- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 04 2010,09:42) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 04 2010,09:32) 
You can't have it both ways Nick. If Christ is God “functionally,” then He is supreme over YOU. You must accept Him as your Sovereign or retract your statement that He is God “functionally.”
thinker
Thinker, you fail to realise that it was God that made Jesus both Lord and Christ.God appointed him to rule over God's creation. Similarly, the Pharaoah made Joseph to rule over Egypt. Joseph had absolute authority, except that he was subject to the Pharaoah.
All this playing with words cannot bend the truth one iota.
Might as well accept it now, God made Jesus both Lord and Christ.
Do I hear an amen?
Hi T8,Good Post!
Ed J
JustAskin said:
Quote I just put the scenario to my son and asked him if one was greater than the other and he replied that the Giver of the Prize (also the owner in the case of God/Jesus) is greater than the one receiving the Prize. Your son has a lot of growing up to do and a lot of life experience to acquire. Jesus gave the parable of the landowner and the laborers saying that the laborer is “WORTHY” of his hire. He labors in the field all day long and at the end of the day the landowner OWES Him his wages. And if the landowner does not pay then the laborer could take him to court where there will be NO INEQUALITY.
The Father and the Son entered into a covenant with each other regarding our redemption and our salvation. The Son fulfilled His end of the covenant and the Father justly and gladly payed the Son what was DUE Him.
The Son payed for the kingdom with HIS OWN BLOOD. It is RIGHTFULLY His own kingdom and He rules over it however He pleases.
How desperate of JA to invoke the word of a child who has no life experience. Shame om JA. When is he going to present arguments from scripture?
THE LABORER IF HE IS A FAITHFUL SERVANT IS WORTHY OF HIS HIRE. JA'S SON WILL ONE DAY UNDERSTAND THIS! CHRIST WAS A FAITHFUL SERVANT AND WAS WORTHY OF THE AUTHORITY HE RECEIVED.
The word “worthy” means, “deserving of DUE REWARD” (see Strong's# 514).
btw, The “babes and sucklings” mataphor was a reference to the disciples.
thinker
WorshippingJesus said:
Quote The logic that because someone gives someone else something means that the giver is greater than the receiver is flawed!
WJ,Yes this logic is flawed. Eusebius and Arius promoted this logic and it was rejected by the Christian church. This logic is not true to scripture or to human experience.
WJ:
Quote The double talk that goes on about Jesus and his authority is evident because there is always a “disclosure” attached to the fact that Jesus has “ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER”. Jesus clearly told his disciples that the Father had given him “ALL THINGS”. The disciples understood that it was in his name (Jesus) that all things were done by and through!
Yes it's all just double talk. If a father and a son own the family business and the father commits ALL administrative powers to the son then that son becomes THE BOSS! Any employee that goes around challenging that son's authority will be fired.WJ:
Quote These disclosure statements are meant to take the eyes off of the one who “HAS ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER, AND WHO HAS ALL THINGS, AND WHO IS RULING AND RIEGHNING WITH A NAME THAT IS ABOVE EVERY NAME, AND WHO HAS THE “TITLE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS”, NOT ONLY IN THIS WORLD BUT IN THE WORLD TO COME”!
Boom! Right again! The disclosure statements posted here are meant to circumnavigate Christ's authority.WJ:
Quote Finally to say that Jesus is less than the Father because the Father has given him all things is simply a moot point because 1 Cor 15 tells us that Jesus having all things will subject himself to the Father and give him back the Kingdom!
Double whammy! When the father turns over the family business to his son giving him ALL administrative powers it becomes a moot point as to how the son acquired those powers or who is the greater. The only relevant fact to the employees of that business is that the son has become THE BOSS.Any employee who says, “I serve only the father” will be thrown out on his ear!
11 Serve the LORD with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Honor the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. Psalm 2:11-12It says to honor the Son lest He be angry. And it says that those who put their trust in Him are “blessed.”
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 07 2010,09:02) Quote (mikeboll @ Feb. 06 2010,16:50) Jesus is the one who says the Father is greater.
mikeYou will have to do better than this for Jesus statement you refer to was in the days of his flesh before he recieved back all things from the Father.
