- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,19:04) Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07) Hello Asana… 3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings.
But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God. And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis: These listed here, ARE truly equal!“Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH” = “The Bible”
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Hi Ed J…If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God.
Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH”.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis,Great!
Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,19:04) Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18)
Hi Francis: These listed here, ARE truly equal!“Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH” = “The Bible”
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Hi Ed J…If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God.
Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH”.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis, (John 1:1)In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.The Lord gave “The Word”: great was
the company of those that published it. (Psalms 68:11)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,19:04) Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07) Hello Asana… 3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings.
But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God. And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis: These listed here, ARE truly equal!“Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH” = “The Bible”
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Hi Ed J…If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God.
Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH”.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Why do you guys keep calling God divine? do you even know what it means?DIVINE. 1. a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god
How can this definition apply to God? Jesus can be considered divine or angels but Not The Most HIGH
And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,20:00) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,19:04) Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07) Hello Asana… 3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings.
But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God. And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis: These listed here, ARE truly equal!“Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH” = “The Bible”
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Hi Ed J…If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God.
Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH”.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Why do you guys keep calling God divine? do you even know what it means?DIVINE. 1. a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god
How can this definition apply to God? Jesus can be considered divine or angels but Not The Most HIGH
And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”
Hello Asana…I guess you must not have read my prior post to you, because I explained how Divine can also mean God.
While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… and thus it would be an adjective… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have other kinds of meanings as well.
One of the meanings or definitions for the word “Divine”… when it is used as a noun… is “Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.”
I then gave you a couple of sources to back that up.
When I was talking with Ed J and Mike, I was using the word Divine as noun… so that it was interchangeable with the word “God”.
That is what is meant by “God = Divine”. As a noun, the word Divine can mean God.
I think you are confusing adjectives with nouns.
Yours in Christ
FrancisQuote (francis @ April 26 2012,03:53) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,20:00) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,19:04) Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,18:18) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07) Hello Asana… 3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings.
But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God. And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis: These listed here, ARE truly equal!“Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH” = “The Bible”
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
Hi Ed J…If Divine = God… then I don't think the Bible could be equal with “Divine” or “Deity” or “YHVH” because I don't think the Bible is God.
Otherwise, I do agree that: “Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH”.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Why do you guys keep calling God divine? do you even know what it means?DIVINE. 1. a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god
How can this definition apply to God? Jesus can be considered divine or angels but Not The Most HIGH
And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”
Hello Asana…I guess you must not have read my prior post to you, because I explained how Divine can also mean God.
While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… and thus it would be an adjective… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have other kinds of meanings as well.
One of the meanings or definitions for the word “Divine”… when it is used as a noun… is “Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.”
I then gave you a couple of sources to back that up.
When I was talking with Ed J and Mike, I was using the word Divine as noun… so that it was interchangeable with the word “God”.
That is what is meant by “God = Divine”. As a noun, the word Divine can mean God.
I think you are confusing adjectives with nouns.
Yours in Christ
Francis
divine (adj.) c.1300, from O.Fr. devin (12c.), from L. divinus “of a god,” from divus “a god,” related to deus “god, deity” (see Zeus). Weakened sense of “excellent” had evolved by late 15c.divine (v.) “to conjure, to guess,” originally “to make out by supernatural insight,” mid-14c., from O.Fr. deviner, from V.L. *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from L. divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant “soothsayer.” Related: Divined; diviner; divining. Divining rod (or wand) attested from 1650s.
divine (n.) c.1300, “soothsayer,” from O.Fr. devin, from L. divinus (adj.); see divine (adj.). Meaning “ecclesiastic, theologian” is from late 14c.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=divine
It is improper using this word when talking aout THE ONE TRUE GOD. God does not divine nor is God divine.
And to use God and Divine interchangebly shows either a lack of knowledge or a lack of respect towards God. I'm sure in your case it is simply a lack of knowledge.
The Bible is Divine but YHWH/YHVH is not Divine for God did not precede out of something else to give him a nature he didn't already have.
