Snow and Sam must reject John's gospel
vince garcia
33 But when they saw Jesus was already dead, they did not break his
legs.
34 One of the soldiers, however, thrust a spear into his side,
and out came a flow of blood and water.
35 John the disciple saw all this, and his record of it is true, and is
written down so you can also believe it is true.
36 All this happened so that the Scripture could be fulfilled that said,
A bone of him shall not be broken.
37 And another verse of Scripture says, They shall look on him whom they
pierced.*
* This is an interpolation of Zechariah 12:10, which actually says:
"They shall look upon ME whom they have pierced." Once again, clear
indication that Jesus was co-equal and co-identifiable with the Father,
since the verse in context refers to God.
So now John clearly shows that Jesus is G-O-D. Since Snow and Sam can't
abide that "Paulist" doctrine, they must reject John's writings to be
consistent.
What's left to accept then? 2 Gospels, James, and Jude?
randy
"vince garcia"
> 37 And another verse of Scripture says, They shall look on him whom they
> pierced.*
> * This is an interpolation of Zechariah 12:10, which actually says:
> "They shall look upon ME whom they have pierced." Once again, clear
> indication that Jesus was co-equal and co-identifiable with the Father,
> since the verse in context refers to God.
> So now John clearly shows that Jesus is G-O-D. Since Snow and Sam can't
> abide that "Paulist" doctrine, they must reject John's writings to be
> consistent.
> What's left to accept then? 2 Gospels, James, and Jude?
James and Jude may have been brothers of Jesus, and would unlikely have held
opinions of Jesus different from John, Peter, or Paul. The church really has
got it right for many centuries, that Jesus was viewed as a different kind
of savior on behalf of men. He was a savior-redeemer, the savior of men's
souls. He acted on behalf of God to both forgive our sins and deliver a
divine spirit to our spirits. There is no other basis for the salvation of
the human soul. Thankyou very much!
randy
Sam Taylor
Jesus never Claimed to be G-D,nor to be
equal to or with G-D.
Paul like most NT writers started each book with
"Grace and peace from G-D our Father
AND the Lord Jesus Christ.
note Lord not lord, nor LORD.
by simply reading Your Xtian scriptures You must twist the scripture
rather hard to come up with your FALSE doctrines.
by the reading in context, you could actualy see that.
the scriptures DO NOT HINT, NOR EVEN IMPLY Trinity or the
Oneness doctrines.
Carl
is God and the Holy Spirit is God.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
CARM Christian discussion forums -- http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/
---
THE DEITY OF CHRIST
By Professor Benjamin B. Warfield, D.D., L.L.D.
Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey
A recent writer has remarked that our assured conviction of the deity
of
Christ rests, not upon "proof-texts or passages, nor upon old
arguments
drawn from these, but upon the general fact of the whole manifestation
of
Jesus Christ, and of the whole impression left by Him upon the world."
The
antithesis is too absolute, and possibly betrays an unwarranted
distrust of
the evidence of Scripture. To make it just, we should read the
statement
rather thus: Our conviction of the deity of Christ rests not alone on
the
scriptural passages which assert it, but also on His entire impression
on
the world; or perhaps thus: Our conviction rests not more on the
scriptural
assertions than upon His entire manifestation. Both lines of evidence
are
valid; and when twisted together form an unbreakable cord. The proof-
texts
and passages do prove that Jesus was esteemed divine by those who
companied
with Him; that He esteemed Himself divine; that He was recognized as
divine
by those who were taught by the Spirit; that in fine, He was divine.
But
over and above this Biblical evidence the impression Jesus has left
upon the
world bears independent testimony to His deity, and it may well be
that to
many minds this will seem the most conclusive of all its evidences.
It
certainly is very cogent and impressive.
EXPERIENCE AS PROOF
The justification which the author we have just quoted gives of his
neglecting the scriptural evidence in favor of that borne by Jesus'
impression on the world is also open to criticism. "Jesus Christ," he
tells
us, "is one of those essential truths which are too great to be
proved, like
God, or freedom, or immortality." Such things rest, it seems, not on
proofs
but on experience. We need not stop to point out that this experience
is
itself a proof. We wish rather to point out that some confusion seems
to
have been fallen into here between our ability to marshal the proof by
which
we are convinced and our accessibility to its force. It is quite true
that
"the most essential conclusions of the human mind are much wider and
stronger than the arguments by which they are supported;" that the
proofs
"are always changing but the beliefs persist." But this is not because
the
conclusions in question rest on no sound proofs; but because we have
not had
the skill to adduce, in our argumentative presentations of them, the
really
fundamental proofs on which they rest.
UNCONSCIOUS RATIONALITY
A man recognizes on sight the face of his friend, or his own
handwriting.
Ask him how he knows this face to be that of his friend, or this
handwriting
to be his own, and he is dumb, or, seeking to reply, babbles nonsense.
Yet
his recognition rests on solid grounds, though he lacks analytical
skill to
isolate and state these solid grounds. We believe in God and freedom
and
immortality on good grounds, though we may not be able satisfactorily
to
analyze these grounds. No true conviction exists without adequate
rational
grounding in evidence. So, if we are solidly assured of the deity of
Christ,
it will be on adequate grounds, appealing to the reason. But it may
well be
on grounds not analyzed, perhaps not analyzable, by us, so as to
exhibit
themselves in the forms of formal logic.
We do not need to wait to analyze the grounds of our convictions
before they
operate to produce convictions, any more than we need to wait to
analyze our
food before it nourishes us; and we can soundly believe on evidence
much
mixed with error, just as we can thrive on food far from pure. The
alchemy
of the mind, as of the digestive tract, knows how to separate out from
the
mass what it requires for its support; and as we may live without any
knowledge of chemistry, so we may possess earnest convictions,
solidly
founded in right reason, without the slightest knowledge of logic.
The
Christian's conviction of the deity of his Lord does not depend for
its
soundness on the Christian's ability convincingly to state the grounds
of
his conviction. The evidence he offers for it may be wholly
inadequate,
while the evidence on which it rests may be absolutely compelling.
TESTIMONY IN SOLUTION
The very abundance and persuasiveness of the evidence of the deity of
Christ
greatly increases the difficulty of adequately stating it. This is
true even
of the scriptural evidence, as precise and definite as much of it is.
For it
is a true remark of Dr. Dale's that the particular texts in which it
is
definitely asserted are far from the whole, or even the most
impressive,
proofs which the Scriptures supply of our Lord's deity. He compares
these
texts to the salt-crystals which appear on the sand of the sea-beach
after
the tide has receded. "These are not," he remarks, "the strongest,
though
they may be the most apparent, proofs that the sea is salt; the salt
is
present in solution in every bucket of sea-water." The deity of Christ
is in
solution in every page of the New Testament. Every word that is spoken
of
Him, every word which He is reported to have spoken of Himself, is
spoken on
the assumption that He is God. And that is the reason why the
"criticism"
which addresses itself to eliminating the testimony of the New
Testament to
the deity of our Lord has set itself a hopeless task. The New
Testament
itself would have to be eliminated. Nor can we get behind this
testimony.
Because the deity of Christ is the presupposition of every word of the
New
Testament, it is impossible to select words out of the Blew Testament
from
which to construct earlier documents in which the deity of Christ
shall not
be assumed. The assured conviction of the deity of Christ is coeval
with
Christianity itself. There never was a Christianity, neither in the
times of
the Apostles nor since, of which this was not a prime tenet.
A SATURATED GOSPEL
Let us observe in an example or two how thoroughly saturated the
Gospel
narrative is with the assumption of the deity of Christ, so that it
crops
out in the most unexpected ways and places.
In three passages of Matthew, reporting words of Jesus, He is
represented as
speaking familiarly and in the most natural manner in the world, of
"His
angels" (Matt 13:41; 16:27; 24:31). In all three He designates Himself
as
the "Son of man"; and in all three there are additional suggestions of
His
majesty. "The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall
gather
out of His kingdom all things that cause stumbling and those that do
iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire" (Matt 13:41).
Who is this Son of man who has angels, by whose instrumentality the
final
judgment is executed at His command? "The Son of man shall come in the
glory
of His Father with His angels; and then shall He reward every man
according
to his deeds" (Matt 16:27). Who is this Son of man surrounded by His
angels,
in whose hands are the issues of life? The Son of man "shall send
forth His
angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together
His
elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt
24:31). Who is this Son of man at whose behest His angels winnow men?
A
scrutiny of the passages will show that it is not a peculiar body of
angels
which is meant by the Son of man's angels, but just the angels as a
body,
who are His to serve Him as He commands. In a word, Jesus Christ is
above
angels (Mark 13:32)-as is argued at explicit length at the beginning
of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. "To which of the angels said he at any time,
Sit on
my right hand. etc." (Heb 1:13).
HEAVEN COME TO EARTH
There are three parables recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Luke as
spoken
by our Lord in His defense against the murmurs of the Pharisees at
His
receiving sinners and eating with them. The essence of the defense
which our
Lord offers for Himself is, that there is joy in heaven over
repentant
sinners! Why "in heaven," "before the throne of God" (Rev 7:15; 14:5)?
Is He
merely setting the judgment of heaven over against that of earth, or
pointing forward to His future vindication? By no means. He is
representing
His action in receiving sinners, in seeking the lost, as His proper
action,
because it is the normal conduct of heaven, manifested in Him. He is
heaven
come to earth. His defense is thus simply the unveiling of what the
real
nature of the transaction is. The lost when they come to Him are
received
because this is heaven's way; and He cannot act otherwise than in
heaven's
way. He tacitly assumes the good Shepherd's part as His own.
THE UNIQUE POSITION
All the great designations are not so much asserted as assumed by Him
for
Himself. He does not call Himself a prophet, though He accepts this
designation from others: He places Himself above all the prophets,
even
above John the greatest of the prophets, as Him to whom all the
prophets
look forward. If He calls Himself Messiah, He fills that term, by
doing so,
with a deeper significance, dwelling ever on the unique relation of
Messiah
to God as His representative and His Son. Nor is He satisfied to
represent
Himself merely as standing in a unique relation to God: He proclaims
Himself
to be the recipient of the divine fullness, the sharer in all that God
has
(Matt 11:28). He speaks freely of Himself indeed as God's Other, the
manifestation of God on earth, whom to have seen was to have seen the
Father
also, and who does the work of God on earth. He openly claims divine
prerogatives-the reading of the heart of man, the forgiveness of sins,
the
exercise of all authority in heaven and earth. Indeed, all that God
has and
is He asserts Himself to have and be; omnipotence, omniscience,
perfection
belong as to the one so to the other. Not only does He perform all
divine
acts; His self-consciousness coalesces with the divine consciousness.
If His
followers lagged in recognizing His deity, this was not because He was
not
God or did not sufficiently manifest His deity. It was because they
were
foolish and slow of heart to believe what lay patently before their
eyes.
THE GREAT PROOF
The Scriptures give us evidence enough, then, that Christ is God. But
the
Scriptures are far from giving us all the evidence we have. There is,
for
example, the revolution which Christ has wrought in the world, if,
indeed,
it were asked what the most convincing proof of the deity of Christ
is,
perhaps the best answer would be, just Christianity. The new life He
has
brought into the world; the new creation which He has produced by His
life
and work in the world; here are at least His most palpable
credentials.
Take it objectively. Read such a book as Harnack's "The Expansion of
Christianity," or such an one as Von Dobschfitz's "Christian Life in
the
Primitive Church"-neither of which allows the deity of Christ-and then
ask,
Could these things have been wrought by power less than divine? And
then
remember that these things were not only wrought in that pagan world
two
thousand years ago, but have been wrought over again every generation
since;
for Christianity has re-conquered the world to itself each generation.
Think
of how the Christian proclamation spread, eating its way over the
world like
fire in the grass of a prairie. Think how, as it spread, it
transformed
lives. The thing, whether in its objective or in its subjective
aspect, were
incredible, had it not actually occurred. "Should a voyager," says
Charles
Darwin, "chance to be on the point of shipwreck on some unknown coast,
he
will most devoutly pray that the lesson of the missionary may have
reached
thus far. The lesson of the missionary is the enchanter's wand." Could
this
transforming influence, undiminished after two millenniums, have
proceeded
from a mere man? It is historically impossible that the great movement
which
we call Christianity, which remains unspent after all these years,
could
have originated in a merely human impulse; or could represent today
the
working of a merely human force.
THE PROOF WITHIN
Or take it subjectively. Every Christian has within himself the proof
of the
transforming power of Christ, and can repeat the blind man's
syllogism: Why
herein is the marvel that ye know not whence He is, and yet He opened
my
eyes. "Spirits are not touched to fine issues who are not finely
touched."
"Shall we trust," demands an eloquent reasoner, "the touch of our
fingers,
the sight of our eyes, the hearing of our ears, and not trust our
deepest
consciousness of our higher nature-the answer of conscience, the
flower of
spiritual gladness, the glow of spiritual love? To deny that
spiritual
experience is as real as physical experience is to slander the
noblest
faculties of our nature. It is to say that one half of our nature
tells the
truth, and the other half utters lies. The proposition that facts in
the
spiritual region are less real than facts in the physical realm
contradicts
all philosophy." The transformed hearts of Christians, registering
themselves "in gentle tempers, in noble motives, in lives visibly
lived
under the empire of great aspirations"-these are the ever-present
proofs of
the divinity of the Person from whom their inspiration is drawn.
The supreme proof to every Christian of the deity of his Lord is then
his
own inner experience of the transforming power of his Lord upon the
heart
and life. Not more surely does he who feels the present warmth of the
sun
know that the sun exists, than he who has experienced the re-creative
power
of the Lord know Him to be his Lord and his God. Here is, perhaps we
may say
the proper, certainly we must say the most convincing, proof to every
Christian of the deity of Christ; a proof which he cannot escape, and
to
which, whether he is capable of analyzing it or drawing it out in
logical
statement or not, he cannot fail to yield his sincere and
unassailable
conviction. Whatever else he may or may not be assured of, he knows
that his
Redeemer lives. Because He lives, we shall live also-that was the
Lord's own
assurance. Because we live, He lives also-that is the ineradicable
conviction of every Christian heart.
Carl
by Dr John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
1. Does Christ Make Statements Only God Would Make?
The following Scriptures, given the character of Jesus Christ, are
only logically explained on the basis of His deity:
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will
of him who sent me. (John 6:38)
And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with
you before the world began. (John 17:5)
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I
am!" (John 8:58)
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:18)
I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In
this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the
world. (John 16:33)
Jesus said… "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me
will live, even though he dies." (John 11:25)
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent
me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over
from death to life. (John 5:24; see John 10:27, 28; 11:25)
I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in
him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. (John
15:5)
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)
When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. (John 12:45; see
John 14:7-11; 17:5)
All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit
will take from what is mine and make it known to you. (John 16:15)
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world, (John 9:5)
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my
words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day.
(John 12:48)
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the
Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him. (John 3:36)
[The Father has entrusted all judgments to the Son] that all may honor
the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son
does not honor the Father, who sent him. (John 5:23)
When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the
one who sent me. (John 12:44)
Can we imagine the president of the United States appearing on
national TV and making such claims for himself? Can we imagine even
the most exalted angel doing so? The magnitude of these claims are
such that if they are not true, Jesus cannot be considered a sane or a
good man. He would have to be considered as the founder of the
greatest system of idolatry the world has ever seen. Loraine Boettner
asserts in his Studies in Theology (1980, p. 144):
Certainly on the basis of His own teaching Jesus claimed Deity for
Himself. No unprejudiced reader can reach any other conclusion. Such
has been the impression of the great mass of those who have read the
New Testament. This has led Dr. A. H. Strong to observe that "if He is
not God, He is a deceiver or is self-deceived, and in either case,
Christ, if not God, is not good." And Dr. E. Y. Mullins has pointed
out that if we deny His Deity then "we must conclude that, with all
His moral beauty and excellence, Jesus was a pitiable failure as a
teacher if He did not succeed in guarding His message against
corruptions which have led to His own exaltation as God, and to the
existence through eighteen centuries of a system of idolatry of which
He is the center."
Note again the close relationship between God and Christ in the
following Scriptures. No mere creature, however exalted, could
rationally make such claims:
I and the Father are One. (John 10:30)
He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father. (John 5:23)
If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also. (John 8:19)
He who beholds Me, beholds the One who sent Me. (John 12:45)
Whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like
manner. (John 5:19)
No one knows the Father except the Son. (Matthew 11:27)
You believe in God, believe also in Me. (John 14:1)
He who has seen Me, has seen the Father. (John 14:9)
He who hates me, hates my Father. (John 15:23)
He who receives Me, receives the One who sent Me. (Matthew 10:40)
All that belongs to the Father is mine. (John 16:15)
My Father is working until now and I am working. (John 5:17)
2. Does Christ Conform to the Attributes of Deity?
In the following condensed descriptions of various Scriptures, we see
that Jesus Christ is God because He has the attributes of God.
Eternity
The everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6).
From everlasting (Micah 5:2).
In the beginning, He always was (John 1:1, 2, 14, 15).
Jesus had glory with God before the world was created (John 17:5).
Omnipresence
Where two or three are, He is there (Matthew 18:20).
He is with us always (Matthew 28:20).
He is in every believer (John 14:20-23).
He fills all (Ephesians 1:23; 4:20).
Omniscience
He knows people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8; Luke 6:8; 11:17).
He knew the manner of His death (Matthew 16:21; John 12:33).
He knew the Father (Matthew 11:27; Only God can know Himself—1
Corinthians 2:11, 16).
He knew who would betray Him (John 6:64, 70-71).
He knew the future (John 2:19-22; John 18:4; John 13:19; Matthew
24:35).
He saw Nathaniel under the fig tree (John 1:49).
He knew the history of the Samaritan woman (John 4:29).
The disciples’ testimony (John 16:30; 17:30).
He knew all men (John 2:24, 25).
While Christ is God, we must remember that in the incarnation He had
surrendered the independent use of His attributes (Philippians 2:6-8;
John 5:30). As a true man, He was a servant to the Father, as an
example to us (John 13:4, 5). Therefore, while on earth, there were
some things the Father did not allow Him to know and in His humanity
only He was not omniscient. Thus, He didn’t know the time of His
return (Mark 13:32); He went to see if there was fruit on a fig tree
(Mark 11:13) and He marveled at both unbelief (Mark 6:6) and belief
(Matthew 8:10).
Omnipotence and Sovereignty
He is the Almighty (Revelation 1:8).
He does whatever the Father does (John 5:19).
He upholds all things (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3).
All authority, including over all mankind, is given to Him (Matthew
28:18; John 17:2, 3).
He is the head over all rule and authority (Colossians 2:10).
He has power to subject all things unto Himself (Philippians 3:21).
He will reign until He has put all enemies under His feet (1
Corinthians 15:25).
He exerts control over His own life and death (John 10:18).
He is the ruler of the kings of the earth (Revelation 1:5).
He has power over nature (Luke. 8:25).
He is Lord of all (Revelations 19:16; 1 Peter 3:22, Colossians 1:18;
Acts 10:36).
Immutability
He is always and forever the same (Hebrews 13:8 cf., 1:12, 8, 10).
His words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35).
Holy
He is holy (Revelation 3:7)
He is the holy offspring that will be called the Son of God (Luke
1:35).
He knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21).
He is without sin (Hebrews 4:15).
He is holy, innocent, undefiled, and separated from sinners (Hebrews
7:26).
He is unblemished and spotless (1 Peter 1:19).
He committed no sin (John 8:46; 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 2:22).
Truth
He is full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
The truth is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:21).
He is the truth (John 14:6).
He is faithful and true (Revelation 19:11).
If the major attributes of deity are ascribed to Christ, the only
logical conclusion is that Christ is God.
3. Are the Names, Titles, and Designations of God Ascribed to Christ?
The following comparisons between God in the Old Testament and Christ
in the New Testament prove that Jesus Christ is God. Any creature,
however exalted, is unworthy of these statements collectively, and
often individually.
PROOF THAT JESUS CHRIST IS GOD
Descriptions of God in the Old Testament used of Jesus in the New
Testament
1. The first and the last—Isaiah 41:4; 44,6; 48:12 / Revelation 2:8;
22:13
2. I AM—Exodus 3:14 / John 8:58; John 13:19
3. Author of eternal words—Isaiah. 40:8; Psalm 119:89 / Matthew 24:35;
John 6:68
4. Light—Psalm 27:1 / John 1:4-9; 8:12; 1 John 1:5
5. Rock—Deuteronomy 32:31; Psalm 18:2; Isaiah 8:14; Psalm 92:15 / 1
Peter 2:6-8; 1 Corinthians 10:4
6. Bridegroom—Isaiah 62:5; Hosea 2:16 / Mark 2:19; Revelation 21:2
7. Shepherd—Psalm 23:1 / John 10:11; Hebrews 13:20
8. Forgiver of sins—Jeremiah 31:34 / Acts 5:31
9. Redeemer—Hosea 13:14; Psalm 130:7 / Titus 2:13,14; Revelation 5:9
10. Savior—Isaiah 43:3; Hosea 13:4 / 2 Peter 1:1, 11; Titus 2:10-13;
Acts 4:12 (cf., Titus 1, 3)
11. The Lord of Glory—Isaiah 42:8 / John 17:1-5; 1 Corinthians 2:8
12. Judge—Joel 3:12 / Matthew 25:31-46
13. The Second Coming God—Zechariah 14:5 / Matthew 16:27; 24:29-31
14. The First Coming God—Isaiah 40:3 / Matthew 3:3
15. King of Glory—Psalm 24:7, 10 / 1 Corinthians 2:8; John 17:5
16. Jehovah our righteousness—Jeremiah 23:5, 6 / 1 Corinthians 1:30
17. Jehovah the first and last—Isaiah 44:6; 48:12-16 / Revelation 1:8,
17; 22:13
18. Jehovah above all—Psalm 97:9 / John 3:31
19. Jehovah’s fellow and equal—Zechariah 13:7 / Philippians 2:6
20. The Lord Almighty—Isaiah 6:1-3; 8:13-14 / John 12:41; 1 Peter 2:8
21. Jehovah—Psalm 110:1 / Matthew 22:42-45
22. Jehovah the Shepherd—Isaiah 40:11 / Hebrews 13:20
23. Jehovah, for whose glory all things were created—Proverbs 16:4 /
Colossians 1:16
24. Jehovah the messenger of the Covenant—Malachi 3:1 / Luke 7:27
25. Invoked as Jehovah—Joel 2:32; Isaiah 45:22 / 1 Corinthians 1:2
26. The eternal God and Creator—Psalm 102:24-27 / Hebrews 1:8, 10-12
27. The great God and savior—Isaiah 43:11-12 / Titus 1:3-4; 2:10, 13;
3:4-6
28. God the Judge—Ecclesiastes 12:14 / 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2
Corinthians 5:10; 2 Timothy 4:1
29. Emmanuel—Isaiah 7:14 / Matthew 1:23
30. The Holy One—1 Samuel 2:2 / Acts 3:14
31. Lord of the Sabbath—Genesis 2:3 / Matthew 12:8
32. Lord of All—1 Chronicles 29:11-12 / Acts 10:36; Romans 10:11-13
33. Creator of all things—Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 148:1-5 / John 1:3;
Colossians 1:16
34. Supporter, preserver of all things—Nehemiah 9:6 / Colossians 1:17
35. Stumbling rock of offense—Isaiah 8:13-14 / Romans 9:32-33; 1 Peter
2:8; Acts 4:11
36. Confess that He is Lord—Isaiah 45:23 (Jehovah) / Philippians 2:11
(Jesus)
37. The Judge of all men—Psalm 98:9 / Acts 17:31
38. Raiser of the dead—1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 119 (11 times) / John
11:25; 5:21 w/Luke 7:12-16
39. Co-sender of the Holy Spirit—John 14:16 (The Father sends) /
(Jesus sends) John 15:26
40. Led captivity captive—Psalm 68:18 / Ephesians 4:7, 8
41. Seen by Isaiah—Isaiah 6:1 / John 12:41
42. Judge of the nations—Joel 3:12 / Matthew 25:31-41
43. Salvation by calling on the name of the Lord—Joel 2:32 / Romans
10:13
4. Are the Prerogatives of Deity Ascribed to Christ?
• Raising the dead while on earth (Matthew 9:25, the Synagogue
official’s daughter; Luke 7:12-16, the widow’s son; John 11:44,
Lazarus; John 2:19-22, Himself).
• Doing the works of God (John 10:37-39).
• Giver of eternal life with authority over all mankind (John 17:2;
John 10:28).
• Worshipped by angels (Psalm 148:2): God—Hebrews 1:6; Jesus—Luke
4:8.
• Addressed in prayer (Acts 7:59).
• Providence and eternal dominion (Luke 10:22; John 3:35; 17:2;
Ephesians 1:2; Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3; Revelation 1:5).
• Power to transform the bodies of all believers (Philippians 3:21).
• Raising the dead for judgment (John 5:24-29; Acts 10:42; Acts
17:31).
• Worship by people. Only God is worthy of worship (Psalm 95:6).
Neither people (Acts 10:25-6), nor angels (Revelation 19:10) are
to receive worship, only God (Luke 4:8). But Jesus received
worship from: the man born blind (John 9:38); the disciples
(Matthew 14:33; 28:17); the wise men (Matthew 2:2, 11); the young
ruler (Matthew 9:18); women (Matthew 28:9); the disciples
(Matthew 28:17); the demons (Mark 3:11; 5:6); everyone
(Philippians 2:10, 11); the four elders (Revelation 5:14).
• Forgives sin (Matthew 1:21; Mark 2:7).
• Sending the Holy Spirit (a creature cannot send God; John 16:7; cf.
14:26).
Even in the baptismal formula, we find Christ clearly asserting His
Deity. In his Studies in Theology (1980, pp. 144-145) Loraine Boettner
quotes the great Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield (Biblical
Doctrines, p. 204):
The precise form of the formula must be carefully observed. It does
not read: "In the names" (plural)—as if there were three beings
enumerated, each with its distinguishing name. Nor yet: "In the name
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," as if there were one person,
going by a threefold name. It reads: "In the name (singular) of the
Father and of the (article repeated) Son, and of the (article
repeated) Holy Spirit," carefully distinguishing three persons, though
uniting them all under one name. The name of God was to the Jews
Jehovah, and to name the name of Jehovah upon them was to make them
His. What Jesus did in this great injunction was to command His
followers to name the name of God upon their converts, and to announce
the name of God which is to be named on their converts in the
threefold enumeration of "the Father" and "the Son" and "the Holy
Spirit." As it is unquestionable that He here intended Himself by "the
Son," He here places Himself by the side of the Father and Spirit, as
together with them constituting the one God. It is, of course, the
Trinity which he is describing and that is as much as to say that He
announces Himself as one of the persons of the Trinity.
5. Does Scripture Declare Unequivocally that Christ Is God?
As if the "Proof that Jesus Christ is God" comparisons were not
sufficient, Scripture plainly declares Christ’s deity:
• John 1:1, 14, "The word was God…. The Word became flesh and made his
dwelling among us."
• John 1:18, "The only begotten God."
• John 20:28, Thomas said to him [Jesus] "My Lord and my God."
• Titus 2:13, "Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ."
• Hebrews 1:8, But about the Son he says, "Your throne O God, will
last forever and ever."
• 2 Peter 1:1, "Our God and Saviour Jesus Christ."
• 1 John 5:20, "Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life."
• Colossians 2:9, "In Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in
bodily form."
• Isaiah 9:6, "For to us a child is born...and He will be called
Mighty God."
• Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23, "Immanuel"—"God with us."
• Hebrews 1:1-3, "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the
exact representation of His being…."
• Colossians 1:15-17, "He is the image of the invisible God… by him
all things were created."
• Acts 20:28, The church was purchased with the blood of God.
• 2 Corinthians 4:4, "Christ, who is the image of God."
• Romans 9:5, "Christ, who is God over all, forever praised."
• 1 Corinthians 1:24, "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."
• 2 Thessalonians 1:12, "Our God and Lord Jesus Christ."
• Philippians 2:6, "being in very nature God." (The Greek could be
literally translated "continuing to subsist in the form of
God.")
Some critics have responded to the above listing with, "Is that all?"
Others, even some theologians, have claimed that the actual direct
scriptural references to Christ’s deity in the New Testament are
"exceedingly few."
