- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 08 2007,14:30) WJ, Hehe, yeah, we get “heated” in our debates, don't we? We both feel strongly about who Yeshua is to us, but in the end, I think we can agree that he is Master, Savior, Lord of lords, King of Kings, Lamb of God, Son of God, Messiah, and certainly our Lord.
I certainly think that both of us, regardless of the difference in the level of divinity of Christ, have the edge on any atheist, agnostic, scientologist, buddhist, or Muslim any day!
kejonnAmen to that!
And dont forget the politicians!
Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26) Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “theos” denotes an attenuated form divinity?
The closest I can come to that is when Jesus said “Ye are gods”.John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'He was supposedly quoting Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'Notice the reference in Psalms that says: “you are all sons of the Most High”.
The word “theos” or “elohim” were used in reference to being sons and to confirm this, look at what Christ says when the Jews accused him of blasphemy for making himself out to be God.
John 10:33-36
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy-
because I said, 'I am God's Son'?In other words 'theos' and 'elohim' is also applied to sons and the son of God and we know that we can partake of divine nature and so if we can, then how much more the son of God? Angels are also called sons and they to are called 'elohim'.
Jesus wasn't saying he was God as Trinitarians think and what the Jews thought, rather he was saying all along that he is the son of God.
So is it possible that the same error made by the Jews is being made by you?
Angels too are called sons and look at the following scripture:
Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!Now let's look at this same question but using a different identity/nature.
Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “devil” denotes a diabolical nature?
John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”Jesus wasn't saying that Judas was the Devil himself and he wasn't saying that he was a demon either. Rather he was saying that he had the characteristics of the Devil or a devil. Probably characteristics like lies and murder.
It is not unusual for words like God, Devil, Angel, to be used to describe nature. In English today, we often say things like “you are an angel” do give a description of one's character, and it is understood that you are not saying that such a person is an actual angel. Likewise people say “Speaking of the devil” when referring to a person.
Both elohim and theos can be used in a qualitative sense. So if Logos is theos, then it can be interpreted in a qualitative way.
Of course I remain open and teachable toward other options.
But Logos (Christ) is God (YHWH), I cannot agree with and it not only contradicts the Book of John, but also John 1:1 itself, for it says that the Logos was with the God.Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26) Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?
Scipture makes it clear that Jesus taught that his Father was greater than himself.We know that we can partake in divine nature and yet I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that we are equal to God because of that.
2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.So where does Christ fit in?
1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.God > Christ > Man >
Christ is also the mediator between God and man.
I don't need to prove that Christ is not as great as God, scripture teaches this clearly. The onus is on you to prove that he is as great as God and so far you haven't proven this.
Now as far as the grammar for John 1:1 goes, it must first agree with what we read in scripture. If our interpretation contradicts it, then it must be a wrong interpretation.
John 1:1 says that the Logos was theos. So it can mean that the Logos had divine nature as some bible translations actually say. If this is the case, then having divine nature is one thing and being the Divine is another.
The Divine is greater than any creature or son who partakes or has divine nature. The reason is clear. One is the source and the other/s are the recipients.
John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.Quote (t8 @ Aug. 11 2007,13:01) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26) Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “theos” denotes an attenuated form divinity?
The closest I can come to that is when Jesus said “Ye are gods”.John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have said you are gods (theos)'He was supposedly quoting Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (Elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'Notice the reference in Psalms that says: “you are all sons of the Most High”.
The word “theos” or “elohim” were used in reference to being sons and to confirm this, look at what Christ says when the Jews accused him of blasphemy for making himself out to be God.
John 10:33-36
33″We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy-
because I said, 'I am God's Son'?In other words 'theos' and 'elohim' is also applied to sons and the son of God and we know that we can partake of divine nature and so if we can, then how much more the son of God? Angels are also called sons and they to are called 'elohim'.
Jesus wasn't saying he was God as Trinitarians think and what the Jews thought, rather he was saying all along that he is the son of God.
So is it possible that the same error made by the Jews is being made by you?
Angels too are called sons and look at the following scripture:
Psalm 97:7
All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols; worship him, all you gods (Elohim)!Now let's look at this same question but using a different identity/nature.
Q2) Can you find another verse from the NT where the Greek word “devil” denotes a diabolical nature?
