Elohim and Plural Intensive in Hebrew
Reslight
the word *elohim*, often translated God, is plural, and this signifies a
plurality of persons in the Godhead.
The Hebrew Scriptures do often use the plural word Elohim in singular
settings, usually with the singular article or singular verbs, etc. This has
been called the "plural intensive" -- where the plural is used in a singular
context. It has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine.
Moses is also called elohim. (Exodus 4:16; 7:1 -- The KJV adds the words
"instead of" before "God" in Exodus 4:16, which words do not appear in the
Hebrew.) The scriptures concerning Moses indicate that elohim, although
plural, is applied to the singular person, Moses (who is a type of Jesus --
Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23). Moses is not more than one person, so
why the plural usage here? It is plural used in a singular setting to denote
supremacy (plural intensive), that is, to denote the supremacy of the power
given to Moses by Yahweh over the power of Pharaoh and the gods of Pharaoh.
http://biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv
Elohim is also applied to Jesus as an individual being, again to show the
supreme power of Jesus in his kingdom as given to him by the Elohim over
Jesus: Yahweh. (Psalm 45:6,7; See also Hebrews 1:8,9) The very fact that
this power over his fellows is given to Jesus by Yahweh's anointing shows
that Jesus is not equal to Yahweh.
We should also note that elohim in the plural means "gods" -- not persons.
Thus the argument that its plural usage means a trinity would tend to mean
that there are three gods, not three persons.
Additionally, if elohim means more than one person in one godhead, then in
Psalm 45:6,7 we would have one "godhead of persons" anointing another
"godhead of persons".
There was only one golden calf called Elohim. (Genesis 32:4) Another
indication that the usuage of elohim in a singular setting is not in
reference to more than one.
Judges 16:23 when reference is made to the false god Dagon, a form of the
title 'elohim' is used; the accompanying verb is singular, showing that
reference is to just the one god.
At Genesis 42:30, Joseph is spoken of as the "lord" ('adhoneh', the plural
intensive of excellence) of Egypt.
Eloah (the singular for Elohim) is used for God in verses such as Nehemiah
9:17. El is also used for God in many places throughout the Hebrew
Scriptures, such as Genesis 14:18. If Elohim means three persons, then El
would mean one person. If "Elohim" is a plural word referring to three
persons, then "El" must refer to only one of those three persons. This would
mean a trinitarian would have a massive job in explaining which instances of
"El" in the scriptures referred to which Triune Person in Elohim.
Mark 12:29, where a reply of Jesus is reproduced in which he quoted
Deuteronomy 6:4, the Greek singular ho Theos' is used. If a plurality of
persons were meant, then we would think that the inspired NT writers would
have translated the intensive 'elohim' as plural in Greek also. It is not.
"Elohim is a plural form which is often used in Hebrew to denote plentitude
of might" (Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs).
"The form of the word, Elohim, is plural. The Hebrews pluralized nouns to
express greatness or majesty" (Flanders, Cresson; Introduction to the
Bible).
"Elohim is the plural of Eloah (in Arabic Allah ); it is often used in the
short form EL (a word signifying strength , as in EL-SHADDAI, God Almighty,
the name by which God was specially known to the patriarchs. (Genesis 17:1;
28:3; Exodus 6:3) The etymology is uncertain, but it is generally agreed
that the primary idea is that of strength, power of effect, and that it
properly describes God in that character in which he is exhibited to all men
in his works, as the creator, sustainer and supreme governor of the world.
The plural form of Elohim has given rise to much discussion. The fanciful
idea that it referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds
now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the
plural of majesty , or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum
of the powers displayed by God. Jehovah denotes specifically the one true
God, whose people the Jews were, and who made them the guardians of his
truth." -- Smith's Bible Dictionary
For more information about the trinity and oneness doctrines, see:
http://reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.html
Libertarius
> A common argument used by trinitarians and some oneness believers is that
> the word *elohim*, often translated God, is plural, and this signifies a
> plurality of persons in the Godhead.
===>Well, it most certainly IS. The Hebrew ELOHIM, like the cognate
Semitic ELIM is definitely a PLURAL NOUN. In the book of GENESIS
it is repeatedly combined with PLURAL EXPRESSIONS, such as
"Let US make man in OUR image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26); "The man has
become like one of US" (3:22); "come let US go down there and confuse
their language..." (11:7) etc. (NEB)
> The Hebrew Scriptures do often use the plural word Elohim in singular
> settings, usually with the singular article or singular verbs, etc. This has
> been called the "plural intensive" -- where the plural is used in a singular
> context. It has nothing to do with the trinity doctrine.
===>It cannot possibly have anything to do with the Trinity doctrine
since that was invented hundreds of years later. But it DOES reflect
the ORIGINAL theology of the Hebrew peoples, according to which
there were at least TWO deities, one male (EL, YHWH) and one
female (ANATH, HOKHMA, QUEEN OF HEAVEN). Humans
were supposed to have been created by them in THEIR "image and
likeness", MALE AND FEMALE.
Of course, in reality it was those deities that were created in the
HUMANS "image and likeness".
[SNIPALOT]
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Dale Grider
"The oneness of God is the first plank in the trinitarian platform. For this reason I would agree with the booklet's (Watchtower's publication "Should you believe in the Trinity?")argument that the plural form of elohim for God in the Old Testament cannot be evidence of the Trinity."
The main point to notice in this quote of a Christian Trinitarian apologist is that the effective rebuttal to the argument that proposes elohim as a plural to prove trinitarianism, is a red herring. Though it is admittedly a poor argument, the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on it. Thus, while it is very fascinating to see how reslight has researched the ways and reasons for why this particular argument fails, we should not get the impression that such an impressive rebuttal does anything in and of itself to disprove the doctrine itself. He has revealed a false argument. Not a false doctrine.
The reality of a Trinitarian understanding of Scripture is FULLY montheistic (a fact that is often misrepresented or misunderstood in JW literature). God is ONE in being, yet three in persons who are unified in that one being. This is different than the common JW arguments that build modalistic straw men to knock down, misrepresenting just what trinitarian belief teaches.
If we really look at what Scripture says, an ironic twist in the JW-Christian
debate emerges. Trinitarian doctrine, though one might disagree with the
interpretation, is strictly monotheistic in its doctrinal assertion. MORE
SO BY FAR THAN JW THEOLOGY! How so you might ask? Because while trinitrian
belief involves the mystery of how three persons could coexist within one
being, the true monotheistic bottom line is adhered to strictly. There
is but ONE true God in all of eternity. (Deut 4:35, 39, 32:39, 2Sam 22:32,
Isa 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8; 45:5; 14, 21-22; 46:9, Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1Cor
8:4, 6; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6; 1Tim 1:17; 2:5; James 2:19; Jude 25) Yet we
know that JW theology, to evade the deity of Jesus, interprets that there
are many "gods" in Scripture, but only the one Jehovah god that we should
worship. The classic example lies in the NWT 's mistranslation of John
1 that names Jesus as "a" god, instead of god as the Greek text reads.
This ladies and gentlemen, is polytheism by definition. And the revealing
question that comes out of this observation is the unanswerable question
(in the context of JW belief),
According to the above verses that proclaim an absolute monotheism,
is this Jesus who is said in the NWT to be "a" god, a false god or a true
one? For Scripture emphatically says that there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD. Any
alleged deity in Scripture will prove out to represent only one of two
classes. Jehovah God, or a false God. We know that Jesus does not belong
to the second class. The resultant conclusion therefore goes without mention.