Only one clear reference of God to Christ’s deity should be
sufficient; the truth is we have hundreds of direct and indirect
references. The term for "Jehovah God" that is employed some 6,000
times in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament)
is kurios (Lord). In other words, kurios is the specific term the
Septuagint translators chose to designate the one true God of all the
earth. The Apostle Paul and other New Testament writers were well
aware of this fact. What is significant is that the very word chosen
to designate God in the Septuagint is the word they chose to designate
Jesus Christ in the New Testament—kurios. The implication of this
could hardly be lost on either the New Testament writers or its
readers. The New Testament writers clearly chose to describe Jesus
Christ as God hundreds of times by their use of the term kurios.
6. Other Testimonies
Thomas: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28).
Peter: "The Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16; to a Jew, this made
Him God’s equal, cf., John 5:18).
John: "Making Himself [Jesus] equal with God" (John 5:18).
The Jews: "You a mere man claim[ing] to be God" (John 10:33).
The High Priest" "You have heard the blasphemy" (Mark 14:61-64).
The Deity of Christ and Early Church Testimony
Some critics, as well as most liberal theologians, maintain that the
doctrine of the trinity was not part of the teachings of Jesus and the
apostles, but merely invented by the church centuries later. Emanuel
Swedenborg, founder of the Church of the New Jerusalem claimed that
the apostolic church knew nothing of the Trinity and that the Trinity
was really fabricated by the Council of Nicea in the fourth century as
a belief in three Gods, not the one true God, which he believed was
unipersonal: "A Trinity of Persons was unknown in the Apostolic
church, but was hatched by the Nicean Council," and "No other trinity
than a trinity of Gods was understood by the members of the Nicean
Council...[and] so understood by the whole Christian world as well."1
Likewise, in a sermon given in August, 1964, at New York City, liberal
theologian James A. Pike declared, "The Trinity is not necessary. Our
Lord never heard of it. The apostles knew nothing of it." Victor Paul
Wierwille, founder of "The Way International," claims in his book,
Jesus Christ Is Not God, that the early church (to 330 A.D.) never
believed in the Trinity or in Christ’s deity. He argues, "Certainly,
during this time, church leaders spoke of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, but they never referred to them as co-equal.... In fact, the
opposite was the case. They spoke of the Father as supreme, the true
and only God... and of the son as inferior... having a beginning,
visible, begotten, immutable."2
But is this really what we find when we carefully examine the writings
of the earliest Christian leaders, or is this merely an invention by
those who, for whatever reason, choose not to believe in the Trinity?
The following twenty-two chronological examples of key leaders show
that the early church clearly believed that Jesus Christ was God:
Ignatius of Antioch (30-107 A.D.). He was born before Christ died and
consistently spoke of the deity of Jesus Christ. Consider a few
examples: In his writings To the Ephesians, To the Romans, To the
Magnesians and other letters, we find references such as the
following: "Jesus Christ our God"; "who is God and man"; "received
knowledge of God, that is, Jesus Christ"; "for our God, Jesus the
Christ"; "for God was manifest as man"; "Christ, who was from eternity
with the Father"; "from God, from Jesus Christ"; "from Jesus Christ,
our God"; "Our God, Jesus Christ"; "suffer me to follow the example of
the passion of my God"; "Jesus Christ the God" and "Our God Jesus
Christ."3 The fact that Ignatius was not rebuked, nor branded as
teaching heresy by any of the churches or Christian leaders he sent
such letters to proves that the early church, long before 107 A.D.,
accepted the deity of Christ.
Polycarp (69-155 A.D.). He possibly spoke of "Our Lord and God Jesus
Christ."4
Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.). He wrote of Jesus, "who... being the
first-begotten Word of God, is even God."5 In his Dialogue with
Trypho, he stated that "God was born from a virgin" and that Jesus was
"worthy of worship" and of being "called Lord and God."6
Tatian (110-172 A.D.). This early apologist wrote, "We do not act as
fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales when we announce that God was
born in the form of man."7
Theophlius (116-181 A.D.). He was the first to use the term "Trinity"
in his Epistle to Antolycux II, xv.8
Irenaeus of Lyons and Rome (120-202 A.D.). He wrote that Jesus was
"perfect God and perfect man"; "not a mere man...but was very God";
and that "He is in Himself in His own right...God, and Lord, and King
Eternal" and spoke of "Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour
and King."9
Tertullian of Carthage (145-220 A.D.). He said of Jesus "Christ is
also God" because "that which has come forth from God [in the virgin
birth] is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one...in His
birth, God and man united." Jesus is "both Man and God, the Son of Man
and the Son of God."10
Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.). He said, "[it is] the Father who is above
all, the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all.
And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in
Father and Son and Holy Spirit.... For it is through this Trinity that
the Father is glorified.... The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this
truth." And, "the Logos is God, being the substance of God."11
Caius (180-217 A.D.). He was a Roman Presbyter who wrote of the
universal Christian attestation to the deity of Christ in his
refutation of Artemon, who maintained that Christ was only a man.
Caius appealed to much earlier writers, all of whom taught Christ’s
deity: "Justin and Miltiades, and Tatian and Clement, and many others—
who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest,
which declare Christ to be God and man? All the psalms, too, and hymns
of brethren, which have been written from the beginning by the
faithful, celebrate Christ the Word of God, ascribing divinity to
Him.... [This] doctrine of the Church, then, has been proclaimed so
many years ago,..."12
Gregory Thaumaturgus of Neo-Caesarea (205-270 A.D.). He declared in On
the Trinity, that "All [the persons] are one nature, one essence, one
will, and are called the Holy Trinity; and these also are names
subsistent, one nature in three persons, and one genus [kind]."13 He
referred to Jesus as "God of God" and "God the Son."14
Novatian of Rome (210-280 A.D.). He wrote in his On The Trinity of
Jesus being truly a man but that "He was also God according to the
Scriptures.... Scripture has as much described Jesus Christ to be man,
as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God.... this
same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God." "Christ Jesus [is]
our Lord God."15 (Note, then, that in the 200’s we already had
discourses on the Trinity.)
Origen of Alexandria (wrote ca 230 A.D.). He stated that Christ was
"God and man."16 In 254 A.D. he wrote, "Jesus Christ...while he was
God, and though made man, remained God as he was before."17
Athanasius (293-373 A.D.). This keen defender of New Testament
teaching against the early Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus
Christ was not God, declared of Jesus, "He always was and is God and
Son," and "He who is eternally God,... also became man for our
sake."18
Lucian of Antioch (300 A.D.). "We believe in... one Lord Jesus Christ,
his Son, the only-begotten God...God of God.…"19
Alexander of Alexandria. He spoke in reference to Jesus of "his
highest and essential divinity" and that he was "an exact and
identical image of the Father."20
Eusebius of Caesarea. Stated that "the Son of God bears no resemblance
to originated creatures but...is alike in every way only to the Father
who has begotten [Him] and that he is not from any other hypostasis
and substance but from the Father."21 And (325 A.D.), "We believe
in... one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, God of God.…"22
Cyril of Jerusalem (ca 350 A.D.). "We believe in... One Lord Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God...very God, by whom all things
were made."23
Epiphanius of Constantia (374 A.D.). "We believe...in one Lord Jesus
Christ...of the substance of the Father, Light of Light, very God of
very God."24
Augustine. Declared that Christians "...believe that Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit are one God, maker and ruler of the whole creation: that
Father is not Son, nor Holy Spirit Father or Son; but a Trinity of
mutually related Persons, and a unity of equal essence," and that
therefore, "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit
God; and all together are one God."25
Tertullian. Wrote of Jesus that "He is God and man.... We have here a
dual condition—not fused but united—in one person, Jesus as God and
man."26
Proclus. "He was born of woman, God but not solely God, and man but
not merely man.....Christ did not by progress become God—heaven forbid!
—but in mercy he became man, as we believe. We do not preach a deified
man; we confess an incarnate God...him alone who was born of a virgin,
God and man."27
Cyril of Alexandria. Wrote of Jesus, "For he remained what he was;
that is, by nature God. But...he took it on himself to be man as
well," and, "There is nothing to prevent us from thinking of Christ as
being the one and only Son at once both God and man, perfect in deity
and perfect in humanity...he is conceived of as God and is God,..."28
From the very first the leaders of the Christian church—immediately
after the time of the apostles up to the Council of Nicea in the
fourth century and beyond—had consistently believed and taught that
Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, those who deny this are clearly
mistaken when they maintain that the Trinity was "invented" by
Christians only in the 4th century or later.
There is only one logical explanation for the abundant early testimony
to the deity of Jesus Christ: early church leaders were simply
declaring what was already declared by Jesus Christ and the apostles
in Holy Scripture: that Christ was indeed God. As Gregory of Nazianzus
stated in his "Third Theological Oration Concerning the Son," "From
their [the apostles] great and exalted discourses we have discovered
and preached the deity of the Son."29 E. Calvin Beisner, author of God
in Three Persons, states:
The testimony of the New Testament to the deity of Christ is
unanimous.... Were there no passages at all which directly call Christ
God, we would still have a great weight of evidence that is the New
Testament conception of him, for in all senses he is depicted as
precisely parallel to God the Father. C. F. D. Moule wrote: "Far more
impressive than any single passage are two implicit Christological
‘pointers.’" At first is the fact that, in the greetings of the
Pauline epistles, God and Christ are brought into a single formula. It
requires an effort of imagination to grasp the enormity that this must
have seemed to a non-Christian Jew. It must have administered a shock
comparable (if the analogy may be allowed without irreverence) to our
finding a religious Cuban today inditing a message from God-and-"Che"
Guevara…."
The other Christological pointer, evidenced early… [is the undeniable]
fact that Paul seems to experience Christ as any theist reckons to
understand God—that is, as personal, but as more than individual: as
more than a person. This is evidenced by certain uses (though
admittedly not all) of the well known incorporative formulae, "in
Christ."…30
The truth is that for all those who deny Christ’s deity—as for the
early Arians—the Trinity is simply a stumbling block to their
rationalism. What they cannot fully comprehend, they will not accept.
Thus, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be rejected on biblical or
historical grounds because the testimony for it is too abundant. It
can only be rejected on philosophical and personal grounds which have
no merit.
Footnotes:
1. Emanuel Swedenborg, The True Christian Religion, Vol. 1, p. 260 (n.
174); p. 258 (n. 172).
2. Victor Paul Wierwille, Jesus Christ Is Not God (New Knoxville, OH:
American Christian Press, 1975).
3. Kirsopp Lake, trans., The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 1, Loeb Classical
Library, Harvard University Press (1965), To the Ephesians I,
Greeting; I:I; vii. 2; xvii. 2; xviii. 2; xix. 3; To the Magnesians,
xiii. 2; To the Trallians, vii. 1; To the Romans, Greeting; iii. 3;
vi. 3; To the Smyrnaeans I.I; To Polycarp, viii. 3, respectively.
4. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, Chapter 6, in Alexander
Roberts, James Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers Translations
of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (Vol. 1 The Apostolic
Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1977), p. 34.
5. Justin Martyr, "The First Apology," Chapter 63, in Roberts and
Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 184.
6. Justin Martyr, "Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with
Trypho, a Jew," Chapters 64, 68, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-
Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 231-233.
7. Tatian the Assyrian, "Address of Tatian to the Greeks," Chapter 21,
in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p. 74.
8. Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 101.
9. Irenaeus, "Against Heresies" Book III, Chpt. 16, Title; Chpt. 19,
Title, para. 2; Book I, chapt. 10, para. 1, in Roberts and Donaldson
(eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, pp. 440, 448-49.
10. Tertullian (Quintus Tertullianus), "A Treatise on the Soul,"
Chapter 41, and "Apology," Chapter 21, in Roberts and Donaldson, The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, Latin Christianity: Its Founder,
Tertullian (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 221, 34-35, and Against
Praxaes in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 498, respectively.
11. Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of Noetus, p. 14, cited in Harold
O. J. Brown, Heresies (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1984), p. 95;
Refutation of All Heresies, X, XXIX, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, p.
151.
12. Caius, "Against the Heresy of Artemon" in "Fragments of Caius" in
Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Third
Century, Vol. 5, p. 601.
13. Gregory Thaumaturgus, "On the Trinity," para. 2, in Roberts and
Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 6: Fathers of the Third
Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 48.
14. In Beisner, p. 81.
15. Novatian, a Roman Presbyter, "A Treatise of Novatian Concerning
the Trinity," Chapter 11, in Roberts and Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene
Fathers: Fathers of the Third Century, Vol. 5, p. 620.
16. Origen, "Dialogue with Heraclides," 1-4 in Wiles and Santer,
Documents in Early Christian Thought, p. 23.
17. In Beisner, p. 80, citing On the Principles, Preface, p. 4.
18. Athanasius, "Against the Arians," III, para. 29, 31, in Maurice
Wiles and Mark Santer (eds.), Documents in Early Christian Thought
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 52, 54.
19. In Beisner, p. 82.
20. "Alexander of Alexandria’s Letter to Alexander of Thessonalica,"
para. 37, in William G. Rusch (trans./ed.), The Trinitarian
Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 40, 42.
21. "Eusebius of Caesarea’s Letter to His Church Concerning the Synod
at Nicaea," para. 13 in Rusch, p. 59.
22. In Beisner, p. 84.
23. Ibid., p. 86.
24. Ibid., p. 87.
25. Augustine, "On the Trinity," IX, para. 1; XV, para. 28, in Wiles
and Santer, Documents in Early Christian Thought, 36-37, p. 91.
26. Tertullian, "Against Praxeas," Chapter, 27, in Wiles and Santer
(eds.), p. 46.
27. Proclus, "Sermon I," paragraphs 2, 4 in Wiles and Santer,
Documents in Early Christian Thought, pp. 62-64.
28. Cyril of Alexandria, "Second Letter to Succensus," 2, 4, in Wiles
and Santer, Documents in Early Christian Thought, pp. 67, 69-70.
29. Gregory of Nazianzus, "Third Theological Oration Concerning the
Son," 17 in Rusch (trans./ed.), The Trinitarian Controversy, p. 143.
30. In E. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale,
1984), pp. 33-34.
guardian Snow
I can appreciate what you think Vince but I don't reject John's good
news, I just happen to understand it differently then you do.
I would appreciate in the future if you don't attempt to speak for
other people, I do just fine speaking for myself and my own beliefs.
You don't see me telling people what you believe and thats because I
don't care to waste my time.
If people want to know what I believe they can ask me. As to the word
"god" itself, you know that I consider that a mistranslation and never
use the words outside of telling people just that.
You are busy looking outside yourself for what is already inside you.
Mal 2:1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you.
Mal 2:2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to
give glory unto my name, saith YHWH of hosts, I will even send a curse
upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them
already, because ye do not lay it to heart.
Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your
faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you
away with it.
Mal 2:4 And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you,
that my covenant might be with Levi, saith YHWH of hosts.
Now what’s really interesting is how a prophecy that’s at least more
than 2000 years old can come true right under our very eyes and nobody
sees it. The scriptures truly are amazing in this way that so many
things are hidden in every word. Now keep in mind that more than one
prophet spoke of the modern day but starting with Jeremiah, he said:
Jer 23:20 The displeasure of [Yahweh] יהוה shall not turn back until
He has done and established the purposes of His heart. In the latter
days you shall understand it perfectly.
Any student of prophecy understands that “the latter days” refers to
the last days. So if this is the “latter days” then the prophecy will
be clear and easy to understand… Now I discussed it but didn’t
directly speak about what the prophet said:
Jer 23:13 “And I have seen folly in the prophets of Shomeron: they
prophesied by Baʽal and led My people Yisra’ĕl astray.
H1167
בּעל
ba‛al
bah'-al
From H1166; a master; hence a husband, or (figuratively) owner (often
used with another noun in modifications of this latter sense: LORD,
man, + married, master, person, + sworn, they of.
That’s right.. Ba’al means LORD as in:
Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God,
So, sitting right in front of every person is proof positive of the
prophecy come true even though it’s been sitting right in front of us
since at least 1611!
How often have you heard people address YHWH El-Shaddai as Lord? “My
Lord”.. how often do we hear this? The prophets told us that we would
call him by a false name “Lord” and that in the latter days we would
realize this fact.
Hos 2:16 “And it shall be, in that day,” declares [Yahweh] יהוה, “that
you call Me ‘My Husband,’ and no longer call Me ‘My Baʽal.’
Hos 2:17 “And I shall remove the names of the Baʽals from her mouth,
and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
Hopefully for you, today is that day when you stop calling on the name
of “Lord” and start to recognize the true name of the creator!
Deu 32:3 “For I proclaim the Name of [Yahweh] יהוה, Ascribe greatness
to our Elohim.
His name is not Baal Gawd!
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- join
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
“They use their tongues to
deceive you. Venom is on their lips.
Their mouths are full
of bitterness and curses.
The fear of God
is not before their eyes.
They have taken
the hearts and minds of our leaders.
They have blinded us to the truth.
Our human spirit is corrupted.
Why do we worship greed?
Outside the limit of our sight
they're feeding off us.
Perched on top of us
from birth to death, are our owners.
They have us. They control us.
They are our masters.
Wake up.
They're all around you.”
They Live by John Carpenter
vince garcia
I seem top recall your denying Jesus was God in flesh to Linda a number
of times.
You can argue semantics, but the fact remains you have stated that you
deny Jesus was God. John shows that He was identifiable directly with
YHWH by quoting a verse the Father says of Himself, but interpolating it
about the SON. So YHWH and the Son are both God. Not Elohim--but both
are YHWH.
So if you are true to form, you should reject John for this heretical
teaching and outright perversion of scripture.
You'd demonize paul if he did the same thing, so why would you give John
a pass?
>
> You are busy looking outside yourself for what is already inside you.
"Life goes on within you and without you," you mean?
guardian Snow
> You'd demonize paul if he did the same thing, so why would you give John
> a pass?
I disagree with the doctrine Paul puts forward and as I have already
stated, we have a different understanding of John.
> > You are busy looking outside yourself for what is already inside you.
>
> "Life goes on within you and without you," you mean?
Joh 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh does not profit
at all. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and are life.
The spirit that is in you Vince. The spirit that is in all creation
and the same spirit that was in Messiah Yehoshua.
Joh 17:21 so that they all might be one, as You, Father, are in Me,
and I in You, so that they too might be one in Us, so that the world
might believe that You have sent Me.
vince garcia
>
> On Oct 14, 12:19 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > You'd demonize paul if he did the same thing, so why would you give John
> > a pass?
>
> I disagree with the doctrine Paul puts forward and as I have already
> stated, we have a different understanding of John.
So what is john saying in the verses I listed then? What's your take on
them?
Sam Taylor
was any G-d formed, niether after Him (not them)Shall
any be Formed.".
"That beside Him (not them) was their any G-D".
So Is Jesus a liar? or is YHWH a liar?
vince garcia
>
> YHWH says of HIMSELF (not themselves) "that before him (not them)
> was any G-d formed, niether after Him (not them)Shall
> any be Formed.".
> "That beside Him (not them) was their any G-D".
> So Is Jesus a liar? or is YHWH a liar?
Does that question sound familiar? I asked that of you about revelation.
You came up with a gonzo, ridiculous claim about Revelation, and what it
meant.
So the answer is neither is lying if they are both YHWH
guardian Snow
> guardian Snow wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 12:19 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > You'd demonize paul if he did the same thing, so why would you give John
> > > a pass?
>
> > I disagree with the doctrine Paul puts forward and as I have already
> > stated, we have a different understanding of John.
>
> So what is john saying in the verses I listed then? What's your take on
> them?
Why ask? I've already demonstrated that I haven't rejected John and
you have no desire to know my understanding. What I think is
inconsequential when you've already lied about me in the title of this
thread.
You should just continue go on telling everybody what it is you think
I believe. I've already posted on the topic
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/240e2f6bea4ff911
Sam Taylor
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Sam Taylor wrote:
>>
>> YHWH says of HIMSELF (not themselves) "that before him (not them)
>> was any G-d formed, niether after Him (not them)Shall
>> any be Formed.".
>> "That beside Him (not them) was their any G-D".
>> So Is Jesus a liar? or is YHWH a liar?
>
>Does that question sound familiar? I asked that of you about revelation.
>You came up with a gonzo, ridiculous claim about Revelation, and what it
>meant.
>
>So the answer is neither is lying if they are both YHWH
>
since there is but 1 G-D they both cannot be YHWH
Oh I forgot they are a mystery holy heavenly siamese tripplette
made up of Big daddy, J.C., and the Spook that G-D forgot to mention
in scripture.
So Abrahm left Ur of the caldieze to follow not after multiple G-D's
but multiple G-D's
or is YHWH suffer from schizo. and talks to himself, and has
multiple personality disorder.?
and YOU THINK JEWS ARE MESSED UP?
vince garcia
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:14:04 -0700, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Sam Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >> YHWH says of HIMSELF (not themselves) "that before him (not them)
> >> was any G-d formed, niether after Him (not them)Shall
> >> any be Formed.".
> >> "That beside Him (not them) was their any G-D".
> >> So Is Jesus a liar? or is YHWH a liar?
> >
> >Does that question sound familiar? I asked that of you about revelation.
> >You came up with a gonzo, ridiculous claim about Revelation, and what it
> >meant.
> >
> >So the answer is neither is lying if they are both YHWH
> >
> since there is but 1 G-D they both cannot be YHWH
> Oh I forgot they are a mystery holy heavenly siamese tripplette
> made up of Big daddy, J.C., and the Spook that G-D forgot to mention
> in scripture.
> So Abrahm left Ur of the caldieze to follow not after multiple G-D's
> but multiple G-D's
> or is YHWH suffer from schizo. and talks to himself, and has
> multiple personality disorder.?
> and YOU THINK JEWS ARE MESSED UP?
>
actually, I think you're more messed up than they are since you're a
judaiser, whereas they are pure in their unbelief and embracing of
judasim proper.
Linda Lee
> On Oct 14, 1:48 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > guardian Snow wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 14, 12:19 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You'd demonize paul if he did the same thing, so why would you give John
> > > > a pass?
>
> > > I disagree with the doctrine Paul puts forward and as I have already
> > > stated, we have a different understanding of John.
>
> > So what is john saying in the verses I listed then? What's your take on
> > them?
>
> Why ask? I've already demonstrated that I haven't rejected John
You "demonstrated" nothing. As usual, you just lied.
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
THE WORD WAS GOD.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any
thing made that was made.
Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not.
Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through him might believe.
Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that
Light.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh
into the world.
Joh 1:10 HE WAS IN THE WORLD, AND THE WORLD WAS MADE BY HIM, and the
world knew him not.
Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God.
Joh 1:14 And THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of
whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he
was before me.
> and
> you have no desire to know my understanding.
You are so slippery. And you have no "understanding", snake.
> What I think is
> inconsequential
So TRUE.
> You should just continue go on telling everybody what it is you think
> I believe. I've already posted on the topic
Another lie. The following link does not demonstrate what you are
claiming.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/240e2f6bea4ff911
>
guardian Snow
Linda.. you are a mental retard grasping straws. Get a life and stop
posting to me.
Linda Lee
> On Oct 14, 11:34 am,LindaLee<lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>
<snake's hysteria snipped>
Explain yourself creep (or why don't you just admit that you're a
threatening little weirdo with intense emotional and mental
problems?).
So what the HELL are you talking about posting the following weird
vague threat to me, "Mat 10:17 “But beware of men, for they shall
deliver you up to sanhedrins and flog you in their congregations. I’ve
told you the car is coming..." ???
- from http://groups.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/306dc41f782...
Ed Form
> * This is an interpolation of Zechariah 12:10, which actually says:
> "They shall look upon ME whom they have pierced." Once again, clear
> indication that Jesus was co-equal and co-identifiable with the Father,
> since the verse in context refers to God.
Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation, Vince. The text
uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and can be perfectly correctly translated
'unto the one whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number of
scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
The word 'eth' is the object marker and is commonly not translated, but in
clauses where the object is a demonstrative pronoun like 'which' or
'whom', the object marker is translated by 'the one' or 'that'.
Although the word 'eli' can mean 'unto me' because the full form 'elii'
would always be shortened to 'eli', it can also be just the preposition
'unto' which directs the verb to the objective phrase 'the one whom'.
So while, if there was other support in Scripture for the idea that Jesus
is God, the verse might read 'look unto me whom they pierced' you may not
use this verse as a proof text because it is capable of another
translation that does not support your thesis.
Ed Form
guardian Snow
It is my opinion that "pierced" or also translated, "run through" is
simply a spiritual like a crushed spirit.
Isa 53:5 But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for
our crookednesses. The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by
His stripes we are healed.
An example of this metaphor would be:
Psa 109:22 For I am poor and needy, And my heart is pierced within me.
Considering the context of this passage, we know that at no point was
the Messiah literally "crushed". This same passage can be translated
"crushed by our crookednesses". Add to this the one who is doing the
actions:
Isa 53:4 Truly, He has borne our sicknesses and carried our pains. Yet
we reckoned Him stricken, smitten by Elohim, and afflicted.
"smitten by Elohim" not the Romans. This is something my Christian
brothers have deep issues with and when you consider what is
considered an acceptable offering to Elohim:
Psa 51:16 For You do not desire slaughtering, or I would give it; You
do not delight in burnt offering.
Psa 51:17 The slaughterings of Elohim are a broken spirit, A heart
broken and crushed, O Elohim, These You do not despise.
I have always considered the sacrifice to be the cup:
Jer 25:15 For thus said YAHWEH Elohim of Yisra’ĕl to me, “Take this
wine cup of wrath from My hand, and make all the nations, to whom I
send you, drink it.
Mat 26:27 And taking the cup, and giving thanks, He gave it to them,
saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
Mat 26:28 “For this is My blood, that of the renewed covenant, which
is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Which is supported from the Torah:
Gen 49:11 “Binding his donkey to the vine, and his donkey’s colt to
the choice vine, he washed his garments in wine, and his robes in the
blood of grapes.
vince garcia
>
> On 12/10/2009 12:52:42, vince garcia wrote:
>
> > * This is an interpolation of Zechariah 12:10, which actually says:
> > "They shall look upon ME whom they have pierced." Once again, clear
> > indication that Jesus was co-equal and co-identifiable with the Father,
> > since the verse in context refers to God.
>
> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation, Vince. The text
> uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and can be perfectly correctly translated
> 'unto the one whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number of
> scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
Perhaps, but the traditional and normative translation is as the king
james.
Of course, being a non-trinitarian, I understand THAT rendition might
cause some problems for you.
We evangelicals have no issues with it, tho :)
Pastor Dave
<ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
> On 12/10/2009 12:52:42, vince garcia wrote:
>
>> * This is an interpolation of Zechariah 12:10,
>> which actually says: "They shall look upon ME
>> whom they have pierced". Once again, clear
>> indication that Jesus was co-equal and
>> co-identifiable with the Father, since the verse
>> in context refers to God.
>
> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation,
> Vince.
Not it isn't. No more so than using "it", or "them".
And in fact, less so, since it is personally stated there,
understand?
> The text uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and can be
> perfectly correctly translated 'unto the one whom
> they pierced' - it is so translated by a number of
> scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
By a number of scholars??? "eg, The BBE"?
What?!? Please!!!
And you seem to miss the fact that even if you
were right, "unto the one..." is still personal
and there is no way around that and furthermore,
reading the entire text demonstrates that it is
indeed about what it is about and you forget
the tone of the entire verse, to focus on one
word, to try to make your claim!
You wish to actually try to pretend that just by
typing that, that it makes the BBE a true piece
of scholarship?! Say what?!? Please!!!
The BBE is a piece of garbage that should never
have been printed! And you might argue that it
is easier for people to understand, but that does
not make it accurate and that is about as weak
of an argument as one can make in response,
which we both know that you surely would have
made in response, as if that could somehow
make the problems with that translation (of
which there are indeed many) go away! Not!
But let me get this straight... You want to say that
the translation that he used is "doctrinally biased",
but then at the same time, claim that the so called
"scholars" that happen to translate it the way that
you like, are somehow god like and above reproach.
And yes, that *IS* what you're implying, when you
try to weigh in *your* "scholars" against his, period!
