- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by Proclaimer.
- AuthorPosts
- June 26, 2005 at 8:51 pm#17292AnonymousGuest
Nick,
All persons brought to trial are required to “make a plea” – Christ's was understood by all that were there!
Did Christ have adequate command of language to properly converse and convey His thoughts so that the hearers understood what He meant?
The only answer is yes – Christ is either “equal” with God as they interpretted, or He intentionally misrepresented himself by NOT correcting them.
All He had to say only ONE time is “I am not claiming equality with my heavenly Father!”
Not correcting them would make Christ a liar and a false witness – a sinner, and we would be dead in our sin because the spotless lamb wouldn't be spotless.
Quote from epistemaniac – “It's just not rational to automatically dismiss a given idea just because unbelievers said it, if we do then we would be left with very troubling ideas… for instance.. in James we are told that the demons believe that there is one God… well… since demons believe that there is one God, and we cannot trust the beliefs and ideas of unbelievers, then we have to dismiss the idea that there is only one God.”
June 26, 2005 at 8:56 pm#17293NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
Is 53.7
” He was oppressed and he was afflicted yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter and like a sheep that is silent before it's shearers, so he did not open his mouth”When your accusers are deceived and are planning your murder then no amount of reason or logical explanation will defend you. He chose not to, so their words remain an indictment against their folly. He turned the other cheek choosing to let their hatred against him reach it's natural fulfillment.
June 26, 2005 at 8:58 pm#17294NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
Jesus was not on trial. He was talking to men on the street.June 26, 2005 at 9:30 pm#17295AnonymousGuestNick,
You have yet to answer this.
Did Christ have adequate command of language to properly converse and convey His thoughts so that the hearers understood what He meant?
The only answer is yes – Christ is either “equal” with God as they interpretted, or He intentionally misrepresented himself by NOT correcting them.
All He had to say only ONE time is “I am not claiming equality with my heavenly Father!”
Not correcting them would make Christ a liar and a false witness – a sinner, and we would be dead in our sin because the spotless lamb wouldn't be spotless.
June 26, 2005 at 10:18 pm#17296NickHassanParticipantNo FYI,
Not correcting them does not make him a liar. We are not obliged to defend ourselves even in a court of Law, which this was not.
If someone thinks that he saying he is the Son of God means that he is saying that he is that God why should he add to that folly by arguing with them?
Their basis for understanding truth is shown to be different to his so true dialogue is impossible anyway.June 26, 2005 at 10:55 pm#17297AnonymousGuestQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 26 2005,23:18) No FYI,
Not correcting them does not make him a liar. We are not obliged to defend ourselves even in a court of Law, which this was not.
If someone thinks that he saying he is the Son of God means that he is saying that he is that God why should he add to that folly by arguing with them?
Their basis for understanding truth is shown to be different to his so true dialogue is impossible anyway.
Nick,Good answer, I'm impressed!
Too bad it still doesn't hold water.
Yet there are sins of omission and sins of commission.
If you are asked the truth and fail to give it in a court of law that is breaking the law.
It is called “obstruction of Justice”!
June 26, 2005 at 11:04 pm#17298NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
In what way is having a discussion then refusing to argue with fools obstructing justice? This was not a court of Law. When he did face that court he said he was the Son of God.Do you agree with the Pharisees? Or do you agree with what Jesus said about himself?
You really give the impression you want the Son of Man found guilty of sin and condemned it seems. Do you then say he did commit blasphemy too?
June 26, 2005 at 11:29 pm#17299AnonymousGuestNick,
Scripture is plain.
This is a statement by John saying what Christ had told them and the Jews and what it meant to be “The Son of God”. Not an accusation of the Jews – a definition from a disciple that knew the truth. All your word games do not change the fact.
It is John who says in this scripture that Christ claiming to be the Son of God makes Him equal.
The Son of God definition according to John is:
Son of God = equality with God the Father
John 5:18 – Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Deny it if you will – but true christians believe!