Read 1 Cor 15 and you will see that he is not yet subjected himself to the Father, which means at this time he is “Equal to” the Father in everyway!
Blessings WJ
thinker
Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 07 2010,10:27) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 04 2010,09:20) Jesus cannot be “OUR Lord” without being God. thinker
Hi Thinker,Why do you constantly ignore PROOF I give to you?
My last Post <–Click Here!
ED J,You are ignoring the facts. Isaiah said, “Make straight the way of the LORD” (YHWH, i.e. Jehovah). Matthew quoted Isaiah substituting the name YHWH with the name “Kurios” (3:3).
This was an inspired author who used “Kurios” in place of YHWH.
οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.
Therefore, The name “Lord” (Kurios) was sometimes equated with Jehovah's name.
thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Feb. 07 2010,09:10) Quote (mikeboll @ Feb. 06 2010,16:50) Kind of like God told us, “I'm putting my son in charge for a while, treat him exactly as you would treat me if I were there.”
Mike“Kind of like God to us”? HMMM! I do not see any scriptures that says Jesus is “Kinda like God”, but in fact the Father himself calls him God and the Apostles also.
He is either God in every sense or he is not. You are just making a play on words!
If he is “kind of like God” to you, then you must honour him “Kind of like God”. Which would mean he doesn't deserve the same honour as the Father!
Blessings WJ
[/QUOTE]
WJ,
I did not write that very clearly. I was not saying Jesus is a “kinda like God” figure. I meant it was as if God said, “I'm leaveing my son in charge for a while, show him the same honor and respect you would show me.”And you're the one who needs to read 1 Cor 15. “when it says everything has been put under him, it is clear this doesn't include God, who put everything under him”
Now this makes it clear God is not under Jesus, but is Jesus elevated to the same level as God? If so, why would Jesus need God to put everything under him? Can't you see that the one with the superior power to put everything else under Jesus has to have the superior power, period?
And Jesus wasn't the only one in the Bible who the Father granted to have life in him. Remember Elijah raising people from the dead? How about Elisha? Are they God Almighty, too? They were the ones God called gods-the ones to whom the word of God came.
And although Jesus gave of his life willingly, do you remember him getting cold feet towards the end? He asked his God to remove this cup if possible, BUT NOT AS I WILL, AS YOU WILL.
And lastly, it was the Pharisees who wanted Jesus dead, not Jews in general. They did not like that he was stealing their thunder. They had the Law twisted into a nice little profitable niche for themselves, and Jesus was calling them out on it. They had been expecting the Messiah for years…they just couldn't accept that he would come in the form of a lowly, meek person who associated with sinners and tax collectors.
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 07 2010,15:46) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 07 2010,10:27) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 04 2010,09:20) Jesus cannot be “OUR Lord” without being God. thinker
Hi Thinker,Why do you constantly ignore PROOF I give to you?
My last Post <–Click Here!
EDF J,You are ignoring the facts. Isaiah said, “Make straight the way of the LORD” (YHWH, i.e. Jehovah). Matthew quoted Isaiah substituting the name YHWH with the name “Kurios” (3:3).
This was an inspired author who used “Kurios” in place of YHWH.
οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.
Therefore, The name “Lord” (Kurios) was sometimes equated with Jehovah's name.
thinker
[/QUOTE]
TT,
LORD as you read it in most Bible today, is the substitution the translators put in place of the divine name JHWH, or Jehovah. Lord is a title. They are not interchangeable. LORD in all caps always means Jehovah…always. Lord not in all caps can mean Jehovah, God, Jesus, nobles, etc.So just because you see Jesus called Lord, it does not mean he is being called LORD….get it?
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 07 2010,15:46) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 07 2010,10:27) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 04 2010,09:20) Jesus cannot be “OUR Lord” without being God. thinker
Hi Thinker,Why do you constantly ignore PROOF I give to you?
My last Post <–Click Here!
EDF J,You are ignoring the facts. Isaiah said, “Make straight the way of the LORD” (YHWH, i.e. Jehovah). Matthew quoted Isaiah substituting the name YHWH with the name “Kurios” (3:3).
This was an inspired author who used “Kurios” in place of YHWH.
οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.
Therefore, The name “Lord” (Kurios) was sometimes equated with Jehovah's name.
thinker
Hi Thinker,[Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs means “Lord” or “Owner”
JEHOVAH(YHVH) is “The Owner” of “Everything”!But you CANNOT say a “Owner” is God?
Your logic is flawed.Ed J
TT,
Why do you feel that asking a child for 'the view of the innocent child' is somehow wrong.
I did not 'load' the question and I did not goad him into any direction as to what he should answer.
He is not taught any specific religion at school so his response was not biased to anything he had been taught.
This is the essence of 'innocence'.
Also, it seems that some things zre being ignored by those who desire to bias their own thinking.
I knew that there would be someone who would say 'there's no difference 'equalitywise' between the giver and them given. So I wrote the scenario to include two situations:
One, where the Giver was also the Owner and the other where the status of the giver was not a case for issue.
Further, in the first case, evidently alluding to God and Christ, the 'prize' is not 'permanent owned' by the receiver but is returned, once the aim, the perfect execution, the accomplishment of the actions embodied in the prize, are achieved.
There is a clear distinction between the two scenarios which is not highlighted in the simpler, single example of a father 'permanently' giving his son a reward for an agreed objective.
This is the reason there is disagreement, because the analogy was flawed and the flaws are exposed as disagreement points.
In the case of God and Christ, it is clear that even when the Christ has his 'prize', God is still the ultimate owner because it is for HIS (God) glory that Christ is executing the plan embodied in the 'prize'.
Once achieved, Christ willingly hands the reconciled Kingdom (the output, et al, of the execution of the 'prize') back to God, back to it's ultimate owner.Equality,…the son has all the authority to given to him by one who is greater and hands it back to the greater.
Was Joseph equal to Pharoah?
Was Haman (Book of Esther) equal to his King because had the King's seal? (Equal in the exercising of the law but not in person. The King removed Haman when he abused his office which shows that the King was still 'in charge')Quote Double whammy! When the father turns over the family business to his son giving him ALL administrative powers it becomes a moot point as to how the son acquired those powers or who is the greater. The only relevant fact to the employees of that business is that the son has become THE BOSS! TT, your logic is flawed. If the father owns the business, then brings the son into it, the father is still the greater because he gave the son a prize of co-running the business.
Now if the father decides to take a sabatical for a while and puts the son in charge, the father is still greater because he is the one who had the power to make that choice.
Now as the son manages the business and is acting boss, the father is still greater because it is his decision when to come back and regain control.
And even as the employees are recognizing the son as boss, they are only doing so at the request of the father, who actually is the boss's boss.
Do you see? The son could not be part of the family business without the father's permission. It was not the son that decided, “I'm in charge now.” And it's not the son who decides how long he will be in charge. And it was not the son who had the authority to tell the employees to treat him as boss for a while–that order came from the father.
And as far as your mean comment about JustAskin's child, haven't you read Jesus' comment that we must change and become like a child to inherit the kingdom of God? And his comment that the kindom of heaven belongs to children such as these?
Peace to you
To WJ and TT,
In this business analogy of God's kingdom, you have to remember this isn't Sanford and Son. The business always has and always will belong only to the father. When the father put the son in charge, it was made clear to the employees that the father still signs the paychecks. It is the fathers money alone. The son has been delgated to judge who gets a raise and who gets fired (literally), but the father is the one who will pay those raises.
Peace on earth to men of goodwill
See ya next weekHi Mikeboll,
Thanks for the backup and the counter argument concerning innocent child.TT, backed by WJ, are arguing with 'restrained intelligence' as there is no other way to try and refute what I, and others, have said.
TT's father/son analogy is not a direct equivalence of that of God/Christ, and a moments reflection would reveal this – if there is a desire to see it!
TT wrails against me in his futile way thinking that some other deluded character will support his unfounded utterances.
to all,
Sorry for double post. It's caused by a fault cos i'm on mi mobi and there the connection sometimes gets stuck.
Quote (mikeboll @ Feb. 07 2010,16:18) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 07 2010,15:46) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 07 2010,10:27) Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 04 2010,09:20) Jesus cannot be “OUR Lord” without being God. thinker
Hi Thinker,Why do you constantly ignore PROOF I give to you?
