Mikeboll64 vs francis

[francis]

Hi Mike…

when I use the term Orthodox Christianity… I am using it in the sense of traditional Christianity.

But I don't want that to be a stumbling block or a cause for division… so if you prefer, I will not use that term.

God Bless
Francis

[francis]

Hi Mike…

I just spotted another typing mistake I had made.

Here was what I had originally written in one of the segments:

THEREFORE… For all the above reasons, I reject your understanding of what the intended meaning was for the Greek word Harpagmos used by NIV, and translated by them as “grasped”.  It doesn't logically follow that just because the NIV says the Greek word is translated as “grasped”… that doesn't mean that the word “grasped” has to be understood that “not only wasn't he God, but he also wasn't EQUAL with God”.

I meant to say AMP (for Amplified), and not NIV in the above conclusion.

It's for reasons like this that i wish I could edit my mistakes after I have posted them.

God Bless
Francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 26 2010,23:12)

I can see that  I made a few errors even though I tried hard to proof read what I wrote.  I wish I could correct the mistakes once i've submitted by post, but I don't know how.  I also noticed that my post must have exceed the capacity because it was cut off… so  I will have to finish my post in 2 parts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

      That's a new one on me Francis!  I have had debates with Worshipping Jesus, and he is also very “wordy”, but he has yet to post so much that he used up all the available space!  You, my friend, have apparently set a record.

I hope you and yours are well and being richly blessed by God, our Father.

Francis, you have asserted that the only reason I would conclude that Micah 5:4 shows Jesus to be someone other than and lessor to his God is if I read the Bible with the preconceived notion that there wasn't a trinity.  Well, I did.

I had read that YHVH, our God, is ONE.  I had read many scriptures where God was referred to as a “HE” and a “HIM”, not a “THEY” and “WE”.  I had read scripture that said we were made in God's image, and since I know of no man who is three different persons within one being, I had no reason to assume that our God, who made us in HIS IMAGE, would be.

So, here I am.  I am someone who has only read as far as Micah 5:4, (actually, we'll come back to Ezekiel 34:24 and Jeremiah 30:9) and I am reading where YHVH God, who is ONE, spoke through the prophet Micah about someone coming out of Bethlehem who will rule in the power and authority of YHVH, HIS God.  So naturally and logically, I understand this scripture to be about someone who is NOT God, ruling in the power OF God.  I have no reason to suspect otherwise, having only read up to Micah 5:4 so far, right?

So, now it's time for you to show me the later scriptures that show where Micah 5:4 is just worded a little funny, and that the one who will rule in the name and strength OF YHVH is actually YHVH Himself.  

Please do so one scripture at a time.  Keith (Worshipping Jesus) likes to list 100 scriptures that prove “Jesus is God” all at once in an effort to divert from INDIVIDUALLY discussing any of them to find out whether they even DO imply that “Jesus is God”.  Let's not do that here, okay?

So Francis, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show me the first of what I'm sure will be many scriptures that make Micah 5:4 mean something other than what I think it means.

(On a side note that we can discuss later when we get back to Phil 2, Bible Gateway just within the last month changed their wording on the NIV to what you quoted.  You can still find the wording I quoted on NETBible.com, and it was the wording that Bible Gateway had until recently.  Funny how they keep changing any words that MIGHT lead someone to believe that Jesus is someone other than God.   You can see this frequently by cross referrencing the KJV with the NKJV – Rev 3:14 stands out in my mind right now, but there are others.  I don't post this to move the discussion to Phil 2 yet, only to let you know I wasn't being dishonest or devious in my quotes. )

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 27 2010,05:08)

It's for reasons like this that i wish I could edit my mistakes after I have posted them.

You must request editing rights from t8. Send him a pm, and as you don't have any history of any deceptive behavior on the site, he will most likely grant them to you.

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 26 2010,07:12)

I can see that  I made a few errors even though I tried hard to proof read what I wrote.  I wish I could correct the mistakes once i've submitted by post, but I don't know how.  I also noticed that my post must have exceed the capacity because it was cut off… so  I will have to finish my post in 2 parts. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Francis

You can PM t8 and request editing rights, then there will be a tab next to the quote tab for editing.

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

OOPs

Sorry Mike I didn't see your post!

WJ

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (mikeboll64 @ Dec. 26 2010,13:32)

So, now it's time for you to show me the later scriptures that show where Micah 5:4 is just worded a little funny, and that the one who will rule in the name and strength OF YHVH is actually YHVH Himself.   Please do so one scripture at a time.  Keith (Worshipping Jesus) likes to list 100 scriptures that prove “Jesus is God” all at once in an effort to divert from INDIVIDUALLY discussing any of them to find out whether they even DO imply that “Jesus is God”.  Let's not do that here, okay?

BTW Mike

Since you mentioned my name…

If you claim that Jesus is not God by using Micah 5:4 then how is it a diversion if I post “100 scriptures that prove “Jesus is God””?  

Don't you think those scriptures should be taking in consideration before you interpret Micah 5:4?  This is what Francis has been trying to tell you.

Francis is correct when he makes the following statement…

Quote

Either you want to know what I believe, or you don't.  Either you want to have a dialogue with me, or you don't.   If you ask me a question… if you make a claim… if you commit a logical fallacy… if you quote something out of context or without context… if you misunderstand the meaning of word or misuse a word… if you write anything that I feel I need to respond to for the sake of being intellectually honest… then  I will write what I feel is what God would want me to do.  God commands us to use our brains and to EXAMINE EVERYTHING.  And that is what I will do. My allegiance is to God and being faithful to what little intelligence God has given me… not to your arbitrary and artificial rules. Truth sets us free.  Not rules that constrain truth. The less open-ended your question or claims are, the less I will need to write in response.

How many times have I mentioned that when I respond to your every point then you begin to complain about the post being too long? That seems like a diversion to me.

Francis is not the only one that has told you this is he Mike?

WJ

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Francis I can see that  I made a few errors even though I tried hard to proof read what I wrote.  I wish I could correct the  mistakes once i've submitted by post, but I don't know how.  I also noticed that my post must have exceed the capacity  because it was cut off… so  I will have to finish my post in 2 parts. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mike       That's a new one on me Francis!  I have had debates with Worshipping Jesus, and he is also very “wordy”,  but he has yet to post so much that he used up all the available space!  You, my friend, have apparently set a record.

I'm assuming that is what happened.  It could very well have been a mistake that I had made while I posted my response,   instead of a case of exceeding space.  Maybe someone like T8 will know if there is any actual space or character limit for  a post.

Quote

Mike I hope you and yours are well and being richly blessed by God, our Father.

Thank you… and yes, my family is well and we are richly blessed everyday.

—————————————-

Quote

Mike Francis, you have asserted that the only reason I would conclude that Micah 5:4 shows Jesus to be someone other than and  lessor to his God is if I read the Bible with the preconceived notion that there wasn't a trinity.  Well, I did.

Well… I think that is the problem you're having if you don't believe that the Trinity exists.  

But please don't think that I'm saying that I'm immune in having the opposite pre-conceived notion.

The point I was trying to make is this:

Your world view… your opinions… your assumptions… your set of core beliefs… act like a lens thru which you will  look at the world.  And in this case, your preconceived assumption that the Trinity does not exist… that Jesus is not  God… will necessarily EFFECT how you view Micah… and other verses that touch upon this topic.

Surely you can see this.

The same is true for me.  And you got a taste of that with the Economic Trinity I shared with you.  The fact that I believe  that Jesus is God, will necessarily EFFECT how I view Micah, and other verses that touch upon this topic.

Surely you can this as well.

Remember when you wrote the following?

I guess that pretty much sums it all up.  It doesn't matter what scriptures I ever bring up, because your  “economic trinity” would just say, “Jesus was VOLUNTARILY placing his equal “God-status” on a lower level than his Father  in an effort to “express his loving condescension for the sake of our salvation” at this time.

What could I possibly say to contradict this illogical?  I could say that Jesus is STILL a SERVANT to his God, but you would  claim “Economic Trinity”.  I could say that Jesus said our God was also his God, but you would claim “Economic Trinity”.  I  could say that Paul said we have but one God, and that God was the Father, but you would say “Economic Trinity”.  I could  point out that all things come FROM the Father THROUGH Jesus, but you will claim “Economic Trinity”.  I could say that  Jesus called his Father the ONLY TRUE GOD, but you would say “Economic Trinity”.

Well… in a sense you are correct.  Every verse where we see Jesus speaking to God as if a human speaks to God… where  Jesus says he is submitting to the will of God… where Jesus says that his Father is greater than he is… I will say that they are only  referring to the human part of Jesus, and not His divine part.

You see, the bottom line is that you can't bring up a verse from the Bible that directly says that no Trinity exists or  that Jesus was not God Incarnate.  There are no such verses in the entire Bible.  As I have said before, every verse you  bring up where it shows that Jesus is submitting to God's will… where Jesus says that His Father is greater than he  is… where Jesus says He can do nothing without His Father (God)… etc., etc.,… in response, all I need to do is say  that is evidence of Jesus' HUMAN part of him which is doing and saying all this, not the Divine part of him.

