- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote 5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV Jesus was the “TRUE” Savior who delivered the people!
If I could add a third thing, which I don't have to, the word “Jesus” in this scripture is certainly not certain.
The ABVg manuscript has “kyrios” (Lord).
I only checked three other Bibles, NASB, NIV, KJ, but all three have “Lord,” not “Jesus.”
So if this is what your argument is based on, it is extremely week, but of course, there are many other flaws in your thinking, despite this fact. (See above.)
Quote (david @ Mar. 03 2010,09:46) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,07:07) Quote (david @ Feb. 28 2010,16:50) Quote David, Who else is called “the Savior.” Only God and Jesus are called “THE Savior.”
And who else is a Savior that owns us as His own people?
Who else is called “the Savior”? Please go read my “title confusion trick–savior” thread.
Secondly, I had thought that your argument was:
1. Jesus is called Savior. Jehovah is called Savior. Hence, they're the same being.Apparently, your argument is:
They're both called “savior” AND they are both said to own us.Apparently, them being called “savior” PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF!
This was my argument all along. Thank you for confirming my argument.
The fact that both are called “lord” or “king” or “savior” etc proves nothing IN ITSELF if many others are also called by the same word, (unless you are willing to concede that they are also part of the same group).
Just as sharp has his rule, I'm going to call the above “David's logic rule.” I think it's quite evident. But some have difficulty with it. I really don't see how it can't be obvious and evident.
David,The Hebrew term “deliverer” or “savior” (yaw-shah) is NEVER applied to men in the old testament the way that the term “savior” (“soter”) is applied to Jesus Christ in the new testament. In the old testament the true “savior” was God because He delivered His people outside the party that was oppressed.
Moses was not the true deliverer. He included himself among the oppressed whom the Lord delivered (Numbers 20:16). Jude 5 says that it was JESUS who saved them out of Egypt:
5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV
Jesus was the “TRUE” Savior who delivered the people!
Therefore, Jesus like God is also the true “Savior” because He delivers His people outside the party that is oppressed unlike His old testament counterparts.
Whatever Christ's old testament counterpart was to old covenant Israel Jesus is the GENUINE or TRUE thing to God's new covenant people. I hope you don't think that Jesus was Himself oppressed by sin like His people.
I read your source on the “Title Trick Savior” thread and I think it sucks big time. The author thinks with a carnal mind and has no spiritual understanding of anything.
btw, I never said that Jesus and God were one “being.” You are putting words into my mouth. I have said that they are one “substance” or “subsistence” (Hebrews 1:3):
3who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might — through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest Young's Literal Translation
thinker
Thinker, you once again confirm my argument.“Apparently, them being called “savior” PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF! This was my argument all along. Thank you for confirming my argument.”
All along, I thought your argument was that:
Jesus is called Savior. Jehovah is called Savior. Hence, they're the same being.But, now I see that your argument is:
They are both called “savior” AND they are both said to “own people,” AND God “delivered His people outside the party that was oppressed.”SO, I guess BEING CALLED “SAVIOR” IN ITSELF MEANS NOTHING.
It is circular reasoning to suggest that both being called Savior means they are the same being if you then say that it only means that because they are both God. (That is what you are trying to prove.)Further, if we have to get so exact in what is meant by “savior” and specifically HOW they saved for it to apply, then your reasoning falls apart even further. Did they both save in the exact same way? No, we are told that Jehovah saved us “THROUGH” HIS SON. Jehovah was often spoke of as the Savior of Israel.
Jesus and Jehovah were saviors in different ways, just as those others that were called “saviors” were saviors in vastly different ways.Hence, your logic is false.
David,This is a bizarre post man! You have argued time and time again that the title of “god” or “savior” in reference men proves your points. Now you say it proves nothing. Do you mean that it proves nothing one way or the other? If so, then abandon the argument.
I clearly said that Jesus was the TRUE Savior while His old covenant counterparts were not. Your posts are getting bizarre. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem lately.
Moses didn't deliver anyone. He included Himself among those that were delivered (Numbers 20:16). Jesus Himself was not delivered
David:
Quote No, we are told that Jehovah saved us “THROUGH” HIS SON. The brain sees THROUGH the eye. So what's your point? The brain is IN the eye and the eye is IN the brain. They form an inseparable unit and neither is dispensible. The Father is IN the Son and the Son is IN the Father. They form an inseparable unit and neither is dispensible.
thinker
Quote This is a bizarre post man! You have argued time and time again that the title of “god” or “savior” in reference men proves your points. Now you say it proves nothing. INCORRECT.
What I have said and continue to say and have said many times in this very thread is that Jehovah, Jesus, and MANY others are described by those words.
Hence, logically, it cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other.It is ALWAYS you who says that this proves something and me who says it proves nothing. That is what I am continuing to say.
Quote Do you mean that it proves nothing one way or the other? If so, then abandon the argument.