So what we find is that, ironically, it is really
the trinitarian who is defending monotheism, not the JW, in the Christian,
JW dialogue. Watchtower theology, in its insistance upon denying deity
to Jesus, ultimately must become polytheistic to do so within the framework
of Scripture.
We have to be vareful not to present red herrings as self satisfying,
but irrelevant, arguments against a whole doctrine. It would have been
more honest to have admitted somewhere in his post that, although the argument
of elohim as a plural is not a sound argument for the trinity, that the
invalidation of that argument does not invalidate trinitarian belief. It
seemed to me that the post tries to prove more than it did, or could, concerning
the overal position of Trinitarian theology.
In Jesus, who like Thomas, I call "my Lord and my God,
Dale
Libertarius
===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
DWS
God is single and plural as is sheep.
Whatever word used by man to define and portray God is man's choosing.
The reality of God remains unchanged by any word of mankind.
God is a people; a family; of which the Son of God is one, of and with
God. As there are many who are God, there are many who are the Sons of
God.
There is but one Son of which all Sons of God are.
There is but one God of which all who are of God are.
The stupid arrogance of man and his wild imagination, has caused you
to speak as the fool. God, you have never seen, nor heard, nor known,
for if you had, you would not speak as a fool in such arrogance. Such
are the religionists who set themselves up in the place of God as
teachers of His Truth, and are liars and deceivers.
On Thu, 25 May 2000 11:04:53 -0600, Libertarius
<The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
>"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
>non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
>one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
>mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
>THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
>It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
>although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
>consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
>being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
>
> [SNIPALOT]
>
>
> Libertarius
> *DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
Son of God
The things of God knoweth no man,
but him who is the Spirit of God.
Yellowbird
> <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
> >===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
> >"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
> >non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
> >one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
> >mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
> >THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
> >It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
> >although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
> >consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
> >being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
FALSE. We do NOT believe that Jesus was an "incarnate" being. He was born
onto this earth as a perfect human, no more and no less. He was completely
human, although perfect, NOT God/man. Since he is the "corresponding
ransom" and "the last Adam" he CANNOT be God/man, because Adam wasn't.
Yes, he existed with his God in the heavens before being born as a human on
earth. But not as some hybrid God/man. The only hybrids on record were
disobedient ones, and Jesus had "learned obedience." "Incarnation" is not a
Biblical teaching.
Libertarius
> Words of a fool, fathered by fools:
>
> God is single and plural as is sheep.
===>In fact the plural of 'sheep" is, indeed,
"sheep". But the plural of "God" is "Gods", silly!
Thanks for confessing your foolishness and foolish heritage.
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 11:04:53 -0600, Libertarius
> <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
> >"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
> >non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
> >one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
> >mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
> >THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
> >It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
> >although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
> >consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
> >being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
> >
Libertarius
> > On Thu, 25 May 2000 11:04:53 -0600, Libertarius
> > <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> > >===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
> > >"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
> > >non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
> > >one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
> > >mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
> > >THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
> > >It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
> > >although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
> > >consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
> > >being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
>
> FALSE. We do NOT believe that Jesus was an "incarnate" being. He was born
> onto this earth as a perfect human, no more and no less. He was completely
> human, although perfect, NOT God/man. Since he is the "corresponding
> ransom" and "the last Adam" he CANNOT be God/man, because Adam wasn't.
> Yes, he existed with his God in the heavens before being born as a human on
> earth.
===>I am surprised at you, YB. That is EXACTLY what "incarnate"
means: "being born as a human on earth". You fail to see it when you
blatantly contradict yourself.
> But not as some hybrid God/man. The only hybrids on record were
> disobedient ones, and Jesus had "learned obedience." "Incarnation" is not a
> Biblical teaching.
===>What does "The Logos became flesh" mean to you? Do you
have a dictionary? Incarnation LITERALLY means being born
IN (Latin "in") FLESH (Latin "caro, carnis"). The dictionary definition
is:
1. endowment with a human body; appearance in human form.
2. the taking on of human form and nature by Jesus conceived
of as the Son of God.
etc. (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary).
Unlike Unitarians, JWs are too timid to admit the fallacy of the
Pauline doctrine of incarnation. They want to have it both ways.
Recognizing the absurdity of the Trinity, yet clinging to the
deification of the Jewish man, Jesus, son of Joseph and brother of
James, etc.
MindSpring News
not be backed up.
Why is the trinity absurd? Is it only absurd to you? Is it absurd because
of it or maybe it seems absurd to you because of your limitations?
Could it be that if you were more intelligent the trinity would not be
absurd?
The ttinity is not absurd to me nor to a billion other people now living?
The fact that you limit the definition of person more than the Latin Persona
maybe the problem. A persona seems to be a personality. Even
non-christians admit there are individuals who suffer from multiple
personalities. If you can have more than one personality then it is not
absurd for another enitity to have more than one personality.
So stop your irrational rants
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:392D9625.712AC87C@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Libertarius
> A fool comment is a simple declaritive "the trinity is absurd," which can
> not be backed up.
>
> Why is the trinity absurd? Is it only absurd to you? Is it absurd because
> of it or maybe it seems absurd to you because of your limitations?
>
> Could it be that if you were more intelligent the trinity would not be
> absurd?
>
> The ttinity is not absurd to me nor to a billion other people now living?
>
> The fact that you limit the definition of person more than the Latin Persona
> maybe the problem. A persona seems to be a personality. Even
> non-christians admit there are individuals who suffer from multiple
> personalities. If you can have more than one personality then it is not
> absurd for another enitity to have more than one personality.
>
> So stop your irrational rants
===>So, now you claim that your "God" is a schizophrenic with
multiple personalities. CUTE!
Libertarius
~~[(*()*)]~~
Yellowbird <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
news:392d7760$0$22...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net...
: > On Thu, 25 May 2000 11:04:53 -0600, Libertarius
: > <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
:
: > >===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
: > >"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
: > >non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
: > >one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
: > >mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
: > >THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
: > >It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
: > >although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
: > >consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
: > >being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
:
: FALSE. We do NOT believe that Jesus was an "incarnate" being. He was born
: onto this earth as a perfect human, no more and no less. He was
completely
: human, although perfect, NOT God/man. Since he is the "corresponding
: ransom" and "the last Adam" he CANNOT be God/man, because Adam wasn't.
: Yes, he existed with his God in the heavens before being born as a human
on
:
Libertarius
> Yellowbird <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> news:392d7760$0$22...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net...
> : > On Thu, 25 May 2000 11:04:53 -0600, Libertarius
> : > <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
> :
> : > >===>It indeed is. And it is pure NONSENSE. A
> : > >"being" is either a "person", like you or I, or a
> : > >non-person, like the UNIVERSE. "Three persons in
> : > >one being" is a total absurdity, designed to
> : > >mask the fact that Gentile CHristianity worships
> : > >THREE DIVINE BEINGS, i.e. THREE "GODS".
> : > >It is POLYTHEISM, plain and simple. And JWs,
> : > >although refusing the Trinitarian argument, still
> : > >consider Jesus to have been an incarnate divine
> : > >being, so they are ALSO polytheists.