And what tells me as a fact that (no offense) you are
completely clueless about actual scholarship and the
languages and that you pulled those Hebrew words
off of some web site, while pretending that you know
what you're talking about, is that you actually had
the gall to cite "The Bible in Basic English", as if it
could somehow be credited as a scholarly work to
measure other translations by, when it is nothing
more than a weak paraphrase (the worse kind of
translation one could possibly do and nowhere near
worthy of being called "scholarly", regardless of who
worked on it)!
The BBE is:
1) A paraphrase.
2) Based off of the corrupt Alexandrian Text,
which is exactly one text strong, regardless
of the lie they tell you about that!
3) Nowhere near a scholarly work, but rather,
a "simple English paraphrase" and now you
could even begin to think that it would be
considered more than that, I have no idea!
> The word 'eth' is the object marker and is commonly
> not translated, but in clauses where the object is a
> demonstrative pronoun like 'which' or 'whom', the
> object marker is translated by 'the one' or 'that'.
Do not even begin to try to pretend that you know
what you're talking about, nor that you even really
understand what an "object marker" is, nor even
that you have anything worth saying when it comes
to judging what is a scholarly approach and what isn't.
You have completely and totally embarrassed yourself
and if you can't see that, then you have indeed doubly
embarrassed yourself! Nor do you even belong in this
conversation! I'm sorry, but you simply don't!
And this has nothing to do with how it should, or should
not be translated! I am not even discussing that. This
is about you and what you just did and if I were you,
I would be ashamed of myself, since it is clear that you
thought that you could pull the wool over our eyes like
this! Shame on you! Shame! Shame! Shame!!! (:
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
out what the Bible says.
One or the other is right, but they can't both be right.
Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>Ed Form wrote:
>
>> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation,
>> Vince. The text uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and
>> can be perfectly correctly translated 'unto the one
>> whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number
>> of scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
>
> Perhaps, but the traditional and normative translation
> is as the King James.
>
> Of course, being a non-trinitarian, I understand THAT
> rendition might cause some problems for you.
>
> We evangelicals have no issues with it, tho :)
To be fair, being an "evangelical" is not automatically
equivalent to being a Trinitarian. One can be quite
"evangelical" and not even believe in God. That word
is misused too often and Christians today unfortunately,
spend their time being willfully ignorant of the facts
and think that whatever some "teacher" says doctrinally,
is automatically "what the Bible says".
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The definition of insanity is doing the same things
over and over and expecting different results.
vince garcia
>
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:48:21 -0800, vince garcia
> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>
> >Ed Form wrote:
> >
> >> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation,
> >> Vince. The text uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and
> >> can be perfectly correctly translated 'unto the one
> >> whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number
> >> of scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
> >
> > Perhaps, but the traditional and normative translation
> > is as the King James.
> >
> > Of course, being a non-trinitarian, I understand THAT
> > rendition might cause some problems for you.
> >
> > We evangelicals have no issues with it, tho :)
>
> To be fair, being an "evangelical" is not automatically
> equivalent to being a Trinitarian.
sadly true :(
One can be quite
> "evangelical" and not even believe in God. That word
> is misused too often and Christians today unfortunately,
> spend their time being willfully ignorant of the facts
> and think that whatever some "teacher" says doctrinally,
> is automatically "what the Bible says".
Hate to say you're right. I guess, from my perspective, 'evangelicals'
like Spong and his ilk who think that way aren't even Christians, so I
don't even count them as evangelicals either, tho they claim to be in
the club and i probably should not be so presumptive of equating the
term with 'true christian' when guys like that DO exist and consider
themselves evangelicals
Pastor Dave
<vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:48:21 -0800, vince garcia
>> <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>> Ed Form wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation,
>>>> Vince. The text uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and
>>>> can be perfectly correctly translated 'unto the one
>>>> whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number
>>>> of scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but the traditional and normative translation
>>> is as the King James.
>>>
>>> Of course, being a non-trinitarian, I understand THAT
>>> rendition might cause some problems for you.
>>>
>>> We evangelicals have no issues with it, tho :)
>>
>> To be fair, being an "evangelical" is not automatically
>> equivalent to being a Trinitarian.
>
> Sadly true :(
Well, sad to you. But not to another.
>> One can be quite "evangelical" and not even believe
>> in God. That word is misused too often and Christians
>> today unfortunately, spend their time being willfully
>> ignorant of the facts and think that whatever some
>> "teacher" says doctrinally, is automatically "what
>> the Bible says".
>
> Hate to say you're right. I guess, from my perspective,
> 'evangelicals' like Spong and his ilk who think that way
> aren't even Christians, so I don't even count them as
> evangelicals either, tho they claim to be in the club and
> i probably should not be so presumptive of equating the
> term with 'true christian' when guys like that DO exist
> and consider themselves evangelicals
But what is a "true Christian"? You have your definition
and others have theirs. Now obviously there is a line
that needs to be drawn, but it can get to fine.
For example, what is a "Trinitarian"? Does it mean all
that _you_ believe that word means? Or can it simply
be the basic concept of a "Triune God"? Many now
use _that_ term, instead of "Trinity", because of all
that has been added to that word by denominations
and their specific doctrines.
As for me, I simply believe in the triune nature of God.
The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But that may not
extend to all that you believe about it, like for example,
"equality in authority", which I don't believe the Bible
teaches as a permanent state within the Godhead.
That's just one example of where two people might
both believe in the triune nature of God, but one
might not believe in "The Trinity" as it is defined
these days.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia." - Charles Schulz.
Ed Form
> Ed Form wrote:
>
>> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation, Vince. The text
>> uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and can be perfectly correctly translated
>> 'unto the one whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number of
>> scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
>
> Perhaps, but the traditional and normative translation is as the king
> james.
>
> Of course, being a non-trinitarian, I understand THAT rendition might
> cause some problems for you.
>
> We evangelicals have no issues with it, tho :)
Which is odd, Vince, because the favourite author of the trinitarians -
John - actually quotes this verse, and he quotes it in precisely the form
I gave...
John 19:37
And again another scripture saith,
They shall look on him whom they pierced.
Ed Form
Ed Form
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:47:24 GMT, "Ed Form"
> <ed....@theformsonline.com> spake thusly:
>
>> Vince.
>
> Not it isn't. No more so than using "it", or "them".
> And in fact, less so, since it is personally stated there,
> understand?
God speaks, but that does not bind his words in the eli eth asher clause
into a reference to himself. There is absolutely no logical progression
from the idea that God spoke to the idea that he spoke about himself in
that clause. Didn't they teach you logic in the place where they gave you
your wierd ideas?
>> The text uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and can be
>> perfectly correctly translated 'unto the one whom
>> they pierced' - it is so translated by a number of
>> scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
>
> By a number of scholars??? "eg, The BBE"?
>
> What?!? Please!!!
If that doesn't appeal, try the RSV, the translators of the LXX and John
who in his gospel [19:37] quotes this very clause as...
And again another scripture saith,
They shall look on him whom they pierced.
> And you seem to miss the fact that even if you
> were right, "unto the one..." is still personal
> and there is no way around that and furthermore,
> reading the entire text demonstrates that it is
> indeed about what it is about and you forget
> the tone of the entire verse, to focus on one
> word, to try to make your claim!
Again, where is the logical progression from the fact that God spoke the
words to the idea that he spoke about himself in this clause? Go learn
logic, then have a good think, and then come back and play among the folks
who actually read what the book says.
> You wish to actually try to pretend that just by
> typing that, that it makes the BBE a true piece
> of scholarship?! Say what?!? Please!!!
>
> The BBE is a piece of garbage that should never
> have been printed! And you might argue that it
> is easier for people to understand, but that does
> not make it accurate and that is about as weak
> of an argument as one can make in response,
> which we both know that you surely would have
> made in response, as if that could somehow
> make the problems with that translation (of
> which there are indeed many) go away! Not!
The BBE is an excellent work of scholarship, as is the RSV. The LXX is
always interesting because it's often better, and occasionally massively
better than the Massoretic text. John, of course, was a divinely inspired
writer, so his version *must* be regarded as correct.
> But let me get this straight... You want to say that
> the translation that he used is "doctrinally biased",
> but then at the same time, claim that the so called
> "scholars" that happen to translate it the way that
> you like, are somehow god like and above reproach.
>
> And yes, that *IS* what you're implying, when you
> try to weigh in *your* "scholars" against his, period!
I did not imply that the scholars behind the BBE were better scholars than
those who produced the often very badly flawed KJV; I merely pointed out
that a number of scholars - actually its quite a large number these days -
agreed with my version of the text. John the Apostle did, so I can't be
that far wrong.
> And what tells me as a fact that (no offense) you are
> completely clueless about actual scholarship and the
> languages and that you pulled those Hebrew words
> off of some web site, while pretending that you know
> what you're talking about...
Oh, try not to be mealy mouthed about this. You intended offence. Sadly
for your aim, I'm not very likely to be offended by the ramblings of
someone like you. There are people in this forum [in the past there were a
lot more] who are full of knowledge and know how to think; you appear to
have neither of those qualities, so I only address you when it amuses me
to do so. As to your assertion about my route to the version I gave, I
translated the passage myself, a task for which I have four skills...
I read Hebrew and have been able to for about 11 or 12 years now.
I can think.
I can see that 'eth asher' is translated in the way I did in upwards of 40
other places in the OT. I can see that 'eli' is not only the shortened
form of el:i but it is also the bare preposition itself - in other words,
O brainless one, it actually means 'unto' as well as 'unto me'
> The BBE is:
>
> 1) A paraphrase.
>
> 2) Based off of the corrupt Alexandrian Text,
> which is exactly one text strong, regardless
> of the lie they tell you about that!
>
> 3) Nowhere near a scholarly work, but rather,
> a "simple English paraphrase" and now you
> could even begin to think that it would be
> considered more than that, I have no idea!
BBE is *not* a paraphrase, it is a direct equivalence version, and in a
number of places its closeness to the Hebrew and Greek text is better than
the KJV. It does rearrange the clauses of many Greek passages to make them
read more logically for users of the English language but it never changes
the overall sense by this mechanism - a typical example is Hebrews 9:12
which the KJV renders...
Neither by the blood of goats and calves,
but by his own blood he entered in once
into the holy place, having obtained
eternal redemption for us.
The BBE version is...
And has gone once and for ever into the
holy place, having got eternal salvation,
not through the blood of goats and young
oxen, but through his blood.
One idea present in the KJV is not shown in the BBE because the KJV is
*wrong*. The words 'for us' are not present in the Greek and are not
permissible as an interpolation because the Greek verb form 'heuramenos'
is the Second Aorist Middle Participle of the verb 'heuriskoo'. The middle
form of a verb is equivalent to the english reflexive verb form - where
the agent and patient are the same. The verse says 'He obtained eternal
salvation for himself.' In this verse, and I can quote a lot of others,
BBE is superior to the KJV, where the trinitarian bias of the translators
produced the unforgivable, and wholly false, insertion of the words 'for
us'.
BBE is not a 'simple english' anything, it is based on a carefully
designed basic version of the English language which, with its 850 words,
is able to express anything that may be said in English. For BBE, 50
purely Biblical words, and 100 carefully chosen words that allow poetry to
be more easily understood, were added. The translation team was headed by
Professor S. H. Hooke, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies in the
University of London [and later in the University of Toronto], and when
the Basic form was complete it was checked in detail by a Committee formed
by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press - one of the two printers
of the KJV.
BBE, or to be more precise, the BBE NT, is not based on the 'Alexandrian'
texts. Its sources were the full gamut of Greek and Hebrew texts available
to scholars in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
>> The word 'eth' is the object marker and is commonly
>> not translated, but in clauses where the object is a
>> demonstrative pronoun like 'which' or 'whom', the
>> object marker is translated by 'the one' or 'that'.
>
> Do not even begin to try to pretend that you know
> what you're talking about, nor that you even really
> understand what an "object marker" is, nor even
> that you have anything worth saying when it comes
> to judging what is a scholarly approach and what isn't.
>
> You have completely and totally embarrassed yourself
> and if you can't see that, then you have indeed doubly
> embarrassed yourself! Nor do you even belong in this
> conversation! I'm sorry, but you simply don't!
>
> And this has nothing to do with how it should, or should
> not be translated! I am not even discussing that. This
> is about you and what you just did and if I were you,
> I would be ashamed of myself, since it is clear that you
> thought that you could pull the wool over our eyes like
> this! Shame on you! Shame! Shame! Shame!!! (:
Since you are willing to make pronouncements of this nature, the only
thing that can truly be gauged by readers of this forum is that you are
profoundly ignorant. Why don't you produce a logically argued proof that
my translation is incorrect, showing how the Hebrew wording is constructed
and the rules that govern it.
Ed Form
guardian Snow
The reality is that John actually provides the most compelling
argument that Yehoshua is NOT the Almighty but Trinity Christians and
Vince MUST ignore all his statements in order to hold to the idea that
the man was a deity to be worshiped rather then simply a "mighty one"
of Israel like many other prophets.
A few of the passages they must ignore are:
Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and
believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and DOES NOT
come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
They refuse to hear his words.
Joh 7:28 Yehoshua therefore cried out in the Set-apart Place, teaching
and saying, “YOU both KNOW ME, and you know where I am from. And I
have NOT COME OF MYSELF, but HE WHO SENT ME is true, whom YOU DO NOT
KNOW.
He makes it clear that we do NOT KNOW the one who sent him which
agrees with the prophets.
Joh 12:49 For I have NOT spoken of MYSELF; but the Father WHICH SENT
ME, HE GAVE me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak.
Joh 12:50 And I know that HIS COMMANDMENT IS EVERLASTING LIFE:
whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I
speak.
Joh 12:44 Then Yehoshua cried out and said, “He who believes in Me,
believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
Joh 7:16 Yehoshua answered them, and said, My doctrine is NOT MINE,
but HIS THAT SENT ME.
Joh 5:30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter.
Joh 5:31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
They must also ignore :
Joh 1:18 No one has ever seen Elohim. The only brought-forth Son, who
is in the bosom of the Father, He did declare.
If no one has ever seen him and he was speaking this to others, we
still have not seen or known him who sent the Messiah spoken of as
"the Father" which is YAHWEH.
They must also ignore:
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
They ignore this and worship flesh of the Messiah rather then the
SPIRIT which according to John is his words and his teachings, not his
death and so they ignore:
Joh 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh does not profit
at all. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and are life.
They do this because they have no desire for righteousness.
vince garcia
Actually, he doesn't. there is no "him" in the greek. More literally,
THEY WILL SEE INTO WHOM THEY PIERCED.
But however you wish to translate it, if you look at the whole passage
in Zechariah 12:10, YHVH is talking, who in verse 9 warns that He will
destroy all the nations coming against israel, and israel will see how
they have wounded GOD, not the Messiah.
To say that John is not deriving from the text that Christ is God
doesn't fit the context of Zechariah, where the passage is ABOUT God.
John is already playing fast and loose with Zechariah to start with, and
to also remove the reference to deity there really dillutes the point of
his citation to the point of rendering it pretty meaningless.
Tnen you have the problems with John 1:1, that requires non-trinitarians
to insert an indefinite article to dillute that...then you have Rev.
calling Jesus "first and last", when isaiah says YHVH is first and last,
and so you now have to invent some logic to explain how jesus can be
saying He was dead but now lives--and also is "first and last" as God
claims about Himself.
Really, you have to work to make Jesus NOT be God
Ed Form
> Ed Form wrote:
>>
>> On 29/10/2009 20:48:20, vince garcia wrote:
>>
>> > Ed Form wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually that's a very doctrinally-biased translation, Vince. The text
>> >> uses 'eli eth asher daqaroo' and can be perfectly correctly translated
>> >> 'unto the one whom they pierced' - it is so translated by a number of
>> >> scholars [eg The Bible in Basic English]
>> >
>> > Perhaps, but the traditional and normative translation is as the king
>> > james.
>> >
>> > Of course, being a non-trinitarian, I understand THAT rendition might
>> > cause some problems for you.
>> >
>> > We evangelicals have no issues with it, tho :)
>>
>> Which is odd, Vince, because the favourite author of the trinitarians -
>> John - actually quotes this verse, and he quotes it in precisely the form
>> I gave...
>>
>> John 19:37
>> And again another scripture saith,
>> They shall look on him whom they pierced.
>>
>> Ed Form
> \
>
> Actually, he doesn't. there is no "him" in the greek. More literally,
> THEY WILL SEE INTO WHOM THEY PIERCED.
A preposition followed by a demonstrative pronoun requires the same
translation in Greek as in Hebrew...
they will look UNTO the one WHOM they pierced
The KJV is spot-on here along with the vast majority of English, French
and German versions. The word 'into', which you give for 'eis' is only one
of a number of perfectly possible translations - the words 'unto', 'on'
and 'towards' are also valid, so I can see no justification whatever for
you taking the Diaglott version and suggesting that it is correct English
without the ellipsis - the insertion of 'the one' or 'him' is how Greek is
turned into English in such cases. The Diaglott doesn't insert them
because it is a word-substitution version and Benjamin Wilson did not add
helper words - Wilson, incidentally, was a committed non- trinitarian, an
associate of Dr Thomas the founder of the Christadelphian movement, and
was himself the founder of The Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, the
smaller, Wilsonite faction of which has recently discussed the possibility
of joining in fellowship with the Christadelphians because of the
closeness of their beliefs.
> But however you wish to translate it, if you look at the whole passage
> in Zechariah 12:10, YHVH is talking, who in verse 9 warns that He will
> destroy all the nations coming against israel, and israel will see how
> they have wounded GOD, not the Messiah.
It doesn't say that, Vince. It describes the way in which the nations who
come against Israel will be all but destroyed and then it turns to the
imposition of a new attitude of mind upon the Israelites themselves. The
attitude will be one of total repentance at their former behaviour along
with a shame so complete that they will be unable to look one another in
the face and will sit apart from each other in sorrow over what they have
done. The day in question is that in which the Lord Jesus Christ will
return [See 14:4 and context] and the cause of the extreme shame and
sorrow in Israel will be that they will recognise him, not as God, but as
'the one whom they pierced'. The context contains no suggestion that the
Jews will get to look at God or that the person they do get to look at is
God; that's just the interpolation of a trinitarian who is unable to avoid
carrying his own beliefs into Scripture.
> To say that John is not deriving from the text that Christ is God
> doesn't fit the context of Zechariah, where the passage is ABOUT God.
The passage is *NOT* about God, it is about what God will do, and the
effect that revealing his son to them will have upon the remnant of his
people.
> John is already playing fast and loose with Zechariah to start with,
> and to also remove the reference to deity there really dillutes the
> point of his citation to the point of rendering it pretty meaningless.
Back to Logic 101 again, I'm afraid. John is playing fast and loose with
the citation, but his meaning is no more an indication that Christ is God
than that you are a Chinaman. The entire point of the citation is that the
Jews, by their leaders' criminal conspiracy with the Romans, had pierced
Jesus, so they had now actually brought into existence the thing that they
would one day look on. This is classic John anti-judaism - using a passage
from the prophets as a 'think about it' jab. For example, Jesus spoke to
the crowds outside Pilate's judgement hall...
John 19:5
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And * saith unto them,
Behold the man!
The word Pilate is inserted here without justification; it was Jesus who
said: 'Behold the man' which was a citation from Zechariah 6:12...
And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
and he shall grow up out of his place,
and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
The crowd simply could not stand for this and the rulers shrieked out [the
verb is very strong here]: 'Crucify him.' The reason for this was that
they thought Messiah would do all these things in their day, so the
battered and dishevelled prisoner who drew their attention to a passage of
Zechariah that spoke of the elevation and restoration of Israel was a
complete affront to their way of thinking and they were disgusted with
him. John describes this event, and uses an end-times prophecy for non-end
times events in the spirit in which his gospel was written...
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are
written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
his name.
He appeals to Jews to see Jesus whom they pierced as their saviour, and
accept him before his return from Heaven, so that they are not lost in the
cataclysmic events at the end of the days.
> Tnen you have the problems with John 1:1, that requires
> non-trinitarians to insert an indefinite article to dillute that...then
> you have Rev. calling Jesus "first and last", when isaiah says YHVH is
> first and last, and so you now have to invent some logic to explain how
> jesus can be saying He was dead but now lives--and also is "first and
> last" as God claims about Himself.
>
> Really, you have to work to make Jesus NOT be God
Why do I have to invent some logic to explain why Jesus could say 'I am he
that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore'? It's a
simple statement of fact: Jesus was caused to cease to exist by his
murderers, then God raised him from the dead and gave him everlasting
life. It's precisely what any member of the body of Christ will be able to
say after his or her own resurrection - I'm Paul, I am alive, I was dead,
and behold I am alive for evermore; thanks be to God for his wonderful
gift.
As for Jesus claiming to be Alpha and Omega, where is the problem? Jesus
is the author and finisher of our faith, as Paul said. He is also the
first resurrected human and his body of believers will all be made alive
by him using the power over all things that God has granted to him. It
doesn't say he is God, Vince, it confirms that the promises God made using
the words you have trouble with have been and will be implemented by Jesus
as God's appointed saviour.
Finally, there is no reason whatsoever to insert an indefinite article in
John 1:1 - in fact to do so as the JWs do is a misrepresentation of the
word of God. The verse says...
In the beginning [of the New creation]
was the word [Jesus of Nazareth] and
the word [Jesus of Nazareth] was
devoted to God, and the word [J of N]
was divine.
John always means the beginning of the acquaintance of the disciples with
Jesus when he says 'the beginning'. John always means the human being
Jesus of Nazareth when he says 'the Word' - as incidentally does Luke...
Luke 1:2
Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;
That word 'ministers' means 'body servants', so 'the word' is a human
person in need of care. Luke's gospel opens in exactly the same way as
John's.
The preposition 'pros' does not mean 'with' it has the sense 'moving
towards' and recent Greek scholarship has shown that the idea of one
person being 'pros' another person was a common idiom in street Greek with
the meaning 'devoted to'.
The use of 'theos' without the definite article in a grammatical
construction that does not infer a definite article, diminishes the word
and makes it an adjective. It means that Jesus was of divine origin. It
does not mean that he was God Almighty himself which would have required
'ho theos'.
John goes on...
The same was in the beginning with God.
When John emphasises the identity of a person by saying 'the same' [44
times in his writings], he always means the human being Jesus of Nazareth.
In other words the verse should really be made emphatic or it is a waste
of words...
This same Jesus was devoted to God.
John then goes on in verse 3...
All things were made by him; and without him was
not any thing made that was made.
Again we see John using a phrase that he uses repeatedly in his writings:
'all things'. Look it up in a concordance, Vince, and you will see that he
always means all the things achieved by Jesus in the spiritual realm - the
redemption of men and women into new creatures in him. Look in the RV and
you will see a marginal note which gives this version...
That which hath been made was life in him;
and the life etc...
In other words, John speaks of a creation, but it's a new creation in
which repentant people gain life in Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do
with the creation of the world.
John then goes on to describe the effect that the human being, Jesus of
Nazareth, had on people...
...and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in darkness;
and the darkness comprehended it not.
I doubt that even the most rabid trinitarian would try to claim that this
refers to anything other than Christ being misunderstood, unrecognised,
and rejected by his own folk - here called 'the darkness' - or perhaps to
him being unrecognised and rejected by all of humankind. But there were no
people around when light was shone upon the nascent earth at Creation. in
a trinitarian - Christ as God, the original Creator - sense, this
information is completely inappropriate and has no place in the text at
all. As a description of a new creation based upon Jesus teaching and
living an exemplary life of devotion to God, and being held dear by a
proportion of humankind who have become new creatures as a result, this
information is emphatically correct and necessary to the theme.
Trinitarianism is a pagan imposition upon the word of God, a blasphemous
misrepresentation of the majesty and absolute uniqueness of God who made
us all, including Jesus our Lord. It leaves God's plan of salvation with
no power whatever, and perhaps worst of all, it completely devalues the
resurrection of Jesus in its role as *the* encouragement to believers. An
immortal being who pantomimes death and turns up alive again does not act
as a proof that God either can, or will, make common or garden dead human
beings live again - Christ loses his position as the firstfruits of them
that slept, because his death has no connection whatever with human
mortality. God is declared to be: him...
Who only hath immortality,
dwelling in the light which no man
can approach unto... 1 Timothy 6:16
That word 'immortality', which means 'deathlessness', only occurs in this
one place in all of Scripture. It declares that God cannot die. If the
passage is twisted and taken to refer to Jesus, as many do from a
blatantly corrupt understanding of verse 15, then it states without option
that Jesus was deathless, making his death a pantomime or a lie.
Your the one who has problems, Vince, not me. Scripture teaches a unique
potentate who alone is inherently deathless, and a single human saviour,
*the man* Christ Jesus. A trinitarian can fool himself, but not those who
can read for themselves.
Ed Form
vince garcia
This is all greek to me, ed...
>
> > But however you wish to translate it, if you look at the whole passage
> > in Zechariah 12:10, YHVH is talking, who in verse 9 warns that He will
> > destroy all the nations coming against israel, and israel will see how
> > they have wounded GOD, not the Messiah.
>
> It doesn't say that, Vince. It describes the way in which the nations who
> come against Israel will be all but destroyed and then it turns to the
> imposition of a new attitude of mind upon the Israelites themselves. The
> attitude will be one of total repentance at their former behaviour along
> with a shame so complete that they will be unable to look one another in
> the face and will sit apart from each other in sorrow over what they have
> done.
9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all
the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look
upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one
mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one
that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
Yes--there will be a repentful attitude in its ultimate fulfillment, but
in john's context, the people will be looking upon God, whom they have
periced.
Do you see any repentance on the part of the people around the cross as
they look upon Christ?
No.
So you better take the regular view on this, or john's citation falls
apart. You can't simply say that he's talking about the 2nd return of
Christ; he is clearly talking about the crucifixion, and if not, the
citation is whacked.
The day in question is that in which the Lord Jesus Christ will
> return [See 14:4 and context] and the cause of the extreme shame and
> sorrow in Israel will be that they will recognise him, not as God, but as
> 'the one whom they pierced'. The context contains no suggestion that the
> Jews will get to look at God or that the person they do get to look at is
> God; that's just the interpolation of a trinitarian who is unable to avoid
> carrying his own beliefs into Scripture.
I do not agree with your take here, ed. I think, as I've said, this is
an example of working hard to NOT see the text equating Christ with God
>
> > To say that John is not deriving from the text that Christ is God
> > doesn't fit the context of Zechariah, where the passage is ABOUT God.
>
> The passage is *NOT* about God, it is about what God will do, and the
> effect that revealing his son to them will have upon the remnant of his
> people.
>
> > John is already playing fast and loose with Zechariah to start with,
> > and to also remove the reference to deity there really dillutes the
> > point of his citation to the point of rendering it pretty meaningless.
>
> Back to Logic 101 again, I'm afraid. John is playing fast and loose with
> the citation, but his meaning is no more an indication that Christ is God
> than that you are a Chinaman. The entire point of the citation is that the
> Jews, by their leaders' criminal conspiracy with the Romans, had pierced
> Jesus, so they had now actually brought into existence the thing that they
> would one day look on. This is classic John anti-judaism - using a passage
> from the prophets as a 'think about it' jab. For example, Jesus spoke to
> the crowds outside Pilate's judgement hall...
>
> John 19:5
> Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
> and the purple robe. And * saith unto them,
> Behold the man!
>
> The word Pilate is inserted here without justification; it was Jesus who
> said: 'Behold the man' which was a citation from Zechariah 6:12...
Huh?? You're saying JESUS said those words? You're really getting weird
on me, ed. To say inserting PILATE'S name is unjustified pales in
comparison to inserting JESUS' name here!
Th response of the crowd is to pilate. How you can claim it's Jesus
saying that is beyond me. really.
>
> And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts,
> saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
> and he shall grow up out of his place,
> and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
>
> The crowd simply could not stand for this and the rulers shrieked out [the
> verb is very strong here]: 'Crucify him.' The reason for this was that
> they thought Messiah would do all these things in their day, so the
> battered and dishevelled prisoner who drew their attention to a passage of
> Zechariah that spoke of the elevation and restoration of Israel was a
> complete affront to their way of thinking and they were disgusted with
> him. John describes this event, and uses an end-times prophecy for non-end
> times events in the spirit in which his gospel was written...