John 6:70
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”Jesus wasn't saying that Judas was the Devil himself and he wasn't saying that he was a demon either. Rather he was saying that he had the characteristics of the Devil or a devil. Probably characteristics like lies and murder.
It is not unusual for words like God, Devil, Angel, to be used to describe nature. In English today, we often say things like “you are an angel” do give a description of one's character, and it is understood that you are not saying that such a person is an actual angel. Likewise people say “Speaking of the devil” when referring to a person.
Both elohim and theos can be used in a qualitative sense. So if Logos is theos, then it can be interpreted in a qualitative way.
Of course I remain open and teachable toward other options.
But Logos (Christ) is God (YHWH), I cannot agree with and it not only contradicts the Book of John, but also John 1:1 itself, for it says that the Logos was with the God.
John 10:34/Psa 82:6 was the best you could come up with?? The “gods” in this psalm are in fact “wicked” Israelite judges who “judge unjustly”, “show partiality to the wicked”, “walk about in darkness” and will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”….T8, they are men, who are called “gods” by YHWH in irony. Do you honestly think the Psalmist is describing a partially divine being? This is the kind of confusion henotheists are driven to in order to defend their faulty position.Quote (t8 @ Aug. 11 2007,13:13) Quote (Is 1:18 @ June 13 2007,23:26) Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?
Scipture makes it clear that Jesus taught that his Father was greater than himself.We know that we can partake in divine nature and yet I wouldn't be so arrogant to say that we are equal to God because of that.
2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.So where does Christ fit in?
1 Corinthians 11:3
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.God > Christ > Man >
Christ is also the mediator between God and man.
I don't need to prove that Christ is not as great as God, scripture teaches this clearly. The onus is on you to prove that he is as great as God and so far you haven't proven this.
Now as far as the grammar for John 1:1 goes, it must first agree with what we read in scripture. If our interpretation contradicts it, then it must be a wrong interpretation.
John 1:1 says that the Logos was theos. So it can mean that the Logos had divine nature as some bible translations actually say. If this is the case, then having divine nature is one thing and being the Divine is another.
The Divine is greater than any creature or son who partakes or has divine nature. The reason is clear. One is the source and the other/s are the recipients.
John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.John 5:26
For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.James 1:17
Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.
This is an answer to a question, but not an answer to the question you were posed. Read it again.Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,11:39) John 10:34/Psa 82:6 was the best you could come up with?? The “gods” in this psalm are in fact “wicked” Israelite judges who “judge unjustly”, “show partiality to the wicked”, “walk about in darkness” and will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”….T8, they are men, who are called “gods” by YHWH in irony. Do you honestly think the Psalmist is describing a partially divine being? This is the kind of confusion henotheists are driven to in order to defend their faulty position.
Your interpretation Isaiah, but they are 'elohim/theos' because they are sons. Was Jesus a wicked Judge? Yet he is also theos because he is a son. He said it himself.John 10:36
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?He is not God and that is the point. Theos is applied to Jesus and to sons of the most high including angels. Jesus wasn't a wicked judge Isaiah and neither angels.
Whether theos is applied to sons because they are destined to partake in divine nature cannot be proven, but what can be proven is that sons are called theos for whatever reason, and yet men, angels, and Christ can be called theos without it meaning YHWH.
This is the point and this renders your argument useless, i.e., that you say that theos is only applied to YHWH in a good sense and all other 'theos' are bad. The son of God isn't bad.
Now look with your own eyes if you can see:
Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'You conveniently skipped the “you are all sons of the Most High” part.
Do you see it now?
Sons of the most high. It actually doesn't say wicked judges here, does it? Elohim is applied to sons of the most high, plain and simple.
Now I ask you a similar question where it is also possible for me to give you the same response, i.e., “is this the best you can come up with”?
Where else is devil spoken of is a qualitative sense? Without an indefinite or definite article? You may not come up with a long list, perhaps there isn't even one other example, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be qualitative as John 6:70 demonstrates:
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”.
NOTE: “a” was added in by translators.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,11:42) Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?
Where is it also written that sons of the most high are lesser divinities?It is written for all to see that the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is his God and is the greatest. Even greater than the son who is Lord of God's creation.