> :
> : FALSE. We do NOT believe that Jesus was an "incarnate" being. He was born
> onto this earth as a perfect human, no more and no less.
===>I have already seen this post and answered it. What you are stating,
i.e. that he was "born onto this earth..." is EXACTLY what the word
"incarnate" means. How can you believe that and not believe that
"Jesus was an incarnate being"?
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
> He was
Reslight
news:392D0641...@bellsouth.net...
>
> The reality of a Trinitarian understanding of Scripture is FULLY
> montheistic (a fact that is often
> misrepresented or misunderstood in JW literature). God is ONE in being,
> yet three in persons who are unified in that one being. This is
> different than the common JW arguments that build modalistic straw men
> to knock down, misrepresenting just what trinitarian belief teaches.
>
> If we really look at what Scripture says, an ironic twist in the
> JW-Christian debate emerges.
> Trinitarian doctrine, though one might disagree with the interpretation,
> is strictly monotheistic in its doctrinal assertion. MORE SO BY FAR THAN
> JW THEOLOGY! How so you might ask?
> Because while trinitrian belief involves the mystery of how three
> persons could coexist within one
> being, the true monotheistic bottom line is adhered to strictly. There
> is but ONE true God in all of
> eternity. (Deut 4:35, 39, 32:39, 2Sam 22:32, Isa 37:20; 43:10; 44:6-8;
> 45:5; 14, 21-22; 46:9,
> Rom. 3:30; 16:27; 1Cor 8:4, 6; Gal 3:20; Eph 4:6; 1Tim 1:17; 2:5; James
> 2:19; Jude 25)
I am not with the JWs, I am a Bible Student. However, if you want to so
classify all who are called elohim or theos in the Bible, then all the
angels must be one true God, since they are called elohim; all the judges
must be the one true God, since they are called elohim; Moses must be the
one true God, since he is called elohim. Jesus is elohim (theos) also; but
this does not make him the one true Supreme over all anymore than the
angels, Moses, or the judges.
> Yet we
> know that JW theology, to evade the deity of Jesus, interprets that
> there are many "gods" in
> Scripture, but only the one Jehovah god that we should worship.
The above argument would negate the places where others are called elohim
(or theos) even by God himself, or his son Jesus. Thus the argument is
against the Bible itself, not with the JWs or the Bible Students or the
Christadelphians or the Assembly of Yahweh, etc.
> The
> classic example lies in the
> NWT 's mistranslation of John 1 that names Jesus as "a" god, instead of
> god as the Greek text
> reads. This ladies and gentlemen, is polytheism by definition.
Regardless of how this translated, if such is polytheism, then the Bible is
polythistic, since it calls the angels elohim, the judges elohim, Moses
elohim, etc.
> And the
> revealing question that
> comes out of this observation is the unanswerable question (in the
> context of JW belief),
> According to the above verses that proclaim an absolute monotheism, is
> this Jesus who is said in
> the NWT to be "a" god, a false god or a true one? For Scripture
> emphatically says that there is
> ONLY ONE TRUE GOD.
This sidetracks everything. The saints are called elohim and theoi - gods.
The angels are called elohim and Moses is called elohim.
> Any alleged deity in Scripture will prove out to
> represent only one of
> two classes. Jehovah God, or a false God.
Yahweh himself calls Moses elohim. From the above argument, then, Moses IS
Yahweh, or else Moses is a false god (elohim).
Jesus himself calls the judges (saints) theoi. According the above argument,
then, the saints are also false gods (elohim, theoi).
The same when David calls the angels elohim. All the angels then must be
false gods, according to the above argument.
See:
http://reslight.addr.com/heb1-8.html
>We know that Jesus does not
> belong to the second
> class. The resultant conclusion therefore goes without mention.
>
> So what we find is that, ironically, it is really the trinitarian who is
> defending monotheism, not
> the JW, in the Christian, JW dialogue. Watchtower theology, in its
> insistance upon denying deity
> to Jesus,
I don't think that they are denying the deity of Christ; Bible Students
define the deity of Christ by Hebrew heritage of el, eloah, and elohim, and
not according to trinitarian tradition and philosophy. JWs, I think, also
try to do the same.
> ultimately must become polytheistic to do so within the
> framework of Scripture.
> We have to be vareful not to present red herrings as self satisfying,
> but irrelevant, arguments
> against a whole doctrine. It would have been more honest to have
> admitted somewhere in his post
> that, although the argument of elohim as a plural is not a sound
> argument for the trinity, that the
> invalidation of that argument does not invalidate trinitarian belief.
In truth, the trinitarian doctrine is not at all found in the Bible. Nowhere
does the Bible speak of three persons in one being.
> It
> seemed to me that the post tries to prove more than it did, or could,
> concerning the overal position of Trinitarian theology.
The post was not trying to defeat the Trinitarian theology based on this one
claim. It was designed to refute the claim that was being spoken of.
> In Jesus, who, like Thomas, I call , "my Lord and my God,
> Dale:)
I have posted concerning this before. Please see:
http://reslight.addr.com/john20-28.html
Reslight
message news:392E9EBE.C78FF0F2@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> "~~[(*()*)]~~" wrote:
>
> > Yellowbird <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:392d7760$0$22...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net...
> > : FALSE. We do NOT believe that Jesus was an "incarnate" being. He was
born
> > onto this earth as a perfect human, no more and no less.
>
> ===>I have already seen this post and answered it. What you are stating,
> i.e. that he was "born onto this earth..." is EXACTLY what the word
> "incarnate" means. How can you believe that and not believe that
> "Jesus was an incarnate being"?
Incarnate, as a word, simply means "in or into the flesh." Incarnate, as
used and defined by tradition, is the clothing of the divine nature with
flesh.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, incarnation "implies three facts:
(1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ; (2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ;
(3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine
Person of Jesus Christ."
The Free Online Encarta Encylopedia says: "Incarnation, in religion, a god's
assumption of an earthly form. In early times, priests and kings were often
considered divine incarnations. In ancient Roman and Greek religions, gods
sometimes assumed human form and married mortals. In Mahayana Buddhism,
Buddha is a divine being who came to earth as a teacher out of compassion
for suffering humanity. In Jainism, Jina is regarded as a supernatural being
who was incarnated and grew up sinless and omniscient. In Zoroastrianism,
Zoroaster's body was created in heaven, fell to earth with the rain, and
passed to his mother through the milk of heifers. In Hinduism, avatars are
incarnations of the gods, especially of Vishnu. In Christianity, Jesus
Christ is considered to be God in human form."
Churchly Word Meanings defines it thusly:
"incarnation : in + carn (flesh) + -ation (to become, transform into). When
a divine being becomes human or takes on an animal form of life. For
Christians, it refers to God loving us so much that God chose to become a
certain earthly being, Jesus of Nazareth. Choosing to be born, to live, to
die in the manner of human beings, and to experience the good and bad that
makes up human life. By incarnating, God gave a new holiness to all that
exists, to the earth Jesus walked on, the nature he took part in, the
ethnic/religious group he was a member of, the wood he cut and pieced
together, the temple he hung out at, the boat he spoke from, the crowds he
spoke to, the nation and empire he lived in, the garden he prayed in, the
city he was executed in, the tomb he walked out of. Jesus' work doesn't make
any created things into God, but makes all created things blessed by God. "
http://www.spirithome.com/defchure.html#incarn
Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary
http://www.bibliomania.com/Reference/Webster/data/791.html
"Incarn
(In*carn") v. t. [Cf. F. incarner. See Incarnate.] To cover or invest with
flesh. [R.] Wiseman.