June 26, 2005 at 11:30 pm#17300NickHassanParticipantps Or are you saying it was unavoidable that he be charged with blasphemy as he was that God. If you are using this obtuse “justification” then why did Jesus not come out and say “I am God”?
Why would that lack also not face the same charge from you?
Why also would not accept what he DID SAY? That he is the Son of God and the Messiah? Is that too hard a thing to do? Should we not first listen to him before we hear any of his hateful accusers?
June 26, 2005 at 11:33 pm#17301NickHassanParticipantGHi FYI,
The funny thing is that their OT scripture often called the Jews themselves sons of God. How could they fall into such foolish error? Should we agree with them and compound the problem?June 26, 2005 at 11:40 pm#17302AnonymousGuestQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 27 2005,00:33) GHi FYI,
The funny thing is that their OT scripture often called the Jews themselves sons of God. How could they fall into such foolish error? Should we agree with them and compound the problem?
Nick,I know, that doesn't make any sense does it? Why would they make a big deal over Christ's claim to be the “Son of God” when God calls angels and men “sons of God”?
June 27, 2005 at 12:48 am#17303NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
They were not ignorant of scripture either. They knew they were scripturally sons of God.
Jn 8.41
” you are doing the deeds of your Father'
They said to him
' We were not born of fornication; WE HAVE ONE FATHER:GOD”Now if they were in error in associating a claim of being a son of God to being God Himself why do you agree with this charge again?
June 27, 2005 at 1:08 am#17304AnonymousGuestQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 27 2005,01:48) Hi FYI, They were not ignorant of scripture either. They knew they were scripturally sons of God.
Jn 8.41
” you are doing the deeds of your Father'
They said to him
' We were not born of fornication; WE HAVE ONE FATHER:GOD”Now if they were in error in associating a claim of being a son of God to being God Himself why do you agree with this charge again?
Nick,Yet our Lord called them of their father the devil.
John 8: 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
June 27, 2005 at 1:14 am#17305NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
So Jesus said the Father was the one they called their God. So the Father is the God of the Old Testament according to the words of Jesus Christ. Do you agree with these words?June 27, 2005 at 1:26 am#17306NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
The Son of God certainly was before Abraham and John the baptist too. He was in the beginning with God.June 27, 2005 at 2:10 am#17307AnonymousGuestIsaiah 45:21 – Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD (YHWH)? and there is no God else beside me; a just God (the Father) and a Saviour (our Lord); there is none beside me.
June 27, 2005 at 2:10 am#17308NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
When Jesus said they were of their father the devil he was not denying scripture. He also called them whitewashed sepulchres and a brood of vipers. He was telling them they were not following the father they had claimed but were following THE serpent of old. That was their faith now.Thus they could claim no heredity in God.June 27, 2005 at 2:26 am#17309NickHassanParticipantQuote (Guest @ June 27 2005,03:10) Isaiah 45:21 – Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD (YHWH)? and there is no God else beside me; a just God (the Father) and a Saviour (our Lord); there is none beside me.
Hi FYI,
Yes God is God and there is no other God beside Him. There is no other God equal to Him.God is one.
God is the only creator-through His Son.
God is the only saviour-through His Son.
God is King and Lord-through His Son.June 27, 2005 at 2:30 am#17310AnonymousGuestQuote (Nick Hassan @ June 27 2005,03:26) Quote (Guest @ June 27 2005,03:10) Isaiah 45:21 – Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD (YHWH)? and there is no God else beside me; a just God (the Father) and a Saviour (our Lord); there is none beside me.
Hi FYI,
Yes God is God and there is no other God beside Him. There is no other God equal to Him.God is one.
God is the only creator-through His Son.
God is the only saviour-through His Son.
God is King and Lord-through His Son.
YHWH is one!Compound unity:
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-yachid-vs-echad.htm
June 27, 2005 at 2:33 am#17311NickHassanParticipantHi FYI,
So Jesus was incorrect about his Father BEING the God of the jews then. It was in fact a compound unity God of which he was always a part. Why did he not mention this important detail? - AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.