Hello Asana…
Quote And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated” The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. In the Bible, the clearest teaching about the Incarnation appears to be in John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (From Wikipedia)
We all know that there had been much debate during the first couple of centuries after Jesus' time here on earth about the idea and concept of the Incarnatino. And there are some Christians today (although not traditional/orthodox ones) who deny the Incarnation altogether… and others who view the Incarnation a bit differently than the traditional Nicene Christianity does.
The point is that even though the word “Incarnation” is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (neither is the word “Trinity” mentioned)… the concept was inferred from Biblical texts as Christians tried to understand the nature of Jesus and the words/claims He spoke and His actions while He was here on earth.
It would be kinda like this (using a very simple word picture)… if you see an animal on another planet that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck… it would be a reasonable inference that it is a duck… even though there is no sign around it's neck that says “Duck”.
I don't know if that helps or hinders my explanation… but that is what I mean when I say most tradictional/orthodox Christians have “INFERRED” from the Biblical texts that Jesus was God Incarnate. The Incarnation of Christ was deduced… or a conclusion was made from the evidence and reasoning rather than from any explicit statements in the Bible. If the words “Incarnation” or “Trinity” were used in the Bible, those would be explicit statements. But they are not, so those words/concepts were inferred… or deduced from the text.
Part of the evidence and reasoning used to infer the Incarnation, is to see how Jesus thought of Himself in comparision to what we know about God. For example, we know that the Sanhedrin judged him guilty of Blasphme during His trial… making Himself out to be God. Jesus accepted worship and forgave sins which are reserved solely for God… etc.
There are so much more evidence than I am bringing in here because time and space doesn't permit… and because I am simply trying to answer your question as to why Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was God Incarnate.
Anyway… I hope that gives a better idea of where the idea of Incarnation comes from and why it is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians.
Yours in Christ
FrancisHello Asana…
Quote divine (adj.) c.1300, from O.Fr. devin (12c.), from L. divinus “of a god,” from divus “a god,” related to deus “god, deity” (see Zeus). Weakened sense of “excellent” had evolved by late 15c. divine (v.) “to conjure, to guess,” originally “to make out by supernatural insight,” mid-14c., from O.Fr. deviner, from V.L. *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from L. divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant “soothsayer.” Related: Divined; diviner; divining. Divining rod (or wand) attested from 1650s.
divine (n.) c.1300, “soothsayer,” from O.Fr. devin, from L. divinus (adj.); see divine (adj.). Meaning “ecclesiastic, theologian” is from late 14c.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=divine
It is improper using this word when talking aout THE ONE TRUE GOD. God does not divine nor is God divine.
And to use God and Divine interchangebly shows either a lack of knowledge or a lack of respect towards God. I'm sure in your case it is simply a lack of knowledge.
The Bible is Divine but YHWH/YHVH is not Divine for God did not precede out of something else to give him a nature he didn't already have.
You did nothing to rebut what I wrote because in my explanation, I already AGREED with all you wrote above about the many different definitions for the word “Divine”. You even showed that the meaning of “Divine” differs depending on whether you are using the word “Divine” as a noun, adjective or verb!! Which is what I was saying all along.
All I did was add a couple of more sources (I gave them to you) to show that as a noun… when the word “Divine” is being used as a noun… it can also mean: “Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.”
So I don't understand the point of your last post. I have been saying all along that the word “Divine” can have different meanings… and you supplied some of them for us.
Yours in Christ
FrancisQuote (francis @ April 26 2012,07:52) Hello Asana… Quote And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated” The Incarnation is a fundamental theological teaching of orthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of the New Testament. In the Bible, the clearest teaching about the Incarnation appears to be in John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (From Wikipedia)
We all know that there had been much debate during the first couple of centuries after Jesus' time here on earth about the idea and concept of the Incarnatino. And there are some Christians today (although not traditional/orthodox ones) who deny the Incarnation altogether… and others who view the Incarnation a bit differently than the traditional Nicene Christianity does.
The point is that even though the word “Incarnation” is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (neither is the word “Trinity” mentioned)… the concept was inferred from Biblical texts as Christians tried to understand the nature of Jesus and the words/claims He spoke and His actions while He was here on earth.
It would be kinda like this (using a very simple word picture)… if you see an animal on another planet that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck… it would be a reasonable inference that it is a duck… even though there is no sign around it's neck that says “Duck”.
