- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 6 days ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Is I 18,
You have already shown that you do not believe that Jesus Christ
was truly the Son of God either in the past
or on earth.That is bibical anathema.
The rest has little comparative relevance.
Hi is 1.18,
Jesus Christ is the life.
All life came through him.
There was life before the creation of earth-through him.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 19 2006,10:05) Hi Is I 18,
You have already shown that you do not believe that Jesus Christ
was truly the Son of God either in the past
or on earth.That is bibical anathema.
The rest has little comparative relevance.
Show me that “Son of God” means that he was begotten from the Father before His earthly existence…….Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 19 2006,10:09) Hi is 1.18,
Jesus Christ is the life.
All life came through him.
There was life before the creation of earth-through him.
Yes……Hi Is 1.18,
All life came through Christ Jesus,
who was given by the Father to have life in himself,
the Word of life who was with the Father in the beginning,He who is life was sent to bring eternal life.
1Jn 1.1f
” What was from the beginning-[existed]
What we have heard -[the truth]
What we have seen with our eyes-[the way]
what we have looked at-[the Son of God],
and touched with our hands-[the vessel of God's power],
concerning the Word of LIFE-
and the LIFE was manifested-[not just begotten at birth],
and we have seen -[the apostles all witness as truth]
and testify -[the apostles all witness as truth]
and proclaim to you also -[hear the good news]
so that you too may have fellowship with us;-[this is the way]
and indeed our fellowship is with the Father,-[to union with God]
and with His Son Jesus Christ.-[and His son]”Hi,
In trinity terms God is now theologically defined as;An ontological trinity
and
An economic trinity.Does God know which He is and when?
ps
I have seen trinity described in this forum by a devoted adherent as a business firm with three partners. When you pray to it you do not know which partner will reply!So then is an ontological trinity like when a group of three guys get together and put in equal amounts of money to set up a trucking firm they are three equal partners.
But when it come to running the company it is necessary for one to load the truck, one to drive it and one to sit in the office taking all the calls and by necessity being the one who gives the orders to the driver who gives the orders to the labourer-an economic trinity.
If so does the labourer really feel he gets an equal deal?
I do not believe any of this rubbish but each to their own.
Does anyone else want to get off this runaway train because it seems to be heading towards a pit?
At the theological college I attend the trend is to call the Trinity the “Community of God”. A community of the “One” God… go figure 😉
There is a community of the one God.
It is a common unity by one faith, one Lord, one baptism.
One siprit of life, God's life, that makes us His children.
Many persons, but only one is God, the rest are sons.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 20 2006,01:36) Hi A7,
You are at theological college?
Yup, something I have always wanted to do… know the truth even if it means sifting through the man made ideas. Not finding it easy, but the challenge is good I think – heheQuote (malcolm ferris @ May 20 2006,01:46) There is a community of the one God.
It is a common unity by one faith, one Lord, one baptism.
One siprit of life, God's life, that makes us His children.
Many persons, but only one is God, the rest are sons.
Yup,
One God, the Father…
One Lord, Saviour Messiah (Jesus Christ)
The Angels
& Humanity that belongs to God (His children as you say)One big community… where the One God is all and in all
Hi,
It fascoinates me that those who insist that God is a trinity, and one from the beginning unto forever are also the ones who desperately try to find evidence that Jesus is divine in himself.Hi,
The Father is God……… It is written
Jesus is the Son of God…It is writtenGod is a trinity???
NoIT is not written
it IS not written
it is NOT written
it is not WRITTENHi,
Eph 1.3
“Blessed be the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ”Father is not just a title.
God is the Father
and
God is the Father of Jesus Christ
and
the Father is the God of Jesus Christ.This verse alone should tidy up any misunderstanding as to the nature and relationships between God and the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Welcome osirica,
Not at all. This is a biblically based site where all opinions are welcome, but all doctrines brought here are tested according to the Word of God.The site says that from scripture there is evidence that Jesus himself has divine nature. He is the only begotten Son of God who was with the Father in the beginning. He shed all those advantages to come in the flesh as one of us.