>
> And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
> disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are
> written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ,
> the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through
> his name.
>
> He appeals to Jews to see Jesus whom they pierced as their saviour, and
> accept him before his return from Heaven, so that they are not lost in the
> cataclysmic events at the end of the days.
well...I just don't see that, ed.
>
> > Tnen you have the problems with John 1:1, that requires
> > non-trinitarians to insert an indefinite article to dillute that...then
> > you have Rev. calling Jesus "first and last", when isaiah says YHVH is
> > first and last, and so you now have to invent some logic to explain how
> > jesus can be saying He was dead but now lives--and also is "first and
> > last" as God claims about Himself.
> >
> > Really, you have to work to make Jesus NOT be God
>
> Why do I have to invent some logic to explain why Jesus could say 'I am he
> that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore'? It's a
> simple statement of fact: Jesus was caused to cease to exist by his
> murderers, then God raised him from the dead and gave him everlasting
> life. It's precisely what any member of the body of Christ will be able to
> say after his or her own resurrection - I'm Paul, I am alive, I was dead,
> and behold I am alive for evermore; thanks be to God for his wonderful
> gift.
>
> As for Jesus claiming to be Alpha and Omega, where is the problem? Jesus
> is the author and finisher of our faith, as Paul said. He is also the
> first resurrected human and his body of believers will all be made alive
> by him using the power over all things that God has granted to him. It
> doesn't say he is God, Vince, it confirms that the promises God made using
> the words you have trouble with have been and will be implemented by Jesus
> as God's appointed saviour.
The problem is, if you don't see it, is that GOD says HE is first and
last:
4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the
beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
You can't ALSO have the messiah be FIRST AND LAST unless the messiah is
either usurping God's claim of Himself, or if the Messiah is claiming to
be GOD.
>
> Finally, there is no reason whatsoever to insert an indefinite article in
> John 1:1 - in fact to do so as the JWs do is a misrepresentation of the
> word of God. The verse says...
>
> In the beginning [of the New creation]
> was the word [Jesus of Nazareth] and
> the word [Jesus of Nazareth] was
> devoted to God, and the word [J of N]
> was divine.
'devoted'?? Now you've REALLY lost me with THAT insertion
But at least you're willing to admit messiah was divine.
>
> John always means the beginning of the acquaintance of the disciples with
> Jesus when he says 'the beginning'. John always means the human being
> Jesus of Nazareth when he says 'the Word' - as incidentally does Luke...
>
> Luke 1:2
> Even as they delivered them unto us,
> which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
> and ministers of the word;
>
> That word 'ministers' means 'body servants', so 'the word' is a human
> person in need of care. Luke's gospel opens in exactly the same way as
> John's.
>
> The preposition 'pros' does not mean 'with' it has the sense 'moving
> towards' and recent Greek scholarship has shown that the idea of one
> person being 'pros' another person was a common idiom in street Greek with
> the meaning 'devoted to'.
If it took 'modern' scholarship to show us that for 2000 years we've
misunderstood the word, I must wonder why the most ancient christians
understood it as rendered
>
> The use of 'theos' without the definite article in a grammatical
> construction that does not infer a definite article, diminishes the word
> and makes it an adjective. It means that Jesus was of divine origin. It
> does not mean that he was God Almighty himself which would have required
> 'ho theos'.
uh uh, ed. I got you on this one. To put HO there would be to say Jesus
was the FATHER.
That argument doesn't hold water. Were the intent to mean DIVINE as
opposed to GOD, John should have used Theios, not Theos, which is only
translated as GOD. In fact, everywhere else that John uses the word it
could only reasonably be translated as GOD, never DIVINE (see 1st john
where he uses it 40 times or revelation where he uses it 90 times)
MOT ONCE does he use THEOS as a word meaning DIVINE rather than
GOD...except in this one critical verse that opens his writings??
Uh uh. This is an example of playing fast and loose with the text to
de-deify Christ with no textual justification, ed.
Were I to post the 100 or so times john uses THEOS, every single one of
them--but for this crucial verse--could only reasonably translated as
GOD.
I don't want to take up space, so I'll just post a cple online links:
Revelation:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/freqdisp.cgi?book=re&number=2316&count=90&version=kjv
1st john:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/freqdisp.cgi?book=1jo&number=2316&count=40&version=kjv
NOT ONCE does john use THEOS to refer to anything other than GOD, yet
you claim that the first time he used it, he meant DIVINE, then used it
the other way the remaining 100+ times after that.
Nope.
>
> John goes on...
>
> The same was in the beginning with God.
>
> When John emphasises the identity of a person by saying 'the same' [44
> times in his writings], he always means the human being Jesus of Nazareth.
> In other words the verse should really be made emphatic or it is a waste
> of words...
>
> This same Jesus was devoted to God.
>
> John then goes on in verse 3...
>
> All things were made by him; and without him was
> not any thing made that was made.
>
> Again we see John using a phrase that he uses repeatedly in his writings:
> 'all things'. Look it up in a concordance, Vince, and you will see that he
> always means all the things achieved by Jesus in the spiritual realm - the
> redemption of men and women into new creatures in him. Look in the RV and
> you will see a marginal note which gives this version...
>
> That which hath been made was life in him;
> and the life etc...
>
> In other words, John speaks of a creation, but it's a new creation in
> which repentant people gain life in Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do
> with the creation of the world.
As you know, orthdox christianoity, which i am a part of, does not agree
with your take here. We believe Jesus created everything.
I think john don't agree either:
All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into
being that has come into being.
Or the writer of hebrews:
But of the SON He says, "THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER . . .
And, "THOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING DIDST LAY THE FOUNDATION OF THE
EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF _THY_ HANDS
>
> John then goes on to describe the effect that the human being, Jesus of
> Nazareth, had on people...
>
> ...and the life was the light of men.
> And the light shineth in darkness;
> and the darkness comprehended it not.
>
> I doubt that even the most rabid trinitarian would try to claim that this
> refers to anything other than Christ being misunderstood, unrecognised,
> and rejected by his own folk - here called 'the darkness' - or perhaps to
> him being unrecognised and rejected by all of humankind. But there were no
> people around when light was shone upon the nascent earth at Creation. in
> a trinitarian - Christ as God, the original Creator - sense, this
> information is completely inappropriate and has no place in the text at
> all. As a description of a new creation based upon Jesus teaching and
> living an exemplary life of devotion to God, and being held dear by a
> proportion of humankind who have become new creatures as a result, this
> information is emphatically correct and necessary to the theme.
>
> Trinitarianism is a pagan imposition upon the word of God, a blasphemous
> misrepresentation of the majesty and absolute uniqueness of God who made
> us all, including Jesus our Lord. It leaves God's plan of salvation with
> no power whatever,
Oh no, i disagree. Unless Jesus is fully God, that makes Him less than
perfect, and thus makes Him an IMPERFECT sacrifice.
and perhaps worst of all, it completely devalues the
> resurrection of Jesus in its role as *the* encouragement to believers. An
> immortal being who pantomimes death and turns up alive again does not act
> as a proof that God either can, or will, make common or garden dead human
> beings live again - Christ loses his position as the firstfruits of them
> that slept, because his death has no connection whatever with human
> mortality. God is declared to be: him...
>
> Who only hath immortality,
> dwelling in the light which no man
> can approach unto... 1 Timothy 6:16
>
> That word 'immortality', which means 'deathlessness', only occurs in this
> one place in all of Scripture. It declares that God cannot die. If the
> passage is twisted and taken to refer to Jesus, as many do from a
> blatantly corrupt understanding of verse 15, then it states without option
> that Jesus was deathless, making his death a pantomime or a lie.
>
> Your the one who has problems, Vince, not me. Scripture teaches a unique
> potentate who alone is inherently deathless, and a single human saviour,
> *the man* Christ Jesus. A trinitarian can fool himself, but not those who
> can read for themselves.
I could say the same about you, ed. The scriptures are just as clear to
us that Christ IS God, and i've shown you some reasons why. You can try
to argue against it and use some greek technicalities or philosophical
positions to say the scripture actually means something other than what
it says, but you would still be ignoring the practical message of the
text in order to make it fit a pre-existing agenda to deny Christ's
deity
You're still the best theologian I know, tho, despite being whacked in
some (important) areas.
But of the SON He says, "Thy throne, O GOD, is forever..."
>
> Ed Form
Ed Form
> Ed Form wrote:
>
>> A preposition followed by a demonstrative pronoun requires the same
>> translation in Greek as in Hebrew...
>>
>> they will look UNTO the one WHOM they pierced
>>
>> The KJV is spot-on here along with the vast majority of English, French
>> and German versions. The word 'into', which you give for 'eis' is only one
>> of a number of perfectly possible translations - the words 'unto', 'on'
>> and 'towards' are also valid, so I can see no justification whatever for
>> you taking the Diaglott version and suggesting that it is correct English
>> without the ellipsis - the insertion of 'the one' or 'him' is how Greek is
>> turned into English in such cases. The Diaglott doesn't insert them
>> because it is a word-substitution version and Benjamin Wilson did not add
>> helper words - Wilson, incidentally, was a committed non- trinitarian, an
>> associate of Dr Thomas the founder of the Christadelphian movement, and
>> was himself the founder of The Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, the
>> smaller, Wilsonite faction of which has recently discussed the possibility
>> of joining in fellowship with the Christadelphians because of the
>> closeness of their beliefs.
>
> This is all greek to me, ed...
Then learn Greek! (:o^) Actually you don't need it for this point to be
clear. The Diaglott version you cited was produced by changing the Greek
words into the best equivalent English word and leaving the word order
almost unchanged. It was nearly exclusively a 'concordant' version - that
is Benjamin Wilson tried to use the same English word for every occurrence
of a given Greek word; it wasn't always possible, but he tried. This
resulted in the preposition 'eis' being translated 'into' far more often
than is really justifiable. John 19:37 is one of those places. The crowd
didn't look 'into' Jesus because he had a great open wound. The soldiers
carrying out the Lord's crucifixion would not have permitted the crowd to
approach near enough; they couldn't be sure whether he had fanatical
followers who might try to rescue him? What the crowd did was look 'at'
Jesus - 'unto' Jesus - 'on' Jesus; they did not look 'into' him. The
Diaglott is deficient as an English readers version - it's an aid to
understanding the Greek original for those who want to examine the
language but who don't read Greek. To turn it into a readable English
version it needs considerable enhancement, and in the case of a
preposition followed by a relative pronoun this enhancement is universally
agreed to be the addition of some such helper as 'the one', 'him' and so
on.
There is, incidentally, another problem with your argument that you
obviously haven't spotted, and which gave me a fit of the giggles when I
recognised it. The writer to the Hebrews opens his letter with these
words...
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners
spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds...
So God the father spoke in times past by the prophets and has, more
recently spoken by his son. Zechariah was a prophet of times past, so God
the Father spoke by him; Jesus was God's son, so God spoke by him once he
appeared in Israel. But Zechariah, as God's spokesman is supposed to have
said...
and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced
And, if he did, then it is God the Father who was pierced. That's
Modalism, Vince, not trinitarianism.
> 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy
> all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
> 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of
> Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall
> look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as
> one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as
> one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.
>
> Yes--there will be a repentful attitude in its ultimate fulfillment,
> but in john's context, the people will be looking upon God, whom they
> have periced.
>
> Do you see any repentance on the part of the people around the cross as
> they look upon Christ?
Why would one see repentance? [Actually a number of the crowd left beating
their breasts at the terrible things that had been done in their name] Do
you see John standing at the cross and stating those words to the crowd?
Get a grip, Vince. John wrote some years later and pointed out to his
Jewish readers that they'd produced the thing the prophet warned they
would look at. As I said last post, this was John trying to get through to
the Jews that Jesus is the son of God and that they had done to him what
the prophets said they would. If they did not repent and accept him as
their saviour they'd either die and perish, or, for those alive at the
time of the Lord's return, they'd be swept aside in the national
catastrophe immediately preceding his return and perish. Even the
repentant ones would end up rescued but filled with shame because they
would be looking at the one whom their fathers pierced.
> No.
>
> So you better take the regular view on this, or john's citation falls
> apart. You can't simply say that he's talking about the 2nd return of
> Christ; he is clearly talking about the crucifixion, and if not, the
> citation is whacked.
John's citation is the only thing that can rescue you from accusations of
Modalism, dear boy. He *is* talking about the crucifixion: Look he says,
the prophet Zechariah promised that, at the last day, when God destroys
the nations that come against Israel, your descendants who survive the
cataclysm will look on the one they pierced and be desperately ashamed.
When they contrived to have Jesus of Nazareth hung on a cross and pierced
by a spear, your fathers set up the first part of the prophecy. Unless you
turn to Jesus as your saviour, the second half of the prophecy is all that
waits for you -- national disaster and stinging, paralysing shame.
> The day in question is that in which the Lord Jesus Christ will
>> return [See 14:4 and context] and the cause of the extreme shame and
>> sorrow in Israel will be that they will recognise him, not as God, but as
>> 'the one whom they pierced'. The context contains no suggestion that the
>> Jews will get to look at God or that the person they do get to look at is
>> God; that's just the interpolation of a trinitarian who is unable to avoid
>> carrying his own beliefs into Scripture.
>
> I do not agree with your take here, ed. I think, as I've said, this is
> an example of working hard to NOT see the text equating Christ with God
Show me a logic diagram that delivers the conclusion that Jesus is God
from the fact that God spoke through Zechariah and said that the last-day
survivors of the Jewish nation will look upon him whom they pierced. The
connection isn't there.
Then you really do need to sit down and read more carefully. The word
Pilate is not in the text and the person of Pilate is not mentioned. It
says
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
and the purple robe. And saith unto them,
Behold the man!
You completely miss the point, Vince. It doesn't matter whether Jesus or
Pilate pronounced the words: they were either a conscious citation by
Jesus or an unconscious one by Pilate. Whichever it was, the words were
spoken and the rulers lost control of themselves and shrieked out: crucify
him, crucify him. The original words were spoken by Zechariah about Joshua
the High Priest, the son of Josedech [Zechariah 6:9-15] and made that
righteous man a figure of the great High Priest to come. My point was that
this is how John emphasises the messiahship of Jesus while Jesus is being
humiliated and beaten and eventually murdered: he quotes the prophets, in
effect saying: This happened to remind you of your duty to Messiah which
you abrogated and betrayed when you shamefully and unjustly used him. The
citation from Zechariah in John 19:37 is one of those great cattle-prod
pokes at their conscience.
>> He appeals to Jews to see Jesus whom they pierced as their saviour, and
>> accept him before his return from Heaven, so that they are not lost in the
>> cataclysmic events at the end of the days.
>
>
>
> well...I just don't see that, ed.
Sadly, I already knew that. If you can't even see that your interpretation
of Zechariah 12:10 makes you a teacher of modalism, the subtle stuff is
going to sail over your head.
>> As for Jesus claiming to be Alpha and Omega, where is the problem? Jesus
>> is the author and finisher of our faith, as Paul said. He is also the
>> first resurrected human and his body of believers will all be made alive
>> by him using the power over all things that God has granted to him. It
>> doesn't say he is God, Vince, it confirms that the promises God made using
>> the words you have trouble with have been and will be implemented by Jesus
>> as God's appointed saviour.
>
> The problem is, if you don't see it, is that GOD says HE is first and
> last:
> 4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the
> beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
I'd forgotten that the verse doesn't actually say God is the first and the
last. It says he is the first and *WITH* the last. But, setting that small
blunder aside...
> You can't ALSO have the messiah be FIRST AND LAST unless the messiah is
> either usurping God's claim of Himself, or if the Messiah is claiming
> to be GOD.
Why not? Again, Vince, you are not thinking this through logically. In the
same way as Jesus is the agency by which a new creation has been brought
about, just as the original physical creation was brought about by the
agency of Elohim, but the resulting edifice was the sole possession of
YHWH Elohim, the supplier of the power and the originator of the design by
which it was accomplished, so Jesus is the beginning and the ending of the
process of salvation. His exemplary life, his wonderful teaching, his
complete acceptance of God's will and his sacrifice of himself were the
beginning; his anointing with power over all things and the ability this
has given him to raise his brethren and sisters from the dead will, one
day very soon, be the end of it [ culmination, not failure].
So at the moment we find that you don't actually have a statement that God
is the first and the last and the justification for using those words of
Jesus is firmly based upon his position as the righteous servant and son
of God. It doesn't require him to be God at all.
>> Finally, there is no reason whatsoever to insert an indefinite article in
>> John 1:1 - in fact to do so as the JWs do is a misrepresentation of the
>> word of God. The verse says...
>>
>> In the beginning [of the New creation]
>> was the word [Jesus of Nazareth] and
>> the word [Jesus of Nazareth] was
>> devoted to God, and the word [J of N]
>> was divine.
>
> 'devoted'?? Now you've REALLY lost me with THAT insertion
How does a simple statement that one person being 'pros' another person is
a now well known Greek idiom for the first person being devoted to the
second give a bright lad like you such a problem?
> But at least you're willing to admit messiah was divine.
It doesn't mean he is God or 'a god' simply that he is of divine origin.
God was his father, and unless God had caused his mother's pregnancy, he
would not have existed at all.
>> John always means the beginning of the acquaintance of the disciples with
>> Jesus when he says 'the beginning'. John always means the human being
>> Jesus of Nazareth when he says 'the Word' - as incidentally does Luke...
>>
>> Luke 1:2
>> Even as they delivered them unto us,
>> which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
>> and ministers of the word;
>>
>> That word 'ministers' means 'body servants', so 'the word' is a human
>> person in need of care. Luke's gospel opens in exactly the same way as
>> John's.
>>
>> The preposition 'pros' does not mean 'with' it has the sense 'moving
>> towards' and recent Greek scholarship has shown that the idea of one
>> person being 'pros' another person was a common idiom in street Greek with
>> the meaning 'devoted to'.
>
> If it took 'modern' scholarship to show us that for 2000 years we've
> misunderstood the word, I must wonder why the most ancient christians
> understood it as rendered
I would very much like to see your list of the people who said Jesus was a
pre-existent divine being in the 1st century.
>> The use of 'theos' without the definite article in a grammatical
>> construction that does not infer a definite article, diminishes the word
>> and makes it an adjective. It means that Jesus was of divine origin. It
>> does not mean that he was God Almighty himself which would have required
>> 'ho theos'.
>
> uh uh, ed. I got you on this one. To put HO there would be to say Jesus
> was the FATHER.
Hurrah!!!! [Throws hat in the air and slaps old mate Vince on back!] At
last you've spotted that modalism lurks very close to the surface here. It
would only say that Jesus was the father if the bits that go before it
were actually speaking of Jesus as God. They are not. The lack of the
definite article is correct in my version and without it it isn't actually
possible to read Jesus as a person of the trinity - it would also not be
possible to read Jesus as a person of the trinity if the definite article
had been present because it would have supported modalism - except that
the first part of the sentence doesn't place Jesus with God at the
beginning anyway. Let me be absolutely clear on this one point, Vince. No
matter how much you and your fellow trinitarians dance or sing, the words
'kai ho logos hen pros ton theon' do not mean 'and the Word was with God,'
because the word 'pros' does not mean 'with'.
> That argument doesn't hold water. Were the intent to mean DIVINE as
> opposed to GOD, John should have used Theios, not Theos, which is only
> translated as GOD. In fact, everywhere else that John uses the word it
> could only reasonably be translated as GOD, never DIVINE (see 1st john
> where he uses it 40 times or revelation where he uses it 90 times)
>
> MOT ONCE does he use THEOS as a word meaning DIVINE rather than
> GOD...except in this one critical verse that opens his writings??
John doesn't use the word theios at all and it's rather rare; it only
occurs three times in Scripture. Two are close together in 2 Peter 1 and
the other was spoken by Paul on Mars Hill. The word has a very particular
meaning, and it is not 'originated by God' in the simple sense that John
uses; it means 'specifically of the Godhead', and its actually a noun,
normally translated 'the Godhead', in the Acts verse. So we have...
2 Peter 1:3-4
According as his *godhead power* hath given unto us
all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through
the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
promises: that by these ye might be partakers of
*the nature of the Godhead,* having escaped the corruption
that is in the world through lust.
..and...
Acts 17:29
Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God,
we ought not to think that *the Godhead* is like
unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and
man�s device.
> Uh uh. This is an example of playing fast and loose with the text to
> de-deify Christ with no textual justification, ed.
>
> Were I to post the 100 or so times john uses THEOS, every single one of
> them--but for this crucial verse--could only reasonably translated as
> GOD.
Rather than pointing me to web links, try a simple search in the Online
Bible for the entity 'theos ~ o theos'. You'll finish up with quite a
small number of verses [44]. If you look carefully through them, you'll
see that most of them actually have the definite article attached to theos
but separated by a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence. Eliminate
them with 'o * theos', and get rid of the others that have other forms of
the definite article or its direct substitutes line 'the same God'.
By this stage, Vince you are down to about 12 or 13 verses and almost all
of them collapse because they are sentences like: 'he is not a god of the
dead' - where theos doesn't actually mean God himself but is used to mark
him apart from a non-existent type of deity who speaks loosely of his
beloved servants who sleep in the grave. Or they say stuff like 'for us
there is none other god', or 'but to us their is one God' where, again,
the word is used in the general sense ' a deity'. So they all go out of
the window.
Then remember that the definite article is often omitted after the verb
'to be'. So the one or two verses like that are gone as well.
By the time you do all this, you will find that you have no evidence of
anarthrous use of the word theos to mean God almighty himself. Do your
homework, Vince. You don't have a case, just an imported idea that you
cannot jump over.
I'm going to stop here and not bother to deal with your comments on the
rest of my post; but I will issue you with a challenge. Get back to me
with a specific passage where theos is used without an article and where
it explicitly refers to God Almighty himself and I'll be willing to go
another round. At this point I don't really see the point.
But cheer up. I still think your a top chap (:oD)
Ed Form
Sam taylor
You believe Jesus IS G-D
you IS what You IS
and You Was what You WAS
Cause You ain't what You WAS You IS what You IS
"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4AEED...@ix.netcom.com...
vince garcia
too much text to post so i have to cut text
>
> > This is all greek to me, ed...
>
> Then learn Greek! (:o^)
I'm not totally ignorant in it, and it would be great to know, BUT...
i've lived and studied long enough to see some problems with it. For
instnace, as we see here, you can have one greek scholar look at the
same greek text another greek scholar looks at, and both see totally
different things, and denounce the other's view.
Were "understanding the original greek" the sole key to scriptural
understanding, we'd all believe the same things and have only one
denomination.
But the fact is, knowing koine greek only takes you so far, and i've
concluded that what we often do wrong is put the greek under a
microscope and miss the big picture by focusing in on the words.
Like putting a rembrandt thru an electron microscope.
The guys who wrote the NT weren't greek scholars, using university-level
adherence to the highest rules of greek grammar; they were normal dudes,
using the language of their time in a 'man on the street' manner. To
hold them to a scholar-level standard of greek I think causes us to
sometimes miss what they are actually saying. (But not on any critical
issues)
One example: using the highest level of greek language technicalities,
Jesus was crucified on a STAKE, not a CROSS. But using the 'street'
jargon of the time, CROSS is perfectly understandable and acceptable.
(Now don't go on about torture stakes; that's not a subject i want to
argue over rt now)
So the way I approach it is, look first at what the language seems to
mean and say, using the greek.
Look at the context and see if holding the text to that standard fully
fits what seems to be said.
If not, see if the writer might be using the word in a way OTHER than
what the strictest rules of interpretation would normally require.
Alter my understanding of the text by what makes the most sense if it
seems appropriate and does not contradict an essential of the faith.
> There is, incidentally, another problem with your argument that you
> obviously haven't spotted, and which gave me a fit of the giggles when I
> recognised it. The writer to the Hebrews opens his letter with these
> words...
>
> God, who at sundry times and in divers manners
> spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
> Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
> whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
> by whom also he made the worlds...
>
> So God the father spoke in times past by the prophets and has, more
> recently spoken by his son. Zechariah was a prophet of times past, so God
> the Father spoke by him; Jesus was God's son, so God spoke by him once he
> appeared in Israel. But Zechariah, as God's spokesman is supposed to have
> said...
>
> and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced
>
> And, if he did, then it is God the Father who was pierced. That's
> Modalism, Vince, not trinitarianism.
One could indeed infer modalism from that. OR, since all the members of
the Trinity are equally God, one can see Christ there and still see the
Father WITHOUT applying modalism to it
I/we see no problems here
I think it's more problematic to explain away verse after verse that
affirms the deity of Christ. Add to that Jesus would be less than a
perfect sacrifice if He is less than deity, and you have the next
problem
>> Why would one see repentance? [Actually a number of the crowd left beating
> their breasts at the terrible things that had been done in their name] Do
> you see John standing at the cross and stating those words to the crowd?
> Get a grip, Vince. John wrote some years later and pointed out to his
> Jewish readers that they'd produced the thing the prophet warned they
> would look at. As I said last post, this was John trying to get through to
> the Jews that Jesus is the son of God and that they had done to him what
> the prophets said they would.
And as I said, the OT passage doesn't even hint it is about the messiah.
If they did not repent and accept him as
> their saviour they'd either die and perish, or, for those alive at the
> time of the Lord's return, they'd be swept aside in the national
> catastrophe immediately preceding his return and perish. Even the
> repentant ones would end up rescued but filled with shame because they
> would be looking at the one whom their fathers pierced.
Think it would be more appropriate for Paul to quote that verse when
dealing with the Parousia then if true
>
> > No.
> >
> > So you better take the regular view on this, or john's citation falls
> > apart. You can't simply say that he's talking about the 2nd return of
> > Christ; he is clearly talking about the crucifixion, and if not, the
> > citation is whacked.
>
> John's citation is the only thing that can rescue you from accusations of
> Modalism, dear boy.
How figurest, thou this? If Augustine, Aquinus, Luther and Calvin
weren't modalists, I don't see why _I_ would have to be
He *is* talking about the crucifixion: Look he says,
> the prophet Zechariah promised that, at the last day, when God destroys
> the nations that come against Israel, your descendants who survive the
> cataclysm will look on the one they pierced and be desperately ashamed.
That's not at the crucifixion; that's at the 2nd coming.
There is a multi-meaning to the citation, I suppose
> When they contrived to have Jesus of Nazareth hung on a cross and pierced
> by a spear, your fathers set up the first part of the prophecy. Unless you
> turn to Jesus as your saviour, the second half of the prophecy is all that
> waits for you -- national disaster and stinging, paralysing shame.
>
> > The day in question is that in which the Lord Jesus Christ will
> >> return [See 14:4 and context] and the cause of the extreme shame and
> >> sorrow in Israel will be that they will recognise him, not as God, but as
> >> 'the one whom they pierced'. The context contains no suggestion that the
> >> Jews will get to look at God or that the person they do get to look at is
> >> God; that's just the interpolation of a trinitarian who is unable to avoid
> >> carrying his own beliefs into Scripture.
> >
> > I do not agree with your take here, ed. I think, as I've said, this is
> > an example of working hard to NOT see the text equating Christ with God
>
> Show me a logic diagram that delivers the conclusion that Jesus is God
> from the fact that God spoke through Zechariah and said that the last-day
> survivors of the Jewish nation will look upon him whom they pierced. The
> connection isn't there.
If you aren't swayed by the Reformers, who were much brighter than I, I
certainly can't make a better argument.
Perhaps dave can
Th response of the crowd is to pilate. How you can claim it's Jesus
> > saying that is beyond me. really.
>
> Then you really do need to sit down and read more carefully. The word
> Pilate is not in the text and the person of Pilate is not mentioned. It
> says
>
> Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
> and the purple robe. And saith unto them,
> Behold the man!
Did jesus have Asperger's? Why would He talk in the 3rd person?!
Would make better sense to say, "Behold ME"
Don't think Luther or Calvin would agree with you here.