I don't know if that helps or hinders my explanation… but that is what I mean when I say most tradictional/orthodox Christians have “INFERRED” from the Biblical texts that Jesus was God Incarnate. The Incarnation of Christ was deduced… or a conclusion was made from the evidence and reasoning rather than from any explicit statements in the Bible. If the words “Incarnation” or “Trinity” were used in the Bible, those would be explicit statements. But they are not, so those words/concepts were inferred… or deduced from the text.
Part of the evidence and reasoning used to infer the Incarnation, is to see how Jesus thought of Himself in comparision to what we know about God. For example, we know that the Sanhedrin judged him guilty of Blasphme during His trial… making Himself out to be God. Jesus accepted worship and forgave sins which are reserved solely for God… etc.
There are so much more evidence than I am bringing in here because time and space doesn't permit… and because I am simply trying to answer your question as to why Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was God Incarnate.
Anyway… I hope that gives a better idea of where the idea of Incarnation comes from and why it is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians.
Yours in Christ
Francis
FrancisWhat you are saying just doesn't Gel and here's why: Jesus explains
John 10:36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?Jesus was sent into the world if he was God incarnated he would not have made the distinction that God sent him into the world.
Incarnation would mean that God came into the world and was not sent into the world.
You have no Logical basis to conclude that there was any sort of incarnation of God on earth.
The word of God was made manifest meaning made evident by producing a child by command is sameword made light and everything else o unless God is everything His Word created God is not incarnated but indeed is made manifest all through creation
Quote (francis @ April 26 2012,08:01) Hello Asana… Quote divine (adj.) c.1300, from O.Fr. devin (12c.), from L. divinus “of a god,” from divus “a god,” related to deus “god, deity” (see Zeus). Weakened sense of “excellent” had evolved by late 15c. divine (v.) “to conjure, to guess,” originally “to make out by supernatural insight,” mid-14c., from O.Fr. deviner, from V.L. *devinare, dissimilated from *divinare, from L. divinus (see divine (adj.)), which also meant “soothsayer.” Related: Divined; diviner; divining. Divining rod (or wand) attested from 1650s.
divine (n.) c.1300, “soothsayer,” from O.Fr. devin, from L. divinus (adj.); see divine (adj.). Meaning “ecclesiastic, theologian” is from late 14c.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=divine
It is improper using this word when talking aout THE ONE TRUE GOD. God does not divine nor is God divine.
And to use God and Divine interchangebly shows either a lack of knowledge or a lack of respect towards God. I'm sure in your case it is simply a lack of knowledge.
The Bible is Divine but YHWH/YHVH is not Divine for God did not precede out of something else to give him a nature he didn't already have.
You did nothing to rebut what I wrote because in my explanation, I already AGREED with all you wrote above about the many different definitions for the word “Divine”. You even showed that the meaning of “Divine” differs depending on whether you are using the word “Divine” as a noun, adjective or verb!! Which is what I was saying all along.
All I did was add a couple of more sources (I gave them to you) to show that as a noun… when the word “Divine” is being used as a noun… it can also mean: “Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.”
So I don't understand the point of your last post. I have been saying all along that the word “Divine” can have different meanings… and you supplied some of them for us.
Yours in Christ
Francis
No we don't agree because you confuse the word Divine with God Almighty and they are not equivalent terms according to the actual original meaning of the word I don't care if modern usage is skewed to mea other things. This reminds me of ED insisting to say that the 4 sacred letters of God's name is YHVH when the ORIGINAL LETTERS are YHWH and YHVH is a recent change and usage, not that it is essential to love and know God but the point is he will add that Modern letters up and say because they add up to a certain number which is 63 that it is the true letters which is silly because it is a fat that the 4 Sacred letters were originally YHWH which is why YAHWEH is an older understanding then Jehovah or Ed's YaHaVa The only reason why I am pointing any of this out is you seem to want to use polluted and convoluted logic to reach truth and that simply isn't being honest.I am not suggesting you are being dishonest(At least not intentionally)
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,08:32) The only reason why I am pointing any of this out is you seem to want to use polluted and convoluted logic to reach truth and that simply isn't being honest.