And we find that, according to scripture, he is not the God of the Israelites-that God is his father. He said so to the Jews in Jn 8.54.. He is sent from that God, according to scripture to bring men back into a family relationship with His God and Father.[Jn 19.17]. The fullness of deity of God lived in him[Coll 1.19] as Spirit from the time of the baptism by John, and so also can we be reborn of water and the Spirit, and be one with God and the Son in the Spirit eternally.
We? Nick, Please be more specific in your answers.
Not ALL here believe alike. Nick and others hold an unorthodox interpretation of the scriptures definition of Christ and deny that Christ being the One and ONLY (unique) Son of God places Him as categorically God and equal to the Father in substance as defined by Paul in Phillipians Chapter 2.
But, these points have been debated here exhaustively. One should remember that these points were already debated at the Council of Nicea where the overwhelming majority of Bishops agreed with and adopted the Nicean Creed to establish the orthodox interpretation of Christ as defined in scripture.
http://www.the-highway.com/c_christology.html
Quote There were some three hundred bishops gathered at the Council of Nicea from all around the world. Eusebius lists many of them and their country of origin in his writings. It should be remembered that many of those present had, because of the recent persecutions, suffered and had faced threat of death for their faith. These were not wishy-washy men. It might also be remarked, that they were extremely sensitive to details of doctrine. As evidence of this, the second major concern of the Council of Nicea was to address the hotly debated question of what the proper day was to celebrate the resurrection. The bishops of the Council stopped their ears on hearing the words of Arius and immediately rejected his teaching as distant and alien from the belief of the Church. They tore to pieces a letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia containing Arius' teaching, as well as an Arian confession of faith (see the appendix on the Council of Nicea in Baker Book House's, “Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History”).
Originally seventeen of those bishops gathered at the council were unwilling to sign the Creed penned by the Council, and all but three of these were convinced to sign by the end. It is thus apparent that the Arians were a distinct minority among the bishops. Initially there was some resistance to the Nicene Creed, not because of what it said but because of how it said it. Many objected to the use of the word “homoousias” in an official document because it was not used in Scripture, despite their agreement with the meaning it conveyed.
The Council interrogated Arius using Scripture, only to find that he had a new way of interpreting every verse they brought before him. Finally, they used the argument that Arius' view had to be wrong because it was new. Athanasius says, “But concerning matters of faith, they [the bishops assembled at Nicea] did not write: 'It has been decided,' but 'Thus the Catholic Church believes.' And thereupon confessed how they believed. This they did to show that their judgement was not of more recent origin, but was in fact of Apostolic times…” (Volume 1, Faith of the Early Fathers, p338). In this regard also, Athanasius askes rhetorically, “… how many fathers [in other words, the writings of the early Christians] can you cite for your phrases?” (Ibid, p325)
The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it.
Of Course, to argue past this point Nick, T8 and others will say that these men at the Council of Nicea were all heretics. That is absolutely false. In point of fact, the first heresy after the ascension of Christ was one which denied His human nature promoting His Deity only, that is Gnosticism. Gnosticism promoted a view that the physical realm was inherently evil so therefore Christ could not have truly come in any real physical sense.
Consequently the Apostle's Creed was developed which overthrew the Gnostic idea which denied the bodily incarnation of Christ.
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/About.htm
Blessings,
Rudy
Hi rudy,
Is Satan a deity?
Surely he is a god as “god of this world”
What is a deity?
Is it a god to be worshipped and served?
Satan is such a god.
Who are the gods of Ps 95, 96 and 97?
Are they deities too?
Did Jesus come to be worshipped or to serve?
Did he ever seek to be worshipped?
Did he ever tell men they should worship him?
Did he ever say he was the equal of his Father?
Who is his God?[Jn 20.17, Eph 1.3]
If he has a God who is his God?
If he has a God how is he equal to that God?
Do you understand the nature of divinity?
We lack information so please share here.
All we know is that The Son says his Father is greater.
He is the mediator between God and men.
All things came through him.
The Father is the God of the Jews.
He is the Son of God.What you teach is not from the bible
What is your source?