>
> You completely miss the point, Vince. It doesn't matter whether Jesus or
> Pilate pronounced the words: they were either a conscious citation by
> Jesus or an unconscious one by Pilate.
thank you
Whichever it was, the words were
> spoken and the rulers lost control of themselves and shrieked out: crucify
> him, crucify him. The original words were spoken by Zechariah about Joshua
> the High Priest, the son of Josedech [Zechariah 6:9-15] and made that
> righteous man a figure of the great High Priest to come. My point was that
> this is how John emphasises the messiahship of Jesus while Jesus is being
> humiliated and beaten and eventually murdered: he quotes the prophets, in
> effect saying: This happened to remind you of your duty to Messiah which
> you abrogated and betrayed when you shamefully and unjustly used him. The
> citation from Zechariah in John 19:37 is one of those great cattle-prod
> pokes at their conscience.
I won't argue too much here; i'll just hold it was Pilate speaking. God
may well have been rebuking the crowd THRU him since He spoke thru
Caiaphas too
>
> >> He appeals to Jews to see Jesus whom they pierced as their saviour, and
> >> accept him before his return from Heaven, so that they are not lost in the
> >> cataclysmic events at the end of the days.
> >
> >
> >
> > well...I just don't see that, ed.
>
> Sadly, I already knew that. If you can't even see that your interpretation
> of Zechariah 12:10 makes you a teacher of modalism, the subtle stuff is
> going to sail over your head.
And apparently over the head of some pretty hot theologians and scholars
too, ed, whose shadows I am not worthy to stand in
>
> > The problem is, if you don't see it, is that GOD says HE is first and
> > last:
> > 4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the
> > beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
>
> I'd forgotten that the verse doesn't actually say God is the first and the
> last. It says he is the first and *WITH* the last. But, setting that small
> blunder aside...
WITH is not there
>
> > You can't ALSO have the messiah be FIRST AND LAST unless the messiah is
> > either usurping God's claim of Himself, or if the Messiah is claiming
> > to be GOD.
>
> Why not? Again, Vince, you are not thinking this through logically.
Sure I am. Were the king of england (head of the anglican church) to
declare himself to be "King of kings," that would be an open affront to
Christ, who says that of HIMSELF.
So too if the messiah were to say of Himself that HE is "first and last"
when YHVH said that of HIMSELF in the OT, THAT is an affront.
Don't know why you don't see that
In the
> same way as Jesus is the agency by which a new creation has been brought
> about, just as the original physical creation was brought about by the
> agency of Elohim, but the resulting edifice was the sole possession of
> YHWH Elohim, the supplier of the power and the originator of the design by
> which it was accomplished, so Jesus is the beginning and the ending of the
> process of salvation. His exemplary life, his wonderful teaching, his
> complete acceptance of God's will and his sacrifice of himself were the
> beginning; his anointing with power over all things and the ability this
> has given him to raise his brethren and sisters from the dead will, one
> day very soon, be the end of it [ culmination, not failure].
>
> So at the moment we find that you don't actually have a statement that God
> is the first and the last and the justification for using those words of
> Jesus is firmly based upon his position as the righteous servant and son
> of God. It doesn't require him to be God at all.
Can't see that, ed. The language is inappropriate for other than GOD to
speak.
And i should recall that the deity of Christ isn't based only on these
few verses; it's taught in a variety of verses (calling Christ the LORD
OF GLORY when that is, again, a tital for YHVH in the OT is but one more
example). I know that you have a world view for redefining those verses
to deny Christ's deity, but as I've said, i think you have to work at it
John for one... :)
>
> >> The use of 'theos' without the definite article in a grammatical
> >> construction that does not infer a definite article, diminishes the word
> >> and makes it an adjective. It means that Jesus was of divine origin. It
> >> does not mean that he was God Almighty himself which would have required
> >> 'ho theos'.
> >
> > uh uh, ed. I got you on this one. To put HO there would be to say Jesus
> > was the FATHER.
>
> Hurrah!!!! [Throws hat in the air and slaps old mate Vince on back!] At
> last you've spotted that modalism lurks very close to the surface here.
Yes...or trinitarianism :)
It
> would only say that Jesus was the father if the bits that go before it
> were actually speaking of Jesus as God. They are not. The lack of the
> definite article is correct in my version and without it it isn't actually
> possible to read Jesus as a person of the trinity - it would also not be
> possible to read Jesus as a person of the trinity if the definite article
> had been present because it would have supported modalism - except that
> the first part of the sentence doesn't place Jesus with God at the
> beginning anyway. Let me be absolutely clear on this one point, Vince. No
> matter how much you and your fellow trinitarians dance or sing, the words
> 'kai ho logos hen pros ton theon' do not mean 'and the Word was with God,'
> because the word 'pros' does not mean 'with'.
Apparently it somehow does, since every Bible I know of, catholic and
protestant, translates it thataway. Interlinears i think say TOWARD.
But again...it's greek to me. And supposing you to be right, and all our
bibles wrong, I must ask myself why even secular translators, like those
who did the NJB, also render it WITH.
I certainly can't prove it, but given the fact that
translators--religious and secular--across the board totally disgaree
with you here, i suspect you're using a bad hermeneutic
Again, ed--that sounds techincal, bright, and 'conclusive'...but I'm
still left with the fact that scholars across the board disagree with
you. I suppose some would have an agenda they don't want to threaten,
but most real university-level theologians I've known have a desire to
get to the truth, regardless of its implications, and I find it hard to
believe that so many fluent people translate these verses totally wrong
in the face of what you claim is the 'only' way the verse can
legitimately be understood.
Do your
> homework, Vince. You don't have a case, just an imported idea that you
> cannot jump over.
>
> I'm going to stop here and not bother to deal with your comments on the
> rest of my post; but I will issue you with a challenge. Get back to me
> with a specific passage where theos is used without an article and where
> it explicitly refers to God Almighty himself and I'll be willing to go
> another round. At this point I don't really see the point.
>
> But cheer up. I still think your a top chap (:oD)
>
Thx ed--you're still the best theologian I know, and being as i'll make
the grave before you, I'll put in a good word for you up there
guardian Snow
Unfortunately, your position is completely unfounded by scriptures my
friend:
Psa 82:6 I, I said, “You are elohim, And ALL of you are sons of the
Most High.
The Psalm of David clearly teaches that ALL are sons of the Most High.
Your presumption of a deity in the Messiah assume that he came to
teach the world of himself, which he clearly refutes many times over
in the Good News if you read and consider what he says:
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
Joh 6:63 “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh does not profit
at all. The words that I speak to you are Spirit and are life.
Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word AND
believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and DOES NOT
come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
You have not heard his word or believed in him who sent the Messiah
and have attempted to make him speak of himself.
Joh 7:28 Yehoshua therefore cried out in the Set-apart Place, teaching
and saying, “YOU both KNOW ME, and you know where I am from. And I
have NOT COME OF MYSELF, but HE WHO SENT ME is true, whom YOU DO NOT
KNOW.
He did NOT COME OF HIMSELF!
Joh 12:49 For I have NOT spoken of MYSELF; but the Father WHICH SENT
ME, HE GAVE me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak.
He DID NOT speak of HIMSELF.
Joh 7:16 Yehoshua answered them, and said, My doctrine is NOT MINE,
but HIS THAT SENT ME.
He DID NOT teach his own doctrine
Joh 5:30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter.
Joh 5:31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
I believe we are NOT TO RECEIVE THE MESSIAH BUT THE ONE WHO SENT HIM!
Why, because he said so...
Joh 12:44 Then Yehoshua cried out and said, “He who believes in Me,
believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
Mar 9:37 “Whoever receives one of such little children in My Name
receives Me. And whoever receives Me, RECEIVES ME NOT, but the One WHO
SENT ME.”
Num 6:24 “Yahweh bless you and guard you;
Num 6:25 Yahweh make His face shine upon you, and show favour to you;
Num 6:26 Yahweh lift up His face upon you, and give you peace.” ’
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Begin to see yourself as a soul with a body rather than a body with a
soul.
Wayne Dyer
Exo 20:7 “You do not bring the Name of 'Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [translated
Yahweh] your Elohim to naught, for Yahweh does not leave the one
unpunished who brings His Name to naught.
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.
Mark Twain
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download scriptures free
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip
Restored Names King James for E-sword
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/Jubilees.pdf
Book of Jubilees
I believe that being successful means having a balance of success
stories across the many areas of your life. You can't truly be
considered successful in your business life if your home life is in
shambles.
Zig Ziglar
vince garcia
>
> On Nov 5, 11:44 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, your position is completely unfounded by scriptures my
> friend:
>
> Psa 82:6 I, I said, �You are elohim, And ALL of you are sons of the
> Most High.
>
> The Psalm of David clearly teaches that ALL are sons of the Most High.
> Your presumption of a deity in the Messiah assume that he came to
> teach the world of himself
Well, there you go--your position and ed's seem to be the same.
That, for no other reason, should cause ed to rethink his views...
guardian Snow
> > Psa 82:6 I, I said, “You are elohim, And ALL of you are sons of the
> > Most High.
>
> > The Psalm of David clearly teaches that ALL are sons of the Most High.
> > Your presumption of a deity in the Messiah assume that he came to
> > teach the world of himself
>
> Well, there you go--your position and ed's seem to be the same.
>
> That, for no other reason, should cause ed to rethink his views...
>
> , which he clearly refutes many times over
Just because you sit around using mistranslated scriptures and
continue to pervert the truth and bear false witness against me to
boot, doesn't mean that I care who agrees with me except YAHWEH.
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Yehoshua of Nazareth, a
man approved of YHWH among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
which YHWH did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of YHWH, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain:
Act 2:24 Whom YHWH hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Just because CHRISTIANS hold the tradition of removing the name of
YHWH from their lips doesn't mean it is correct and stop blaming the
Jews for a Christian practice. Seems to me is the Messiah was a
deity, Acts 2 would have been the PERFECT place to declare it but even
in your mistranslated perversion of scriptures it doesn't say he is a
"God" it says he is a man and it says he was raised by an external
power from the dead.
Isa 42:8 I am YAHWEH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another, neither my praise to graven images.
There is only ONE.
Mar 12:29 And Yehoshua answered him, The first of all the commandments
is, Hear, O Israel; YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment.
Here we have a direct quote of Deuteronomy so that we can have no
doubt exactly what is said in the Hebrew:
Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH is our Elohim, YAHWEH is one:
Deu 6:5 And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy Elohim with all thine heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Can we have any doubt that Yehoshua made known the name of YAHWEH, his
Father’s name.
Exo 3:15 And Elohim said further to Mosheh, “Thus you are to say to
the children of Yisrael, YAHWEH Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of
Aḇraham, the Elohim of Yitsḥaq, and the Elohim of Yaaqoḇ, has sent
me to you. This is My Name forever, and this is My remembrance to all
generations.’
This is the ONLY name ever given.
Act 2:21 ‘And it shall be that everyone who calls on the Name of
Yahweh shall be saved.’
Joh 5:30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter.
This is not the claim of an Almighty being.. it is the claim of his
SERVANT.
Mat 12:18 Behold my SERVANT, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom
my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall
shew judgment to the Gentiles.
If you would like to comment on this, feel free to add them to this
web page.
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua/web/removing-the-name-of-yhwh
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua <-- please join
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is
really true, there would be little hope of advance.
Orville Wright
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download scriptures free
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James for E-sword
http://www.e-sword.net/ Free bible software
If history is any indication, all truths will eventually turn out to
be false.
Dean Kamen
__,
.-'_-'`
.' {`
.-'````'-. .-'``'.
.'(0) '._/ _.-. `\
} '. )) _<` )` |
`-.,\'.\_,.-\` \`---; .' /
) ) '-. '--:
( ' ( ) '. \
'. ) .'( / )
)/ ( '. /
'._( ) .'
gs ( (
`-.
Ed Form
> But the fact is, knowing koine greek only takes you so far, and i've
> concluded that what we often do wrong is put the greek under a
> microscope and miss the big picture by focusing in on the words.
>
> Like putting a rembrandt thru an electron microscope.
A surprisingly apt simile. Some years back I stood on the back staircase
of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, stunned by the gigantic painting 'The
Night Watch' that hung on the landing there.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg
From 4 feet or so back from the painting it is filled with detail: lace on
collars and cuffs, brocade round the edge of the yellow tunic in the
foreground and so on. Step forward to 18 inches or so from the canvas and
you see that the detail *is not there* - the painting appears to have been
done with a palette knife or some other large, unsubtle instrument. Yet go
back to the first position and the detail returns, and no matter how hard
you try to get past the illusion, you can not. The detail you see in
Scripture isn't there, Vince. The Bible does not teach trinitarianism and
does not support it by inference. The doctrine's strongest supporters, the
Roman catholic Church, admit that it cannot be supported from Scripture
and call upon the divine right of the church to expound and explain
doctrine as their reason for supporting it - it is, they say, later
revelation.
>> and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced
>>
>> And, if he did, then it is God the Father who was pierced. That's
>> Modalism, Vince, not trinitarianism.
>
> One could indeed infer modalism from that. OR, since all the members of
> the Trinity are equally God, one can see Christ there and still see the
> Father WITHOUT applying modalism to it
>
> I/we see no problems here
>
> I think it's more problematic to explain away verse after verse that
> affirms the deity of Christ. Add to that Jesus would be less than a
> perfect sacrifice if He is less than deity, and you have the next
> problem
What is a problem is your lack of logic. You keep telling me that the
words of this or that writer can only be understood if the man Jesus
Christ is God, when in every case you've put up there is no logical
support at all for such a conclusion. You are injecting doctrine where it
doesn't exist. And where exactly does the Bible tell us that it was
necessary for Christ to be deity in order to qualify as a sacrifice? The
idea is tripe with no foundation anywhere in Scripture. Paul makes this
point very clear...
1Co 15:21
For since by man came death, by man came also
the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all
die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
But every man in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
A man had to be the sacrifice, Vince. Because it was a man who issued the
insult to God and occasioned the sentence upon humankind by which their
mortality was allowed to run its course, it had to be a man's obedience
that made the rescue of the faithful minority of humankind possible. Adam
wasn't deity, yet he could pass on mortality to all of his progeny -
including Jesus of Nazareth, and a man was needed to pass on immortality
to all of his progeny by opening to them the way to becoming the children
of God. Paul then concludes with a note on the order in which resurrection
would be granted: but *every* man in his own order. Christ - therefore by
definition a man - first and all of the faithful followers of Christ
later. The whole argument depends on the fact that Jesus was a human
being. If he was God, in whatever convoluted recipe, then Paul has it
wrong.
The Psalmist said the same thing...
Psa 80:17
Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,
upon the son of man whom thou madest
strong for thyself.
This is a plea for God to strengthen someone from the human race - thats
what the phrase 'son of man' means, and that's exactly what we see
happening with Jesus - not just the granting of an iron constitution but
moment by moment guidance and hand- holding by God, his father, without
which he would have failed. Jesus was the man made strong for God - all
this is nonsense if he wasn't a man.
Anyway. While reading through your stuff carefully, I realised that you
have never told us how salvation works. Please give us a brief explanation
of the nature of the problem between man and God and then how the
behaviour of Jesus has put the problem right.
>>> Why would one see repentance? [Actually a number of the crowd left beating
>> their breasts at the terrible things that had been done in their name] Do
>> you see John standing at the cross and stating those words to the crowd?
>> Get a grip, Vince. John wrote some years later and pointed out to his
>> Jewish readers that they'd produced the thing the prophet warned they
>> would look at. As I said last post, this was John trying to get through to
>> the Jews that Jesus is the son of God and that they had done to him what
>> the prophets said they would.
>
> And as I said, the OT passage doesn't even hint it is about the
> messiah.
What then is the import of the change from first to third person in your
version of the passage? It says 'look on me whom they pierced and mourn
for him...'. God speaks but by his use of the third person in the last two
clauses of the passage he speaks of someone other than himself. John says
he speaks only of someone other than himself because he uses the third
person exclusively when he cites the passage. We find quite a number of
scholars who also tell us that the Hebrew can *all* be read as third
person. Whichever way we read the passage we have to set it in its
context: God says the rescued children of Israel will weep for shame and
mourn over someone other than himself. Whether this is because they have
looked to 'God whom they pierced' or because they have looked 'upon the
one they pierced', the fact remains that they mourn and are reconciled
with God and that is only going to happen on the day the Lord Jesus
returns - so the passage is a prophecy about Messiah even if you are
correct and Messiah is actually God.
>> > So you better take the regular view on this, or john's citation falls
>> > apart. You can't simply say that he's talking about the 2nd return of
>> > Christ; he is clearly talking about the crucifixion, and if not, the
>> > citation is whacked.
>>
>> John's citation is the only thing that can rescue you from accusations of
>> Modalism, dear boy.
>
> How figurest, thou this? If Augustine, Aquinus, Luther and Calvin
> weren't modalists, I don't see why _I_ would have to be
They were just as eager as you to make the 'look its God who gets pierced'
point and didn't realise it was a pure modal conclusion.
> He *is* talking about the crucifixion: Look he says,
>> the prophet Zechariah promised that, at the last day, when God destroys
>> the nations that come against Israel, your descendants who survive the
>> cataclysm will look on the one they pierced and be desperately ashamed.
>
> That's not at the crucifixion; that's at the 2nd coming.
>
> There is a multi-meaning to the citation, I suppose
Vince, Vince, Vince! Let me try again to make this very simple point. John
said: 'God told you, through his prophet, that, at the end of the days,
when Messiah comes back, the sight of him will produce desperate shame and
inconsolable mourning among your brothers and sisters alive at that day,
the survivors of a terrible national catastrophe. The shame and sorrow
will come because they will realise that the person who has just rescued
them from annihilation is the very one their fathers pierced. I [John] am
warning you now that you have just done the piercing, so get it through
your thick skulls and understand that Jesus is your Messiah - That last
bit is the import of the previous verse...
Joh 19:36-37
For these things were done, that the scripture
should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be
broken. And again another scripture saith,
They shall look on him whom they pierced.
John's point isn't that they were *looking* but that they 'had pierced';
they didn't break his legs, as the conniving Pharisees wanted in order to
negate his Messianic claim, but they did pierce him THEREBY CONFIRMING HIS
MESSIANIC CLAIM. Strewth, this is like wading through treacle.
> If you aren't swayed by the Reformers, who were much brighter than I, I
> certainly can't make a better argument.
> Perhaps dave can
When he keeps his mouth under control, Dave is often quite interesting,
but a cogent argument? (:oD)
>> Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
>> and the purple robe. And saith unto them,
>> Behold the man!
>
> Did jesus have Asperger's? Why would He talk in the 3rd person?!
>
> Would make better sense to say, "Behold ME"
>
> Don't think Luther or Calvin would agree with you here.
Since I wouldn't give either of them house room, I find myself unmoved by
the prospect of their disapproval. The reason Jesus spoke a third person
clause [if it was him who spoke] is that he quoted Zechariah 6:12. Even if
Pilate said the words, the fact remains that the priests became terribly
agitated, and that was because they heard the Scripture echo. This is the
main reason I think Jesus spoke the words; he did the same thing on the
cross: quoting the opening of the 22nd Psalm. His intention was to get
through to the people even while they were abusing and murdering him, so
at every turn he cited unmistakable Scripture to them. On this occasion
the Scripture referred was quite remarkably apt...
Behold the man whose name is the branch;
and he shall grow up from beneath [So LXX]
and he shall build the temple of the Lord
Remember the accusations about building the temple after 3 days? The
Septuagint version of Zechariah's words says that he would come out of the
grave to do it. It also says that he will be a king and a priest [6:13]
and the opening words of verse 13 are even more apt to the situation...
Even he shall build the temple of the Lord.
The first words actually mean 'Such a one as him': here he was bashed to
pieces and exhausted to the point of collapse and God caused Pilate to
quote this promise of a glorious future [or wise and gracious Jesus chose
to quote it] - as if God said, 'don't be fooled by the terrible state of
my champion, he will return to complete my purpose in majesty and as the
rightful holder of the office that you people disgrace.
> I won't argue too much here; i'll just hold it was Pilate speaking. God
> may well have been rebuking the crowd THRU him since He spoke thru
> Caiaphas too
God wasn't actually speaking to the crowd at this point. They had carried
Barabbas away on their shoulders and Jesus was left in front of the rulers
and priests with poor old Pilate trying his best to set him free.
>> > well...I just don't see that, ed.
You need to read whole books, not just follow contrived chains of
references, you have to find out what was going on when Zechariah
prophesied or you will never get the thread.
> And apparently over the head of some pretty hot theologians and
> scholars too, ed, whose shadows I am not worthy to stand in
You pay them excessive respect, Vince. They took grotesque, pagan ideas
and wove them into a travesty of the truth that John and Peter and Paul
and Jesus would have wept at. Why do you think there is *no* trace of
trinitarian ideas in Acts? Why did Peter not make it absolutely plain at
Pentecost when he accused the Jews of murdering his Lord by wicked hands?
The accusation was that 'he, being a man, made himself God. The apostles
had been taught all things concerning him so why did they not defend him
by proving that he was God?
>> I'd forgotten that the verse doesn't actually say God is the first and the
>> last. It says he is the first and *WITH* the last. But, setting that small
>> blunder aside...
>
> WITH is not there
Out of something like 30 versions of the Bible that I have to hand, the
vast majority translate it as with the last. It's actually another phase
of the object marker word that adds the 'with', so, on this point I think
I'll rest on the scholars - almost exclusively trinitarians, by the way -
all except Abraham Darby.
>> > You can't ALSO have the messiah be FIRST AND LAST unless the messiah is
>> > either usurping God's claim of Himself, or if the Messiah is claiming
>> > to be GOD.
>>
>> Why not? Again, Vince, you are not thinking this through logically.
>
> Sure I am. Were the king of england (head of the anglican church) to
> declare himself to be "King of kings," that would be an open affront to
> Christ, who says that of HIMSELF.
You couldn't have chosen a worse example, Vince...
Dan 2:37
Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God
of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power,
and strength, and glory.
I imagine that Jesus didn't take too much affront at God awarding his
title to a pagan mesopotamian despot.
In Genesis Yahweh Elohim creates the heavens and the earth, but the actual
workers were the folks called Elohim. We know for certain that they were
not God himself, but agents of his power because they rested and were
refreshed on the seventh day, an action which has no meaning whatsoever in
connection with God Almighty.
In John's gospel Yahweh Elohim creates new heavens and a new earth, but
the actual worker was Jesus, his son, the unrestricted and complete agent
of his power.
When we read the OT we see beings called Elohim doing astonishing things
and saying stuff like: 'I am the God of your fathers...' [See, for example
the conversation between Moses and the angel at the Bush, or consider who
Moses saw face to face in the Tabernacle]. But for all their presumption,
these angels are not accused of attaching the majesty of God to
themselves; they are bearers of his name, they speak on his behalf and -
and this is the big point - they are entitled to trembling respect from
humankind. Jesus has the same powers and more status than they ever had -
a considerable proportion of the middle chapters of John's gospel are
actually a prolonged equation of superiority between Jesus and the angel
who lead Israel in the wilderness who, by this time was preparing to pass
*all* of his duties to Jesus upon his resurrection. Jesus was awarded the
right to bear God's name and titles, inasmuch as they apply to the heavens
and the earth, and to govern in God's stead until such time as the victory
over death is finalised and he gives up his crown to him who granted it to
him in the first place. He *is* the beginning and the ending [ie
successful realisation] of the way of salvation - In the same restricted
sense as he is the agent of creation - ie the production of the new
creatures in Christ - he is also alpha and omega of that process. It isn't
an affront to God, it's a glorious confirmation that he has successfully
carried out the entire process God asked him to originate and see through
to the very end. God gave him this name above all names...
Php 2:9-11
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him,
and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things
under the earth; And that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
So for you to say it is an affront to God to use the name that God gave
him is not supported by anything Scripture says.
> And i should recall that the deity of Christ isn't based only on these
> few verses; it's taught in a variety of verses (calling Christ the LORD
> OF GLORY when that is, again, a tital for YHVH in the OT is but one
> more example). I know that you have a world view for redefining those
> verses to deny Christ's deity, but as I've said, i think you have to
> work at it
He is the Lord of Glory - that's what Paul reveals him to be in the
Philippians passage I've cited above by reason of the Father's gift to him
of that status. God has made him king of kings and given him power and
strength and glory - he gave the same things to Nebuchadnezzar. Your
argument is glaringly false and it comes from you completely mistaken
understanding of who Jesus is.
>> >> The use of 'theos' without the definite article in a grammatical
>> >> construction that does not infer a definite article, diminishes the word
>> >> and makes it an adjective. It means that Jesus was of divine origin. It
>> >> does not mean that he was God Almighty himself which would have required
>> >> 'ho theos'.
>> >
>> > uh uh, ed. I got you on this one. To put HO there would be to say Jesus
>> > was the FATHER.
>>
>> Hurrah!!!! [Throws hat in the air and slaps old mate Vince on back!] At
>> last you've spotted that modalism lurks very close to the surface here.
>
> Yes...or trinitarianism :)
Absolutely not! It's pure Modalism and you'd better watch out or Rob Strom
will be down on you like a ton of the proverbial since there is a logical
fissure there that he could drive a coach and horses through.
> Apparently it somehow does, since every Bible I know of, catholic and
> protestant, translates it thataway. Interlinears i think say TOWARD.
And thank heaven for them, since something that is so blatantly nonsense
when rendered word for word into English has to be a Greek Idiom.
>> By the time you do all this, you will find that you have no evidence of
>> anarthrous use of the word theos to mean God almighty himself.
>
> Again, ed--that sounds techincal, bright, and 'conclusive'...but I'm
> still left with the fact that scholars across the board disagree with
> you. I suppose some would have an agenda they don't want to threaten,
> but most real university-level theologians I've known have a desire to
> get to the truth, regardless of its implications, and I find it hard to
> believe that so many fluent people translate these verses totally wrong
> in the face of what you claim is the 'only' way the verse can
> legitimately be understood.
I didn't say it is the only way, Vince.
Ed Form
vince garcia
>
> On Nov 6, 3:14� am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Psa 82:6 I, I said, “You are elohim, And ALL of you are sons of the
> > > Most High.
> >
> > > The Psalm of David clearly teaches that ALL are sons of the Most High.
> > > Your presumption of a deity in the Messiah assume that he came to
> > > teach the world of himself
> >
> > Well, there you go--your position and ed's seem to be the same.
> >
> > That, for no other reason, should cause ed to rethink his views...
> >
> > , which he clearly refutes many times over
>
> Just because you sit around using mistranslated scriptures and
> continue to pervert the truth and bear false witness against me to
> boot, doesn't mean that I care who agrees with me except YAHWEH.
what false witness have i ever borne about you? Calling you a heretic?
You are. Denouncing your religious views? I do.
What's the false witness?
vince garcia
>
> On 05/11/2009 12:44:21, vince garcia wrote:
>
> > But the fact is, knowing koine greek only takes you so far, and i've
> > concluded that what we often do wrong is put the greek under a
> > microscope and miss the big picture by focusing in on the words.
> >
> > Like putting a rembrandt thru an electron microscope.
>
> A surprisingly apt simile. Some years back I stood on the back staircase
> of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, stunned by the gigantic painting 'The
> Night Watch' that hung on the landing there.
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt.jpg
>
> From 4 feet or so back from the painting it is filled with detail: lace on
> collars and cuffs, brocade round the edge of the yellow tunic in the
> foreground and so on. Step forward to 18 inches or so from the canvas and
> you see that the detail *is not there* - the painting appears to have been
> done with a palette knife or some other large, unsubtle instrument. Yet go
> back to the first position and the detail returns, and no matter how hard
> you try to get past the illusion, you can not. The detail you see in
> Scripture isn't there, Vince.
But at least you get my point. And beyond that we'll have to disagree on
the deity of Christ
The Bible does not teach trinitarianism and
> does not support it by inference. The doctrine's strongest supporters, the
> Roman catholic Church, admit that it cannot be supported from Scripture
> and call upon the divine right of the church to expound and explain
> doctrine as their reason for supporting it - it is, they say, later
> revelation.
I'm surprised if they would say this, because we think the doctrine is
clear enough, tho obviously the word TRINITY is not in the bible.
Yes, it is inferred from Scripture. But whether you use that word, or
define it using Trinitarian language, the macro issue of Christ being
deity is clearly expressed in our view.
So what is Jesus to YOU? A god but a lesser god? Exalted angel? Special
non-preexistent, created being?
Try and put it in a nutshell for me
>
> >> and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced
> >>
> >> And, if he did, then it is God the Father who was pierced. That's
> >> Modalism, Vince, not trinitarianism.