So… you have a few major problems which you will never be able to overcome:  (1) There are no verses which says that the  Divine part of Jesus is inferior to God… (2) There are no verses that says that Jesus' spirit INSIDE of his  fleshly body was NOT DIVINE… (3) There are no verses which states that there is no Trinity… (4) There are no  verses which you can bring up in which I can't simply respond that it is the human part of Jesus which is being described..  and not his divine part… and (5) You are reduced to trying to defend a negative position (trinity does not exist) and in   trying to prove a negative.

So that is why bringing up Micah is completely useless for you.  It doesn't do anything to show that Jesus was not God  Incarnate here on earth.  Indeed, Micah doesn't tell us at all whether Jesus was God Incarnate or whether he was not.  It  isn't in that verse at all. If I'm wrong, then point to where in Micah does it say whether or not Jesus was God Incarnate?   Where in Micah does it say whether or not Jesus' indwelling spirit… inside his body of flesh… was not Divine?

Look at Micah again:

Micah 5:4 NWT
“And he will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah  his  God. And they will certainly keep dwelling, for now he will be great as far as the ends of the earth.”

Micah 5:4 (King James Version)
“And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall  abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.”

Micah 5:4 (New King James Version)
“And He shall stand and feed His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God; And  they shall abide, For now He shall be great To the ends of the earth;”

Micah 5:4 (New International Version, ©2010)
“He will stand and shepherd his flock in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God.
And they will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth.”

Micah 5:4 (Amplified Bible)
“And He shall stand and feed His flock in the strength of the Lord, in the majesty of the name of the Lord His God; and  they shall dwell [secure], for then shall He be great [even] to the ends of the earth.”

Now… where in Micah 5
:4 does it say that the Messiah DOES NOT have a DIVINE spirit inside of his earthly body?  Where does it say that the Divine  part of Jesus, is someone other than and lessor to Jehovah?  Where in Micah 5:4 does it  say that the Divine part of Jesus calls God “his God”?  Where in Micah does it say the Messiah will not be God Incarnate?   Where in Micah does it say that the Messiah will not be both fully human and fully God?  Where in Micah does it tells us  what the Messiah's nature will be?

You see… Micah does not tell us ANYTHING about what the Messiah will be like.  Indeed, so severe is the lack of  information about what the nature of the Messiah will be like… in both Micah and in the OT… that even the experts  during Jesus' time were unclear about what the Messiah was going to do.  Some even thinking that he was going to be a  conquering hero/King who will liberate Israel from the Romans.

So the fact that you have continually  brought Micah up, seems to underscore the idea that you are not completely  understanding the nature of the debate before us… that you don't completely understand the Trinitarian side… and that  you don't understand the prima facie question that needs to be asked first.

See… it is a fact of life that our belief or unbelief about the Trinity will NECESSARILY AND LOGICALLY EFFECT how we view Micah and other verses you bring up.  Imagine trying to persuade an atheist that God exists by  bringing up a Bible verse that says God exists.  Will that be persuasive for him?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!!  Why?  Because  the atheist is looking at the Bible thru the lens of atheism.

What does this all mean then?  It means we need to FIRST find out if the Trinity is true before we can examine  Micah.  The prima facie question is whether or not the Trinity is true… because the answer to THAT QUESTION will  logically determine how we view Micah.

So while I am willing to continue to proceed the way you are going in here, it would seem more productive if I was allowed  to present a positive case for the Trinity… instead of simply sitting back and rebutting each of the verses you bring up  with the same response each time. Which is that every verse where we see Jesus speaking to God as if a human speaks to  God… where Jesus says he is submitting to the will of God… where Jesus says that his Father is greater than he is…  are only referring to the human part of Jesus, and not His divine part.

With that in mind… I would like to bring up John 8:58 where Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am.”  

John 8:58 (New International Version, ©2010)
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 8:58 (Amplified Bible)
Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.

John 8:58 (New King James Version)
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

We can tell from the reaction and questions of the Jews around him, that they clearly understood him to be claiming that he  existed before Abraham and that he was equal with God.  So outraged were the Jews with this clear case of blasphemy on  Jesus' part, they picked up stones to kill him.  

The same reaction to the same claim by Jesus can also be found in:

John 10:31-33 (New International Version, ©2010)
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from  the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

We see the same claim and the same reaction at Jesus' trial:

Mark 14:62 (New International Version, ©2010)
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the  clouds of heaven.”

These are just a couple of the many, many scriptures which indicates to Trinitatians that Jesus is God.  What is your  response to these scriptures?

———————————————

NOTE: Not knowing if you want to answer the above question of mine, I will continue on with responding to the  rest of your post.

———————————————-

Quote

Mike I had read that YHVH, our God, is ONE.

You and I agree with this.  The fact that our God is ONE,  does not in anyway rebut or contradict the Trinity or Jesus'  Deity.  It's your lack of understanding of the Trinity which is the issue here… because the scriptures support the  Trinity and the Deity of Christ.

Quote

Mike I had read many scriptures where God was referred to as a “HE” and a “HIM”, not a “THEY” and “WE”.

1)… God cannot be a “HE” or a “HIM” because God is not a human.  The terms “HE” and “HIM” are metaphors like the phrase  “right hand of God”.  Just like God does not have a literal “right hand”… so neither does God have literal human male  sexual organs.

2)… Following are some verses where God is referred to in the plural:

Genesis 1:26-27 (New International Version, ©2010)
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and  the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

NOTE:
–>> God was not speaking of Himself in a “royal” sense, in a “plural of majesty”.  The fact is, there is no biblical  support for God using it of Himself in this way.   Indeed, you will not find a verse or an account in the entire Bible of a  king or a ruler speaking of himself in a plural sense or in the 3rd person like this.

–>> God was not speaking with the angels.  There is absolutely no biblical evidence that angels can create or have created  anything.  Indeed, Isaiah 44:24 says that only God made all things.

–>> Angels are not created in the image of God, only man.

–>> God could have easily had Moses write in Genesis: “Let Me make man in My own image, and after My own likeness,” to  ensure that Moses and the Jews understood very clearly… with no ambiguity… that He was a unique and singular Being.   But God did not do that. The fact that God did not have Moses write in such a clear way is another cumulative piece of  evidence which suggests that God is Triune in nature.

Genesis 11:7 (New International Version, ©2010)
“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”  

Genesis 3:22 (New International Version, ©2010)
And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach  out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”  

Isaiah 6:8 (New International Version, ©2010)
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

NOTE:
–>> God is not talking to angels in the above verses.  We can see this when we do look at verses where we know for sure   that God is talking with angels.  In such cases, the biblical examples of conversations be
tween God and the angels never  use the words We/Us.  Genesis 18 for example.

–>> The only example of a plural pronoun is one that includes God and men… never angels… as in Isaiah 1:18.

Isaiah 1:18 (New King James Version)
“Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “ Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as  snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool.

——————————-

Quote

Mike I had read scripture that said we were made in God's image, and since I know of no man who is three different persons  within one being, I had no reason to assume that our God, who made us in HIS IMAGE, would be.

Mike… what does “in His Image” mean?  What was God saying when he dictated those words to Moses?  Obviously, it can't  mean what you think it means, because what you wrote makes absolutely no logical sense.  

I mean, read again what you wrote Mike.  Using your logic, then because I know of no man who is purely spirit, then I have  no reason to assume that our God, who made us in HIS IMAGE, would be purely spirit.  Or… because I know of no man  who is Omnipresent, then I have no reason to assume that our God, who made us in HIS IMAGE, would be Omnipresent.  ETc.

Can you see how illogical your reasoning was?  By using reductio ad absurdum, we can see that your argument leads to  consequences that are obviously absurd, false, and ridiculous.

——————————-

Quote

Mike So, here I am.  I am someone who has only read as far as Micah 5:4,…

Well Mike… this is obviously not true at all.  The fact that you've been quoting scriptures from the New Testament shows  that you are NOT someone who has only  read as far as Micah 5:4.

So I have no idea what you are saying here.

——————————-

Quote

Mike … (actually, we'll come back to Ezekiel 34:24 and Jeremiah 30:9) and I am reading where YHVH God, who is ONE, spoke  through the prophet Micah about someone coming out of Bethlehem who will rule in the power and authority of YHVH, HIS God.   So naturally and logically, I understand this scripture to be about someone who is NOT God, ruling in the power OF God.  I  have no reason to suspect otherwise, having only read up to Micah 5:4 so far, right?

1)… You have read past Micah 5:4, so I don't understand your statement.

2)… Who says that God intended for people in the OT to fully understand, or even be aware of the Trinity during their  time?  It is clear that God kept many things hidden in the OT, which was later revealed in the NT. Think of the Messiah. It  is obvious the people in the OT were not completely aware of what the purpose of the Messiah was or what He was going to  achieve or know much about Him.

The Bible is full of verses which testify to God hiding things from people.  Here are just some verses:

Deuteronomy 29:29 (New International Version, ©2010)
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever,  that we may follow all the words of this law.