Now I don't go around saying that Jesus is a lesser divinity, I just say that his nature is the same as God's nature because the son came from the Father. I say that God is the originator and the son is the recipient.
I would prefer to stick to scripture than wander from the path that scripture puts us on. Whether he is a lesser divinity or not is irrelevant to me. I know that the Father is the greatest and he is the true God. I know that he is the originator of all good and he shares his nature just as he shares his characteristics such as love and peace. I know this because scripture teaches these things.
It seems to me that in order to make me look bad you are always trying to draw me away from scripture with questions that are not even posed in scripture in the hope that I will stumble and therefore you will be able to kick my butt because you are more versed in the traditions of men than myself. But I refuse to stray from the path and that is why your attacks against me do not stick.
You know what I teach and what I have said from the beginning. If you choose to condemn me for teaching scripture, then which scripture do you condemn me for?
Otherwise if you want to know about lesser divinities then Google it. I don't think about such things, really.
It's up to you Isaiah to continue to believe the Trinity doctrine or not. But I know that everyday more and more people are seeing through this darkness. Eventually there will be an army of people who know that such doctrines are but prisons of the soul.
You can't stop the light with darkness and ignorance. The only thing that can stop light is if light itself decides not to shine.
Therefore you are powerless to stop it.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2007,17:35) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,11:39) John 10:34/Psa 82:6 was the best you could come up with?? The “gods” in this psalm are in fact “wicked” Israelite judges who “judge unjustly”, “show partiality to the wicked”, “walk about in darkness” and will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”….T8, they are men, who are called “gods” by YHWH in irony. Do you honestly think the Psalmist is describing a partially divine being? This is the kind of confusion henotheists are driven to in order to defend their faulty position.
Your interpretation Isaiah, but they are 'elohim/theos' because they are sons. Was Jesus a wicked Judge? Yet he is also theos because he is a son. He said it himself.John 10:36
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?He is not God and that is the point. Theos is applied to Jesus and to sons of the most high including angels. Jesus wasn't a wicked judge Isaiah and neither angels.
Whether theos is applied to sons because they are destined to partake in divine nature cannot be proven, but what can be proven is that sons are called theos for whatever reason, and yet men, angels, and Christ can be called theos without it meaning YHWH.
This is the point and this renders your argument useless, i.e., that you say that theos is only applied to YHWH in a good sense and all other 'theos' are bad. The son of God isn't bad.
Now look with your own eyes if you can see:
Psalms 82:6
“I said, `You are “gods” (elohim); you are all sons of the Most High.'You conveniently skipped the “you are all sons of the Most High” part.
Do you see it now?
Sons of the most high. It actually doesn't say wicked judges here, does it? Elohim is applied to sons of the most high, plain and simple.
Now I ask you a similar question where it is also possible for me to give you the same response, i.e., “is this the best you can come up with”?
Where else is devil spoken of is a qualitative sense? Without an indefinite or definite article? You may not come up with a long list, perhaps there isn't even one other example, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be qualitative as John 6:70 demonstrates:
Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”.
NOTE: “a” was added in by translators.
Here is John 10:34 in context:JOHN 10
30” I and the Father are one.” 31The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35″If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, ' I am the Son of God'?Here is a brief summary:
v30 Jesus makes a statement implying unity with their heavenly Father.
v31 The Jews picked up stones to kill him.
v32 Jesus question the Jews for the grounds on which He is being stoned.
V33 The Jews explain that they are about to stone him for BLASPHEMY (a stonable offense in first century Judea).