“Many shall come in my name, saying, i am;
and shall deceive many.” (Mark 13:6) (Link to thread)“Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived.” (2Tm.3:13)Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) So I will find it and then respond.
Don't bother, Francis. I don't do the long, drawn out debates anymore. And there is no amount of blindfold and crutch explanations you can imagine that will ever change the fact that we have but ONE God Almighty, and Jesus is not Him, but His Son.Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) We can agree that God is not a man… and man is not God. Correct?
Nor has He ever been a man, nor will He ever be one.Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) Now then… what about His spirit… the spirit that dwells inside of His human, fleshly body? Can His spirit be God? Of course it can be.
All that does is change my question to: Can the spirit of Jesus really be the God of the rest of Jesus? If so, then isn't it still Jesus being the God of Jesus? (Or at the very least, “a part of” Jesus being the God of “a part of” Jesus?)Also, what reason do you give for the spirit of Jesus, which you say remained the “fully God” part, not knowing the day or the hour? Why would God be lessened in knowledge just because He was lessened in other things by becoming incarnate as weak flesh?
And if Jesus' spirit remained “fully God”, who was this OTHER God in heaven that Jesus kept talking to, and getting help and information from?
And finally, if Jesus “emptied himself”, then as GOD, wouldn't the entire being of God have been emptied? Can a third of the ONE being of God empty itself and take on sin while two thirds of THIS SAME BEING remained sin free and retained their (its) original knowledge and power?
(Francis, these are all rhetorical questions. I really have no interest in reading more imaginative explanations as to how the Son OF the one and only God Almighty could also BE the God Almighty that he is the Son OF.)
Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) Until then, I kind of remember that the phrase “sitting at the right hand of God” is refering to heirachy… and not an actual physical location or essence or lower status.
If there is indeed a hierarchy, then there is one with lower status than another one. The “right hand man” is always lower than the one to whom he is the right hand man.Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) If Jesus is the Son OF God, then he is not the God he is the Son OF. The same logic applies for:
Priest OF God
Word OF God
Anointed one OF God
Lamb OF God
Prophet OF God
Holy one OF God
Servant OF God
Etc.Same response as above.
Your “blindfolded” analogy, if it were to work at all, would only work on a human, “less divine” Jesus. So out of the list above, you only get to remove “prophet”. All the others on the list apply to the earthly Jesus was well as the exalted “God-Jesus”. And if Jesus is NOW anything at all “OF GOD”, then he cannot BE the God he is that thing OF.Francis, I can appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts. You are nothing if not thorough. But believing in the Trinity goes against so many clear scriptures (not to mention our God-given common sense).
I will continue to believe that God (one being) loved us so much that He (not they) sent (not “came Himself”) His (not their) only begotten (not “existed from eternity”) Son (that is: “Son OF God”, not “God the Son”) as a sacrificial Lamb (someone had to be the One making the sacrifice OF the Lamb) to atone for our sins. I will believe Jesus when he says that Jehovah is the only true God, and that our God is also his God.
You are free to believe what you want.
Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,08:45) Sorry BD, Hebrew doesn't have a “W”.
B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)
EDYou know for a fact that the “WAW” was replaced with the “VAV” and yet you seem to need to cover that up.
http://www.truthofyahweh.org/father.htm
V or W?
Some pronounce this name with a “v” sound for the third letter from the right, the “vav.” (refer to this page's background graphic in Hebrew)
It is true, in today's Hebrew, that the letter “vav” is given a “v” sound.The “Vav,” today pronounced with a “v” sound, was originally pronounced as a “w” (the letter name is often written as “waw”). Biblical Hebrew: A Text and Workbook, by Kittel, Hoffer, and Wright; Yale University Press 1989, page 1.