Amos 3:7 (King James Version)
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Psalm 91:1 (King James Version)
He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

Psalm 25:14 (King James Version)
The secret of the LORD is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

1 Cor. 2:9 (King James Version)
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God  hath prepared for them that love him.

Isaiah 48:6 (King James Version)
Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden  things, and thou didst not know them.

Matthew 11:25 (King James Version)
At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these  things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Matthew 13:10-11
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?  He answered and said unto them,  Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.[/i]

Mark 4:9-11
And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.  And when he was alone, they that were about him with  the twelve asked of him the parable.  And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of  God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Mark 8:17-18
Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear?”

Jeremiah  5:21-24
“Hear this now, O foolish people, without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, and who have ears and hear not:

Romans 11:8
“God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear….”

Isaiah 6:8-11
‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ 'Make the heart of this people dull, and  their ears heavy, and shut their eyes;   Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears….

Zechariah 7:11-12
“But they refused to heed, shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear.

Jeremiah 4:2
“For My people are foolish, they have not known Me.  They are silly children, and they have no understanding.  They are  wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge.”

Ezekiel 12:2
which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house.”

Jeremiah 9:5
Through deceit they refuse to know Me,” says the Lord.”

AND THEN FINALLY… the entire history of the Bible shows that God never revealed everything to even the people who  pleased him.  I mean, check the following out Mike…

Starting with Adam and Eve, we see that they weren't privy to the vast human drama that was to be the future of God  interacting with mankind… and with the Jewish people in particular. Adam and Ever certainly didn't know about the coming  Messiah or about the Trinity or other things that later generations learned.  God only revealed a portion of his Word to  Adam. God did not give Adam all revelation.

And then, as we move forward in history, we see that God revealed more of His plan to Noah, concerning the flood;  He then   revealed more to Abram (Abraham) concerning the coming Seed, of which Abram would be a blessing; He revealed more to Moses,  concerning the Law; He revealed more to Joshua concerning the Land; He revealed more to David concerning the temple, and  etc. all the way up to Chri
st. Each time, God reveals a little more of His plan to each succeeding individual.

Throughout history, we see that God reveals bits and pieces of revelation and secrets to each of His chosen people, and  each time He did this, it built upon the former.

Even when Christ came, God was still hiding other things as well.  For example, God chose Mary and Joseph to watch over the  babe–them and them alone.   The shepherds were informed in the fields, and they were only able to witness to a few people  in the city about what had happened.  A few Magi came from the East and worshiped the child in secret.  There was no  cosmic billboard. There was no huge advertisement. Just a glimmer here and there to a few chosen people. Even when Jesus  Christ began His ministry He repeatedly told people to keep quiet about Him (Mark 1:44). Even the demons, who knew who  Jesus was, were commanded by Him to keep silent (Mark 1:23-25). God was still hiding things.

And then Jesus Himself many times spoke in parables that were deliberately designed to keep the meaning a secret from many  people.  God has a history of keeping secrets.

CONCLUSION…When you wrote and said: “I have no reason to suspect otherwise, having only read up to Micah 5:4 so  far, right?… it doesn't mean anything because we see that God is in the habit of not completely revealing Himself or  His plans all at once.

So the fact that you may not have been able to see the Trinity throughout the OT while you are reading it, means nothing  because you are assuming that God wanted everyone… even His own people… to know, or get a full picture of the Trinity.  The above examples shows that your assumption is a false one and thus you shouldn't be surprised that you could not see the  Trinity or the Deity of Christ in the OT.

——————————-

Quote

Mike So, now it's time for you to show me the later scriptures that show where Micah 5:4 is just worded a little funny, and that  the one who will rule in the name and strength OF YHVH is actually YHVH Himself.

I'm not clear what you are asking for.  Are you now asking me to present my positive case for the Deity of Christ?  Because  if you are, I have already started that process above.

——————————-

Quote

Mike Please do so one scripture at a time.

If you're asking me to present a positive case for the Deity of Christ, I have done so above toward the top of this post.

BTW… in a debate… each side is allowed time to present their entire positive case in support of their position in an  opening statement… which can usually last 20 minutes. No where in any debate that i'm familiar with are the debaters  constrained to one sentence.  So I don't understand where you are coming from.

Once each side as made their opening remarks, then each side gets to rebut the other sides arguments. Now, if you want to  rebut each line of the other side one at a time, that is fine… but each side should be allowed to present their case so  that each side can see what the other side is arguing for or against and thus prepare for it in their turn at rebuttals.

——————————-

Quote

Mike Keith (Worshipping Jesus) likes to list 100 scriptures that prove “Jesus is God” all at once in an effort to divert from  INDIVIDUALLY discussing any of them to find out whether they even DO imply that “Jesus is God”.  Let's not do that here,  okay?

Each side should be allowed to present their positive case for the side they are representing. This is standard procedure  as far as I aware of.  

So I can't see any problem with Keith wanting to list a 100 scriptures as part of his opening statement for his case.  But  what I don't understand is why this would have prevented you from dealing with each verse separately.  Certainly, you could  have let Keith make his case… and then systematically… one at a time… rebut each of the verses he brought up.  There  is no reason why you needed to answer each of his scriptures all at once.  Why couldn't you have simply said to keith:  “Thanks for presenting your case.  Now let's go thru each of the verses one at a time”?

——————————-

Quote

Mike So Francis, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show me the first of what I'm sure will be many scriptures  that make Micah 5:4 mean something other than what I think it means.

This sounds like you're asking me to present my positive case for the Trinity and the Deity of Christ. If that is the case,  I've already done that toward the top of this post.

——————————-

Quote

Mike (On a side note that we can discuss later when we get back to Phil 2, Bible Gateway just within the last month changed  their wording on the NIV to what you quoted.  You can still find the wording I quoted on NETBible.com, and it was the  wording that Bible Gateway had until recently.

I went to NETBible.com… but whereas it does have the NIV using the word “grasped” as you said… it does NOT have  the phrase “in the form of God” which you said that the NIV uses.

This is what you wrote in your earlier post:

“Let's read it without all the added words: (Philippians 2:6 NIV)… Who, being in the form of God, did not consider  equality with God something to be grasped,”

So here you it appears that you jumped on the word “grasped”… thinking it was to your advantage to do so… and yet you  conveniently or subconsciously disregarded what else the NIV translation had to say, that YOU YOURSELF picked.  

The NIV translation on the NETBIBLE.com website clearly says:

Philippians 2:6 (NIV ©)
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,”

See that?  So the NIV translation you picked agreed with the AMP translation and with my contention that Jesus is God. With  that understanding, this shows that the word “grasped” had nothing whatsoever to do with what you claimed.

Do you remember what you wrote to me?  You jumped on the word “grasped” and then wrote the following:

He didn't think EQUALITY WITH GOD was something to be grasped.  So not only wasn't he God, but he also wasn't  EQUAL with God.

But as we can see from the NIV translation that you chose from NETBIBLE.com… Jesus is God and so the verse wasn't saying  that Jesus wasn't equal with God.

——————————-

Quote

Mike Funny how they keep changing any words that MIGHT lead someone to believe that Jesus is someone other than God.

What is funnier (or sad maybe) is how you didn't read the entire verse which you jumped upon thinking it was proof that  Jesus was not equal to God.  If you had read the entire NIV verse which you yourself supplied from NETBIBLE.com… you  would have see that the verse says that Jesus is the very nature of God.  And so your whole argument using and centering on  the word “grasped”… completely collapses like a house of cards.

——————————-

Quote

Mike You can see this frequently by cross referencing the KJV with the NKJV – Rev 3:14 stands out in my mind right now, but  there are others.

??  NKJV SHOULD change from KJV!!  For goodness sake… the KJV was written in the very early 1600's.  And  while it is still a good translation… scholarship and translators have found new information and new manuscript since the  1600's… information and manuscripts that the original KJV compilers did not have… which allowed for a more accurate  rendering of the scriptures.  The NKJV was completed around the early 1980's.

——————————-

Quote

Mike     I don't post this to move the discussion to Phil 2 yet, only to let you know I wasn't being dishonest or devious in my  quotes. )

I never thought you were dishonest or devious.

Have a wonderful week.

God Bless You and your family
Respectfully, Francis

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 29 2010,21:42)

Now… where in Micah 5:4 does it say that the Messiah DOES NOT have a DIVINE spirit inside of his earthly body?

Hi Francis,

Why do you assume Micah 5:4 refers ONLY to “EARTHLY JESUS”?  Is Jesus not still our Shepherd?  

1.  Why do you make a distinction between “EARTHLY JESUS”, who shepherded in the name and strength of his God, and the “RISEN JESUS”?  

2.  I don't read anything in Micah 5:4 that says once Jesus was raised, he would no longer shepherd in the strength of YHVH, his God, do you?    

3.  Nor do I see anything in the text that limits this prophecy to include ONLY the time Jesus was in the flesh, do you?

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hi Mike… I hope things are going well for you.  I want to wish you and your loved ones a Happy New Year.