Men like Anathasius?Nick,
The link below summarizes the scriptural details surrounding the Identity of the Son of God. I quote only the summation from the end, the rest is already well documented and going over it again and again will not change anything. You understand our arguments and we understand yours.
Quote The final and most meaningful evidence of Jesus’ divine consciousness in this discourse is the emphasis throughout the discourse on the complete and exact parallelism between what the Father does and what the Son does (e.g., vv. 17, l9b, 21, 26). The equality between the Father and the Son is stressed in these verses, because the emphasis is that exactly what the Father does the Son does also in precisely the same way. The heart of the entire discourse and the purpose of God in all that he commits to the Son is expressed in the words, “That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father” (v. 23). For added emphasis Jesus then stated the same truth negatively, “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.” As Bauman summarizes the evidence, “It must be maintained just as strongly, however, that Jesus knew himself to be the Son of God, partaking fully of the divine nature. . . . This unique filial consciousness contributed a divine dimension to every word and act of his life. The author of John built his Gospel on this conviction, but it is just as obvious in the Synoptics, where Jesus is the Son of God.” The Synoptic Gospels are the ones which record the trial of Jesus before the council of the Jews where the high priest places him under oath to say whether or not he is “the Christ, the Son of God” (Matt. 26:63). Mark says, “the Christ, the Son of the Blessed” (Mark 14:61), and Luke makes two questions with Jesus answering the one, “Art thou then the Son of God?” (Luke 22:70). In all three Gospels Jesus in effect (the wording varies slightly) acknowledges under oath this identity. To his admission Matthew and Mark add the statement: “Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62). Instead of accepting Jesus’ statement under oath as the truth and acknowledging him as “the Christ, the Son of God,” the high priest and the council condemn him as guilty of blasphemy by his own words and worthy of death. Their accusation of Jesus before Pilate was sedition and treason (e.g., Luke 23:2), but John records their acknowledgment of Jesus’ divine consciousness and claim when the Jews explained to Pilate, “We have a law and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). Many modern churchmen are like the Jewish leaders; in spite of the evidence they refuse to accept it.
The incongruity and logical inconsistency of modern theology on this point is recognized by many. Harrison points this out when he writes, “Those who exalt Jesus as the great teacher do not always realize the awkwardness of their position when they go on to refuse to him the rank of deity. It it logical to accept his teaching on God, on man, on the ethical life, and then refuse to accept his teaching about himself?” The logical alternatives to the biblical evidence of Jesus’ divine consciousness and claims are (1) he was indeed the Son of God incarnate; (2) he was a liar and a deceiver; (3) he was insane, suffering from illusions of grandeur. If either of the latter two alternatives is accepted, then Jesus’ teaching should no more be extolled and believed than his claims. Harrison writes, “Is it psychologically possible for a person to project such claims, which lie so far outside the realm of human attainment, and be otherwise completely normal; and could the record of these claims as they stand in the Gospels have created such profound reception and faith as it has created, apart from having solid truth behind them”
Hiram Elfenbein carries the logic a step farther. As a Jew he does not accept the New Testament records concerning Jesus of Nazareth. But he does recognize the centrality of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ to those records and to the Christian faith. He writes, “But ‘Christianity-without-Christ’ is as sensible as a rice pudding without rice. It just can’t be.” He insists that modern churchmen who agree with him in the denial of the deity of Jesus are at best playing a great game of make-believe by continuing to call themselves Christians and to remain in the Christian church. He asks, “If Jesus is eliminated from the credo as a God Who once lived in Human Form, how can the church’s buildings, personnel and ‘services’ be justified? How can individuals honestly and intellectually continue to patronize and to belong to that establishment of brick and mortar and ritual and clerics minus the nominal God around Which they worship?” He summarizes as follows, “Obviously, if you delete from the New Testament, the one all-important detail of Jesus’ divinity, we see the collapse of the whole story of his prophesied birth and death, his miracles, and his long mistaken and misunderstood expressions, which together in an inseparable union form the foundation of Christianity.”
More info available here:
Blessings,
Rudy
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