Incarnate
(In*car"nate), a. [L. incarnatus, p. p. of incarnare to incarnate, pref. in-
in + caro, carnis, flesh. See Carnal.]
1. Invested with flesh; embodied in a human nature and form; united with, or
having, a human body."
Thus incarnation, as it is usually defined, is not quite the same as
carnate, which means of flesh. Jesus was carnate, he became flesh (carnate).
He was no longer a mighty spirit being after he became flesh. He became a
little lower than the elohim. -- Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:9.
Ronald R. Day
Restoration Light
http://reslight.addr.com/l-trinity.html
Stephen Bayzik
>===>So, now you claim that your "God" is a schizophrenic with
>multiple personalities. CUTE!
Just a few comments Libertarius. Normally, I don't get involved in
attempting to define the "hypostatic union" as was developed over two
centuries and which came to fruition as a Creed in the fourth century. The
attempt itself is foolish. The Creed itself is logically flawed and strained
at best; logically the now defunct (heretical) approach to a definitive
Christology as put forward in the Arian perspective is admittedly the more
logical one. But in deference to the historical process we shouldn't forget
the the formation of the Creed was the best that a fourth century Aryian
mindset could do in attempting to redact an essentially Judaic (Hebrew)
Semitic concept of "God", which itself had evolved after a 1000+ history.
Take care.
Larry R
Hebrew for G-d.
Ayl, Ehleel, Eloha, Elohim, Hashaym, Ha Kodoosh Baruch Hoo. All nouns of
singular conotation.
Lord-Ish, Elohim, Ka Kodoosh Baruch Hoo, Adohn all nouns and all singular.
There does not seem to be any plurality implied to G-d with the use of "im"
as would be the case with anything ungodlike in nature.
"Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
news:4dHX4.240715$Kv2.4...@quark.idirect.com...
Libertarius
===>That is pretty much what I stated, i.e. that
in the mystery cult of
Saul of Tarsus Jesus became an "incarnate savior
god", and that Jehovah's
Witnesses, although objecting to the terms of the
"Trinity", still accept
this deification of the man Jesus. To my knowledge
only the Socinian
followers of Miguel Servetus, also known as
Unitarians, have had the
courage to do away with the Pauline concept of
Jesus being a second
divine being, who incarnated in the form of an
earthling. No matter
how it is obfuscated by Trinitarians, Arians, or
JWs, a belief in a second
(and even a third) person as divine being is,
strictly speaking,
NOT MONOTHEISM.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
Libertarius
>
> Libertarius wrote in message <392E0158.41AEEFC9@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
>
> >===>So, now you claim that your "God" is a schizophrenic with
> >multiple personalities. CUTE!
>
> Just a few comments Libertarius. Normally, I don't get involved in
> attempting to define the "hypostatic union" as was developed over two
> centuries and which came to fruition as a Creed in the fourth century. The
> attempt itself is foolish. The Creed itself is logically flawed and strained
> at best; logically the now defunct (heretical) approach to a definitive
> Christology as put forward in the Arian perspective is admittedly the more
> logical one. But in deference to the historical process we shouldn't forget
> the the formation of the Creed was the best that a fourth century Aryian
> mindset could do in attempting to redact an essentially Judaic (Hebrew)
> Semitic concept of "God", which itself had evolved after a 1000+ history.
===>Both the Arian and the Athanasian solutions
are week efforts at
claiming "monotheism" while professing a belief in
a second and even
a third divine being, a process which began with
the deification by Saul
of Tarsus of the man Jesus, making that deified
man into "Christos",
the centerpiece of yet another mystery religion,
in this case
with some Jewish flavoring. No doubt the fact that
the character of
this "Christos Jesus" was based on a historical
person did help
Gentile Christianity in its competition with the
rival mystery cults
on the one hand, as its essentially pagan
conceptual framework helped in
its competition against Judaism on the other hand.
Libertarius
>
> Well didn't want to get in pluralities but here are the singular nouns in
> Hebrew for G-d.
> Ayl, Ehleel, Eloha, Elohim, Hashaym, Ha Kodoosh Baruch Hoo. All nouns of
> singular conotation.
> Lord-Ish, Elohim, Ka Kodoosh Baruch Hoo, Adohn all nouns and all singular.
> There does not seem to be any plurality implied to G-d with the use of "im"
> as would be the case with anything ungodlike in nature.
===>In fact immediately in the first creation
story of B'RESHITH (Genesis)
"ELOHIM" is used as a noun referring to certain
beings who made statements
such as "Let US create man in OUR image and
likeness".
Also, the word is used MANY TIMES to refer to the
"GODS" (PLURAL)
of the Gentiles as well!
Actually, "ELOHIM" and its cognate Semitic "ELIM"
is definitely
a PLURAL NOUN!
Libertarius
> "Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
> news:4dHX4.240715$Kv2.4...@quark.idirect.com...
> > Libertarius wrote in message <392E0158.41AEEFC9@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
> >
> > >===>So, now you claim that your "God" is a schizophrenic with
> > >multiple personalities. CUTE!
> >
> > Just a few comments Libertarius. Normally, I don't get involved in
> > attempting to define the "hypostatic union" as was developed over two
> > centuries and which came to fruition as a Creed in the fourth century. The
> > attempt itself is foolish. The Creed itself is logically flawed and
> strained
> > at best; logically the now defunct (heretical) approach to a definitive
> > Christology as put forward in the Arian perspective is admittedly the more
> > logical one. But in deference to the historical process we shouldn't
> forget
> > the the formation of the Creed was the best that a fourth century Aryian
> > mindset could do in attempting to redact an essentially Judaic (Hebrew)
> > Semitic concept of "God", which itself had evolved after a 1000+ history.
> >
> > Take care.
> >
> >
> >
> >
Reslight
message news:3930127E.70332903@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Saul never taught such a thing.
> and that Jehovah's
> Witnesses, although objecting to the terms of the
> "Trinity", still accept
> this deification of the man Jesus.
I think the JWs define deity similar to the Bible Students; it is applied to
many men and also the angels in the terms el and elohim.
> To my knowledge
> only the Socinian
> followers of Miguel Servetus, also known as
> Unitarians, have had the
> courage to do away with the Pauline concept of
> Jesus being a second
> divine being, who incarnated in the form of an
> earthling.
Again, such a concept is not found in the scriptures written by Paul; it has
to be read into what he wrote.
> No matter
> how it is obfuscated by Trinitarians, Arians, or
> JWs, a belief in a second
> (and even a third) person as divine being is,
> strictly speaking,
> NOT MONOTHEISM.
This depends on the definition one gives to "divine being." Many define this
term as referring to any sentient being with a body composed of spirit
substance rather than earthly or material substance. The scriptures,
however, do not use the term "divine being" as such, although the term does
appear in a few translations. -- 1 Samuel 28:13 (NASB; NRSV -- here "elohim"
is translated as "divine being"); Daniel 3:25 (New Living Bible -- the
Aramaic "bar elah" -- son of god -- is translated "divine being").
Thus when the judges of Israel are called *elohim*, they are human, yet they
are "divine" (mighty ones - ones with authority) in that they are appointed
by God as such. -- Exodus 21:6; 22:8,9,28 (See Acts 23:5)
Likewise with Moses. -- Exodus 7:1.