Quote

francis Now… where in Micah 5:4 does it say that the Messiah DOES NOT have a DIVINE spirit inside of his earthly body? Mike Hi Francis, Why do you assume Micah 5:4 refers ONLY to “EARTHLY JESUS”?  Is Jesus not still our Shepherd?   1.  Why do you make a distinction between “EARTHLY JESUS”, who shepherded in the name and strength of his God, and the “RISEN JESUS”?   2.  I don't read anything in Micah 5:4 that says once Jesus was raised, he would no longer shepherd in the strength of YHVH, his God, do you?     3.  Nor do I see anything in the text that limits this prophecy to include ONLY the time Jesus was in the flesh, do you?

Mike… you are looking for things in Micah 5:4 which simply are not there in the first place.  Indeed, I already gave you a list of the things that you won't find in Micah… because Micah wasn't written to tell us much about the nature of Jesus at all… except that it was simply a prophecy of the coming Messiah… and nothing more.

And so it is important… once again… to reiterate the fact that if we truly, truly want to understand scriptures, we need to avail ourselves of certain methodologies and research and scholarship and translations and dictionaries, etc, etc. that are around us.

Now… one of the most important methodologies in the arsenal of a scholar or Christian who SINCERELY seeks to try to understand scriptures… who seeks to interpret the context and meaning of a verse or passage in a Biblically sound way… is the hermeneutic principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture. A correct interpretation of the Bible… or of a scripture verse…  will always be consistent with the rest of the Scriptures, because all scriptures are in harmony and do not contradict themselves. Scriptures do not contradict one another.  God is not the author of confusion.  God does not contradict Himself.

And like I wrote to you earlier… when a skeptic tries to identify a “supposed” contradiction… we find that the contradiction quickly disappears when we actually attempt to understand what the verses were actually saying.   All “contradictions” are in fact not actual contradictions, but are instead evidence of a misunderstanding on the part of the person bringing them up.

Therefore, the bottom line is that it is essential for us as students of the Bible to interpret a passage in light of what the rest of the Scriptures say on the topic because the scriptures are consistent and in harmony with each other.

So what does this all mean in our present discussion about Micah?

WELL… SINCE  MICAH 5:4  IS TALKING ABOUT JESUS… ABOUT THE MESSIAH… THEN WHATEVER INTERPRETATION OR UNDERSTANDING WE COME UP WITH, WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT MICAH 5:4 CANNOT CONTRADICT WITH WHAT OTHER SCRIPTURES HAVE TO SAY ABOUT JESUS… ABOUT THE MESSIAH.

And since I believe that other scriptures in the Bible show that Jesus is Divine… that Jesus is God Incarnate… I will necessarily and logically understand and interpret Micah in a manner that will not contradict the fact that Jesus… the Messiah… is God… that Jesus was God Incarnate while He was here on earth.

So obviously, the next logical and rational question would be: “Is Jesus God?  Was Jesus God Incarnate while He was here on earth?”

Like I said before, the answer to THAT QUESTION… will logically EFFECT our understanding of Micah 5:4.  Surely you can see this Mike.

And so… to answer the question of whether Jesus is God, then a positive case for the Deity of Christ needs to be presented.  And that is exactly why I previously gave you a couple of scriptures which shows that Jesus is indeed God… God the Son.

The fact that you have ignored the scriptures I gave you… and instead have persisted in bringing up Micah… suggests to me that you are doing things backwards.  As I see it, rationally you should be focusing on the Prima Facie questions… but you keep wanting to focus on non-Prima Facie question instead.  This is backward thinking… an example of “putting the cart before the horse”.

—>>>  As for the name “shepherd”… so what?  Jesus was know by over 200 names and titles… and “Shepard” is just one of them.

Here are just a few of the names and titles of Jesus:  Prophet… Lord… Son of Man… King of the Jews… Lamb of God…   Rabbi… Mediator…   High Priest…   Logos… Immanuel… Head of the Church… Bread of Life… Bridegroom… Cornerstone… Counselor… Door… Only Begotten Son… True Vine… Wisdom of God… the Truth… Light of the World.  There are well over 100 more names and title for Jesus.

And yet none of these names and titles rebut the Deity of Jesus.  And if you do happen to find a title or a name that “appears” to rebut the Deity of Jesus… it will be the result of a misunderstanding of the word in question… and/or it will be a direct result of your unbelief in the Deity of Christ.

Which nicely goes full circle and brings us back to the need of determining whether scriptures support the positive claim of Trinitarians that Jesus is God the Son… that Jesus was God Incarnate while he was here on earth.

And since it is I who is making a positive claim (you are not making any positive claims… only a negative claim), I went ahead and gave you a few verses (out of over a possible 100 verses according to Keith) in support of my position.  But you have decided to ignore them at this time.

AND SO IN CONCLUSION: Here is Micah 5:4 and my final responses to your questions.

Micah 5:4 (New King James Version)
“And He shall stand and feed His flock In the strength of the LORD, In the majesty of the name of the LORD His God; And they shall abide, For now He shall be great To the ends of the earth”

Quote

Why do you assume Micah 5:4 refers ONLY to “EARTHLY JESUS”?  Is Jesus not still our Shepherd?

Whether or not Jesus is still our Shepard, when we apply the hermeneutic principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture… we know that Micah 5:4 does not rebut the scriptural teaching that Jesus is God The Son.  And I gave you a couple of verses to support that.    

Quote

1.  Why do you make a distinction between “EARTHLY JESUS”, who shepherded in the name and strength of his God, and the “RISEN JESUS”?

When we apply the hermeneutic principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture… we know that Jesus is God the Son… and that Jesus was God Incarnate here on earth… therefore the Divine part of Jesus could not logically and rationally have a “his God” as we see written in Micah 5:4.

God cannot have a “his God” anymore than you Mike can have a “his Mike”.  

So… the force of logic drives home the fact that Micah 5:4 is referring to the “human part” of Jesus when it says that Jesus… as the Messiah… will feed His flock in the majesty of the name of the Lord HIS GOD.

Quote

2.  I don't read anything in Micah 5:4 that says once Jesus was raised, he would no longer shepherd in the strength of YHVH, his God, do you?

The answer is the same as the answer for question 1 of yours.

God cannot have a “his God” anymore than you Mike can have a “his Mike”.  

So… the force of logic drives home the fact that Micah 5:4 is referring to the “human part” of Jesus when it says that Jesus… as the Messiah… will feed His flock in the majesty of the name of the Lord HIS GOD.

Quote

3.  Nor do I see anything in the text that limits this prophecy to include ONLY the time Jesus was in the flesh, do you?

Not sure of your question here.  But if you are again pointing to the words “his God” in Micah 5:4, then my answer is the same as the one I gave you above.

Well Mike… may you and your loved ones have a wonderful and Happy New Year.

God Bless You
Respectfully, Francis

[Anonymous]

Hello guys,

Not wishing to put too much of a spanner in the works but, Mike, you said you know of no an who had more than one person in them.

Didn't the demon possessed man at Gadarenes have a 'Legion' of [Demonic] Spirits in him? or is this not the same thing.

Could God then not have many Spirits in him? Or, again, is this not the point – I don't know.

[SimplyForgiven]

Astaria,
Your new, but you shouldnt post here.
its a debate thread, its between two people.
thats why we have the other thread to comment about this one.

[francis]

Mike…

I have been visiting a couple of debates you've had with others in here.  I have to say that you are an intelligent person and you should not be taken lightly in a discussion/debate.  I can see that I'm going to have to be very careful.

I know that you appreciate the fact that I disagree with you and that neither of us are under any delusion that we are going to change each others minds… but nevertheless, I respect your intelligence and your opinion.

The reason why I am willing to spend  energy and time in forums like this, is because I find it very helpful and fruitful to have my faith and my beliefs intellectually challenged.  It's kinda like “iron sharpens iron”.

And one of the things I've learned is to not take things personally when someone disagrees with me or even when someone is able to “stump” me with an observation or a point I had not considered before.  I can do that because I've learned that my knowledge and intelligence is finite… and so I will always be in need of increase in both of those areas.  And so I am always a student first… hungry for wisdom and knowledge and understanding.

Anyway… we probably will never agree… but I just wanted to commend you on your intelligence.

God Bless
Respectfully, Francis

[Anonymous]

ok, soory… it was only a tastey morsel of a post…but point taken.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

I extend my wishes for you to have a profitable new year.  I assume you know I don't refer to money, but to treasures stored in heaven.    

And thank you for the commendation.  I too invest in these debates because iron sharpens iron.  And unlike many people who are happy to just believe what their church tells them and not even give a thought to another possibility, I prefer to be on the front lines.  If I don't know what it is you are teaching and what scriptural backing you have, then how can I really make an informed decision about anything scriptural?

The basic gist of your rebuttal of my understanding of Micah 5:4 is that other scriptures say Jesus is “God the Son”, and therefore, the shepherding in the strength and name of YHVH, his God, must refer to when Jesus was on earth.  So let's agree that taken as it is, Micah 5:4 says nothing about any time limit that this anointed one will shepherd in the strength and name of YHVH, his God.  And because of that, I assume that Jesus STILL shepherds in the strength and name of YHVH, his God.  