Other texts have described this change to the “v” sound as coming from the European influence, mainly Germanic, which language had no “w”, sound so the “v” was substituted. Hebrew really did not need this letter to be a “v” sound, since it already had a “v” sound in its second letter, Bet, when the dot (the dagesh) in the center of the letter is absent.
http://congregationofyhwh.net/resources/Name+Study.pdf
In “modern Hebrew the letter “Vav” which usually takes the sound of
the English letter “V” has replaced the old or ancient Hebrew letter, “Waw” which
takes the sound of “W, O, or U”. It has been learned since the time of the work of
James Strong that the original letter in The Creators Name is the “Waw”. At the time
in history when YHWH was speaking to Mosheh (Moses) and inscribing His Name on
the tablets of stone, there was no “Vav” only the “Waw” and the Name of The Creator
was spelled with the ”Ancient Hebrew” letters “Yod Hay Waw Hay”. Most experts
agree that the correct pronunciation of the Name is Yahweh.What about Yahovah, Yehovah, Jehovah?
In the first place the letter “J” is only about five hundred years old and is not even to
be found in the 1611 King James Version. Secondly there is no “J” sound at all in
Hebrew. And third, taking into account the fact that all Scriptural names mean
something, let us take notice of what the Hebrew word “hovah” means.
Hebrew for 01943
Pronunciation Guide
hovah {ho-vaw'}
TWOT
Reference
Root Word
TWOT –
483c
Part of
Speech
n f
Another form for 01942
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) ruin, disaster
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count
— Total: 3
AV – mischief 3; 3
Ruin! Disaster! Mischief! I don’t think so. These are poor translations that are
primarily a result of the Vav mistake.
YHWH means “The Existing One” HalleluYah!Quote (mikeboll64 @ April 26 2012,09:08) Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) So I will find it and then respond.
Don't bother, Francis. I don't do the long, drawn out debates anymore. And there is no amount of blindfold and crutch explanations you can imagine that will ever change the fact that we have but ONE God Almighty, and Jesus is not Him, but His Son.Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) We can agree that God is not a man… and man is not God. Correct?
Nor has He ever been a man, nor will He ever be one.Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) Now then… what about His spirit… the spirit that dwells inside of His human, fleshly body? Can His spirit be God? Of course it can be.
All that does is change my question to: Can the spirit of Jesus really be the God of the rest of Jesus? If so, then isn't it still Jesus being the God of Jesus? (Or at the very least, “a part of” Jesus being the God of “a part of” Jesus?)Also, what reason do you give for the spirit of Jesus, which you say remained the “fully God” part, not knowing the day or the hour? Why would God be lessened in knowledge just because He was lessened in other things by becoming incarnate as weak flesh?
And if Jesus' spirit remained “fully God”, who was this OTHER God in heaven that Jesus kept talking to, and getting help and information from?
And finally, if Jesus “emptied himself”, then as GOD, wouldn't the entire being of God have been emptied? Can a third of the ONE being of God empty itself and take on sin while two thirds of THIS SAME BEING remained sin free and retained their (its) original knowledge and power?
(Francis, these are all rhetorical questions. I really have no interest in reading more imaginative explanations as to how the Son OF the one and only God Almighty could also BE the God Almighty that he is the Son OF.)
Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) Until then, I kind of remember that the phrase “sitting at the right hand of God” is refering to heirachy… and not an actual physical location or essence or lower status.
If there is indeed a hierarchy, then there is one with lower status than another one. The “right hand man” is always lower than the one to whom he is the right hand man.Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:01) Quote (mikeboll @ 64) If Jesus is the Son OF God, then he is not the God he is the Son OF. The same logic applies for:
Priest OF God
Word OF God
Anointed one OF God
Lamb OF God
Prophet OF God
Holy one OF God
Servant OF God
Etc.Same response as above.
Your “blindfolded” analogy, if it were to work at all, would only work on a human, “less divine” Jesus. So out of the list above, you only get to remove “prophet”. All the others on the list apply to the earthly Jesus was well as the exalted “God-Jesus”. And if Jesus is NOW anything at all “OF GOD”, then he cannot BE the God he is that thing OF.Francis, I can appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts. You are nothing if not thorough. But believing in the Trinity goes against so many clear scriptures (not to mention our God-given common sense).
I will continue to believe that God (one being) loved us so much that He (not they) sent (not “came Himself”) His (not their) only begotten (not “existed from eternity”) Son (that is: “Son OF God”, not “God the Son”) as a sacrificial Lamb (someone had to be the One making the sacrifice OF the Lamb) to atone for our sins. I will believe Jesus when he says that Jehovah is the only true God, and that our God is also his God.