And the sons of God. -- Psalm 82:6,7; John 10:34,35; 1 John 3:2.
The above examples are of those who are called elohim while in the flesh; in
none of these cases are they some kind of hybrid god-man, or having two
forms of existence at once.
To understand Hebrew monotheism, one has to regard the multiple meanings
given to the Hebrew words derived from EL. We believe that this applies also
when theos is applied to Jesus. Given the meaning some translators have
given to the term "divine being" -- a sentient spirit being -- even the
angels could be said to be divine beings, as they are also called elohim. --
Psalm 8:5 {compare Hebrews 2:9}; 86:6-8; 95:3; 50:1.
If the Hebrew and Greek terminology and usuage is brough over into English
as "god" or "divine being", then you have many gods or divine beings spoken
of in the Bible; if the English words "gods" and "divine beings" are viewed
in the light of Hebrew usage, then one would give these words (gods, divine
beings) the same flexibility of meanings as usage demonstrates in the Hebrew
and Greek texts from which the translation is derived.
Libertarius
===>By that time he called himself "Paul". See the
quote from
Philippians below.
>
> > and that Jehovah's
> > Witnesses, although objecting to the terms of the
> > "Trinity", still accept
> > this deification of the man Jesus.
>
> I think the JWs define deity similar to the Bible Students; it is applied to
> many men and also the angels in the terms el and elohim.
>
> > To my knowledge
> > only the Socinian
> > followers of Miguel Servetus, also known as
> > Unitarians, have had the
> > courage to do away with the Pauline concept of
> > Jesus being a second
> > divine being, who incarnated in the form of an
> > earthling.
>
> Again, such a concept is not found in the scriptures written by Paul; it has
> to be read into what he wrote.
===>See quote from Philippians 2 below.
===>You are correct in citing examples where
"Elohim" has been used
with diverse referents. But my point has to do
with the essence of
the Pauline doctrine, which is that "Christos"
pre-existed
IN HEAVEN before he took on human form as Jesus.
This is the basis of
the Christian's claim about Jesus being (a) "God".
"Christ Jesus...existed in the form of God,
but emptied Himself, taking the form of a
bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of
men."
(Philippians 2:5-7 NASB)
In fact Jesus was a human being, like you and I,
born of the
union of his parents Joseph and Mary. He was
supposedly declared an
ADOPTED "son of God" at the time of his baptism,
which was considered to
be his anointing by John the Baptizer to be king
on the throne of David.
This is what the ORIGINAL (Jewish) followers were
taught, this is what they
believed even after the crucifixion, as the
"Emmaus Road" story
illustrates.
Libertarius
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> Libertarius wrote in message <392E0158.41AEEFC9@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
>> >===>So, now you claim that your "God" is a schizophrenic with
>> >multiple personalities. CUTE!
>> Just a few comments Libertarius. Normally, I don't get involved in
>> attempting to define the "hypostatic union" as was developed over two
>> centuries and which came to fruition as a Creed in the fourth century.
The
>> attempt itself is foolish. The Creed itself is logically flawed and
strained
>> at best; logically the now defunct (heretical) approach to a definitive
>> Christology as put forward in the Arian perspective is admittedly the
more
>> logical one. But in deference to the historical process we shouldn't
forget
>> the the formation of the Creed was the best that a fourth century Aryian
>> mindset could do in attempting to redact an essentially Judaic (Hebrew)
>> Semitic concept of "God", which itself had evolved after a 1000+
history.
>===>Both the Arian and the Athanasian solutions
>are week efforts at claiming "monotheism" while professing a belief in
>a second and even a third divine being, a process which began with
>the deification by Saul of Tarsus of the man Jesus, making that deified
>man into "Christos", the centerpiece of yet another mystery religion,
>in this case with some Jewish flavoring. No doubt the fact that
>the character of this "Christos Jesus" was based on a historical
>person did help Gentile Christianity in its competition with the
>rival mystery cults on the one hand, as its essentially pagan
>conceptual framework helped in its competition against Judaism on the other
hand.
Good points Libertarius. There was an old joke floating among the Jesuits
regarding Paul. "The brand name was the Christ, but the Chairman of the
Board was Saul/Paul." It would be interesting to speculate what old grandpa
Saul conjured up between the time of his supposed "vision" and his long
sojourn in the "Trans-Jordan".
Libertarius
===>Why speculate? Just read his letters. He
"conjured up" what we may call
the "Christos cult" by grafting a large branch of
Paganism on a slim branch
of Judaism. Out of that grew Gentile Christianity.
Libertarius
John C.
"Reslight" <resl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:lsEX4.22$VO2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I am not with the JWs, I am a Bible Student. However, if you want to so
> classify all who are called elohim or theos in the Bible, then all the
> angels must be one true God, since they are called elohim; all the judges
> must be the one true God, since they are called elohim; Moses must be the
> one true God, since he is called elohim. Jesus is elohim (theos) also; but
> this does not make him the one true Supreme over all anymore than the
> angels, Moses, or the judges.
>
But none of them possess the incommunicable attributes of God as the Bible
says that Jesus Christ does, obviously differentiating between Him and these
others who are not God by nature (Gal. 4:8)
So the comparison you are trying to make does not apply.
> > Yet we
> > know that JW theology, to evade the deity of Jesus, interprets that
> > there are many "gods" in
> > Scripture, but only the one Jehovah god that we should worship.
>
> The above argument would negate the places where others are called elohim
> (or theos) even by God himself, or his son Jesus. Thus the argument is
> against the Bible itself, not with the JWs or the Bible Students or the
> Christadelphians or the Assembly of Yahweh, etc.
>
Does having God Himself, or Jesus *call* them Gods make them God "by
nature?"
Or would it simply make them those that are "called" god and lord, but not
the true God and Lord as the Father and Jesus Christ are? (1 Corinthians
8:5,6)
> > Any alleged deity in Scripture will prove out to
> > represent only one of
> > two classes. Jehovah God, or a false God.
>
> Yahweh himself calls Moses elohim. From the above argument, then, Moses IS
> Yahweh, or else Moses is a false god (elohim).
>
Yes, Dale had used some inaccurate categories here. The Bible gives the
categories as God, by nature, and called god. (Gal. 4:8, 1 Cor. 8:5,6)
Since Christ possesses the incommunicable attributes of God, He is therefore
"God by nature", and not "called god"--as you wish to make Him.
John C.
Yellowbird
news:9daZ4.781$od5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> But none of them possess the incommunicable attributes of God as the Bible
> says that Jesus Christ does, obviously differentiating between Him and
these
> others who are not God by nature (Gal. 4:8)
>
> So the comparison you are trying to make does not apply.
Yes, Jesus clearly is higher in authority and power than all the human
judges, false gods, angels, etc.
But this comparison does apply, because the original discussion was about
whether Elohim being in the plural proved a composite God, a plurality of
persons within a person.
So it is only reasonable to compare other instances where this word Elohim
is used to see if it is a plural intensive or a plurality of persons. So
since Elohim and other plurals (Adhoneh, "lords") are applied to singular
persons, the plural Elohim does not prove that God is some composite persons
within a person.
> > > Yet we
> > > know that JW theology, to evade the deity of Jesus, interprets that
> > > there are many "gods" in
> > > Scripture, but only the one Jehovah god that we should worship.