> >
> > One could indeed infer modalism from that. OR, since all the members of
> > the Trinity are equally God, one can see Christ there and still see the
> > Father WITHOUT applying modalism to it
> >
> > I/we see no problems here
> >
> > I think it's more problematic to explain away verse after verse that
> > affirms the deity of Christ. Add to that Jesus would be less than a
> > perfect sacrifice if He is less than deity, and you have the next
> > problem
>
> What is a problem is your lack of logic. You keep telling me that the
> words of this or that writer can only be understood if the man Jesus
> Christ is God, when in every case you've put up there is no logical
> support at all for such a conclusion.
This is where we disagree.
You are injecting doctrine where it
> doesn't exist. And where exactly does the Bible tell us that it was
> necessary for Christ to be deity in order to qualify as a sacrifice?
You're doing a Rob, and requiring me to give you a verse that's so clear
you can't explain your way around it.
It may not "tell us" in those words, but we see the clear precept that
God rejects imperfect sancrifices. If Christ is not deity, that means He
is less than perfect, and thus is an imperfect sin sacrifice.
The
> idea is tripe with no foundation anywhere in Scripture. Paul makes this
> point very clear...
>
> 1Co 15:21
> For since by man came death, by man came also
> the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all
> die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
> But every man in his own order:
> Christ the firstfruits;
> afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
>
> A man had to be the sacrifice, Vince.
But that man had to be perfect, not flawed, ed.
Because it was a man who issued the
> insult to God and occasioned the sentence upon humankind by which their
> mortality was allowed to run its course, it had to be a man's obedience
> that made the rescue of the faithful minority of humankind possible. Adam
> wasn't deity, yet he could pass on mortality to all of his progeny -
> including Jesus of Nazareth, and a man was needed to pass on immortality
> to all of his progeny by opening to them the way to becoming the children
> of God. Paul then concludes with a note on the order in which resurrection
> would be granted: but *every* man in his own order. Christ - therefore by
> definition a man - first and all of the faithful followers of Christ
> later. The whole argument depends on the fact that Jesus was a human
> being. If he was God, in whatever convoluted recipe, then Paul has it
> wrong.
No, because simple MORTAL 'perfection' isn't enough, or enoch could have
died for our sins.
>
> The Psalmist said the same thing...
>
> Psa 80:17
> Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,
> upon the son of man whom thou madest
> strong for thyself.
The same psalmist also said, according to hebrews:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
You're nailed on this one, ed. You can try to claim the psalm means
MASTER, not GOD, but no legitimate bible, christian or jewish, renders
it as anything but O God, and if one does render it differently, it is
doing so under an anti-trinitarin agenda. period.
>
> This is a plea for God to strengthen someone from the human race - thats
> what the phrase 'son of man' means, and that's exactly what we see
> happening with Jesus - not just the granting of an iron constitution but
> moment by moment guidance and hand- holding by God, his father, without
> which he would have failed. Jesus was the man made strong for God - all
> this is nonsense if he wasn't a man.
>
> Anyway. While reading through your stuff carefully, I realised that you
> have never told us how salvation works. Please give us a brief explanation
> of the nature of the problem between man and God and then how the
> behaviour of Jesus has put the problem right.
Well, certainly but it isn't brief... I could say, "Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house", but you want the
mechanics outlined, so here they are:
There are only two ways of salvation. Some denominations say that we are
either fully or partially saved from hell by doing good deeds or obeying
various biblical commandments. We call this philosophy a belief in being
saved by works, and even many non-Christians believe in this salvation
theology without realizing it.
Someone who thinks we're saved by works might say things along the lines
of:
"I'm going to heaven because I'm a good person."
"As long as I follow the Ten Commandments, and live a good moral life,
I'll go to heaven."
"I don't smoke, drink, or commit adultery. I go to church three times a
week so I'm going to heaven."
"We're all children of God, and only evil people like Hitler go to
hell--if there is such a place!"
"I belong to the ----- church, and so I'm going to heaven."
"As long as your good deeds outweigh your bad deeds--you're in."
"It doesn't matter what religion you belong to so long as you're
sincere--whether you're Christian, Jew, or Moslem, you all pray to the
same God."
"We're all going to the same place--we're just taking different roads to
get there."
"You know Mother Teresa and Princess Di are in heaven--look at all the
things they did for people!"
A person who believes in salvation by works thinks we all go to heaven
so long as we're "Good people"; or that if we die, having done more good
deeds than bad deeds, God will let us in; or that if we live what they
consider to be holy lives of obedience to biblical commandments our
salvation is assured.
The proof that this line of thinking is one that will damn those
believing it lies in the fact that it appeals to everyone from the
secular agnostic to the religious cultist. It's actually a flawed
understanding of what the Bible teaches, and that's why the Bible says
that most people--even religious ones--will die in their sins, never
understanding the true simplicity of salvation.
Imagine I were to say: "You know, deep down, we all have a bit of a
'Dark side' to us, and if you look deep enough, you'd find it." Most
would agree with that statement, and you'd be right to agree, because
it's true. What most people don't realize, however, is that our "Dark
side" is what lies at the core of every human being. The reason we don't
see it that clearly is because that darkness is filtered through our
intellect and conscience,* and by the time the filtering process is
complete, it may be no more than a slight shadow that's almost
imperceptible. But it's still there, just the same, and the problem is
that in eternity this "Dark side" would follow a man who has not had
that seed of evil within him rooted out by the regenerating power of the
Spirit. When the unsaved stand before God at the Last Judgment, their
"Dark side" will be drawn out of them like a magnet once all the grace
of conscience God gave them in life is forever removed. Then the full
depth of the capacity for evil within each man will be manifested and
drawn past the filter of his now-departed conscience and intellect which
kept it in check during his life. A perfect God, dwelling in the light
of purity and perfection, cannot and will not tolerate the darkness of
the human spirit in His presence, and thus the unredeemed will be
consigned eternally to hell, out of His presence, with all grace of God
forever removed from his soul.
This is why, as Jesus Himself said (Luke 18:19) there is no such thing
as a truly "Good person" in God's sight--because every human being has
an evil side of darkness and selfishness at his core being that he may
never even be aware of.
So to reconcile humanity to God, a way had to be found for God not only
to forgive mankind's sins and imperfection that spring from his
corrupted state--but also to return mankind to a state of perfection it
knew before sin entered into the world, so God could dwell with Man in
His presence with the core of human darkness done away with for good.
That's what Jesus meant by saying a man must be "Born Again."
Now all "Christian" denominations--along with most non-religious
people--would agree that if a person asked God to forgive his sins, God
would forgive those sins if the man were sincere. Where most "Christian"
religions diverge from each other lies in answering the second part of
the question: that of how we return to a state of perfection allowing us
to exist in the presence of a perfect God.
No amount of forgiveness alone could accomplish that task! No amount of
good living could accomplish that task. No amount of obeying
commandments could accomplish that task. That task had to be
accomplished supernaturally through the power of God--and because it can
only be accomplished through God's own sovereign power, humanity cannot
do it on its own by simply turning from sin and living a good life, or
by obeying commandments of some sort.
This is where the counterfeit church parts company from the true church.
The counterfeit church will always go on to make this process of
perfection and reconciliation to God dependent on a person's doing
certain things that God will review at the Last Judgment and hopefully
approve of. in comparison to the counterfeit church, understands that we
can never make ourselves acceptable to God by anything that we,
ourselves, can do. As Paul says:
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the
flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but
not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted
unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of
debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4: 1-5)
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it
is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Now you may see why a way apart from simply doing "Good works" or being
a "Good person" is required for mankind both to overcome the penalty of
his sins, and also be made perfect in God's sight. !
So in reality, God simultaneously made the standard for getting into
heaven so high that no one could reach it--achieving an impossible state
of sinless perfection and purity--yet at the same time made it so low
that everyone could make it: Faith in Jesus Christ as savior and the
means of our spirit being regenerated and "Born Again!"
This is why people who possess a true biblical understanding of
salvation would say things like:
"I can never earn heaven through my own deeds--only through the blood of
Christ."
"It's not what I've done that's saved me--it's what Jesus has done."
So here is the review of what one must do to be saved:
1. Acknowledge that you have committed sin, and repent, accepting Christ
as savior and Lord.
Acknowledging we have committed sin is simple enough. All of us can
admit we've done some sort of wrongdoing in our past. But true
recognition of sin is to understand that we haven't just done a few bad
things here and there in our lives, but that we are living a life that
constantly falls short of God's perfection.
Repentance means simply to change one's mind regarding the way he has
been living his life in rebellion to the will of God, and adopt God's
way of living. It does not mean, specifically, that we rely on our own
willpower to stop all sin in our lives. It means that our change of
attitude prompts us to change some of the things we have been doing that
we know God doesn't approve of. Thus, repentance is a lifestyle, not an
event!
Adam's sin was no worse than eating a piece of fruit, yet that one
insignificant sin doomed humanity to hell, including those who didn't
commit the same act! But all the bad fruits we have in our lives sprang
from that one sin. The atonement of Christ went back and overturned and
redeemed that one act of Adam--and in doing that, all the fruits that
sprang from his one act were redeemed as well. That's why no one is too
bad to be saved--for the father of all sins was Adam's one act, and the
price for that one sin has been paid. Thus, everything that falls after
that one sin is paid for as well.
Accepting Christ, meanwhile, is really pretty simple. You do it by
nothing more difficult than believing and relying that Jesus Christ has
paid the price for your sins, and that because of His death on the
cross, you are reconciled to God. The Bible says it this way:
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe
in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved.
"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10: 9-10)
"Believing" in Christ doesn't mean you just mentally think the whole
idea makes sense. It means that you consciously trust in Christ and His
death on the cross as the payment for your sins. It's as if a relative
were to promise you that he was going to buy you a new car for your
birthday--you would believe that was true and consciously act in the
belief that he would follow through on what he said. Salvation is like
that--you take God at His word and then live your life as if you believe
Him.
> context: God says the rescued children of Israel will weep for shame and
> mourn over someone other than himself. Whether this is because they have
> looked to 'God whom they pierced' or because they have looked 'upon the
> one they pierced', the fact remains that they mourn and are reconciled
> with God and that is only going to happen on the day the Lord Jesus
> returns - so the passage is a prophecy about Messiah even if you are
> correct and Messiah is actually God.
well, ok, but i already said it could be polyvalent and have greater and
lesser fullfillments
>
> >> > So you better take the regular view on this, or john's citation falls
> >> > apart. You can't simply say that he's talking about the 2nd return of
> >> > Christ; he is clearly talking about the crucifixion, and if not, the
> >> > citation is whacked.
> >>
> >> John's citation is the only thing that can rescue you from accusations of
> >> Modalism, dear boy.
> >
> > How figurest, thou this? If Augustine, Aquinus, Luther and Calvin
> > weren't modalists, I don't see why _I_ would have to be
>
> They were just as eager as you to make the 'look its God who gets pierced'
> point and didn't realise it was a pure modal conclusion.
From our perepective, it does not follow
ok, so far as you go here
>
> > If you aren't swayed by the Reformers, who were much brighter than I, I
> > certainly can't make a better argument.
> > Perhaps dave can
>
> When he keeps his mouth under control, Dave is often quite interesting,
> but a cogent argument? (:oD)
>
> >> Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns,
> >> and the purple robe. And saith unto them,
> >> Behold the man!
> >
> > Did jesus have Asperger's? Why would He talk in the 3rd person?!
> >
> > Would make better sense to say, "Behold ME"
> >
> > Don't think Luther or Calvin would agree with you here.
>
> Since I wouldn't give either of them house room, I find myself unmoved by
> the prospect of their disapproval.
:)
The reason Jesus spoke a third person
> clause [if it was him who spoke] is that he quoted Zechariah 6:12. Even if
> Pilate said the words, the fact remains that the priests became terribly
> agitated, and that was because they heard the Scripture echo. This is the
> main reason I think Jesus spoke the words; he did the same thing on the
> cross: quoting the opening of the 22nd Psalm. His intention was to get
> through to the people even while they were abusing and murdering him, so
> at every turn he cited unmistakable Scripture to them. On this occasion
> the Scripture referred was quite remarkably apt...
>
> Behold the man whose name is the branch;
> and he shall grow up from beneath [So LXX]
> and he shall build the temple of the Lord
OK i see your logic. I still think pilate spoke, tho
Two reasons: For one, they did not have a full understanding of all
theological issues yet. By the time of hebrews, they did!
2--Jesus did a good enough job of proving it when He would use the
Ineffible Name of Himself, which almost got Him stoned.
>
> >> I'd forgotten that the verse doesn't actually say God is the first and the
> >> last. It says he is the first and *WITH* the last. But, setting that small
> >> blunder aside...
> >
> > WITH is not there
>
> Out of something like 30 versions of the Bible that I have to hand, the
> vast majority translate it as with the last. It's actually another phase
> of the object marker word that adds the 'with', so, on this point I think
> I'll rest on the scholars - almost exclusively trinitarians, by the way -
> all except Abraham Darby.
huh?? Don't know what Bibles YOU'RE using!
New International Version (�1984)
When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his
right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the
Last.
New American Standard Bible (�1995)
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His
right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the
last,
International Standard Version (�2008)
When I saw him, I fell down at his feet like a dead man. But he placed
his right hand on me and said, "Stop being afraid! I am the first and
the last,
GOD'S WORD� Translation (�1995)
When I saw him, I fell down at his feet like a dead man. Then he laid
his right hand on me and said, "Don't be afraid! I am the first and the
last,
King James Bible
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
American King James Version
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
hand on me, saying to me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
American Standard Version
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his
right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last,
Bible in Basic English
And when I saw him, I went down on my face at his feet as one dead. And
he put his right hand on me, saying, Have no fear; I am the first and
the last and the Living one;
Douay-Rheims Bible
And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his
right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last,
Darby Bible Translation
And when I saw him I fell at his feet as dead; and he laid his right
hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last,
English Revised Version
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as one dead. And he laid his
right hand upon me, saying, Fear not; I am the first and the last,
Webster's Bible Translation
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
hand upon me, saying to me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Weymouth New Testament
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as if I were dead. But He laid His
right hand upon me and said, "Do not be afraid: I am the First and the
Last, and the ever-living One.
World English Bible
When I saw him, I fell at his feet like a dead man. He laid his right
hand on me, saying, "Don't be afraid. I am the first and the last,
Young's Literal Translation
And when I saw him, I did fall at his feet as dead, and he placed his
right hand upon me, saying to me, 'Be not afraid; I am the First and the
Last,
I've never seen a bible that translated it as WITH the last
>
> >> > You can't ALSO have the messiah be FIRST AND LAST unless the messiah is
> >> > either usurping God's claim of Himself, or if the Messiah is claiming
> >> > to be GOD.
> >>
> >> Why not? Again, Vince, you are not thinking this through logically.
> >
> > Sure I am. Were the king of england (head of the anglican church) to
> > declare himself to be "King of kings," that would be an open affront to
> > Christ, who says that of HIMSELF.
>
> You couldn't have chosen a worse example, Vince...
>
> Dan 2:37
> Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God
> of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power,
> and strength, and glory.
>
> I imagine that Jesus didn't take too much affront at God awarding his
> title to a pagan mesopotamian despot.
Yes but SINCE THEN, we know that term is a messianic title of Christ.
Is it your position that the king of england would not be blaspheming if
he declared himself "king of kings"?
At
> >> last you've spotted that modalism lurks very close to the surface here.
> >
> > Yes...or trinitarianism :)
>
> Absolutely not! It's pure Modalism and you'd better watch out or Rob Strom
> will be down on you like a ton of the proverbial since there is a logical
> fissure there that he could drive a coach and horses through.
LOL. He's so twisted in his views he thinks Paul taught a different
gospel from Jesus, and should be rejected. You think I'm worried about
HIS theological criticisms???
Ed Form
> You're doing a Rob, and requiring me to give you a verse that's so
> clear you can't explain your way around it.
I don't recall making such a request. On the other hand, I can give you a
verse that denies what you teach...
1Ti 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, *the man* Christ Jesus;
> It may not "tell us" in those words, but we see the clear precept
> that God rejects imperfect sancrifices. If Christ is not deity, that
> means He is less than perfect, and thus is an imperfect sin
> sacrifice.
But God accepted living breathing creatures made of the same flesh as you
and I, sustained by the same breath as you and I. The only requirement was
that they be without blemish - show quality, Vince, with none of the
knocks and scrapes that could occur because they lived out in the fields,
and perfectly formed in the first place with no congenital defects. So the
perfection that was required seemed to consist of a flesh and blood
creature that had not been blemished by the vagaries of life or the
lottery of the gene pool. The resolution of this symbolic sacrificial type
into its antitype - the Lamb of God - a flesh and blood creature of
matchless genetic perfection upon whom no stain or blemish of sin ever
came, is glaringly obvious.
I asked you in my last post to tell us how salvation works and you haven't
done so. I'm not looking for verses from Scripture with potted
definitions; what I want is a simple statement of what the cause of human
mortality is and how the sacrifice of your version of Jesus is potent to
remove and reverse that cause.
Ed Form
vince garcia
>
> On 10/11/2009 13:47:34, vince garcia wrote:
>
> > You're doing a Rob, and requiring me to give you a verse that's so
> > clear you can't explain your way around it.
>
> I don't recall making such a request. On the other hand, I can give you a
> verse that denies what you teach...
>
> 1Ti 2:5
> For there is one God, and one mediator between
> God and men, *the man* Christ Jesus;
Yeah...and trinitarians would never deny the full humanity of Christ. We
would only add that His Spirit was deity housed in a flesh body, hence
the hypostaic union.
>
> > It may not "tell us" in those words, but we see the clear precept
> > that God rejects imperfect sancrifices. If Christ is not deity, that
> > means He is less than perfect, and thus is an imperfect sin
> > sacrifice.
>
> But God accepted living breathing creatures made of the same flesh as you
> and I, sustained by the same breath as you and I. The only requirement was
> that they be without blemish -
And there you go. Remember the red heiffer--if it had even a slight
imperfection--was disqualified.
But i won't die on this hill, as my comments are more conclusion that
flat out stated in a way you can't argue another view.
show quality, Vince, with none of the
> knocks and scrapes that could occur because they lived out in the fields,
> and perfectly formed in the first place with no congenital defects. So the
> perfection that was required seemed to consist of a flesh and blood
> creature that had not been blemished by the vagaries of life or the
> lottery of the gene pool. The resolution of this symbolic sacrificial type
> into its antitype - the Lamb of God - a flesh and blood creature of
> matchless genetic perfection upon whom no stain or blemish of sin ever
> came, is glaringly obvious.
>
> I asked you in my last post to tell us how salvation works and you haven't
> done so. I'm not looking for verses from Scripture with potted
> definitions; what I want is a simple statement of what the cause of human
> mortality is and how the sacrifice of your version of Jesus is potent to
> remove and reverse that cause.
Not sure i understand your full meaning. But if you mean what caused
human mortality:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which
receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign
in life by one, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came
upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
was that what you meant?
PS--i notice you have not dealt with the verse in hebrews:
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
>
> Ed Form
Ed Form
> Ed Form wrote:
>>
>> On 10/11/2009 13:47:34, vince garcia wrote:
>>
>> > You're doing a Rob, and requiring me to give you a verse that's so
>> > clear you can't explain your way around it.
>>
>> I don't recall making such a request. On the other hand, I can give you a
>> verse that denies what you teach...
>>
>> 1Ti 2:5
>> For there is one God, and one mediator between
>> God and men, *the man* Christ Jesus;
>
> Yeah...and trinitarians would never deny the full humanity of Christ.
> We would only add that His Spirit was deity housed in a flesh body,
> hence the hypostaic union.
Which hypostatic union would that be exactly? Oh yes! The mystical union,
so called because it's beyond human comprehension and, incidentally, first
coined as a term by Apollinaris of Laodicea. Now what have I heard about
Laodicea - where was it again?
Oh, I remember...
Rev 3:14-17
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write;
These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness,
the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works,
that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold
or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither
cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods,
and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art
wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
The idea of two natures in one person united in some way not
understandable by human minds is Stoicism, a godless imposition upon the
simplicity of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus - He was a man - Paul
says so, as I quoted in my last post, and Peter said so when he stood up
to proclaim his Lord's position in the purpose of God to the very people
who had found him guilty of claiming to be deity and executed him. Did he
proclaim that Jesus truly was God? No chance! His words were...
Act 2:22-36
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth,
*a man approved of God* among you by miracles and
wonders and signs, which God did by him in the
midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being
delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God, ye have taken,
and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom
God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:
because it was not possible that he should be holden
of it. For David speaketh concerning him...
...neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see
corruption.
...Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made *that same Jesus* ,
whom ye have crucified,
both Lord and Christ.
'A man approved of God' - the sense of the Greek is 'accredited by God' -
by means of miracles and wonders and signs that *God* did by him. The
people who stood before Peter, shaking with the realisation of what they
had been party to, had taken God's accredited man and handed him over to
the Romans, whose wicked hands had crucified him. So Peter's final
conclusion *that same Jesus*, that *very* Jesus whom they crucified has
been declared by God to be both Lord and Christ - the exact same human
being they murdered, not some unfathomable god-man. This is the reason
Paul calls him, 'the man Christ Jesus' in his letter to Timothy written
sometime between 62 and 67 CE when his Lord had been seated at God's right
hand, and had been 'glorified with the glory that he had with God before
the world began,' for some 30 years. And you trot out the opinions of a
spue-worthy Laodicean philosopher to support your contention that Christ
is God!
>> > It may not "tell us" in those words, but we see the clear precept
>> > that God rejects imperfect sancrifices. If Christ is not deity, that
>> > means He is less than perfect, and thus is an imperfect sin
>> > sacrifice.
>>
>> But God accepted living breathing creatures made of the same flesh as you
>> and I, sustained by the same breath as you and I. The only requirement was
>> that they be without blemish -
>
> And there you go. Remember the red heiffer--if it had even a slight
> imperfection--was disqualified.
What do you mean: 'There you go?' It was a flesh and blood creature which
had to be of show-quality - hide unmarked, legs strong and perfect in
shape, no deformities of any kind. It was not a mystical union of a man
and God, it was a flesh creature, just like you and me.
> But i won't die on this hill, as my comments are more conclusion that
> flat out stated in a way you can't argue another view.
But I can - God wanted a flesh and blood creature devoid of blemish - a
man free from the stain and deformity of having committed sin. You say
that only God could be that perfect, Scripture said it would be 'the man
made strong for yourself...'
>> I asked you in my last post to tell us how salvation works and you haven't
>> done so. I'm not looking for verses from Scripture with potted
>> definitions; what I want is a simple statement of what the cause of human
>> mortality is and how the sacrifice of your version of Jesus is potent to
>> remove and reverse that cause.
>
> Not sure i understand your full meaning. But if you mean what caused
> human mortality:
>
> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
> and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
>
> For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which
> receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign
> in life by one, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore as by the offence of one
> judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
> righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification
> of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so
> by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
>
> was that what you meant?
No! I want you to explain how the behaviour of Jesus, in his position as
both God and man, caused God to give eternal life to men and women
sentenced to death for their own sins. In your own words, what was God's
motivation?
> PS--i notice you have not dealt with the verse in hebrews:
>
> But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
What is there to deal with? The verse is a citation of Psalm 45 which is
about Solomon's wedding day. It says...
Verse 1-9
My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the
things which I have made touching the king...
...Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women:
upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
So it's talking about a human being and he is worthy to be called 'elohim'
even though he sits on his throne in Jerusalem with the queen on his right
hand arrayed in cloth of gold.
The passage you seem to be suggesting calls the king God - in its obvious
prophetic application to Messiah - actually makes it certain that it isn't
God...
Verses 6-7
Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy
kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness,
and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
This person who is worthy to be called Elohim has been elevated above his
fellows by Elohim his Elohim, so, whoever he is, and whatever the import
of him being styled 'Elohim' he has in turn another, above him, who grants
him a position above all his fellows - the king's fellows are human,
Vince. Of course, the import of calling this human being 'Elohim' is the
same as Psalm 82:6 where God stands in the congregation of the mighty
[El], he judges among the gods [Elohim] and accuses them of acting
unjustly. Unless they mend their ways, even though he calls them Gods
[Elohim] they will come to the same end as all the rest of the mortals...
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of
the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like
one of the princes.
It doesn't support the idea that Messiah is God - quite the contrary, it
states that he is an elevated human being.
Ed Form
vince garcia
Yes.
>
> >> > It may not "tell us" in those words, but we see the clear precept
> >> > that God rejects imperfect sancrifices. If Christ is not deity, that
> >> > means He is less than perfect, and thus is an imperfect sin
> >> > sacrifice.
> >>
> >> But God accepted living breathing creatures made of the same flesh as you
> >> and I, sustained by the same breath as you and I. The only requirement was
> >> that they be without blemish -
> >
> > And there you go. Remember the red heiffer--if it had even a slight
> > imperfection--was disqualified.
>
> What do you mean: 'There you go?' It was a flesh and blood creature which
> had to be of show-quality - hide unmarked, legs strong and perfect in
> shape, no deformities of any kind. It was not a mystical union of a man
> and God, it was a flesh creature, just like you and me.
>
> > But i won't die on this hill, as my comments are more conclusion that
> > flat out stated in a way you can't argue another view.
>
> But I can -
Well, you will still be wrong. Comments to follow
God wanted a flesh and blood creature devoid of blemish - a
> man free from the stain and deformity of having committed sin.
ok
You say
> that only God could be that perfect,
No, i did not say that, although that is a normative view. I believe
hebrews says the human perfection of Jesus was thru the anointing of the
Spirit.
I mean that Jesus is perfect because He is not less than God, and were
He less than God, he would be less than perfect, and thus an imperfect
sacrifice.
Scripture said it would be 'the man
> made strong for yourself...'
>
> >> I asked you in my last post to tell us how salvation works and you haven't
> >> done so. I'm not looking for verses from Scripture with potted
> >> definitions; what I want is a simple statement of what the cause of human
> >> mortality is and how the sacrifice of your version of Jesus is potent to
> >> remove and reverse that cause.
> >
> > Not sure i understand your full meaning. But if you mean what caused
> > human mortality:
> >
> > Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
> > and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
> >
> > For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which
> > receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign
> > in life by one, Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore as by the offence of one
> > judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the
> > righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification
> > of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so
> > by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
> >
> > was that what you meant?
>
> No! I want you to explain how the behaviour of Jesus, in his position as
> both God and man, caused God to give eternal life to men and women
> sentenced to death for their own sins. In your own words, what was God's
> motivation?
Not sure i can 'give you a verse' to answer that. I'll think on it
>
> > PS--i notice you have not dealt with the verse in hebrews:
> >
> > But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
>
> What is there to deal with? The verse is a citation of Psalm 45 which is
> about Solomon's wedding day. It says...
>
> Verse 1-9
> My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the
> things which I have made touching the king...
> ...Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women:
> upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
>
> So it's talking about a human being and he is worthy to be called 'elohim'
> even though he sits on his throne in Jerusalem with the queen on his right
> hand arrayed in cloth of gold.
And which HUMAN king's throne is "forever"? Not solomon's!
The messiah DOES NOT sit upon solomon's throne.
You are totally missing the mesage of hebrews in order to hold onto an
anti-trinitarian agenda
>
> The passage you seem to be suggesting calls the king God - in its obvious
> prophetic application to Messiah - actually makes it certain that it isn't
> God...
>
> Verses 6-7
> Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy
> kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness,
> and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath
> anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
>
> This person who is worthy to be called Elohim has been elevated above his
> fellows by Elohim his Elohim, so, whoever he is, and whatever the import
> of him being styled 'Elohim' he has in turn another, above him, who grants
> him a position above all his fellows - the king's fellows are human,
> Vince. Of course, the import of calling this human being 'Elohim' is the
> same as Psalm 82:6 where God stands in the congregation of the mighty
> [El], he judges among the gods [Elohim] and accuses them of acting
> unjustly. Unless they mend their ways, even though he calls them Gods
> [Elohim] they will come to the same end as all the rest of the mortals...
>
> I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of
> the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like
> one of the princes.
>
> It doesn't support the idea that Messiah is God - quite the contrary, it
> states that he is an elevated human being.