The fact that many others are called by those words proves that IN AND OF ITSELF, BEING CALLED BY THOSE WORDS PROVES NOTHING.That is my argument. That is what I have said a hundred times. It is you who continue to say it PROVES something, while I continue to say it proves nothing.
Quote I clearly said that Jesus was the TRUE Savior while His old covenant counterparts were not. Your posts are getting bizarre. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem lately.
And yet, I find myself responding to every single line in your post. You responded to nothing I said.Quote Moses didn't deliver anyone. He included Himself among those that were delivered (Numbers 20:16). Jesus Himself was not delivered
Was Moses called a “savior”? I didn't know that. I shall add him to the list of saviors. Regardless, many are called saviors. I am not here to dispute whether Moses was really a savior or not. I don't think I even mentioned him as someone the Bible calls a savior, did I? Why do you have to create these little off track thoughts? Why not just focus on what your actual argument is and what my argument is? Yours continues to get more and more and more fuzzy every time I read one of your posts. Every time, there is another qualifier, or condition, that apparently makes it obvious that Jehovah and Jesus are saviors in a different sense. Well that's fine, as long as you realize you can't go around saying that they are both of the same substance BECAUSE THEY ARE CALLED SAVIOR. That IN ITSELF PROVES NOTHING.Quote The brain sees THROUGH the eye. So what's your point? My point, if you'd like it simplified, is that they are saviors in DIFFERENT WAYS. Hence, your idea that that some of these saviors are the same substance, but others aren't because they aren't saviors in the same sense, only CONFIRMS MY ARGUMENT. They did not save in the same way.
I address everything you said.
Thinker, can you spend some time and come up with some very precise words which define your argument about Jesus and Jehovah both being called “savior.”
Thank you.
Just so we're clear:
MY ARGUMENT:
The fact that Jehovah and Jesus are called savior, god, lord, king, etc, proves nothing IN ITSELF, since many others are called these things.
Quote (david @ Mar. 03 2010,09:59) Quote 5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV Jesus was the “TRUE” Savior who delivered the people!
If I could add a third thing, which I don't have to, the word “Jesus” in this scripture is certainly not certain.
The ABVg manuscript has “kyrios” (Lord).
I only checked three other Bibles, NASB, NIV, KJ, but all three have “Lord,” not “Jesus.”
So if this is what your argument is based on, it is extremely week, but of course, there are many other flaws in your thinking, despite this fact. (See above.)
David,The word “Jesus” is based in older manuscripts and is likely to be more reliable. The ESV Greek text is in agreement with Numbers 20:16 which says that the Messenger of Jehovah saved them out of Egypt. The The Messenger of Jehovah shared Jehovah's name wich means that He would also be Jehovah. The Messenger is called “Jehovah” by Jehovah Himself (Exodus 23:20-25).
There is no biblical evidence that Jehovah as you define Him personally saved the people out of Egypt.
thinker
Quote (david @ Mar. 03 2010,10:34) Thinker, can you spend some time and come up with some very precise words which define your argument about Jesus and Jehovah both being called “savior.” Thank you.
Just so we're clear:
MY ARGUMENT:
The fact that Jehovah and Jesus are called savior, god, lord, king, etc, proves nothing IN ITSELF, since many others are called these things.
David,First see my post immediately above. This should clarify. That's all for me tonight.
thinker
Quote (david @ Mar. 02 2010,18:34) The fact that Jehovah and Jesus are called savior, god, lord, king, etc, proves nothing IN ITSELF, since many others are called these things.
DavidWhy are you being selective here?
It can easily be said by your logic that since many are called savior, god, lord, king, etc that would mean that it does not prove “IN ITSELF” that the Father is any of those things!
Is that what you believe?
Your logic is flawed because Jesus is called “The Savour” and not just “a Savour”.
Not by proxy David! Yet YHWH says he alone is “The Savour”.
WJ
WJ, I answered you here, where you also said the same words:
Quote (david @ Mar. 02 2010,19:16) WJ, I answered you here, where you also said the same words:
DavidYep, and I answered you Here
WJ
David said:
Quote Hence, logically, it cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other.
David,
Then why do you incessantly invoke that men were called “gods” and “saviors” if it does not prove anything one way or the other?
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,19:29) David said: Quote Hence, logically, it cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other.
David,
Then why do you incessantly invoke that men were called “gods” and “saviors” if it does not prove anything one way or the other?thinker
How true!!!
WJ
I am back for a little while tonight.
TO DAVID:
The Messenger of Jehovah who saved the people out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16) is called “Jehovah” by Jehovah Himself:
20 “Behold, I send a Messenger before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Messenger will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.
25 “So you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you.Note that the Messenger has Jehovah's name. Then Jehovah says “You shall serve Jehovah your God and HE shall bless….and I will take sickness away from you.”
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2010,11:32) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,19:29) David said: Quote Hence, logically, it cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other.
David,
Then why do you incessantly invoke that men were called “gods” and “saviors” if it does not prove anything one way or the other?thinker
How true!!!