You are free to believe what you want.
Great Post!Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,08:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,08:32) The only reason why I am pointing any of this out is you seem to want to use polluted and convoluted logic to reach truth and that simply isn't being honest.
“Many shall come in my name, saying, i am;
and shall deceive many.” (Mark 13:6) (Link to thread)“Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived.” (2Tm.3:13)
Mark 13:6King James Version (KJV)
6For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Why do you keep editing the scriptures leaving entire parts out just to create your own viewpoint?
Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,09:20) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,08:45) Sorry BD, Hebrew doesn't have a “W”.
B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)
EDYou know for a fact that the “WAW” was replaced with the “VAV” and yet you seem to need to cover that up.
http://www.truthofyahweh.org/father.htm
V or W?
Some pronounce this name with a “v” sound for the third letter from the right, the “vav.” (refer to this page's background graphic in Hebrew)
It is true, in today's Hebrew, that the letter “vav” is given a “v” sound.The “Vav,” today pronounced with a “v” sound, was originally pronounced as a “w” (the letter name is often written as “waw”). Biblical Hebrew: A Text and Workbook, by Kittel, Hoffer, and Wright; Yale University Press 1989, page 1.
Other texts have described this change to the “v” sound as coming from the European influence, mainly Germanic, which language had no “w”, sound so the “v” was substituted. Hebrew really did not need this letter to be a “v” sound, since it already had a “v” sound in its second letter, Bet, when the dot (the dagesh) in the center of the letter is absent.
http://congregationofyhwh.net/resources/Name+Study.pdf
In “modern Hebrew the letter “Vav” which usually takes the sound of
the English letter “V” has replaced the old or ancient Hebrew letter, “Waw” which
takes the sound of “W, O, or U”. It has been learned since the time of the work of
James Strong that the original letter in The Creators Name is the “Waw”. At the time
in history when YHWH was speaking to Mosheh (Moses) and inscribing His Name on
the tablets of stone, there was no “Vav” only the “Waw” and the Name of The Creator
was spelled with the ”Ancient Hebrew” letters “Yod Hay Waw Hay”. Most experts
agree that the correct pronunciation of the Name is Yahweh.What about Yahovah, Yehovah, Jehovah?
In the first place the letter “J” is only about five hundred years old and is not even to
be found in the 1611 King James Version. Secondly there is no “J” sound at all in
Hebrew. And third, taking into account the fact that all Scriptural names mean
something, let us take notice of what the Hebrew word “hovah” means.
Hebrew for 01943
Pronunciation Guide
hovah {ho-vaw'}
TWOT
Reference
Root Word
TWOT –
483c
Part of
Speech
n f
Another form for 01942
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) ruin, disaster
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count
— Total: 3
AV – mischief 3; 3
Ruin! Disaster! Mischief! I don’t think so. These are poor translations that are
primarily a result of the Vav mistake.
YHWH means “The Existing One” HalleluYah!
Hi BD,All you have been able to produce is 'opinions', NOT FACTS!
Calling opinions as facts, don't make them become facts, BD.B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,09:26) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,08:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,08:32) The only reason why I am pointing any of this out is you seem to want to use polluted and convoluted logic to reach truth and that simply isn't being honest.
“Many shall come in my name, saying, i am;
and shall deceive many.” (Mark 13:6) (Link to thread)“Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived.” (2Tm.3:13)
Mark 13:6King James Version (KJV)
6For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Why do you keep editing the scriptures leaving entire parts out just to create your own viewpoint?
Hi BD,I told you before about the use of italics, but it appears
that TRUTH goes in one ear and out the other with you.B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)Hello Asana…
Quote Francis What you are saying just doesn't Gel and here's why: Jesus explains
John 10:36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?Jesus was sent into the world if he was God incarnated he would not have made the distinction that God sent him into the world.
Incarnation would mean that God came into the world and was not sent into the world.
You have no Logical basis to conclude that there was any sort of incarnation of God on earth.