> >
"For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as
indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God,
the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord,
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."
1 Cor. 8:5,6 NASB
Jesus was God's SERVANT, as scripture plainly teaches: "The God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus."
Acts 3:13 NASB
Who was "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"? His name is mentioned no
less than 6800 times in the ancient manuscripts, yet people who deny that
name find all manner of excuses to remove it from their Bibles. Jesus
prayed to this God and served this God.
> > > Any alleged deity in Scripture will prove out to
> > > represent only one of
> > > two classes. Jehovah God, or a false God.
That's a popular myth, unsupported by Scripture. The Bible uses the term
"god" in a very relative way at times.
God said to Moses concerning his brother Aaron: "Moreover, he shall speak
for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as
God to him." Exodus 4:16 NASB Did this make Moses a "false god"? No. It
only meant he was God's mouthpiece.
"you may become partakers of the divine nature" 2 Peter 1:4 NASB
So now anointed Christians are going to have "divine nature" or "godship".
Does that make them false gods? No. It just means that they will be
heavenly spirit creatures.
John C.
> "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9daZ4.781$od5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > But none of them possess the incommunicable attributes of God as the
Bible
> > says that Jesus Christ does, obviously differentiating between Him and
> these
> > others who are not God by nature (Gal. 4:8)
> >
> > So the comparison you are trying to make does not apply.
>
> Yes, Jesus clearly is higher in authority and power than all the human
> judges, false gods, angels, etc.
>
That is not how the Bible describes it. He is declared to be Eternal,
Immutable, Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator and
Sustainer, and Judge of all the Earth. To possess such makes Him God.
His authority by no means compares in degree to these others than these
others compare to YHWH Himself (since the Bible also declares Him to *be*
YHWH Himself--Psalm 23:1)
> But this comparison does apply, because the original discussion was about
> whether Elohim being in the plural proved a composite God, a plurality of
> persons within a person.
>
> So it is only reasonable to compare other instances where this word Elohim
> is used to see if it is a plural intensive or a plurality of persons. So
> since Elohim and other plurals (Adhoneh, "lords") are applied to singular
> persons, the plural Elohim does not prove that God is some composite
persons
> within a person.
How can we truly do this if we believe the Bible, which states, that though
there are many that are called god, (1 Corinthians 8:5) they are not God by
nature (Galatians 4:8)?
How can we discern the nature of the One Only True God by examining those
who are clearly NOT God by nature?
How are we to know that the plural intensives are a reference to their (the
called gods) *person* and not their *being?*
>
> > > > Yet we
> > > > know that JW theology, to evade the deity of Jesus, interprets that
> > > > there are many "gods" in
> > > > Scripture, but only the one Jehovah god that we should worship.
> > >
>
> "For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as
> indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one
God,
> the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord,
> Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."
> 1 Cor. 8:5,6 NASB
>
> Jesus was God's SERVANT, as scripture plainly teaches: "The God of
Abraham,
> Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus."
> Acts 3:13 NASB
>
The MAN, Christ Jesus was God's servant. His human nature is not His divine
nature.
> Who was "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"? His name is mentioned no
> less than 6800 times in the ancient manuscripts, yet people who deny that
> name find all manner of excuses to remove it from their Bibles. Jesus
> prayed to this God and served this God.
>
Who is YHWH, Yellowbird? The Father?....or, the everlasting father?
Scripture, please?
> > > > Any alleged deity in Scripture will prove out to
> > > > represent only one of
> > > > two classes. Jehovah God, or a false God.
>
> That's a popular myth, unsupported by Scripture. The Bible uses the term
> "god" in a very relative way at times.
>
> God said to Moses concerning his brother Aaron: "Moreover, he shall speak
> for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be
as
> God to him." Exodus 4:16 NASB Did this make Moses a "false god"? No.
It
> only meant he was God's mouthpiece.
>
> "you may become partakers of the divine nature" 2 Peter 1:4 NASB
> So now anointed Christians are going to have "divine nature" or "godship".
> Does that make them false gods? No. It just means that they will be
> heavenly spirit creatures.
>
>
So the question is, "Is the intent of the Bible to speak of the essential
work of YHWH (i.e., salvation, creation, judgement) simply in a relative
way?"
Would Isaiah agree?
John C.
Libertarius
>
> "Yellowbird" <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> news:39354e33$0$16...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net...
> > "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:9daZ4.781$od5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > But none of them possess the incommunicable attributes of God as the
> Bible
> > > says that Jesus Christ does, obviously differentiating between Him and
> > these
> > > others who are not God by nature (Gal. 4:8)
> > >
> > > So the comparison you are trying to make does not apply.
> >
> > Yes, Jesus clearly is higher in authority and power than all the human
> > judges, false gods, angels, etc.
> >
>
> That is not how the Bible describes it. He is declared to be Eternal,
> Immutable, Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator and
> Sustainer, and Judge of all the Earth. To possess such makes Him God.
===>As imaginative as they were, the authors
compiled in the
Bible collection don't even describe "God" by
those terms.
Where do you get that list?
Yellowbird
> > Yes, Jesus clearly is higher in authority and power than all the human
> > judges, false gods, angels, etc.
> >
>
> That is not how the Bible describes it. He is declared to be Eternal,
> Immutable, Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator and
> Sustainer, and Judge of all the Earth. To possess such makes Him God.
Please share the scriptures with me that declare Jesus to be "Immutable,
Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator"
> His authority by no means compares in degree to these others than these
> others compare to YHWH Himself (since the Bible also declares Him to *be*
> YHWH Himself--Psalm 23:1)
"Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalms 23:1 ASV
Please tell me where this scripture declares Jesus to be YHWH.
> > So it is only reasonable to compare other instances where this word
Elohim
> > is used to see if it is a plural intensive or a plurality of persons.
So
> > since Elohim and other plurals (Adhoneh, "lords") are applied to
singular
> > persons, the plural Elohim does not prove that God is some composite
> persons
> > within a person.
>
>
> How can we truly do this if we believe the Bible, which states, that
though
> there are many that are called god, (1 Corinthians 8:5) they are not God
by
> nature (Galatians 4:8)?
Quite simply. By accepting the fact that since "Elohim" is applied to
singular false gods and singular humans, as well as to the true God, it
proves nothing about a "plural" God. If it did, it would be used to refer
to the true God only.
> How can we discern the nature of the One Only True God by examining those
> who are clearly NOT God by nature?
This discussion isn't about God's "nature" it is about whether "Elohim"
being plural proves anything about numbers. It doesn't.
> How are we to know that the plural intensives are a reference to their
(the
> called gods) *person* and not their *being?*
Where do the scriptures distinguish between "person" and "being"? And
please explain how this same word refers to Joseph's(lords) "person" and not
"being".
Scripture please. :-)
> > Jesus was God's SERVANT, as scripture plainly teaches: "The God of
> Abraham,
> > Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant
Jesus."
> > Acts 3:13 NASB
> >
>
> The MAN, Christ Jesus was God's servant. His human nature is not His
divine
> nature.
Jesus was still referred to as God's servant after his death and
resurrection, thus while in his divine nature. Please read Acts 4:24-30.
The Christians are praying to God and in this prayer they repeatedly mention
"your holy servant Jesus". This proves two things,
1) that Jesus was still God's servant (not God) after his death and
resurrection, and
2) they were not praying to Jesus, they were praying to God.