So the next logical step is for us to discuss scriptures that either make it clear that Jesus no longer shepherds in the strength and name of YHVH, his God……….or that he STILL does.

You say you've shown me scriptures that teach that Jesus is “God the Son”.  I know of no scripture that uses the term “God the Son” in the whole Bible.  I assume you refer to  the Philippians and Hebrews passages that you quoted before.

If that is the case, I would like to discuss how you come to the conclusion that either one of them teaches us that God is no longer ONE, but TWO or THREE.  I'll also be looking closely for the “God the Son” wording.  Because if it's not there in the scriptures, it seems a little odd to me that you would claim it with such certainty.  And I'll also be analyzing those scriptures for “THEY” and “THEM” pronouns referring to God instead of the “HE” and “HIM” pronouns I have been used to.  

But let's do one scripture at a time, please.  By the time we are done, I hope to have SOLIDLY discussed over 100 scriptures, so there's really no hurry, nor is there any need to make world record size posts.  

While I'm waiting for your ONE scripture and explanation about how it means Jesus is “God the Son”, thereby changing the meaning of Micah 5:4 for us all,  I'll start with one of my own.

You agree that God Almighty cannot have someone he calls “my God”.

Revelation 3:12 NIV
The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

This is Jesus talking AFTER he was raised back to his previous glory and rank (or higher, depending on how you interpret the scriptures).  Jesus is no longer a man at this point, yet still calls the Father “my God”.  What say you?

peace and love,
mike

[mikeboll64]

Quote (francis @ Dec. 29 2010,21:42)

With that in mind… I would like to bring up John 8:58 where Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am.”   John 8:58 (New International Version, ©2010) “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58 (Amplified Bible) Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM. John 8:58 (New King James Version) Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” We can tell from the reaction and questions of the Jews around him, that they clearly understood him to be claiming that he  existed before Abraham and that he was equal with God.  So outraged were the Jews with this clear case of blasphemy on  Jesus' part, they picked up stones to kill him.

Hi Francis,

I've taken the liberty of choosing your first proof text that will explain to me how Jesus is no longer the shepherd who rules in the name and power of his God in Micah 5:4.  It is from a previous post, and I had not addressed it because I want to address each of your “proof texts” one by one.

You brought up John 8:58:

NWT
58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Why the “I AM” language in most translations today?  There is no proof that “I AM” is even the correct meaning of YHVH, as most Bibles will tell you in the text or a footnote.  Take the AMP and the NIV that you quoted, for instance:

Exodus 3:14 (Amplified Bible)
14And God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM and WHAT I AM, and I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE; and He said, You shall say this to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you!

Exodus 3:14 (New International Version, ©2010)
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.[a] This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

Footnotes: [a] Exodus 3:14 Or I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE

So, the trinitarian scholars aren't even sure that “I AM” is the real meaning of YHVH, yet they go overboard to translate this obvious past tense phrase to the present “I AM” in John 8:58 to make a claim that Jesus is God.

This is what NETNotes says about the tense of “I AM” in 8:58:

5774 Tense – Present The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or reality viewed as occurring in actual time. In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense. Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed “historical presents,” and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to remain in the present.

We can see that sometimes, the Greek present tense is translated as the English past tense to make the text understandable to us, depending on the context.  So let's look at the tense in context:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

  58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Rejoiced, saw, have seen……..all past tense words talking of a past tense occurance.  It is only fitting then, that Jesus answered in past tense to emphasize that he WAS, or HAD EXISTED before Abraham.  The NWT has this one right.

But let's say, just for argument's sake, that it IS “I AM”.  And “I AM” is suppose to represent the name of God in this case.  What would that sentence even mean?     YHVH is mostly represented in English by “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”, right?  So let's substitute one of them into the sentence and see if it makes sense.

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, Jehovah!”

What does that mean?  If you want it to mean Jesus is saying he IS Jehovah, then he would have to say, “I have been I AM”.  Without the “I have been”, he is just saying the name of God, not that he IS that God.  And as you can see from my mock-up scripture above, it makes no sense whatsoever.  It is like me saying, “Before we went to dinner……..Jehovah!”

Francis, there are three very good reasons to dismiss this scripture as any kind of “Jesus is God” proof:

1.  We don't even know that “I AM” represents any form of YHVH.

2.  The Greek present tense used is many times, as the context directs, translated as an English past tense.  And based on the past tense event they are discussing, “I have been” or “I was” makes much more sense then “I am”.  I wouldn't say, “Before my younger brother was born, I AM”.  I would say “I WAS”.

3.  Even if we did butcher the scripture in a lame attempt to gain a “Jesus is God proof text”, it STILL makes no sense to say, “Before Abraham was born, Jehovah!”  Jehovah DID WHAT?  What about Jehovah before Abraham was born?

Do you see the dilemma?

Can you disolve each of my three concerns here and show me how “I AM” is without any doubt not only the correct translation, but also how it makes sense to just add the name “Jehovah” to the end of the sentence without saying anything about Jehovah?

peace and love to you my friend,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Before I can even get done with responding to your response which was posted on Jan. 01, 2011 at 15:18, you've already jumped in with a Post about John 8:58!!

In the Forum thread: SKEPTICS PLACE » Doctrinal Disagreements » Jesus cannot be god according to jesus…. on page 3… you said in your post on Dec. 11, 2010 at 12:37 that  you would enjoy discussing the trinity with me if we can do it one point at a time.   You also wrote saying that you would prefer a Q and A, one point or scripture at a time discussion.  And that we should not move on to another point or scripture until we are both agreed that the previous point or scripture is resolved as best it can be.  Even if that resolution is an “Agree to Disagree” position.

You also said in the Forum thread: BELIEVERS PLACE » Member Profiles » Mikeboll64 vs francis… on page 24… Posted onJan. 01 2011 at 12:33 that your were taking our debate “SLOOOOOOW, so there are no misunderstandings as we go along.”

Well Mike… what happened?  I understand that our debate is not going exactly the way you anticipated, but you yourself made the choice of jumping to another point (John 8:58) before we were even done with your previous point (Micah and the “my God” phrase).  And what about the “SLOOOOOOW” part?

Are you switching gears now?  I'm almost done with responding to your post from Jan. 01, 2011 at 15:18 and I will go ahead and submit that.  But I won't deal with John 8:58 unless I hear from you that you are dropping the points you've previiously raised, and want to proceed directly to John 8:58.

Respectfully
Francis

BTW…  I never claimed that “Orthodox Christianity” was a scriptural word.  I said that I was using it in the sense of “traditional Christianity”.  And what I was presenting to you is factually a part of traditional Christianity.

There have been a couple of other things from your posts which have troubled me a bit, but I've been biting my lip so as to not get off track.

[mikeboll64]

Hi Francis,

I'm terribly sorry.  The only reason I brought up John is because my previous post basically said, “Okay Francis, I'm ready to discuss the first scripture that says Jesus is God”.  And then I realized that you had already taken the time out of your life to show me one of them in a prior post.  

I felt is was bad manners of me to have not addressed it before, but then expect you to bring it up all over again.  I was trying to keep you from being mad at me and it apparently backfired.  

This debate is now going EXACTLY as I want it to.  We are to the point of truly examining some “Jesus is God” scriptures one at a time, and that's exactly what I want to do.

Listen, I can delete the John post and let you bring up your own first scripture, if you like.  Like I said, I was trying to keep you from having to post again something you already did.

Okay, just ignore the John post and deal only with the prior one.  And I will deal only with your response to my prior post.  Let's just pretend like that John post isn't even there, okay?  

peace and love,
mike

[francis]

Hello Mike…

Quote

Hi Francis, I extend my wishes for you to have a profitable new year.  I assume you know I don't refer to money, but to treasures  stored in heaven.     And thank you for the commendation.  I too invest in these debates because iron sharpens iron.  And unlike many people  who are happy to just believe what their church tells them and not even give a thought to another possibility, I prefer  to be on the front lines.  If I don't know what it is you are teaching and what scriptural backing you have, then how can  I really make an informed decision about anything scriptural? The basic gist of your rebuttal of my understanding of Micah 5:4 is that other scriptures say Jesus is “God the Son”, and  therefore, the shepherding in the strength and name of YHVH, his God, must refer to when Jesus was on earth.  So let's  agree that taken as it is, Micah 5:4 says nothing about any time limit that this anointed one will shepherd in the  strength and name of YHVH, his God.  And because of that, I assume that Jesus STILL shepherds in the strength and name of  YHVH, his God.

I feel you are still not understanding the “gist” of my rebuttal to your understanding of Micah 5:4.

If Jesus is God… and if Jesus (God the Son) is EQUAL to God the Father…  then except for the times that Jesus  voluntarily submits himself to God the Father… why would Jesus (God the Son) NEED to shepherd or DO ANYTHING “in the  strength and name of YHVH, his God” when Jesus, being equal to God, has the same power and strength as God the Father  in the first place?

Since I believe that the Trinity is true and that Jesus IS God… then any “gist of my rebuttal” which I may have given  for your understanding of Micah 5:4,  will necessarily reflect that fact.  You see, to me, your understanding of my  objection is seriously flawed because it appears to contradict the Trinity and my understanding of it.