>
You are wrong, ed. You ask for a verse claiming jesus is God, and there
you have a simple, clear, unequivocal verse that He is, and instead of
altering your theology, you create an argument to blunt the clear
meaning of the text!
How much clearer would a verse have to be to affirm that Jesus is GOD,
than a verse that says He is GOD?
If you can dismiss this verse and ignore the plain message of it, you
are telling me that it doesn't matter what language any writer uses, you
can 'prove' it doesn't mean what it says. That makes it impossible to
prove the point under any circumstances, and thus a call for a verse to
make the point is actually a false call, because no verse will satisfy
you.
That's like Zev asking me for a verse to 'prove' Jesus is the messiah.
No matter what I say, he will find some sort of argument to diagree with
the interpretation, then declare THAT is the truth, and I failed to
prove my point.
That is an example of what i've been saying is really working to make
Jesus less than God.
> Ed Form
Zev
??????:4AFFEA...@ix.netcom.com...
Psalm 82 is no more than sarcastic remarks
about dishonest judges, you can't use it to prove anything.
Christian efforts to make Jesus into a success by
turning his death into a substitute for Temple sacrifices
are no more than a testimony
to the ingenuity of the human mind.
Forget all the high-falutin' philosophy.
Say, "God is one", and "explain" anything
which seems to oppose that view.
Ed Form
> Psalm 82 is no more than sarcastic remarks
> about dishonest judges, you can't use it to prove anything.
I'm not sure whether you're arguing against Vince or me here, Zev. Psalm
82 shows that human beings are sometimes called Elohim and so invalidates
Vince's claim that Psalm 45 [or rather the citation of it in Hebrews]
means Jesus is God. Solomon was both prophet and judge and was therefore
entitled to the name-style Elohim in the same, non-deity way that the
judges whom God warns as to their conduct in Psalm 82. For this reason
Psalm 45 does refer to Solomon's throne - although the meaningful
reference is to the future situation in which a descendant of David's will
sit upon it for ever [or in which the throne will be occupied by a dynasty
descended from David for ever, if you can't handle a king who lives that
long.]
> Christian efforts to make Jesus into a success by
> turning his death into a substitute for Temple sacrifices
> are no more than a testimony
> to the ingenuity of the human mind.
The NT message doesn't turn Jesus' self-sacrifice into a substitute at
all. It portrays it as one sacrifice that is permanently effective where
the ongoing sacrifices of the Law could only certify that humankind is
incapable of obedience.
> Forget all the high-falutin' philosophy.
> Say, "God is one", and "explain" anything
> which seems to oppose that view.
I don't have this as a problem since I am a determined and absolute
monotheist. Jesus isn't God, nor did he claim to be God, and his apostles
did not claim that he was. When approached from this platform, the
trinitarian readings of certain parts of Scripture don't even come up.
Ed Form
Zev
??????:4b000c6d$0$2479$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On 15/11/2009 13:46:33, Zev wrote:
>> Psalm 82 is no more than sarcastic remarks
>> about dishonest judges, you can't use it to prove anything.
>
> I'm not sure whether you're arguing against Vince or me here, Zev. Psalm
> 82 shows that human beings are sometimes called Elohim and so invalidates
> Vince's claim that Psalm 45 [or rather the citation of it in Hebrews]
> means Jesus is God. Solomon was both prophet and judge and was therefore
> entitled to the name-style Elohim in the same, non-deity way that the
> judges whom God warns as to their conduct in Psalm 82. For this reason
> Psalm 45 does refer to Solomon's throne - although the meaningful
> reference is to the future situation in which a descendant of David's will
> sit upon it for ever [or in which the throne will be occupied by a dynasty
> descended from David for ever, if you can't handle a king who lives that
> long.]
My argument here is only with Vince.
>> Christian efforts to make Jesus into a success by
>> turning his death into a substitute for Temple sacrifices
>> are no more than a testimony
>> to the ingenuity of the human mind.
>
> The NT message doesn't turn Jesus' self-sacrifice into a substitute at
> all. It portrays it as one sacrifice that is permanently effective where
> the ongoing sacrifices of the Law could only certify that humankind is
> incapable of obedience.
No less ingenious and not what Christians here have been telling me.
Ed Form
> Ed Form wrote:
>
>> And you trot out the opinions of a spue-worthy Laodicean philosopher
>> to support your contention that Christ is God!
>
> Yes.
You were joking?
>> You say that only God could be that perfect,
>
> No, i did not say that, although that is a normative view. I believe
> hebrews says the human perfection of Jesus was thru the anointing of
> the Spirit.
>
> I mean that Jesus is perfect because He is not less than God, and were
> He less than God, he would be less than perfect, and thus an imperfect
> sacrifice.
I don't see how your new phrasing differs from the way I summarised you
claim. Your words were...
I think it's more problematic to explain away verse after
verse that affirms the deity of Christ. Add to that Jesus
would be less than a perfect sacrifice if He is less than
deity, and you have the next problem
..and I find it difficult to read them in any other way than that Jesus
had to be God to be a good enough sacrifice. What I don't find anywhere in
Scripture is a ruling to that effect, or anything like it. God cannot
sacrifice himself, he is incapable of dying.
>> No! I want you to explain how the behaviour of Jesus, in his position as
>> both God and man, caused God to give eternal life to men and women
>> sentenced to death for their own sins. In your own words, what was God's
>> motivation?
>
> Not sure i can 'give you a verse' to answer that. I'll think on it
This is your problem, Vince. You actually do not know, and have not
considered how salvation works. Let me try to explain...
In the beginning of human relations with God, the woman, Eve, was misled
by the amoral thinking of the serpent and accepted the idea that God was
preventing them from eating something that would make her, and her
husband, godlike, so she decided to disobey the order and eat the
forbidden thing. Adam, on the other hand, was not fooled by the serpent's
reasoning and chose to disobey for a different reason. It is obvious that
Adam was deeply attached to the woman, who was actually bone of his bone
and flesh of his flesh, and did not want to lose her, so he deliberately
disobeyed because he felt that he was too important to God's purpose for
God to carry out the threatened sentence on him - he thought equality with
God something he could just take because of his personal importance. This
cock-sureness was very short-lived for two reasons: the sound of Elohim
walking in the garden frightened him and he became ashamed of his
presumption, and then the act was discovered, whereupon God sentenced him
to death, as he had promised he would, and cast him out of immediate
fellowship with the angelic representatives of God he was formerly allowed
to associate with freely.
So we now have, on the one hand, God deeply offended because his human
creation had presumed to deal with him as equals and to deny him his
sovereign right to decide the duration of their lives, and on the other
hand, the humans removed from the divine presence and forced to approach
him only by way of certain religious rites that can be seen in operation
in the early chapters of Genesis. We also see, as we continue through
Scripture, that human beings who choose disobedience and contempt for
God's standards of behaviour are portrayed as the seed of the serpent -
serpent thinking has become their way of seeing things. On the other side
of this divide we see the gradual revelation of a scheme of salvation for
willing human beings which is initially stated parabolically in Genesis
3:15...
...I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
When Jesus eventually came along, in accordance with the schedule and
antecedents laid down in the prophets, he was presented with the same
choice as Adam: to obey God or to disobey, to recognise and accept his
place relative to God or to claim a fictitious and insulting equality, and
finally, but most importantly of all, to proclaim by affirmative action
that God's right to decide whether his human creatures live or die is
unchallengeable. In return for willingly taking this role, God promised to
grant his champion life everlasting, and the right to grant the same life
to all those who have longed to be similarly righteous, but have been
prevented by human weakness. This schema, in which God supplied a human
being with humankind's inbuilt self- interest, but made him strong enough
to overcome the promptings of his human nature, both by contributing to
his parentage, and by guiding his life at every turn, albeit leaving the
choices up to him, had two outcomes...
Rom 3:21-26
But now the righteousness of God without the law
is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is
by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them
that believe: for there is no difference: For all have
sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being
justified freely by his grace through the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to
be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
*to declare his righteousness* for the remission
of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
*To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness*
*that he might be just*
*and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus*
By refusing to accept that God had the right to end his life, Adam declare
God unjust; by supporting his wife in opposition to God Adam declared
God's Law unrighteous. By accepting that, as Adam's child, he must die,
Jesus Christ declared God's justice, and by his faith in God's promise to
give eternal life and to justify all those who believed in him, Jesus
declared God to be righteous. For this reason God commented at the moment
when Jesus had accepted God's commission - this is my beloved son in whom
I am well pleased.
The acceptable qualification for salvation from the grave, then, is
acceptance of God's justice in connection with our own death, determined
faith that God will continue with the promises which he has begun by
raising Jesus Christ from the dead, and an heartfelt desire to be pleasing
to God.
There is no element here of God demanding a perfect sacrifice - by which I
have taken you to infer immaculate, a condition that you rightly infer no
human being could possibly fulfil. Quite the contrary, God needed someone
of the imperfect human race to overcome his imperfection - his human
nature's self-will - and give up his life to please God, knowing that, in
doings so, he would destroy the power of sin in himself, he would show
that God is fully entitled to make humans mortal, and he would set an
example of love for God and for his fellow men and women that would
attract many others to God's cause. Not the least of the reasons for this
attraction has been the fact that Jesus was only able to succeed by the
direct application of God's moment by moment guidance throughout his life.
Truly, as we follow the stages of our Lord's ministry, and we see him
behaving in a way completely foreign to our human nature, we are assured
that God is with us - the daily life of Jesus was the earnest of God's
presence to save us, just as his resurrection was the earnest of God's
ability to do it.
>> What is there to deal with? The verse is a citation of Psalm 45 which is
>> about Solomon's wedding day. It says...
>>
>> Verse 1-9
>> My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the
>> things which I have made touching the king...
>> ...Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women:
>> upon thy right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir.
>>
>> So it's talking about a human being and he is worthy to be called 'elohim'
>> even though he sits on his throne in Jerusalem with the queen on his right
>> hand arrayed in cloth of gold.
>
> And which HUMAN king's throne is "forever"? Not solomon's!
You are rather showing you lack of concentration here, Vince. David's
throne, upon which Solomon sat at that time, *IS* for ever and ever.
> The messiah DOES NOT sit upon solomon's throne.
Then God's promises to David in 2 Samuel 7 are lies?
> You are totally missing the mesage of hebrews in order to hold onto an
> anti-trinitarian agenda
No, Vince, you are introducing ideas that are not supported by Scripture.
David's throne is to be established for ever, before David's face.
How many times do I have to remind you that God used exactly the same word
of the human judges of Israel at a point in time where they were actually
corrupt????? You don't have a shred of a case.
> If you can dismiss this verse and ignore the plain message of it, you
> are telling me that it doesn't matter what language any writer uses,
> you can 'prove' it doesn't mean what it says. That makes it impossible
> to prove the point under any circumstances, and thus a call for a verse
> to make the point is actually a false call, because no verse will
> satisfy you.
>
> That's like Zev asking me for a verse to 'prove' Jesus is the messiah.
> No matter what I say, he will find some sort of argument to diagree
> with the interpretation, then declare THAT is the truth, and I failed
> to prove my point.
>
> That is an example of what i've been saying is really working to make
> Jesus less than God.
When you manage to tell me that Psalm 82 is referring to real gods or real
deity, then I might be willing to accept that Psalm 45 - and Hebrews which
quotes it - might be about Messiah as deity.
Ed Form
Ed Form
>> The NT message doesn't turn Jesus' self-sacrifice into a substitute at
>> all. It portrays it as one sacrifice that is permanently effective where
>> the ongoing sacrifices of the Law could only certify that humankind is
>> incapable of obedience.
>
> No less ingenious and not what Christians here have been telling me.
God is pretty bright, Zev, so the ingenious bit doesn't apply to me, and
the fact that folks here, who claim to be followers of Jesus, tell you
stuff that Jesus didn't say is sad but a fact. You, however, are a pretty
clear thinker and should be able to ascertain what he did say by reading
it.
Ed Form
Zev
??????:4b00969c$0$2490$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
"Ingenious" applies to whoever thought up the idea
that Jesus' death was a "sacrifice" for other people's sins.
randy
"vince garcia"
>> ...And you trot out the opinions of a spue-worthy Laodicean philosopher
>> is God!
> Yes.
My wife and I were discussing today the reason Jesus had to be divine. Here
are my reasons...
1) Jesus had to be God because all sin is committed *against God,* which
requires that *God* be the one to forgive us. When Jesus died on the cross,
he suffered the sins of men. In order to forgive those men, and all others,
he has to *be God* in order to forgive their sins. Otherwise, he was just
forgiving men what they had done to him--not what all of mankind has done
*to God.*
2) If Jesus was not God he could not have given us his spirit and his
righteousness. We could not have given us the character traits of God and
his own perfect human traits, except he had the ability to transfer divine
characteristics to us. Just a thought or two...
randy
Ed Form
>
> "vince garcia"
>>> ...And you trot out the opinions of a spue-worthy Laodicean philosopher
>>> to support your contention that Christ
>>> is God!
>
>> Yes.
>
> My wife and I were discussing today the reason Jesus had to be divine.
> Here are my reasons...
> 1) Jesus had to be God because all sin is committed *against God,*
> which requires that *God* be the one to forgive us.
That's perfectly correct. Scripture says God will forgive those who
believe in Jesus - it doesn't say Jesus will forgive them, it says Jesus
has laid a foundation by which repentance can be accepted - it's the same
as the Temple sacrifices: men repented of their failures, offered a
sacrifice, and were forgiven by God. If we repent of our failures and take
Jesus as our sacrifice we will be forgiven - but it's God who forgives
because it's God who has been offended.
> When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered the sins of men.
No he didn't; he suffered because of the sins of men.
> In order to forgive those men, and all others, he has to *be God*
> in order to forgive their sins. Otherwise, he was just forgiving
> men what they had done to him--not what all of mankind has
> done *to God.*
It's God who forgives and he chooses whom he will forgive because they
come to him in Jesus name, taking Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins.
> 2) If Jesus was not God he could not have given us his spirit and his
> righteousness. We could not have given us the character traits of God
> and his own perfect human traits, except he had the ability to transfer
> divine characteristics to us.
He specifically said that God would give HIS spirit. He becomes our
righteousness when we believe in him and God accepts us 'in the beloved.'
[Ephesians 1:6]
> Just a thought or two...
> randy
But they are your thoughts, Randy. Scripture doesn't support them.
randy
"Ed Form"
randy
>> My wife and I were discussing today the reason Jesus had to be divine.
>> Here are my reasons...
>> 1) Jesus had to be God because all sin is committed *against God,*
>> which requires that *God* be the one to forgive us.
> That's perfectly correct. Scripture says God will forgive those who
> believe in Jesus - it doesn't say Jesus will forgive them, it says Jesus
> has laid a foundation by which repentance can be accepted - it's the same
> as the Temple sacrifices: men repented of their failures, offered a
> sacrifice, and were forgiven by God. If we repent of our failures and take
> Jesus as our sacrifice we will be forgiven - but it's God who forgives
> because it's God who has been offended.
You *know* that Jesus forgave men when he said, "Father, forgive them." So
the question becomes, Did Jesus forgive only the men that had committed sins
against him on earth, or did he forgive *all* men in *all* of history? If he
gave that task over to his Father, while confining himself to forgiving only
those who committed sins against him, then he wasn't truly forgiving *all
sin!* And the Scriptures do say that Jesus died to forgive *all sin.*
>> When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered the sins of men.
> No he didn't; he suffered because of the sins of men.
Same thing.
> It's God who forgives and he chooses whom he will forgive because they
> come to him in Jesus name, taking Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins.
That begs the point. If people come to God for forgiveness in Jesus' name,
what good is it to come in Jesus' name if his sacrifice was not *for all
sin?* And if it was for all sin, then Jesus had to forgive all sin. He
didn't just come to be an example of martyrdom, which God used as a symbol
of universal redemption. If that was the case, salvation would come only by
imitating Jesus' example.
And what would that be? Would that mean trying to live exactly as Jesus'
lived, telling parables, producing miracles, and dying on a cross? Or would
that mean living in perfection?
But if Jesus *himself* truly forgave all sin, and gave us his own divine
spirit, then our justification is based upon our participation in his own
spiritual life, receiving that gift *through his forgiveness.* That is, if
we truly receive his spirit, it is proof that we have already been forgiven.
And if it is his spirit that is given, then he is the one who forgave us and
gave us his spirit as proof of this grace.
randy
vince garcia
>
> "vince garcia"
> >> ...And you trot out the opinions of a spue-worthy Laodicean philosopher
> >> to support your contention that Christ
> >> is God!
>
> > Yes.
>
> My wife and I were discussing today the reason Jesus had to be divine. Here
> are my reasons...
> 1) Jesus had to be God because all sin is committed *against God,* which
> requires that *God* be the one to forgive us. When Jesus died on the cross,
> he suffered the sins of men. In order to forgive those men, and all others,
> he has to *be God* in order to forgive their sins.
absolutely true!
Otherwise, he was just
> forgiving men what they had done to him--not what all of mankind has done
> *to God.*
> 2) If Jesus was not God he could not have given us his spirit and his
> righteousness.
doubly true
vince garcia
>
> On 17/11/2009 22:06:23, "randy" wrote:
> >
> > "vince garcia"
> >>> ...And you trot out the opinions of a spue-worthy Laodicean philosopher
> >>> to support your contention that Christ
> >>> is God!
> >
> >> Yes.
> >
> > My wife and I were discussing today the reason Jesus had to be divine.
> > Here are my reasons...
> > 1) Jesus had to be God because all sin is committed *against God,*
> > which requires that *God* be the one to forgive us.
>
> That's perfectly correct. Scripture says God will forgive those who
> believe in Jesus - it doesn't say Jesus will forgive them, it says Jesus
> has laid a foundation by which repentance can be accepted - it's the same
> as the Temple sacrifices: men repented of their failures, offered a
> sacrifice, and were forgiven by God. If we repent of our failures and take
> Jesus as our sacrifice we will be forgiven - but it's God who forgives
> because it's God who has been offended.
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Not only GOD can forgive sins!
>
> > When Jesus died on the cross, he suffered the sins of men.
>
> No he didn't; he suffered because of the sins of men.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.
>
> > In order to forgive those men, and all others, he has to *be God*
> > in order to forgive their sins. Otherwise, he was just forgiving
> > men what they had done to him--not what all of mankind has
> > done *to God.*
>
> It's God who forgives and he chooses whom he will forgive because they
> come to him in Jesus name, taking Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins.
certainly true...as far as it goes
>
> > 2) If Jesus was not God he could not have given us his spirit and his
> > righteousness. We could not have given us the character traits of God
> > and his own perfect human traits, except he had the ability to transfer
> > divine characteristics to us.
>
> He specifically said that God would give HIS spirit. He becomes our
> righteousness when we believe in him and God accepts us 'in the beloved.'
> [Ephesians 1:6]
>
> > Just a thought or two...
> > randy
>
> But they are your thoughts, Randy. Scripture doesn't support them.
I've given you some to ruminate on. WE can forgive sins, and if WE can,
CHRIST certainly can!
vince garcia
Oh, and i should add:
And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are
forgiven thee.
21 And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is
this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
They're right--only GOD can forgive sins, and Jesus is God.
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
>> My wife and I were discussing today the reason Jesus had to be divine.
>> Here
>> are my reasons...
>> 1) Jesus had to be God because all sin is committed *against God,* which
>> requires that *God* be the one to forgive us. When Jesus died on the
>> cross,
>> he suffered the sins of men. In order to forgive those men, and all
>> others,
>> he has to *be God* in order to forgive their sins.
> absolutely true!
> Otherwise, he was just
>> forgiving men what they had done to him--not what all of mankind has done
>> *to God.*
>> 2) If Jesus was not God he could not have given us his spirit and his
>> righteousness.
> doubly true
We are soul brothers. We must have the same "spirit" inside us. ;)
randy
Ed Form
>
> "Ingenious" applies to whoever thought up the idea
> that Jesus' death was a "sacrifice" for other people's sins.
God revealed the only acceptable covering for human disobedience when he
discarded Adam's and Eve's self-provided fig-leaf aprons and gave them the
skins of an animal of his provision. From that point on acceptable contact
with God was made available through the death of sacrifices. The necessity
to approach with a suitable mind-set was also plain from the very
beginning - Cain was refused because he chose to approach in his own way,
for example, and was told that an animal was essential when misdeeds stood
between men and God...
Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
and if thou doest not well, *sin* lieth at the door...
Later, Abraham and Isaac agreed together to obey God's test at the mount
because they believed God's promise to bless all nations in their joint
descendant. Isaac had no children at this point, so God could not intend
Isaac to cease from existence before fathering descendants...
Gen 22:8
And Abraham said, My son, God will provide
himself a lamb for a burnt offering:
so they went both of them together.
That final word 'yachad' is an adverbial derivative of the numeral 'one'
and, in this sentence, it plainly means 'united in a common purpose.' They
had no way of knowing that God would stay the killing, so the assurance:
'My Son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering,' which they
both believed, reveals first their understanding that their joint
descendant, in whom God would bless all families of the earth, was going
to be a lamb of burnt offering, and second, that God would restore Isaac
to life in order to permit him to father the line of descent in which
their singular seed would be provided. As it turned out, God didn't have
to resurrect Isaac because he prevented him from being killed and then
reiterated the promises upon which the joint confidence of father and son
rested...
Gen 22:16-18
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD,
for because thou hast done this thing, and hast
not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in
blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I
will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand which is upon the sea shore;
and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Up to this point we have: approach to God only possible through sacrifice,
sacrifice could only be of a kind dictated by God, and a suitable attitude
of mind must accompany sacrifice. Isaac wasn't a suitable sacrifice, but
his willingness to be killed in pursuance of God's purpose, and his
father's acceptance of the command to do it, show that the attitude of
mind *must* be based upon acceptance of God's right to dispose of his
creation as he sees fit, including one's own life - in other words, the
exact opposite of Adam's assumption that God would not kill him because of
his personal importance in creation. In Isaac's case this was
*self-sacrifice* in pursuit of the purpose of God.
Later still, by the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, God spoke plainly of the
one in whom these ideas were to become reality...
Isa 53:4-12
Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten
of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities:
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and
with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his
own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all...
...Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him;
he hath put him to grief
when *thou* shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
he shall see his seed, [in other words thou!]
he shall prolong days, [not his days, but thine]
and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul,
and shall be satisfied:
by knowledge of him
shall my righteous servant justify many;
for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will reward him with the many!
And I will reward him with the multitude as his booty.
because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he numbered himself with the transgressors;
and he bare the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
Setting aside the silly Jewish claim that the servant in Isaiah is Israel,
or the righteous remnant of Israel, which we can argue in another place,
this towering prophecy speaks of someone who will associate himself with
sinners, and sacrifice himself on their behalf, even though he is innocent
of their crimes. By coming to an understanding of this man's role, the
prophet says, a multitude will be granted legal justification, and, as a
reward for the man's self-sacrifice he will be given possession of the
justified multitude.
The ingenuity, Zev, lies in the Jewish alternatives to this
straightforward reading of their own holy book. The prophets were quite
plain but, sadly, their own people seem to be willing to believe anything
other than the simple concept that they cannot ever be God's people by
their own deeds and will only ever be acceptable to him when they approach
him as he has dictated - they can follow the Law, but all it will ever do
for them is make it clear, as they stand with their hands on the head of
yet another innocent animal, that they won't be any better tomorrow than
they were today or yesterday.
Ed Form
vince garcia
And agree on the fundamentals, for sure.
And that's the great thing--that Christians from a variety of
denominations disagreeing about all sorts of things can pull together on
the key issues that really matter, and that is why (Rob) I keep I keep
bringing up the tradidional views of christianity on issues that are
essentials or extremely critical to the faith, but then abandon them, if
I disagree, on numerous nonessential issues.
Rob can't get that. He thinks either you do or do not agree with the
"traditional" view across the board, and if you 'pick and choose', you
are doing something wrong.
No, rob--it is a question of Christian essential doctrine we SHOULD all
agree on vs nonessential doctrine we can go our own way on
The "sons of God" in Gen. 6 is a great example of an arguable issue we
can vigorously disagree on --and even think the other guy is an idiot
for his view--without compromising the really important things of the
faith.
Eschatology is another.
But unfortunately, there are some who not only are persuaded that every
belief they have (on essential AND nonessential subjects) is absolutely
correct, but declare anyone disagreeing (on essential AND nonessential
subjects) has rejected God's truth for a false gospel.
To hell with THOSE people
randy
"vince garcia"
randy
> And agree on the fundamentals, for sure.
> And that's the great thing--that Christians from a variety of
> denominations disagreeing about all sorts of things can pull together on
> the key issues that really matter, and that is why (Rob) I keep I keep
> bringing up the tradidional views of christianity on issues that are
> essentials or extremely critical to the faith, but then abandon them, if
> I disagree, on numerous nonessential issues.
> Rob can't get that. He thinks either you do or do not agree with the
> "traditional" view across the board, and if you 'pick and choose', you
> are doing something wrong.
That could be because in matters of religion we are often dealing with
*ethnic* rivalries, in which case you adopt the *party line,* and refuse to
divide, lest you be conquered. In Christianity we don't conform to some
enormous conglomerate by which to overwhelm the opposition by shear force.
Rather, we let our spiritual unity within suggest that there is a love that
binds us to a single God, recommending that love to the whole world. That
kind of love requires honesty, and not absolute conformity. Love like that
makes itself known in tolerance and gentleness, in a patience that allows
for reasonable discussion, and even some hostile disagreement.
> No, rob--it is a question of Christian essential doctrine we SHOULD all
> agree on vs nonessential doctrine we can go our own way on
That's true. The essentials are necessary if we are to have the equation
that *God requires* in order for us to receive him who is "eternal life," ie
Christ. If we do not believe he existed in history, and displayed a perfect
example of humanity, if we do not believe that he was divine and could rise
again from the dead, and if we do not believe that as the divine Son of God
he could give us his own spirituality, then we are lost in our sins. We will
perish forever, sinners who will never be justified.
> The "sons of God" in Gen. 6 is a great example of an arguable issue we
> can vigorously disagree on --and even think the other guy is an idiot
> for his view--without compromising the really important things of the
> faith.
True enough.
> Eschatology is another.
Again, I agree.
> But unfortunately, there are some who not only are persuaded that every
> belief they have (on essential AND nonessential subjects) is absolutely
> correct, but declare anyone disagreeing (on essential AND nonessential
> subjects) has rejected God's truth for a false gospel.
> To hell with THOSE people
I wouldn't quite go that far myself, though certainly some of them will
indeed end up in hell. It's not something I will ever be delighted to see
and revel in.
randy
Zev
??????:4b082d30$0$2540$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On 17/11/2009 16:09:50, Zev wrote:
>> "Ingenious" applies to whoever thought up the idea
>> that Jesus' death was a "sacrifice" for other people's sins.
>
> God revealed the only acceptable covering for human disobedience when he
> discarded Adam's and Eve's self-provided fig-leaf aprons and gave them the
> skins of an animal of his provision. From that point on acceptable contact
> with God was made available through the death of sacrifices. The necessity
> to approach with a suitable mind-set was also plain from the very
> beginning - Cain was refused because he chose to approach in his own way,
> for example, and was told that an animal was essential when misdeeds stood
> between men and God...
The mind-set is indeed important,
prophet after prophet said that.
Other than that, I'll forgive you for writing this paragraph
and respect you by ignoring it.
> Gen 4:7
> If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?
> and if thou doest not well, *sin* lieth at the door...
>
> Later, Abraham and Isaac agreed together to obey God's test at the mount
> because they believed God's promise to bless all nations in their joint
> descendant. Isaac had no children at this point, so God could not intend
> Isaac to cease from existence before fathering descendants...
>
> Gen 22:8
> And Abraham said, My son, God will provide
> himself a lamb for a burnt offering:
> so they went both of them together.
>
> That final word 'yachad' is an adverbial derivative of the numeral 'one'
> and, in this sentence, it plainly means 'united in a common purpose.' They
> had no way of knowing that God would stay the killing, so the assurance:
> 'My Son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering,' which they
> both believed, reveals first their understanding that their joint
> descendant, in whom God would bless all families of the earth, was going
> to be a lamb of burnt offering, and second, that God would restore Isaac
> to life in order to permit him to father the line of descent in which
> their singular seed would be provided. As it turned out, God didn't have
> to resurrect Isaac because he prevented him from being killed and then
> reiterated the promises upon which the joint confidence of father and son
> rested...
