are here described as both selling and buying. In Mark the two classes are made distinct by the insertion of τούς before ἀγοράζοντας; here it is safely left to the intelligence of the reader to distinguish them. In the case before us [Tit 2:13], the omission of the article before σωτῆρος [so·te′ros] seems to me to present no difficulty,—not because σωτῆρος is made sufficiently definite by the addition of ἡμῶν [he·mon′] (Winer), for, since God as well as Christ is often called “our Saviour,” ἡ δόξα τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν [he do′xa tou me·ga′lou The·ou′ kai so·te′ros he·mon′], standing alone, would most naturally be understood of one subject, namely, God, the Father; but the addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to σωτῆρος ἡμῶν changes the case entirely, restricting the σωτῆρος ἡμῶν to a person or being who, according to Paul’s habitual use of language, is distinguished from the person or being whom he designates as ὁ θεός [ho The·os′], so that there was no need of the repetition of the article to prevent ambiguity. So in 2 Thess. i. 12, the expression κατὰ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου [ka·ta′ ten kha′rin tou The·ou′ he·mon′ kai ky·ri′ou] would naturally be understood of one subject, and the article would be required before κυρίου if two were intended; but the simple addition of ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to κυρίου makes the reference to the two distinct subjects clear without the insertion of the article.”
Therefore, in Tit 2:13, two distinct persons, Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, are mentioned. Throughout the Holy Scriptures it is not possible to identify Jehovah and Jesus as being the same individual.–Appendix 6E of NWT.
Obviously, there was no punctuation in the original manuscripts of greek.
So, Titus 2:13 makes a week argument. It truly bothers me that ALL of the trinitarian scriptures are like this. There is always something. Punctuation added much later, etc.
There are no clear cut statements anywhere. It is so irritating.Quote “I am the first and the last” has a context? Good grief. YHWH is the first and the last. For anyone else to claim to be the first and the last is blasphemy. So if I said I am the first and the last to respond to your comments, that is blasphemy?
Obviously, Jehovah being king of eternity is the first and the last by right of his Godship.
If you check the context of the statements about Jesus, (please actually check the thread) you'll see that he is often spoken of as being the first, for example in a certain respect. And the context of those verses also explains how he is the last.
You can't just jump at those words. Both are descibed as Lord. But then again, many others are. It's a descriptive word.
Tim2, you often seem to ignore my questions.
Quote (John 10:34-35) “Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified,” I ask you, were these ones gods? Can the scripture be nullified?
Obviously the dictionaries definitions of God carry the thought of worship. But this isn't the basic meaning of “god” as used in the Bible. Those scriptures can't be nullified, no matter how hard you ignore them.
What does it mean that Moses was called God to Pharoah?
Are the scriptures right when they say this?
Ignoring them only makes me wonder what you are hiding. I think you may be hiding weekness in your beliefs. If I'm wrong, please explain.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