V34-36 Jesus reasons with the Jews with scripture pointing out to them that in their scriptures men are in fact called “gods” (Elohim). Thus their charges are rendered groundless on this technicality. They cannot legally stone him for inferring he is something synonymous with what scripture ascribes to men.Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6-7. Here it is in context:
PSALM 82
1God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers [elohim]. 2How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? Selah. 3 Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. 4Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked. 5They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6I said, “You are gods [Elohim], and all of you are sons of the Most High. 7″Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes.” 8Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.The rulers (Elohim) in v1 are the “wicked” described in vs 2-4 and the “gods” in v6. These are MEN, Israelite magistrates. These judges had abused the authority God had given them (Dan 4:25, 30, 34-37, 5:18-22, Rom 13:1-4), and as a result of this YHWH declared “….you will die like men and fall like any one of the princes”. Why are they called “sons of the Most High?, it's quite apparenet that it's not due to any inherent divinity they might have….the context makes that clear…. it’s likely a form of Hebraic irony/sarcasm. They are men t8….do you understand this? Jesus' was not teaching that men are divine in John 10:34, it was that in scripture the word 'elohim' is occasionally applied to men (although never to imply deity), and the pharisees accusations against Him were effectively groundless, He could not be legally stoned. Think about it this way, if John 10:34 teaches that men are divine (including those deemed “wicked judges” who will “die like men and fall like any one of the princes”), in the same sense that Jesus is divine, then we have a VERY watered down divinity in Jesus don’t we! In fact the word itself loses all significance.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2007,17:58) It's up to you Isaiah to continue to believe the Trinity doctrine or not. But I know that everyday more and more people are seeing through this darkness. Eventually there will be an army of people who know that such doctrines are but prisons of the soul. You can't stop the light with darkness and ignorance. The only thing that can stop light is if light itself decides not to shine.
Therefore you are powerless to stop it.
More and more people are falling into henotheism/polytheism every day, it's unfortunate. But some people cannot be told t8, their hearts are hardened and if they do not repent and accept the Jesus the Bible describes they will suffer the consequences of their decisions.Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2007,17:50) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,11:42) Q3) In reciprocation to what I have written in my post, can you show how the grammar and context of John 1:1-3 supports your view that the prehuman Jesus (ho Logos) was a lesser divinity than the Father (ton Theon)?
Where is it also written that sons of the most high are lesser divinities?It is written for all to see that the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ is his God and is the greatest. Even greater than the son who is Lord of God's creation.
Now I don't go around saying that Jesus is a lesser divinity, I just say that his nature is the same as God's nature because the son came from the Father. I say that God is the originator and the son is the recipient.
I would prefer to stick to scripture than wander from the path that scripture puts us on. Whether he is a lesser divinity or not is irrelevant to me. I know that the Father is the greatest and he is the true God. I know that he is the originator of all good and he shares his nature just as he shares his characteristics such as love and peace. I know this because scripture teaches these things.
It seems to me that in order to make me look bad you are always trying to draw me away from scripture with questions that are not even posed in scripture in the hope that I will stumble and therefore you will be able to kick my butt because you are more versed in the traditions of men than myself. But I refuse to stray from the path and that is why your attacks against me do not stick.
You know what I teach and what I have said from the beginning. If you choose to condemn me for teaching scripture, then which scripture do you condemn me for?
Otherwise if you want to know about lesser divinities then Google it. I don't think about such things, really.
My question was based on these comments you wrote (emphasis is mine):Quote The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two beings here (not three): God and a second who was 'theos' but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods. Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique. This one is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “god.” So either there were two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike individual with the Almighty God. . When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the second view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God . https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-05.htm#john1
Quote So what kind of being is Jesus? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he is a divine being. He is a being with God's nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but the the image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. https://heavennet.net/writings/trinity-05.htm#john1
You explicitly wrote that ho Logos was a “divine being”. There are only two conclusions I could draw from your statement:
1. The Son is equally divine as the Father.
2. The Son is a lesser divinity than the Father.I assumed you held to the second, as to affirm the first would be overt bithesim. But maybe I was mistaken. You can set the record straight t8 right now. Which is true?
Paul said that when he passed away that deceptions and men drawing men away from Christ would come.
This fits in with the rise of the Trinity doctrine, for it started to take it's form after Paul left.
You talk about the future as more people falling into henotheism/polytheism everyday.
But I can tell you that Christ is coming back for a Church without spot and blemish and repenting of false doctrine is only part of this.
If you do not allow Christ to purify you, then that is your choice. You have made the decision to follow the status quo and keep the traditions of men and continue to push the falling away from truth. But I prefer to have my lamp full so that I will not be left out when the invitation arises.
Christ is purifying his Church so that he will come back for a Church without spot and blemish. Those who have ears will hear his voice.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:24) You explicitly wrote that ho Logos was a “divine being”. There are only two conclusions I could draw from your statement: 1. The Son is equally divine as the Father.
2. The Son is a lesser divinity that the Father.
1) The Father is the origin of divine nature.