Ed, God had indeed promised to bless Abraham through Isaac.
Now he says "sacrifice your son...".
A less faithful person than Abraham,
looking for excuses not to sacrifice his beloved son
would have jumped on this obvious contradiction (and others)
and said God couldn't possibly tell me to sacrifice my son,
It must be the devil's doing, or just a nightmare, or whatever,
I won't do it.
This is the test that only an Abraham could have passed.
It's not a "silly Jewish claim", Ed, it's context, and common sense.
Read Isaiah 53 along with the previous and following chapters.
There may be a dual meaning, but if you base your religion on it,
you should understand why many Jews are skeptical,
and insist on staying on the trodden path of their forefathers.
> The ingenuity, Zev, lies in the Jewish alternatives to this
> straightforward reading of their own holy book. The prophets were quite
> plain but, sadly, their own people seem to be willing to believe anything
> other than the simple concept that they cannot ever be God's people by
> their own deeds and will only ever be acceptable to him when they approach
> him as he has dictated - they can follow the Law, but all it will ever do
> for them is make it clear, as they stand with their hands on the head of
> yet another innocent animal, that they won't be any better tomorrow than
> they were today or yesterday.
The "Jewish alternatives" can be found in the classic Jewish
commentaries.
If you think they're silly, you won't bother.
Ed Form
> You *know* that Jesus forgave men when he said, "Father, forgive them."
I've removed all of the rest of your comments because they are worthless
if they jump off from that initial mistake.
Let me begin by asking, yet again, can you read? Jesus words here were a
request to his father to forgive someone or some group - it's actually the
cohort of Romans who were in process of nailing him to the tree. It is
obvious that Jesus had already forgiven them or he would not have asked
that they be forgiven by his father, but it makes it absolutely certain
that forgiveness by the father is the thing that really matters.
It is, in fact, true that Jesus spoke often of forgiven sins: an example
being...
Luk 5:18-24
And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with
a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him
before him. And when they could not find by what way they
might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the
housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch
into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said
unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and
the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which
speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?
But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said
unto them, What reason ye in your hearts? Whether is easier, to
say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? But
that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to
forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee,
Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.
But the jump from that clear announcement, accompanied by proof of
authority in the form of the ability to wield the power of God to heal the
bloated invalid, to the idea that Jesus is able to forgive sins because he
is God is not logically supported by the text.
The text doesn't rule out a similar exchange between God and his son as
occurred in the case of the Roman soldiers - a silent prayer along the
lines of the spoken prayer at the cross [Father forgive this man, look at
their faith!], then a reply from God in the affirmative, followed by
Jesus' announcement. Jesus was aware that he was being accused in the
minds of the Scribes and Pharisees of claiming to be God but his reply
was: "But that ye may know that the *Son of man* hath power *upon earth*
to forgive sins...", which imparted two pieces of information to them:
that he was a human being, and that he had power to forgive sins *on
earth.* Human beings can be granted this power by God, but they do not
have it as a right. The apostles, for example, were granted that power...
Joh 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit,
they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain,
they are retained.
So it's pretty obvious, in the logic regime that you and Vince operate,
that the apostles are God as well.
If we combine the information set out here with the Lord's simple
declarations in John 5...
Verse 19, 22, 30, 36
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth
the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also
doeth the Son likewise...
...For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all
judgment unto the Son...
...I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the
will of the Father which hath sent me...
...But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works
which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that
I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
..we can only *logically* conclude that Jesus claimed to have been
deputised by God and given powers by God, to enable him to carry out
certain duties for God. None of the various passages in which Jesus speaks
of having authority to forgive sins is capable of supplying proof that
Jesus is God.
Ed Form
Ed Form
> I've given you some to ruminate on. WE can forgive sins, and if WE can,
> CHRIST certainly can!
I can forgive you your sins against me, Vince., but, unless Randy gives me
his authority to forgive those who sin against him, I cannot forgive your
sins against Randy.
Sin is ultimately against God and only God can forgive it to the extent
required to rescue the sinner from the grave that his sin has earned him.
The believer's hope lies in God accepting him as a member of the
fellowship of his son, Jesus, under which circumstances his past sins are
covered up so as to become non-existent - it's not quite the same as our
concept of forgiveness: that is, the person who forgives retains knowledge
of the misdeed, but excuses it and takes no further action in connection
with it, including the action we normally call resentment. The promise God
makes to those whom he accepts as genuine members of the body of his son
is to wash their sins away so that he no longer retains knowledge of them
- the process is parallel to the process enshrined in the Law in which
ceremonial observances, and real repentance, acted as a covering for sins
so that God no longer saw them - the word we normally read as 'atonement'
means 'covering', as you already know.
Scripture certainly speaks of human beings being given the right to
'remit' sins, that is to judge people eligible under the conditions God
has laid down for setting aside their sins. The number of places in which
this right is discussed is quite small, and it won't take you very long to
investigate them all. You'll find that the process is always called
'aphesis,' and the verb of action is always 'aphiemi.' These words have
the underlying sense: 'to set aside.' The English word 'forgive', like
many English words, is a bit of a chameleon, but it's core meaning 'to
pardon' is the Greek word 'charizomai' which is used in Scripture...
2Co 2:10
To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any
thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the
person of Christ;
2Co 12:13
For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches,
except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you?
forgive me this wrong.
In these places the sense is 'to pardon', not to cover over the fact that
the offences ever happened.
Anyway, the point you make, which as you'll see I agree with, renders
invalid any claim that Jesus must be God because he has the right to
forgive sins. If humans also had the right to forgive sins, Jesus isn't
necessarily God if he has it also.
Ed Form
Ed Form
> "Ed Form" <ed....@theformsonline.com> ???
> ??????:4b082d30$0$2540$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>> On 17/11/2009 16:09:50, Zev wrote:
>
>> God revealed the only acceptable covering for human disobedience when he
>> discarded Adam's and Eve's self-provided fig-leaf aprons and gave them the
>> skins of an animal of his provision. From that point on acceptable contact
>> with God was made available through the death of sacrifices. The necessity
>> to approach with a suitable mind-set was also plain from the very
>> beginning - Cain was refused because he chose to approach in his own way,
>> for example, and was told that an animal was essential when misdeeds stood
>> between men and God...
>
> The mind-set is indeed important,
> prophet after prophet said that.
> Other than that, I'll forgive you for writing this paragraph
> and respect you by ignoring it.
I can live without your forgiveness, Zev, although your courtesy, and your
intellectual approach to argument would be missed. On this occasion,
however, my point is very simple and hardly offensive.
>> That final word 'yachad' is an adverbial derivative of the numeral 'one'
>> and, in this sentence, it plainly means 'united in a common purpose.' They
>> had no way of knowing that God would stay the killing, so the assurance:
>> 'My Son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering,' which they
>> both believed, reveals first their understanding that their joint
>> descendant, in whom God would bless all families of the earth, was going
>> to be a lamb of burnt offering, and second, that God would restore Isaac
>> to life in order to permit him to father the line of descent in which
>> their singular seed would be provided. As it turned out, God didn't have
>> to resurrect Isaac because he prevented him from being killed and then
>> reiterated the promises upon which the joint confidence of father and son
>> rested...
>
> Ed, God had indeed promised to bless Abraham through Isaac.
> Now he says "sacrifice your son...".
> A less faithful person than Abraham,
> looking for excuses not to sacrifice his beloved son
> would have jumped on this obvious contradiction (and others)
> and said God couldn't possibly tell me to sacrifice my son,
> It must be the devil's doing, or just a nightmare, or whatever,
> I won't do it.
> This is the test that only an Abraham could have passed.
How true! And how sad. I'm disappointed that you bypassed the argument I
presented, but I'll have to live with that.
If Abraham believed God's promises, and understood that they would be
accomplished through Isaac's line, and was still willing to kill his son,
then surely this must mean that he believed in resurrection? Since Abraham
and Isaac continued with this task in unity of purpose, Isaac must also
have believed in resurrection. While weighing this concept in the balances
- remember that Isaac was over 30 years old at this point and his dad was
a very old man, so Abraham had no hope of carrying out his task without
Isaac's consent. Abraham and his willing partner Isaac agreed to go
through with Isaac's death because God had commanded it, yet had hope that
God would make another provision - Abraham called it a lamb provided by
God. Abraham and Isaac were jointly the recipients of God's promise that
all of humankind would be blessed through one of their descendants. The
incident is one of many mysterious passages that gradually build a picture
of God's intentions with his human creation.
>> Setting aside the silly Jewish claim that the servant in Isaiah is Israel,
>> or the righteous remnant of Israel, which we can argue in another place,
>> this towering prophecy speaks of someone who will associate himself with
>> sinners, and sacrifice himself on their behalf, even though he is innocent
>> of their crimes. By coming to an understanding of this man's role, the
>> prophet says, a multitude will be granted legal justification, and, as a
>> reward for the man's self-sacrifice he will be given possession of the
>> justified multitude.
>
> It's not a "silly Jewish claim", Ed, it's context, and common sense.
> Read Isaiah 53 along with the previous and following chapters.
I have, Zev, and it is not possible that the servant is Israel. The
language absolutely precludes it.
> There may be a dual meaning, but if you base your religion on it,
> you should understand why many Jews are skeptical,
> and insist on staying on the trodden path of their forefathers.
You mean the trodden path that has caused them to be misused and
slaughtered for hundreds of years? The Jewish way of thinking cannot
possibly be correct, because, if it is, your God has failed the conditions
of the hostage he gave to fortune in Deuteronomy 28 and must be
non-existent. If the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob described in the
Bible exists, then the fact that Jewry has suffered terribly means that
Jewry is in breach of the conditions laid out in Deuteronomy 28 - to
soften the blow, since I'm not trying to be offensive here, this either
means that Jewish social behaviour is vile and worthy of punishment
because it defames God's name, or Jewish religious thinking is wrong and
intensely disliked by God. The first idea is plainly nonsense: I wish all
human groupings were as well behaved and worthwhile as Jewish society.
That leaves Jewish religious thinking as the only possible cause of God's
continued accession to misuse of Jews by Gentile miscreants.
> The "Jewish alternatives" can be found in the classic Jewish
> commentaries. If you think they're silly, you won't bother.
I think them silly because I have!
Ed Form
Ps try not to fly off the handle at the bit about Deuteronomy 28, it's not
easy to raise it without being attacked as antisemitic, but I believe God
does what he says he will do and the evidence of history is pretty plain.
randy
"Ed Form"
randy
>> You *know* that Jesus forgave men when he said, "Father, forgive them."
> I've removed all of the rest of your comments because they are worthless
> if they jump off from that initial mistake.
Alright.
> Let me begin by asking, yet again, can you read? Jesus words here were a
> request to his father to forgive someone or some group - it's actually the
> cohort of Romans who were in process of nailing him to the tree. It is
> obvious that Jesus had already forgiven them or he would not have asked
> that they be forgiven by his father, but it makes it absolutely certain
> that forgiveness by the father is the thing that really matters.
I understand, but disagree. I believe Jesus was in fact forgiving not just
his tormentors, but also all men everywhere, in all times. He was expressing
*on behalf of the Father* his own forgiveness for sin. In saying, "Father,
forgive them," he was acting as mediator of forgiveness *from* the Father.
It would be the same thing if a general had given me authority as a
lower-level officer to open a jail and let a particular inmate go free. When
I say, "Release the prisoner," I'm acting on behalf of the general who gave
me the authority. When Jesus said, "Father, forgive them," he was acting
with the authority of the Father himself, stating that he essentially agreed
with his Father's predetermined will to release men from their guilt.
Otherwise, what you have is the Father relying on Jesus to give him
permission to forgive. Or, the whole thing becomes some kind of mock play,
with the Father having Jesus pretend to ask him to forgive what He had
already determined to forgive. In fact I believe Jesus was the very process
of forgiveness by which the Father displayed his mercy. The Father and Jesus
acted as one divine act forgiving men what they had been doing to God.
> ...Human beings can be granted this power by God, but they do not
> have it as a right. The apostles, for example, were granted that power...
But my point is not intended to challenge the right of men to forgive sins
committed against them, or the right of Jesus to forgive those who were
crucifying him. The point is that if Jesus only forgave those who put him on
the cross, then this act of martyrdom serves no useful purpose in
determining forgiveness for all men everywhere, in all times.
> ..we can only *logically* conclude that Jesus claimed to have been
> deputised by God and given powers by God, to enable him to carry out
> certain duties for God. None of the various passages in which Jesus speaks
> of having authority to forgive sins is capable of supplying proof that
> Jesus is God.
Those aren't the verses I would rely on. Yes, Jesus was sort of "deputized"
to forgive sin on behalf of the Father. But if Jesus only forgave sin in his
own time and circumstances, then his sacrifice has no value for all men in
all places and in all circumstances. Jesus wasn't just some kind of sacred
ritual of forgiveness that God required, to conjure up human forgiveness by
relying on the example of his life. If that was the case, only those Jesus
directly forgave would be forgiven, and the rest would be left relying on
trying to imitate the example of Jesus' life that he set as a martyr for
sin. And nobody can live up to Jesus' standards!
And so I would argue that Jesus *himself* became the source of forgiveness
for sin, because in pardoning human sin he gave us his spirit as a means of
living by his spirituality even while we remain imperfect. It is the
ultimate act of grace because by participating in his spirituality we also
qualify to obtain his immortality, when later we are raised from the dead.
randy
Zev
??????:4b0ab57c$0$2524$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On 22/11/2009 07:13:17, Zev wrote:
>> "Ed Form" <ed....@theformsonline.com> ???
>> ??????:4b082d30$0$2540$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> On 17/11/2009 16:09:50, Zev wrote:
>>> God revealed the only acceptable covering for human disobedience when he
>>> discarded Adam's and Eve's self-provided fig-leaf aprons and gave them
>>> the
>>> skins of an animal of his provision. From that point on acceptable
>>> contact
>>> with God was made available through the death of sacrifices. The
>>> necessity
>>> to approach with a suitable mind-set was also plain from the very
>>> beginning - Cain was refused because he chose to approach in his own
>>> way,
>>> for example, and was told that an animal was essential when misdeeds
>>> stood
>>> between men and God...
>>
>> The mind-set is indeed important,
>> prophet after prophet said that.
>> Other than that, I'll forgive you for writing this paragraph
>> and respect you by ignoring it.
>
> I can live without your forgiveness, Zev, although your courtesy, and your
> intellectual approach to argument would be missed. On this occasion,
> however, my point is very simple and hardly offensive.
I didn't intend to imply that this was offensive.
What I'm "forgiving" is the poor argument you presented here.
I didn't want to say that, so I wrote "forgive" without saying what.
I should have levelled with you in the first place.
I'll try to explain.
It's been said that Jewish holidays are mostly:
"they tried to kill us, they failed, let's eat".
There's some truth to that,
but I'd be wary about basing theology on the idea.
Adam and Eve were in need of something more serious
than a bunch of leaves tied together, God took care of it.
You make it sound like: God sacrificed some animal for us,
so we have to sacrifice animals for him.
Cain was refused because of his mind-set, and
the sacrifices of Cain and Abel were not for misdeeds,
and it was never true that an
"animal was essential when misdeeds stood...",
and it was never true that "acceptable contact with God
was made available through the death of sacrifices".
(Sacrifices usually came *after* a "contact" had been made
and you'll have no trouble finding "contacts"
with no mention of sacrifice at all)
I didn't really bypass it.
I didn't like your assumptions
so I offered mine as an alternative.
Ed, look what you've done.
This was supposed to test his faith,
but because of the previous promises,
he "knew" the outcome would be all right,
so it wasn't much of a test after all!
How can you reconcile that with Genesis 22:12 -
"....now I know that you fear God, since you have not
withheld your son, your only son, from Me."?
> If Abraham believed God's promises, and understood that they would be
> accomplished through Isaac's line, and was still willing to kill his son,
> then surely this must mean that he believed in resurrection? Since Abraham
> and Isaac continued with this task in unity of purpose, Isaac must also
> have believed in resurrection. While weighing this concept in the balances
> - remember that Isaac was over 30 years old at this point and his dad was
> a very old man, so Abraham had no hope of carrying out his task without
> Isaac's consent. Abraham and his willing partner Isaac agreed to go
> through with Isaac's death because God had commanded it, yet had hope that
> God would make another provision - Abraham called it a lamb provided by
> God. Abraham and Isaac were jointly the recipients of God's promise that
> all of humankind would be blessed through one of their descendants. The
> incident is one of many mysterious passages that gradually build a picture
> of God's intentions with his human creation.
Assuming I understand the "picture" you see being built here,
if you call the church "The New Israel"
and Jesus "A Lamb of God", you turn the Bible on its head.
Sure, you'll find things like this in Hebrew literature also,
but not as the all-powerful tool the NT takes them for.
BTW, there's a Midrash about the various arguments
Satan used to convince Abraham not to obey.
You may find it interesting to see an opposing view.
> Ps try not to fly off the handle at the bit about Deuteronomy 28, it's not
> easy to raise it without being attacked as antisemitic, but I believe God
> does what he says he will do and the evidence of history is pretty plain.
The cause of the exile appears to be in Deuteronomy 28:15 -
"But it shall come about, if you do not obey the LORD your God,
to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I
charge
you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you".
Do you interpret that to mean:
"...if you do not believe in Jesus..."?
That's not what it sounds like, particularly in view of the fact
that most Christians believe that the OT commandments are passe.
vince garcia
>
> On 20/11/2009 12:59:54, vince garcia wrote:
>
> > I've given you some to ruminate on. WE can forgive sins, and if WE can,
> > CHRIST certainly can!
>
> I can forgive you your sins against me, Vince., but, unless Randy gives me
> his authority to forgive those who sin against him, I cannot forgive your
> sins against Randy.
There is a problem with trying to claim that this only refers to sins
commited agaist the apostles themselves.
Forgiveness is not optional.
Otherwise, the verse is saying we can choose to forgive or not forgive,
while Christ already told us we must forgive to be forgiven
>
> Sin is ultimately against God and only God can forgive it to the extent
> required to rescue the sinner from the grave that his sin has earned him.
> The believer's hope lies in God accepting him as a member of the
> fellowship of his son, Jesus, under which circumstances his past sins are
> covered up so as to become non-existent - it's not quite the same as our
> concept of forgiveness: that is, the person who forgives retains knowledge
> of the misdeed, but excuses it and takes no further action in connection
> with it, including the action we normally call resentment. The promise God
> makes to those whom he accepts as genuine members of the body of his son
> is to wash their sins away so that he no longer retains knowledge of them
> - the process is parallel to the process enshrined in the Law in which
> ceremonial observances, and real repentance, acted as a covering for sins
> so that God no longer saw them - the word we normally read as 'atonement'
> means 'covering', as you already know.
>
> Scripture certainly speaks of human beings being given the right to
> 'remit' sins, that is to judge people eligible under the conditions God
> has laid down for setting aside their sins. The number of places in which
> this right is discussed is quite small, and it won't take you very long to
> investigate them all. You'll find that the process is always called
> 'aphesis,' and the verb of action is always 'aphiemi.'
aphiemi is the word for divorce or rejection
These words have
> the underlying sense: 'to set aside.' The English word 'forgive', like
> many English words, is a bit of a chameleon, but it's core meaning 'to
> pardon' is the Greek word 'charizomai' which is used in Scripture...
>
> 2Co 2:10
> To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any
> thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the
> person of Christ;
>
> 2Co 12:13
> For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches,
> except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you?
> forgive me this wrong.
>
> In these places the sense is 'to pardon', not to cover over the fact that
> the offences ever happened.
>
> Anyway, the point you make, which as you'll see I agree with, renders
> invalid any claim that Jesus must be God because he has the right to
> forgive sins. If humans also had the right to forgive sins, Jesus isn't
> necessarily God if he has it also.
But didn't you say only God can forgive sins? And didn't jesus go around
forgiving sins not commited against Him personally?
>
> Ed Form
guardian Snow
> But at least you get my point. And beyond that we'll have to disagree on
> the deity of Christ
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Yehoshua of Nazareth, a
man approved of YHWH among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
which YHWH did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of YHWH, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have
crucified and slain:
Act 2:24 Whom YHWH hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
Num 23:19 El is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man,
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath
he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Joh 4:24 “Elohim is Spirit, and those who worship Him need to worship
in spirit and truth.”
Mal 3:6 For I am YHWH, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are
not consumed.
Joh 5:37 “And the Father WHO SENT ME, He bore witness of Me. You have
neither heard His voice at any time, NOR SEEN HIS FORM.
Mat 12:18 Behold my SERVANT, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom
my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall
shew judgment to the Gentiles.
Joh 5:27 And hath GIVEN him authority to execute judgment also,
because he is the Son of man.
Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and
be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my
right hand, and on my left, IS NOT MINE TO GIVE, but it shall be given
to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mat 28:18 And Yahushua came and spake unto them, saying, All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth.
Joh 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word and
believes in HIM WHO SENT ME possesses everlasting life, and DOES NOT
come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
Joh 7:28 Yehoshua therefore cried out in the Set-apart Place, teaching
and saying, “YOU both KNOW ME, and you know where I am from. And I
have NOT COME OF MYSELF, but HE WHO SENT ME is true, whom YOU DO NOT
KNOW.
Joh 12:49 For I have NOT spoken of MYSELF; but the Father WHICH SENT
ME, HE GAVE me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should
speak.
Joh 12:50 And I know that HIS COMMANDMENT IS EVERLASTING LIFE:
whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I
speak.
Joh 12:44 Then Yehoshua cried out and said, “He who believes in Me,
believes NOT IN ME but in Him who sent Me.
Mar 9:37 “Whoever receives one of such little children in My Name
receives Me. And whoever receives Me, RECEIVES ME NOT, but the One WHO
SENT ME.”
Joh 7:16 Yehoshua answered them, and said, My doctrine is NOT MINE,
but HIS THAT SENT ME.
Joh 5:30 “Of Myself I am unable to do any matter.
Joh 5:31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true.
Joh 5:46 “For if you believed Mosheh, you would have believed Me,
since he wrote about Me.
Joh 5:47 “But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you
believe My words?”
1Pe 1:21 Who by him do believe in YHWH, that raised him up from the
dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in YHWH.
Mat 26:39 And going forward a little, He fell on His face, and prayed,
saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me.
Yet NOT AS I DESIRE, but as You desire.”
Deu 32:3 “For I proclaim the Name of [Yahweh] יהוה, Ascribe greatness
to our Elohim.
His name is not Baal Gawd!
Shalom,
*´¨)
¸.•´ ¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨)
(¸.•´ (¸.• (Snow(.¸.•*´¨)
Respond directly:
http://groups.google.com/group/messianicYehoshua
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/messianic_Yehoshua/
http://www.isr-messianic.org/ <- download the scriptures free
or
http://messianicyehoshua.googlegroups.com/web/RNKJV.zip <--free
download of the Restored Names King James Version
Life is a gift, and it offers us the privilege, opportunity, and
responsibility to give something back by becoming more.
Tony Robbins
Ed Form
>
> "Ed Form"
>
>> Let me begin by asking, yet again, can you read? Jesus words here were a
>> request to his father to forgive someone or some group - it's actually the
>> cohort of Romans who were in process of nailing him to the tree. It is
>> obvious that Jesus had already forgiven them or he would not have asked
>> that they be forgiven by his father, but it makes it absolutely certain
>> that forgiveness by the father is the thing that really matters.
>
> I understand, but disagree. I believe Jesus was in fact forgiving not
> just his tormentors, but also all men everywhere, in all times. He was
> expressing *on behalf of the Father* his own forgiveness for sin. In
> saying, "Father, forgive them," he was acting as mediator of
> forgiveness *from* the Father. It would be the same thing if a general
> had given me authority as a lower-level officer to open a jail and let
> a particular inmate go free. When I say, "Release the prisoner," I'm
> acting on behalf of the general who gave me the authority. When Jesus
> said, "Father, forgive them," he was acting with the authority of the
> Father himself, stating that he essentially agreed with his Father's
> predetermined will to release men from their guilt.
I'm shaking my head in disbelief here, Randy. Follow the pronouns and look
up the cross references and you'll see that Jesus was lead out by an
entity nominated by the first person pronoun 'they'...
Luke 22:26, 33
And as *they* led him away, they laid hold upon one
Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and
on him *they* laid the cross, that he might bear it
after Jesus...
...And when they were come to the place, which is called
Calvary, there *they* crucified him...
Immediately after this Jesus said...
Verse 34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive *them*
for *they* know not what they do.
And *they* parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Now, if you look at Matthew 27 and Mark 15, and specifically note the
incident where Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry the cross, you will
see that the 'they' who led Jesus away, and who crucified him, and who
cast lots for his clothes were 'the soldiers of the Governor.' It was
*them* who Jesus asked his father to forgive.
> Otherwise, what you have is the Father relying on Jesus to give him
> permission to forgive. Or, the whole thing becomes some kind of mock
> play, with the Father having Jesus pretend to ask him to forgive what
> He had already determined to forgive. In fact I believe Jesus was the
> very process of forgiveness by which the Father displayed his mercy.
> The Father and Jesus acted as one divine act forgiving men what they
> had been doing to God.
That paragraph is completely jumbled and nonsensical, Randy. The text
specifically says that Jesus asked his father to forgive them. We can only
go further than that because we Jesus told us in another place that God
*always* heard him, so we can safely conclude that God did forgive these
men. We can also be certain that Jesus himself had already forgiven them
while they carried out the assault on him, and this fits in with Jesus own
teachings about forgiveness in the beatitudes and in other places...
Blessed are the merciful
for they shall receive mercy.
To jump from this simple account to the idea that Jesus was forgiving all
men is not allowable as a version of the text which only says that Jesus
prayed for the 'them' whose hands he was suffering under at that point.
> But my point is not intended to challenge the right of men to forgive
> sins committed against them, or the right of Jesus to forgive those who
> were crucifying him. The point is that if Jesus only forgave those who
> put him on the cross, then this act of martyrdom serves no useful
> purpose in determining forgiveness for all men everywhere, in all
> times.
Rubbish! That's a complete non-sequitur; the availability of general
forgiveness of sins by way of belief in Jesus as God's son and our saviour
is not touched upon in this little, human story. The account shows Jesus
at his most astonishing, a staggering example to us all of what mercy
really is. It does not comment on his role as the saviour of all those who
believe in him and approach God in his name.
>> ..we can only *logically* conclude that Jesus claimed to have been
>> deputised by God and given powers by God, to enable him to carry out
>> certain duties for God. None of the various passages in which Jesus speaks
>> of having authority to forgive sins is capable of supplying proof that
>> Jesus is God.
>
> Those aren't the verses I would rely on. Yes, Jesus was sort of
> "deputized" to forgive sin on behalf of the Father. But if Jesus only
> forgave sin in his own time and circumstances, then his sacrifice has
> no value for all men in all places and in all circumstances. Jesus
> wasn't just some kind of sacred ritual of forgiveness that God
> required, to conjure up human forgiveness by relying on the example of
> his life. If that was the case, only those Jesus directly forgave would
> be forgiven, and the rest would be left relying on trying to imitate
> the example of Jesus' life that he set as a martyr for sin. And nobody
> can live up to Jesus' standards!
Again, Randy, that's a complete load of tosh. Jesus' place and
effectiveness as the appointed saviour of men and women who believe in him
is not disproved by observing that the prayer to God for forgiveness for
the platoon who killed him was a personal prayer about one group of men.
You're confused again, I'm afraid.
> And so I would argue that Jesus *himself* became the source of
> forgiveness for sin, because in pardoning human sin he gave us his
> spirit as a means of living by his spirituality even while we remain
> imperfect. It is the ultimate act of grace because by participating in
> his spirituality we also qualify to obtain his immortality, when later
> we are raised from the dead. randy
The mind boggles! Jesus is God's appointed judge and by belief in him men
and women can be rescued from the grave and given everlasting life - a
gift for which their own lives did not qualify them. The bit about
spirituality is just a tumbling froth of words with no meaning.
Ed Form