As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you deserted
me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to part of
himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who considered
himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted?
Himself? That would not make sense. Jesus also said: "Father, into your
hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what reason
should he entrust his spirit to the Father?
After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for parts of three days. If he were
God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: "O my God, my Holy One, you
do not die." But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious in
the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly dead, he
could not have resurrected himself. On the other hand, if he was not really
dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for Adam's
sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death. So it was "God
[who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death." (Acts 2:24) The
superior, God Almighty, raised the lesser, his servant Jesus, from the dead.
> Who is YHWH, Yellowbird? The Father?....or, the everlasting father?
>
> Scripture, please?
"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high
over all the earth." Psalms 83:18 KJV
Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called "Mighty God," though not the
Almighty God, and that he would be the "Eternal Father" of all those
privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, "Jehovah of
armies," would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God's Adversary,
Satan the Devil, is called a "god" (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over
men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and
propriety is God's firstborn Son called "a god," "the only-begotten god" as
the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him.
The Hebrew term used at Isaiah 9:6 shows a definite distinction between the
Son and God. There the Son is called "Mighty God," 媧l Gib搓ohr', not
"Almighty God." That term in Hebrew is 媧l Shad搞ai' and applies uniquely to
Jehovah God
Jesus proved that he was the One to be entrusted with the second fatherhood
of the human family. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Thus he is properly referred to
as "Eternal Father".
> So the question is, "Is the intent of the Bible to speak of the essential
> work of YHWH (i.e., salvation, creation, judgement) simply in a relative
> way?"
Relative to what?
> Would Isaiah agree?
Yes, fully. :-)
Kyle Dillon
external evidence? The earliest information we have about Christ/Christians
comes from the Christians themselves, and they all are of a consistent
Christology. All of the early Christian writers see Jesus of Nazareth as
Messiah, who was crucified and raised from the dead to atone for the sins of
mankind. This is an absolute that has universal roots in all early Christian
writings.
And you forget that during the missionary work of Paul, the eyewitnesses of
Christ were also preaching, and would have certainly debunked any claims of
Paul that were not true to Jesus. Yet we have no evidence of this. In fact,
the overwhelming evidence suggests that they were in complete agreement with
Paul. The Apostle Peter even calls Paul's letters Scripture (2 Pet.
3:16)--if, in fact, we can attribute the Second Epistle of Peter to Peter,
which seems a rather logical conclusion, based on the textual evidence and
patristic testimony (although the latter is admittedly rather flimsy). Even
so, there is no hint of rejection of the Christology of Paul by other
Apostles. That said, there should be no reason to assume that Paul
single-handedly "conjured up" a Jewish / Pagan mystery religion hybrid that
came to be known as Christianity. If anything, apostolic Christology was
based on Old Testament prophesies of a Messiah that would be "cut off, but
not for himself" and be "pierced" (Daniel 9:24-25; Zechariah 12:10). Call me
old-fashioned, but I prefer to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
Kyle Dillon
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:39327B85.4642D0C@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
Libertarius
>
> How can one assume so much about Christian origins without any contemporary
> external evidence? The earliest information we have about Christ/Christians
> comes from the Christians themselves, and they all are of a consistent
> Christology. All of the early Christian writers see Jesus of Nazareth as
> Messiah, who was crucified and raised from the dead to atone for the sins of
> mankind. This is an absolute that has universal roots in all early Christian
> writings.
===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
But as the Gospel writers attempted to collect
some biographical evidence
of Jesus, they included enough detail to show that
Jesus was far from
considering himself the incarnate universal savior
god of Saul of Tarsus.
Rather, he viewed himself, and his followers
viewed him, as a designated
liberator king "God" anointed for Israel to FREE
THEM from the Romans,
not to be the "savior" or the Romans and other
Gentile "dogs".
>
> And you forget that during the missionary work of Paul, the eyewitnesses of
> Christ were also preaching, and would have certainly debunked any claims of
> Paul that were not true to Jesus.
===>And they did. That is why the letters of
Saul/Paul are full of
bitter complaints about them
Yet we have no evidence of this.
===>Read the complaints of Saul/Paul against the
real apostles,
particularly against James and Peter.
In fact,
> the overwhelming evidence suggests that they were in complete agreement with
> Paul. The Apostle Peter even calls Paul's letters Scripture (2 Pet.
> 3:16)--if, in fact, we can attribute the Second Epistle of Peter to Peter,
> which seems a rather logical conclusion, based on the textual evidence and
> patristic testimony (although the latter is admittedly rather flimsy).
===>In fact 2 Peter was rejected by most of the
early Christian
sources!
Even
> so, there is no hint of rejection of the Christology of Paul by other
> Apostles. That said, there should be no reason to assume that Paul
> single-handedly "conjured up" a Jewish / Pagan mystery religion hybrid that
> came to be known as Christianity. If anything, apostolic Christology was
> based on Old Testament prophesies of a Messiah that would be "cut off, but
> not for himself" and be "pierced" (Daniel 9:24-25; Zechariah 12:10). Call me
> old-fashioned, but I prefer to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
===>Those passages were LATER applied, falsely, to
Jesus. The Jews NEVER
anticipated a "Messiah" that was supposed to be a
human sacrifice
for the "sins" of the Gentiles.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
Jim Upchurch
> >Kyle Dillon wrote:
> ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
> of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the evidence points
to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul entered the picture. In fact
Paul was actively persecuted them. You are seeing pink elephants and I am
certain they are equally real to you.
> But as the Gospel writers attempted to collect
> some biographical evidence
> of Jesus, they included enough detail to show that
> Jesus was far from
> considering himself the incarnate universal savior
> god of Saul of Tarsus.
As in entering the kingdom of God only through Him ?
> Rather, he viewed himself, and his followers
> viewed him, as a designated
> liberator king "God" anointed for Israel to FREE
> THEM from the Romans,
> not to be the "savior" or the Romans and other
> Gentile "dogs".
This error has been pointed out to you already. You apparently cannot understand
english.
> ===>Read the complaints of Saul/Paul against the
> real apostles,
> particularly against James and Peter.
Due to their misunderstanding of following Jewish custom. Did they not
come into agreement with Paul's understanding ?
> ===>In fact 2 Peter was rejected by most of the
> early Christian
> sources!
So were most books. Your point is...?
> ===>Those passages were LATER applied, falsely, to
> Jesus. The Jews NEVER
> anticipated a "Messiah" that was supposed to be a
> human sacrifice
> for the "sins" of the Gentiles.
> Libertarius
> *DON'T CONFUSE LIBERTARIUS WITH REALITY*
True. So you heap your error onto theirs. Hmmmm.
Jim Upchurch
"hooked on fonix"
Libertarius
>
> Libertarius
> > >Kyle Dillon wrote:
>
> > ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
> > of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
>
> You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the evidence points
> to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul entered the picture. In fact
> Paul was actively persecuted them.
===>NONSENSE! Saul of Tarsus persecuted them even
killed man of them,
because he was in the service of the PRO-ROMAN
ESTABLISHMENT and the
Jesus people were active REVOLUTIONARY ZEALOTS.
His "entering the
picture" was not a conversion but a SUBVERSION.
The religion HE preached
was his invention, which he CLAIMED to have
received via direct
revelation. By this he justified his preaching a
"gospel" that was
totally different from the "good news" of
LIBERATION of Jesus and his
people.