2) The son is the recipient of all things that come from God.It is not to say that Christ receives a second rate divine nature and the divine nature that we partake in is not some lesser form of divine nature as far as I know.
There is divine nature. I don't see different degrees of strength with divine nature. That may be correct it may not, but I don't spend my time wondering about such things. I like to stick to what scripture focuses on because that is obviously the relevant stuff for us.
It is also obvious that God is the source of all including his nature. God is also one. This is more fruitful for what we dwell upon eventually forms our character.
When you only see 2 options it shows how closed your mind is.
…anyway, in John 10:34 we do not see “theos” communicating an attenuated form of divinity, we do not see any form of divinity represented in this verse at all. So you cannot legitimately appeal to this verse as a parallel to John 1:1c. Anyone can see that.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:24) My question was based on these comments you wrote (emphasis is mine): Quote The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two beings here (not three): God and a second who was 'theos' but this second is related to God in a manner which shows that God is the absolute over which the second is defined. They are not presented as two coequal gods. Obviously, in John 1:1 we have one individual with the characteristic of THEOS who is “with” TON THEOS, thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique. This one is further identified as “a son from a father,” as “begotten”, and as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “god.” So either there were two equal Gods talking to each other or there was one godlike individual with the Almighty God. . When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the second view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God .
Well then that is a perfect example of trying to put words in my mouth.I still never said that there is a lesser form of divinity.
Yes all is less than God, even Christ is not as great as God. I am not an expert on the makeup of divine nature however. I don't know whether there are stronger or lesser forms of it.
I do know that one gives and the other receives.
Why do I need to go beyond that? I am not interested in putting divine nature into a test tube and experimenting with it. I just accept that which is written and I hope that I have the wisdom to discern rightly.
All this other stuff is nothing but knowledge that puffs up.
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:34) There is divine nature. I don't see different degrees of strength with divine nature. That may be correct it may not, but I don't spend my time wondering about such things.
Maybe you should spend some time wondering about such things. After all the Bible solemnly warns against polytheism. To affirm that more than one divine beings exist is polytheism in it's essence.Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:24) I assumed you held to the second, as to affirm the first would be overt bithesim. But maybe I was mistaken. You can set the record straight t8 right now. Which is true?
Another example of your closed mind.As if there were only 2 options.
I can see it now.
Your mind says Athanasius or Arius and you choose Athanasius because his teaching is closer to what you think truth is than Arius's teaching.
Did it ever cross your mind that both could have been wrong?
I will put it another way, which one is the truth.
1) Bhudda
2) HitlerI await your answer.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:43) Maybe you should spend some time wondering about such things. After all the Bible solemnly warns against polytheism. To affirm that more than one divine beings exist is polytheism in it's essence.
I take it then that you will not partake in divine nature yourself for fear of being another God and thereby making yourself a Polytheist too.Well that is your story.
But I choose to partake in divine nature and to also believe that the Father is the only true God.
If that is perplexing to you, then perhaps it is a mystery. Or perhaps you use your mind too much and it is woefully inadequate in understanding the things of God.
Whatever you say, I will still believe that there is one God the Father and that I can partake in divine nature. Call me what you like. I care less. I only care about receiving that which God has promised.
If your doctrine makes you miss out on things, then you only have yourself to blame, right?
Quote (t8 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:40) Well then that is a perfect example of trying to put words in my mouth.
I've already explained to you that it was the natural implication to take from your statements. I actually gave you credit for having the soundness of thought not to hold that Yeshua was a different being from the Father, but equally divine.Quote I still never said that there is a lesser form of divinity.
So Yeshua is as divine as the Father?? Then, according to you, there are two Almighty Gods?….Quote Yes all is less than God, even Christ is not as great as God.
Since we're discussing Yeshua's pre-human existence, can you find scripture to support your view that ho Logos was not as great as the Father before He became a man?Quote (Is 1:18 @ Aug. 12 2007,21:24) 1. The Son is equally divine as the Father.
2. The Son is a lesser divinity than the Father.
You're right t8, there is another option. How neglectful of me….If Yeshua was divine (that's your affirmation) then He would have to be either:1. More divine than the Father.
2. As divine as the Father
3. Less divine than the Father.I can't see any other options. Correct me if i'm wrong…..
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