WJ
I know you guys like your cartoons.But if you would just read my posts…..
Instead of typing it out again, I'll go find what I said.
Quote (david @ Mar. 03 2010,11:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Mar. 03 2010,11:32) Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,19:29) David said: Quote Hence, logically, it cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other.
David,
Then why do you incessantly invoke that men were called “gods” and “saviors” if it does not prove anything one way or the other?thinker
How true!!!
WJ
I know you guys like your cartoons.But if you would just read my posts…..
Instead of typing it out again, I'll go find what I said.
David,Speak about reading posts:
The Messenger of Jehovah who saved the people out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16) is called “Jehovah” by Jehovah Himself:
20 “Behold, I send a Messenger before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Messenger will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.
25 “So you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you.Note that the Messenger has Jehovah's name. Then Jehovah says “You shall serve Jehovah your God and HE shall bless….and I will take sickness away from you.”
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 03 2010,11:29) David said: Quote Hence, logically, it cannot be said to prove anything one way or the other.
David,
Then why do you incessantly invoke that men were called “gods” and “saviors” if it does not prove anything one way or the other?thinker
Thinker, (ah, the irony),It is the FACT that men are called these things that shows that it cannot prove neither.
And, as I said before, I have always brought up this subject to show that what you are CLAIMING is not proven by what you state as proof, (both called […..]).I don't know how you can't “get” this.
I am not CLAIMING that this proves anything.
I'm stating that logically, what you are CLAIMING doesn't make sense given the facts.Obviously, I have to “invoke” the fact that men are called saviors, gods, kings, lords, and whatever title you'll next attempt, to prove my point. My very point is that since others are called by these things, we cannot claim that this means anything, in and of itself.
Things people do when they have no real proof of anything:
1. Attack the person.
2. Distract and sidtrack.
3. Show a cartoon and hope people will forget the facts.Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 03 2010,10:50) Quote (david @ Mar. 03 2010,10:34) Thinker, can you spend some time and come up with some very precise words which define your argument about Jesus and Jehovah both being called “savior.” Thank you.
Just so we're clear:
MY ARGUMENT:
The fact that Jehovah and Jesus are called savior, god, lord, king, etc, proves nothing IN ITSELF, since many others are called these things.
David,First see my post immediately above. This should clarify. That's all for me tonight.
thinker
Hi Thinker.I know you said you were done for the night.
I had only asked you what your ACTUAL ARGUMENT WAS.
I thought, since you continue to speak, you would be able to fashion an argument, or to phrase what you actually believe.
But now you're back, and you still haven't answered my question.
I think we both realize that it's hard to communicate with someone when what they believe continues to get more and more fuzzy.
Thinker, why can't you just tell me succinctly what you believe? What is proven by what you believe? How is it proven?
I'll now look at your green post. But, if you don't know what you believe, how am I to argue against it?
Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 03 2010,11:35) I am back for a little while tonight. TO DAVID:
The Messenger of Jehovah who saved the people out of Egypt (Numbers 20:16) is called “Jehovah” by Jehovah Himself:
20 “Behold, I send a Messenger before you to keep you in the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. 22 But if you indeed obey His voice and do all that I speak, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. 23 For My Messenger will go before you and bring you in to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites and the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will cut them off. 24 You shall not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their works; but you shall utterly overthrow them and completely break down their sacred pillars.
25 “So you shall serve the LORD your God, and He will bless your bread and your water. And I will take sickness away from the midst of you.Note that the Messenger has Jehovah's name. Then Jehovah says “You shall serve Jehovah your God and HE shall bless….and I will take sickness away from you.”
thinker
ok?And?
Again, my argument:
The fact that Jehovah and Jesus are called savior, god, lord, king, etc, proves nothing IN ITSELF, since many others are called these things.“Then why do you incessantly invoke that men were called “gods” and “saviors” if it does not prove anything one way or the other?”–thinker.
WJ seemed to agree with the above and thought it was some sort of irrefutable logic
I don't think either really understand logic. I will explain in point form.
1. Since many others are called saviors, gods, etc, this fact in itself proves that we cannot just make the claim that Jesus and Jehovah are the same substance (a trinity) because they are called by the same word.
2. To restate that, the fact that they are called by the same word PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF.WELL IF IT “does not prove anything one way or the other” THEN WHY MENTION IT?
I guess there was some confusion. It DOES PROVE that we can't just say that being called the same word means you are the same substance. It DOES PROVE THAT you can't make that claim.
What I meant (or what was misunderstood) was that it doesn't prove one way or the other that God and Jesus are the same substance. It doesn't prove anything in this respect. It neither proves nor disproves the trinity.
**BUT HERE'S THE POINT, and we'll call it Point 3:
I NEVER TRY TO DISPROVE THE TRINITY USING THIS. I only ever bring this up to show the faulty logic of others and to show that it doesn't prove anything, with respect to the trinity, one way or the other.**What I am saying is that it is logical that it can't be proven in and of itself by both being called the same thing, when others are also called that same thing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