How can it logically be coherent to say that GOD is not equal to GOD?  How can it logically be coherent to say that GOD NEEDS to depend on another God to shepherd in the strength and name of another GOD (who in this case  is “YHVH, his God”)?  The Trinity says that there is ONLY ONE GOD… so how can Jesus… being God… NEED another God  ('YHVH, his God') to shepherd in the strength and name of another God when Jesus is God to begin with and there is only  ONE God?

Unless of course we are talking about the human part of Jesus in Micah 5:4.  And guess what…  this has always been my  position in regard to Micah 5:4.

But anyway… can you see the confusion I am having with your response so far?  You do not appear to understand the  concept of the Trinity where Jesus is concerned. Because if you did… you would not have characterized “the gist of  my rebuttal to your understanding of Micah 5:4” in the manner that you have.

Indeed… to me, your above statement appears to commit a classic non-sequitur.

For example… if Jesus (GOD the Son) is equal to GOD the Father (as scriptures teach), then Jesus (GOD the Son) has  always existed because God the Father has always existed.  Therefore, given that premise (which is based on scriptures I  believe), it doesn't logically follow that because “Micah 5:4 says nothing about any time limit that this  anointed one will shepherd in the strength and name of YHVH, his God, THEN THAT MUST MEAN that Jesus STILL  shepherds in the strength and name of YHVH, his God.

As I see it, this is a non-sequitur for a couple of reasons:  

(1)… it could very well be that Jesus (GOD the Son) voluntarly submitted to God the Father for a little while…  only temporarily while he was on earth as God Incarnate… while he inhabited a body of flesh as the Messiah.  And  indeed, I believe we see that is what scriptures do teach.  

And (2)… that Jesus (GOD the Son) is NOT EQUAL with God the Father, and thus he would STILL need to  shepherd in the strength and name of YHVH, his God once he returned to heaven in his full and original glory as GOD…  being equal with God the Father as he has always been and forever was and forever will be.

But because I believe that scritpures teach that Jesus (God the Son) is always equal… and has always been equal in  essence and substance to God the Father, and because my “gist” of my rebuttal to your understanding of Micah 5:4 is based  on the Trinity, then your statement doesn't follow from that belief of mine.  After all, I was giving you my rebuttal  based on my belief in the Trinity, and so your response showed your lack of, or faulty understanding of the Trinity, and  thus it apparantly caused you to respond with a non-sequitur. Because your statement did not follow from anything I said  about Micah… or from anything Micah said. If scriptures are in harmony, then the Trinity would have applied to Micah,  as I have consistenly been doing.

CONCLUSION: You wrote describing what you understood to be the basic gist of my rebuttal… but you were  mistaken in your understanding of what my basic gist was in my rebuttal.

————————————

Quote

So the next logical step is for us to discuss scriptures that either make it clear that Jesus no longer shepherds  in the strength and name of YHVH, his God……….or that he STILL does.

If Jesus (GOD the Son) is not equal in every way… (in essence and substance)… to God the Father, then you will have an  argument.  But because I believe that the scriptures teach that Jesus (God the Son) and God the Father are the same  GOD… (and thus are equal in essence and substance to each other)… then you have no argument.

But I am willing to listen to you and learn if you can teach me something.

—————————————

Quote

You say you've shown me scriptures that teach that Jesus is “God the Son”.  I know of no scripture that uses the  term “God the Son” in the whole Bible.  I assume you refer to  the Philippians and Hebrews passages that you quoted  before.

Here again you appear to have micharacterized what I actually wrote.  And the following is a list of 4 observations  and/or comments about what you've just said above.

OBSERVATION #1) —>>> If you had carefully read what I actually wrote to you, you wouldn't have made this  statement of yours.  What I wrote to you was this:

So obviously, the next logical and rational question would be: “Is Jesus God?  Was Jesus God Incarnate while  He was here on earth?”

And I also wrote this…

And so… to answer the question of whether Jesus is God, then a positive case for the Deity of Christ needs  to be presented.  And that is exactly why I previously gave you a couple of scriptures which shows that Jesus is indeed  God… God the Son.

And then I wrote this.
..

With that in mind… I would like to bring up John 8:58 where Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am.”  

John 8:58 (New International Version, ©2010)
“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

John 8:58 (Amplified Bible)
Jesus replied, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I AM.

John 8:58 (New King James Version)
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

We can tell from the reaction and questions of the Jews around him, that they clearly understood him to be claiming  that he  existed before Abraham and that he was equal with God.  So outraged were the Jews with this clear case of  blasphemy on  Jesus' part, they picked up stones to kill him.  

The same reaction to the same claim by Jesus can also be found in:

John 10:31-33 (New International Version, ©2010)
Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from   the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

We see the same claim and the same reaction at Jesus' trial:

Mark 14:62 (New International Version, ©2010)
“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the   clouds of heaven.”

(The high priest tore his clothes. “Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked.  “You have heard the blasphemy. What do  you think?”  They all condemned him as worthy of death.)

These are just a couple of the many, many scriptures which indicates to Trinitatians that Jesus is God.  What is  your  response to these scriptures?

So therefore… in light of what I wrote to you previously… look again at what you just wrote to me and compare it to  what I actually wrote above:

You say you've shown me scriptures that teach that Jesus is “God the Son”.  I know of no scripture that uses the term  “God the Son” in the whole Bible.  I assume you refer to  the Philippians and Hebrews passages that you quoted before.

As can be seen from my previous remarks… I have always been claiming that scriptures teach that Jesus is God… and I  gave you a few scriptures to back that up.

Whether or not scriptures uses the words that Jesus is “God the Son”… it's irrelevant to the issue of whether Jesus is  God.  If Jesus is God, then this is one major step in showing that the Trinity is true.  And that is what this discussion  is all about… isn't it?  Isn't this dialogue we are having an attempt to find out if the Trinity is supported by  scriptures? Of course it is.   It's not about whether the phrase “God the Son” is in the Bible… correct?

Now… we can discuss the term “God the Son” at another point if you wish, but the point I'm making here is that you were  wrong in your above statement when you wrote:  You say you've shown me scriptures that teach that Jesus is “God the  Son”.  I know of no scripture that uses the term “God the Son” in the whole Bible.  I assume you refer to  the  Philippians and Hebrews passages that you quoted before.   To show that you were wrong… above I gave you what I was  actually claiming in my previous posts to you.

**NOTE** I did not bring up the John 8:58 post above in an attempt to  reintroduce it before you were ready to go there.   I was only quoting what I previously had written in an attempt to show  what I had actually written.  I hope that is okay.

OBSERVATION #2) —>>>  To emphasize how irrelevant your above objection is about the phrase “God the Son”  in our present discussion about the Trinity, look at how other words are not found in the Bible… and yet we still  accept the CONCEPT behind those words.

For example… the word “Bible” is not found anywhere in the Bible, and yet we still use that word to describe the  Bible.   The words “omniscience” and “omnipotence” and “omnipresence” are words not found anywhere  in the Bible, and yet we still use them in our discussion to describe the attributes of God.  We don't have to see a  specific word or phrase in the Bible in order for the concept it describes to be true.    I could go on and on, but I  hope you can see how irrelevant your objection is in our present discussion about the Trinity.

OBSERVATION #3) —>>>  But anyway… having said that…. for clarity purposes… to help clear the  confusion about which part of Jesus I am refering to… I was using the phrase “God the Son”.    After all… if I had  just said “Jesus”… then to who am I referring to?  Am i referring to Jesus on earth? Or am I referring to Jesus  in Heaven?  Am I referring to the human side of Jesus?  Or am I referring to the Divine part of Jesus?

And when I just say the word “God”… the same questions apply. Am i referring to God the Father? Or am I  referring to God the Son?  Or am I referring to God the Holy Spirit?  Or am I referring to the JHVH… The Godhead?

Can't you see that you have absolutely NO CLUE about what I'm referring to if I were to simply use the word  “Jesus” or when I use only the word “GOD”?  This should be very obvious.  Indeed… in my previous posts to you, I used  the example of the word “fag”, showing that  without any added clarification, there is no way you would have any CLUE  about what I was talking about.  So it is with the word “Jesus”… when used in isolation with no clarification.   The  phrase “God the Son” is meant to clarify and differentiate Jesus as God from Jesus as human… and differentiate God the  Son from God the Father, etc.

OBSERVATION #4) —>>>  Not only that… even Wikipedia uses the phrase “God the Son” for clarifcation  purposes.  The following is from Wikipedia:

God the Son
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God the Son is the second person of the Trinity in Christian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity identifies Jesus of  Nazareth as God the Son, united in essence but distinct in person with regard to God the Father and God the Holy Spirit  (the first and third persons of the Trinity). God the Son is co-eternal with God the Father (and the Holy Spirit), both  before Creation and after the End (see Eschatology). “Son of God” draws attention to his humanity, whereas “God the Son”  refers more generally to his divinity, including his pre-incarnate existence. So, in Christian theology, Jesus was always  God the Son,[1] though not revealed as such until he also became the Son of God through incarnation.