The word of God was made manifest meaning made evident by producing a child by command is sameword made light and everything else o unless God is everything His Word created God is not incarnated but indeed is made manifest all through creation
First of all… the post of mine which you say “just doesn't gel”… was meant to be nothing more than a simple, direct, brief overiew in response to a brief, simple question of yours.
The question you asked was simply:
Quote And what is this talk about incarnation where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated” No where in that question or yours does it ask or suggest that I needed to defend or “prove” that the concept of the Incarnation is true… although I personally believe it is.
Look again at your question very carefully… all you asked was “…where in the world in the bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”
Nothing else. That is all you asked. It was a very brief question, and so I gave you a very brief overiew as an answer… explaining that while the word “Incarnation” is not written in the Bible… it is nonetheless inferred from the Biblical text.
I wasn't asked by you to prove or defend that the inference was a valid one (although I believe it is). All you asked was where in the Bible does it say anything about God being “Incarnated”.
And I gave you a very brief overview.
I even told you that my response was “simply trying to answer your question as to why Orthodox Christians believe that Jesus was God Incarnate.”
It wasn't meant to be an indepth answer, and I even pointed that out to you as well.
I believe my answer honestly and directly answered your question as you asked it. And so in that respect… my answer gelled perfectly and was on point.
—————————–
Now please listen carefully Asana… I consider you to be my friend and I pray that one day I will have the privilege of meeting you. I genuinely admire and respect you… even though we are not in agreement about God and salvation and Jesus.
But you can't say that I have no logical basis to conclude that there was any sort of Incarnation of God when you never asked for it and I never gave one. Your question did not call for me to defend or prove that there is a logical basis for believing that Jesus was God Incarnate (even though I believe there is an excellent logical and rational basis for the concept).
Now… I don't mind having a spirited and fun discussion about the merits of the case for the Incarnation with you.
BUT… you have yet to answer my question and request about giving me evidence and proof that the people who claimed that they had killed Jesus… were in fact deluded.
You keep asking me questions and challenging me to defend myself and explain myself… and I have made a very honest effort to do the best I can with the Brain that God gave me.
I have honored you and respected you by trying to give you what you have asked of me. All of my posts show that I have always been willing to respond to people and to be as thorough as I can be.
And yet, even though I have repeatedly asked for the same courtesy in return as I politely ask you to show me evidence that people have been deluded into thinking they killed Jesus…. you have steadfastly and consistently resisted honoring my request.
I don't know why you refuse to answer a simple question of mine… but then have no problem peppering me with questions and requests that I defend myself about any claims I make. It is not fair to ask me to defend myself with evidence… when you won't do the same.
I love you Asana because I know that God loves you and because Jesus loves you… but I'm not going to get into any discussion with you about the Incarnation until you are willing to answer my question about the death of Jesus.
I think that is a very fair attitude to have on my part because we saw Jesus doing the very same thing when the pharisees and scribes wouldn't answer Jesus' question.
Like Jesus did in the NT… if you won't answer my question, then I won't answer yours. Having a dialogue means both sides have to be willing to contribute and answer questions when asked of them.
Yours in Christ
Francis.Hi Francis,
Yes indeed, it is a very fair attitude to have, he should at least
be willing to: by address your questions rather than ignoring them.The problem I have with BD is:
I answer his myriad of questions, but my questions
(to him) he works very hard to: duck, then divert, then finally
he attempts to coerce me into answering them. (his way of course)Your brother
in Christ, Jesus.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,09:56) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,09:26) Quote (Ed J @ April 26 2012,08:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ April 26 2012,08:32) The only reason why I am pointing any of this out is you seem to want to use polluted and convoluted logic to reach truth and that simply isn't being honest.
“Many shall come in my name, saying, i am;
and shall deceive many.” (Mark 13:6) (Link to thread)“Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving, and being deceived.” (2Tm.3:13)
Mark 13:6King James Version (KJV)
6For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Why do you keep editing the scriptures leaving entire parts out just to create your own viewpoint?
Hi BD,I told you before about the use of italics, but it appears
that TRUTH goes in one ear and out the other with you.B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)
EDWhat are you talking about?
Mark 13:6-8
King James Version (KJV)
6For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
There are no Italics in the AKJV
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