My last Post <–Click Here!
EDF J,You are ignoring the facts. Isaiah said, “Make straight the way of the LORD” (YHWH, i.e. Jehovah). Matthew quoted Isaiah substituting the name YHWH with the name “Kurios” (3:3).
This was an inspired author who used “Kurios” in place of YHWH.
οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ῥηθεὶς διὰ Ἡσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰς τρίβους αὐτοῦ.
Therefore, The name “Lord” (Kurios) was sometimes equated with Jehovah's name.
thinker
Quote
TT,
LORD as you read it in most Bible today, is the substitution the translators put in place of the divine name JHWH, or Jehovah. Lord is a title. They are not interchangeable. LORD in all caps always means Jehovah…always. Lord not in all caps can mean Jehovah, God, Jesus, nobles, etc.So just because you see Jesus called Lord, it does not mean he is being called LORD….get it?
mb,I didn't say “LORD.” I said “YHWH.” In Isaiah 40:3 it says, “Make straight the way of YHWH.” Matthew 3:3 substitutes the name “YHWH” with the name “Kurios” (Lord).
Therefore, the name “Kurios” is sometimes equivalent to YHWH's name. Yet ED J erroneously says that “Kurios” ALWAYS mweans “owner.”
thinker
JustAskain said;
Quote TT's father/son analogy is not a direct equivalence of that of God/Christ, and a moments reflection would reveal this – if there is a desire to see it!
JA,Do you have a reading comprehension problem of some kind? My father and son analogy showed that when two people enter into an agreement there is no inequality even if the two parties be father and son.
The Father and the Son entered into a covenant. The Son fulfilled His end of the covenant and the Father rewarded Him what was due Him. There was NO inequality in that.
You erroneously think that a father and son relationship is one dimensional. In some respects the father is above his son and in other respects he is not above his son. My father was not above me when he gave me what was due me. He was BOUND BY OATH.
The Father was BOUND BY OATH to the Son to “give” Him ALL authority.
Grow in knowledge dude! You need to come to terms with the reality that ALL relationships are multi-dimensional.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2010,05:19) Hi TT,
YHWH was in YAHSHUA.
Nick,You're not even on the same wave length with ED J and myself. He says that the name “kurios” ALWAYS means simply “an owner.” Yet Matthew substitutes the name YHWH with the name “Kurios.”
This fact destroys ED J's axiom.
thinker
TT,
The reason why everyone is against you is because it is a silly anaology that has no relevance to what you think you are trying to say.
We are thinking that you were makng a some analogical reference and all teh time it was a purely earthly, human to human based argument.
Ok, sorry for the error – I thought there was some point to it.
Good story – you should get it published.
Hi TT,
You revel in philosophical wrestling but why not get to know WHO God and His Son are?
You cannot relate to them while you build up another strange trinity god.Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 09 2010,05:23) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 09 2010,05:19) Hi TT,
YHWH was in YAHSHUA.
Nick,You're not even on the same wave length with ED J and myself. He says that the name “kurios” ALWAYS means simply “an owner.”
Yet Matthew substitutes the name YHVH with the name “Kurios.”This fact destroys ED J's axiom.
thinker
Hi TT,[Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs IS NOT A NAME and DOES ALWAYS MEAN “OWNER”! You obviously didn't get my point.
Lord “CAN” be used to illustrate “either” [יהוה] YÄ-hä-vā or [יהשוע] YÄ-shü-ă!
This is done in many places in the Bible, so this is NOT what is in question.What is in question is: Your making use of the word [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs as a 'strict determination' of “who” is being referenced?
The word [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs “BY ITSELF” cannot be used to determine”Who” is being referenced!
This is what you do! AND IN YOUR DOING SO: “IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE” AS YOU ASSERT !
Mathew “is” using the word [Κύριος] kü-rē-ŏs to reference [יהוה] YÄ-hä-vā; This FACT is obvious!
But Mathews use of the word does NOT prove your assertions in other Bible passages as you assert it does!
This is YOUR FAULTY LOGIC at work! And your faulty logic PROVES NOTHING!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