I hope this clears things up for you. I would think so.

———————————————-

Quote

If that is the case, I would like to discuss how you come to the conclusion that either one of them teaches us  that God is no longer ONE, but TWO or THREE.

You've completely lost me here. Neither I… nor the Trinity…nor the scriptures teach that God “is no longer ONE,  but TWO or THREE”

To me, this appears to show that you do not understand what the Trinity is all about… which may account for the  confusion on your part as evidenced by your above statement. O
r maybe I just don't understand what you were trying to  say.

But anyway… God is and has always been and will always be ONE… because God, by His very nature… is indivisible.   The Trinity DOES NOT contradict the fact that God is ONE.   God's essence… God's nature… God's substance is  ONE.  It can never be divided in anyway.  NEVER.   God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all  comprise the ONE GOD.  The Trinity does not teach that God is “no longer ONE, but TWO or THREE”… if you are  referring to the essence, substance, and nature of the ONE GOD.

Instead… God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are terms referring to the persons of the trinity… not  of separate or different or multiple GODS.

Anytime anyone thinks or claims that the Trinity is teaching that there are multiple Gods… then they've committed the  logical fallacy called a “Strawman”.  If that person persists in saying that the Trinity is teaching that there is  multiple Gods, even after they've been informed that it is not teaching such a thing, then they have committed a worst  offense than a logical fallacy because it reflects directly, in a very negative manner, on their character and their  honesty.

Wikipedia says it very well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, one of the most important in mainstream Christian faith, teaches the unity of  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one divine Being, called the Godhead.

Saying that God exists as three persons but is one God means that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have exactly the  same nature or being as God the Father in every way.   Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and  God the Holy Spirit have as well.  “Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent,  infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient.”

I hope this clears things up about what the Trinity is.

——————————————

 

Quote

I'll also be looking closely for the “God the Son” wording.  Because if it's not there in the scriptures, it seems  a little odd to me that you would claim it with such certainty.

Look all you want, but I've answered this above.  Jesus is known as the “SON”.  That's a fact.  And so if nothing else,  the term “God the Son” helps us to differentiate the persons and the roles and the ministry of Jesus within the Trinity.

Even Wikipedia understands this and explains it very well and I quote them above.

—————————————–

Quote

And I'll also be analyzing those scriptures for “THEY” and “THEM” pronouns referring to God instead of the “HE”  and “HIM” pronouns I have been used to.

Go ahead.  I am here to learn.  But the point is that if Jesus is God according to the scriptures, then that will trump  any argument you can come up with as to whether or not the pronouns for “THEY” and “THEM” ever referred to God in the OT.

The concept of the Trinity does not rest on… nor is it contingent upon whether words like Elohim was meant to be a  plural pronoun or not.  The case for the Trinity is a cumulative case… pure and simple.  And the best evidence for the  Trinity is Jesus and what the scriptures says about Jesus and what Jesus says about Himself and what Jesus did here on  earth.

If Jesus is God… as I maintain and which is what the Trinity says… then that itself would suggest that God can be  referred to with a plural pronoun.

As I have said to you before, God has always kept secrets from people… even from His own people… and so it could very  well have been that God largely kept the revelation of the Trinity a secret until the time that Jesus came to earth.  So  on a purely logical level… this issue of yours doesn't seem to be a very productive and fruitful avenue for your side.

But hey… as I have said before… I'm a student who has an intense hunger for wisdom, truth, understanding and  knowledge, so I am willing to listen to you.  Maybe I can learn something.

But as food for thought, I would like to offer an observation which I've presented to you in a previous post.

In a fiercely monotheistic culture like the Hebrew culture was (and is), it is very interesting to note that Moses used  the word “Elohim” AT ALL, since that word can at times be plural in description.  And like I said before…

God could have easily had Moses write in Genesis: “Let Me make man in My own image, and after My own  likeness,” to ensure that Moses and the Jews understood very clearly… with no ambiguity… that He was a unique and  singular Being.  But God did not do that. The fact that God did not have Moses write in such a clear way is another  cumulative piece of evidence which suggests that God is Triune in nature.

Indeed, there are other places in the Torah… and in Genesis in particular, where the word for God is a very singular  pronoun.  So if God is not plural in any sense at all, then why would God have instructed Moses to use Elohim at all when  there were other singular pronouns actually being used for God in other places of the Torah?

CONCLUSION: Although a discussion about whether the ancient Hebrew language ever applied a plural pronoun  to God is an interesting one,  for our present discussion, it appears (for the above reasons) to be a side issue… or at  best… a secondary piece of cumulative evidence.  As I have repeatedly asserted… the PRIMA FACIE  question that we need to grapple with is the question of whether Jesus IS GOD.  Because the answer to that question will  trump the discussion of whether pronouns “THEY” and “THEM” were ever referred to God.

And so with that PRIMA FACIE question in mind, I have given a couple of scriptures (out of many) which I  believe demonstrates that Jesus is God.

I saw that you have begun to go over them, but we've put them on hold until we conclude our discussion of your points  raised in your previous post.

———————————————-

Quote

But let's do one scripture at a time, please.  By the time we are done, I hope to have SOLIDLY discussed over 100  scriptures, so there's really no hurry, nor is there any need to make world record size posts.

I'm doing the best I can… but as I have said before, my responses directly answer your statements and questions.   If your posts are too open-ended, then it is not my fault if I need a certain amount of words to fully answer your open- ended posts.  I will not compromise truth and understanding and knowledge for you or for anyone else by subjecting my  answers to artificial and subjective rules when this forum allows the freedom to express oneself fully.  

———————————————–

Quote

While I'm waiting for your ONE scripture and explanation about how it means Jesus is “God the Son”, thereby  changing the meaning of Micah 5:4 for us all,  I'll start with one of my own.

I've answered this above.  Jesus is known as the “SON”. That's a fact.  And so if nothing else, the term “God the Son”  helps us to differentiate the persons and the roles and the ministry of Jesus within the Trinity.  

Even Wikipedia understands this and explains it very well.

As for how this term applies to Micah 5:4… I'm not sure I follow you.  I have consistently maintained that Micah 5:4 is  a prophecy of the coming Messiah… who will be God Incarnate.

———————————————-

Quote

You agree that God Almighty cannot have someone he calls “my God”. Revelation 3:12 NIV The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write  on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from  my God; and I will also write on them my new name. This is Jesus talking AFTER he was raised back to his previous glory and rank (or higher, depending on how you interpret  the scriptures).  Jesus is no longer a man at this point, yet still calls the Father “my God”.  What say you?

As I've explained above, the Trinity says that there is only ONE GOD.  And the Trinity says that this ONE GOD is ONE in nature, substance, essence, and attributes and cannot ever be divided, etc.  It was in that sense  that I was saying that God cannot have a “my God” or a “his God” because that would be a LOGICAL contradiction in  terms.  If God is ONE… if there is only ONE GOD… and if God cannot be divided… then obviously, God  cannot have a “his God” or a “my God” because that would imply MULTIPLE GODS.  But the scriptures and the Trinity  and I all reject that there is more than one God.  Can you see that?

Anyway… after looking at what I wrote, I can really see how ambiguous my statement was. I really dropped the ball by  not carefully clarifying what I meant, and so I do apologize for that.  I try to proof read everything I write before I  submit it… but sometimes things get by me.

Now… before I go any further, it appears that we need to understand what I MEAN when I use the word God in  reference to Jesus and to God the Father… and to God the Holy Spirit.  All the above are equal in substance and in  nature and in attributes and in essence.

There is only ONE GOD… and so  whenever I use the word “GOD”… or the word Jesus (the Deity part of him)… or  the phrase  “God the Son”… or the phrase  “God the Father”… or the phrase “God the Holy Spirit”… … or the word  JHVH… or the word Trinity…  or the phrase “the Triune God”… they are all referring to ONE GOD.

And this ONE GOD has certain attributes which makes up His nature. And each of the above have these attributes  because they are all the same ONE GOD.   And although God and the Trinity is a mystery that cannot be fully  understood by our finite minds, I believe with Thomas Aquinas that God has given us enough clues in the scriptures about  Himself that all of the essential metaphysical attributes of God can be known by natural reason.   God gave man reason so  that man can communicate with each other and with Him and have some understanding of Him and this world.

And I believe the following are some of  attributes which makes up the nature of the ONE GOD… of JHVH:

Aseity (self existence)… Simplicity (indivisibility)… Necessity (Noncontignency)… Immutabilty  (unchangeability)… and Eternity (Nonteporality).

To me, only GOD… with the capital letter “G”…  has the above attributes and nature.  Anyone or anything that DOES  NOT HAVE the above nature and attributes, is never more than a “god” with a little “g”.

I wanted to make that clear so that when we are discussing God… you will know what I MEAN when I use the word  “God”.  The Trinity is saying that God the Father… God the Son… and God the Holy Spirit are all the same God and thus  have the above nature of God.  These terms are referring to the PERSONS of the Godhead… NOT to the nature  of God.

And so whereas Jesus is God and God the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God… this does not mean that Jesus is the  Father or that the Father is Jesus or that the Holy Spirit is Jesus or that the Father is the Holy Spirit, etc.

Here it would do well to clarify a bit what I mean when I say “person” in regards to the Trinity.  The idea of  “person” is a little different than our common understanding of the word in our language and culture.  Here is a quote  from Wikipedia which may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Person hood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of “person” as used in the English  language—it does not imply an “individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.”   To the  ancients, person hood “was in some sense individual, but always in community as well.”  In the Trinity doctrine, each  person is understood as having the same identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

I don't know if that helps, but I think the emphasis on community might help to understand the word “person” in relation  to the oneness of the Trinity.  The three persons of the Trinity always work in complete harmony and agreement with each  other.  There is no division or “individualistic” implication one would normally think of when the word “person” is used  in our society.

—>>>   Okay… now let's get back to your quote above:   Yes…I am well aware of Revelation 3:12 and  other verses where Jesus uses the phrase “my God” or where the phrase “his God” is used.  Some of the verses are speaking  connection with Jesus' human nature.  And the other verses are speaking of Jesus' relationship within the Trinity.

Like I said above,  the Trinity says that there is only ONE GOD who cannot ever be divided.  And so it was in that  sense that I was saying that God cannot have a “my God” or a “his God” because that would be a LOGICAL  contradiction in terms. It would imply multiple Gods… and that is completely false.

As I mentioned to you before in my last post, one of the important hermeneutic principles in understanding scriptures is  to interpret scripture with scripture.  This means that however we interpret and understand a scripture, it cannot be an  interpretation or understanding that contradicts other scripture.  There has to be harmony among the scriptures… and  among our understanding of the scriptures because God does not contradict Himself.  We may get it wrong and find all  kinds of suppossed contradictions, but God does not contradict Himself.

All right then… let's see… we have verses which shows that Jesus is God.  We also have verses in which Jesus says “my  God” while in heaven (and on earth).  And we have verses in which Jesus appears to be subordinate to God the Father…  1  Corinthians 15:28… 1 Corinthians11:3… to name a couple.

But at the sa
me time…  we know that God is ONE in nature and cannot be divided.  We also know that there is only one  God.   We know in John 5:18 that when Jesus called God “His own Father”, He was making Himself equal with God… not  inferior or less than God.    We also see from John 20:28 that when Thomas calls Jesus “my God”, Jesus doesn't correct  him… further indicating that Jesus is making Himself equal with God… and not inferior or less than God.  And then I  listed a few more verses which also indicates that Jesus is God (John 8:58… John 10:31-33… Mark 14:62)

——–>>>>  That is one clue right there. Jesus' claim that He is equal with God.  

The fact that Jesus considered Himself equal with God in the above verses, and when He called God His own Father,  shows  that Jesus is not implying that He is any less in essence or substance or nature than God… than God his Father.   So  whatever Jesus meant when He said “my God”… it wasn't the idea that He was inferior to God… or that He wasn't God…  or that there are multiple Gods.

If the scriptures are in harmony… and if God does not contradict Himself… and if there is only one God… and if  Jesus is God and equal with God His Father in nature and substance and essence and attributes as scriptures teach… then  the phrase “my God”… and the above scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:28… 1 Corinthians11:3) must NOT  be saying that Jesus is inferior or “less than” than God… but something entirely different.

——–>>>>  Another clue can be found in Hebrews 1:8-10.

Hebrews 1:8-9 (New International Version, ©2010)

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be  the scepter of your kingdom.  You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;  therefore God, your God, has set you  above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.”  He also says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the  foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Hebrews 1:10 (New King James Version)
But to the Son He says:  “ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;  A scepter of righteousness is the  scepter of Your kingdom.  You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You  With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”   And:“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the  earth,  And the heavens are the work of Your hands.

Now… if God can call Jesus God… and if God says that Jesus can call God “your God” (his God)… and if God can call  the Son “Lord” without losing the status of being Lord and God Himself, then the Son can call  the Father “God”… “his  God”… without implying any inferiority to God or being “less than” God in nature and essence.

This alone should show that whatever Jesus meant when He called God “his God”, it wasn't meant to mean that Jesus was  inferior. Indeed… God calls Jesus “God” and “Lord”.

But we won't stop here because there are other very real alternative possible interpretations for the phrase “my God”  other than implying inferiority or “less than”.

——–>>>>  Which brings us to a another clue.  That different functioning roles in a heirachy do not necessarily  imply inferiority..

1 Corinthians 15:28 (New King James Version)
Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all  things under Him, that God may be all in all.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (New King James Version)
But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of  Christ is God.

The undiluted truth is that because one person may be under the authority of another person… or be voluntarily in  submission to another person… or because they have a different role… this does not have to mean that this person is  somehow less or inferior in substance and essence than the other person.   Therefore…  verses that suggests that Jesus  is somehow subordinate or under submission at times to the Father (his God),  it DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW  that  Jesus MUST BE… or HAS TO BE… less than or inferior to God His Father.  

Now… in the absence of any other verses, then it could very well mean that Jesus is inferior or less than God His  Father… or less than and inferior to God… and in that case you would have an argument there.  But we do have  verses which shows that Jesus is God… and so any claim that the phrase “his God” or “my God” somehow  means that Jesus is not God… or that Jesus is inferior to God or inferior to God the Father… or that this shows that  multiple Gods exist…  is logically unsustainable and untenable.

Remember that the scriptures have to be in harmony with each other… and the concept of the Trinity nicely brings  together all these seemingly contradictory verses together and harmonizes them by making sense of them and showing that  there are no actual contradictions.

I think it is clear from the above two verses of 1Corinithians,  that there is a functional hierarchy that exists within  the members of the Triune God.  For example, the Father sends His “Son” Jesus Christ to redeem mankind, and the Son sends  the Holy Spirit to indwell Christian believers.  

So when Jesus calls the Father “God” while Jesus is in His Divine Nature…  He is not implying inferiority or that He is  less than God.   Instead, Jesus is demonstrating that He is still the authority of His Father God.   In the same way that  one would not argue that a human son is an inferior “human” simply because his father is in a “greater” position as  leader of the family, so it is incorrect to argue that Jesus is an inferior “God” simply because His Father is in a   position of authority over Him.  The human son is under the authority of his human Father, and yet are both equally human.    It's that same kind of idea that describes the relationship and hierarchy between God the Father and God the Son within  the Trinity.

This idea is further amplified below with scriptural examples.  

So to reiterate… the simple fact that because Jesus is under the Father’s authority… and that Jesus calls the Father  “my God”… it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus, in His Divine nature, is just as much “God” as His Father is “God”.   It's that kind of relationship… that kind of community… than kind of functional hierarchy and roles within the  Trinity which I think helps to explain why Jesus called the Father His “God”.  

——–>>>>  Another clue can be found in Exodus 4:16

Exodus 4:16   New King James Version (NKJV)
So he shall be your spokesman to the people. And he himself shall be as a mouth for you, and you shall be  to him as God.

This verse shows that there can be structured relationships such as headship among equals.  In Exodus 4:16 we see  that   Moses' serving as God to Aaron did not change the fact that Moses and Aaron were equals in their humanity.   Similarly,  the Father and the Son can be equals as to their Deity, with the Father serving as Head or God to the Son.  Just as Aaron  can view Moses as God,  and yet be equal to Moses, shows how the same kind of relationship can exist within the Trinity  between the Father and the Son.

CONCLUSION:
You've pointed to the phrase “my God” as evidence that Jesus is not God.  

In rebuttal, I've pointed to Hebrew 1:8-10 which shows that God called Jesus
“God” and “Lord”.   I've given very  reasonable alternatives and meanings for the phrase “my God” that are entirely different than the one you've given.  And  finally, I've presented other verses that convincingly demonstrates (I believe) that Jesus is God… which conclusively  puts to rest  your entire argument on this point about inferring that Jesus is inferior to God when He said “my God”.

—————————————-

God Bless
Respectfully, Francis

[francis]

Quote

Hi Francis, I'm terribly sorry.  The only reason I brought up John is because my previous post basically said, “Okay Francis, I'm ready to discuss the first scripture that says Jesus is God”.  And then I realized that you had already taken the time out of your life to show me one of them in a prior post.   I felt is was bad manners of me to have not addressed it before, but then expect you to bring it up all over again.  I was trying to keep you from being mad at me and it apparently backfired.   This debate is now going EXACTLY as I want it to.  We are to the point of truly examining some “Jesus is God” scriptures one at a time, and that's exactly what I want to do. Listen, I can delete the John post and let you bring up your own first scripture, if you like.  Like I said, I was trying to keep you from having to post again something you already did. Okay, just ignore the John post and deal only with the prior one.  And I will deal only with your response to my prior post.  Let's just pretend like that John post isn't even there, okay?   peace and love, mike

No need to apologize.  I just wanted make sure we were on the same page.  BTW… I enjoy all your posts.  You raise some interesting questions and I am having a blast as I attempt to find the truth and formulate an answer.  I absolutely LOVE being intellectually challenged.  Nothing is more invigorating or more pleasurable.

Keep it coming!!!!

Respectfully
Francis

[Author]

Posts