You are seeing pink elephants and I am
> certain they are equally real to you.
===>You are "certain" of a LOT OF THINGS that
aren't so.
>
> > But as the Gospel writers attempted to collect
> > some biographical evidence
> > of Jesus, they included enough detail to show that
> > Jesus was far from
> > considering himself the incarnate universal savior
> > god of Saul of Tarsus.
>
> As in entering the kingdom of God only through Him ?
===>He was their leader considered to be the
anointed king!
>
> > Rather, he viewed himself, and his followers
> > viewed him, as a designated
> > liberator king "God" anointed for Israel to FREE
> > THEM from the Romans,
> > not to be the "savior" or the Romans and other
> > Gentile "dogs".
>
> This error has been pointed out to you already. You apparently cannot understand
> english.
===>Oh, yes I can. And I can even understand
English.
>
> > ===>Read the complaints of Saul/Paul against the
> > real apostles,
> > particularly against James and Peter.
>
> Due to their misunderstanding of following Jewish custom. Did they not
> come into agreement with Paul's understanding ?
===>NO. NEVER.
>
> > ===>In fact 2 Peter was rejected by most of the
> > early Christian
> > sources!
>
> So were most books. Your point is...?
>
===>It is NOT the work of the Apostle Peter, but
was written
by one of Saul/Paul's followers PRETENDING to
write in the name
of Peter.
> > ===>Those passages were LATER applied, falsely, to
> > Jesus. The Jews NEVER
> > anticipated a "Messiah" that was supposed to be a
> > human sacrifice
> > for the "sins" of the Gentiles.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
> >
Kyle Dillon
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:393D6966.4BA29AE9@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> Kyle Dillon wrote:
> >
> > How can one assume so much about Christian origins without any
contemporary
> > external evidence? The earliest information we have about
Christ/Christians
> > comes from the Christians themselves, and they all are of a consistent
> > Christology. All of the early Christian writers see Jesus of Nazareth as
> > Messiah, who was crucified and raised from the dead to atone for the
sins of
> > mankind. This is an absolute that has universal roots in all early
Christian
> > writings.
>
> of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
That's an interesting view. I haven't ever heard of such a claim. If you
could provide convincing evidence for this, I would be quite surprised. But
the fact of the matter is, there were twelve apostles that long preceded
Paul; this is attested by Paul as well as some of the original apostles
themselves. I honestly don't know why liberal critics put so much emphasis
on Pauls influence on the early church. I definitely agree that Paul was the
prime cause of the widespread acceptance of Christianity over the Roman
Empire, especially among the gentiles, but he was far from being the source
of Christianity. Christ was the source, and we have a consistent testimony
of this from the eyewitnesses.
> But as the Gospel writers attempted to collect
> some biographical evidence
> of Jesus, they included enough detail to show that
> Jesus was far from
> considering himself the incarnate universal savior
> god of Saul of Tarsus.
> Rather, he viewed himself, and his followers
> viewed him, as a designated
> liberator king "God" anointed for Israel to FREE
> THEM from the Romans,
> not to be the "savior" or the Romans and other
> Gentile "dogs".
So you completely discount the credibility of the gospel authors? Their
Christology was so patchy that the "dark truth" of the real Christ was able
to seep through, even though these authors themselves were only converts of
Paul (and therefore had no christology apart from Paul)? You really have to
go out on a limb to make such bold claims, especially in light of the
complete lack of external evidence. You seem to accept only the gospel text
which you see as contradictory to the "Paulian" christology as authentic to
Jesus. I wonder why.
> > And you forget that during the missionary work of Paul, the eyewitnesses
of
> > Christ were also preaching, and would have certainly debunked any claims
of
> > Paul that were not true to Jesus.
>
> ===>And they did. That is why the letters of
> Saul/Paul are full of
> bitter complaints about them
>
> > Yet we have no evidence of this.
>
> ===>Read the complaints of Saul/Paul against the
> real apostles,
> particularly against James and Peter.
I have read them several times. They are disputes over the practices of old
Jewish customs, not theology. And the apostles eventually came to agree with
Paul. What this has to do with the evolution of Christology, I have no clue.
> In fact,
> > the overwhelming evidence suggests that they were in complete agreement
with
> > Paul. The Apostle Peter even calls Paul's letters Scripture (2 Pet.
> > 3:16)--if, in fact, we can attribute the Second Epistle of Peter to
Peter,
> > which seems a rather logical conclusion, based on the textual evidence
and
> > patristic testimony (although the latter is admittedly rather flimsy).
>
> ===>In fact 2 Peter was rejected by most of the
> early Christian
> sources!
No, it wasn't rejected by any, to the best of my knowledge. It was
questioned by most, but it was still regarded as authoritative and used by
many of the early church fathers. Of course, I understand that the liberal
approach to the Bible is to discredit as much of it as can be allowed unless
absolutely proven otherwise, so I wouldn't be surprised that you make such
dogmatic claims.
> Even
> > so, there is no hint of rejection of the Christology of Paul by other
> > Apostles. That said, there should be no reason to assume that Paul
> > single-handedly "conjured up" a Jewish / Pagan mystery religion hybrid
that
> > came to be known as Christianity. If anything, apostolic Christology was
> > based on Old Testament prophesies of a Messiah that would be "cut off,
but
> > not for himself" and be "pierced" (Daniel 9:24-25; Zechariah 12:10).
Call me
> > old-fashioned, but I prefer to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
>
> ===>Those passages were LATER applied, falsely, to
> Jesus. The Jews NEVER
> anticipated a "Messiah" that was supposed to be a
> human sacrifice
> for the "sins" of the Gentiles.
I agree. That is why the majority of contemporary Jews did not convert to
Christianity. They did not interpret the various Messianic passages as did
the Christians, but that still doesn't change the fact that it was the
Jewish Scriptures that founded Christology, not the contemporary mystery
religions, many of which came later than Christianity by several
generations.
Kyle Dillon
Jim Upchurch
> Jim Upchurch wrote:
> >
> > Libertarius
> > > ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
> > > of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
> > You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the evidence points
> > to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul entered the picture. In fact
> > Paul was actively persecuted them.
> ===>NONSENSE! Saul of Tarsus persecuted them even
> killed man of them,
> because he was in the service of the PRO-ROMAN
> ESTABLISHMENT and the
> Jesus people were active REVOLUTIONARY ZEALOTS.
Another error heaped onto the mounting pile. The Romans were tolerant
of all forms of religions as long as there was no difficulty with them. Which
is why Christianity could florish at that point in time. There is no evidence that
Christians were trying to overthrow the state, had that been the case the Roman
nation certainly could have supressed them. You have the added problem of
Paul's own words who said he acted as a Pharisee.
> His "entering the
> picture" was not a conversion but a SUBVERSION.
> The religion HE preached
> was his invention, which he CLAIMED to have
> received via direct
> revelation. By this he justified his preaching a
> "gospel" that was
> totally different from the "good news" of
> LIBERATION of Jesus and his
> people.
Again, you are full of baloney...or something. I gave you passages that show
Jesus was predicted and seen as savior of man's sins. Exactly what Paul preached.
Paul Johnson agrees with this, you are left sitting on your own sawing off the limb.
> You are seeing pink elephants and I am
> > certain they are equally real to you.
> ===>You are "certain" of a LOT OF THINGS that
> aren't so.
> Libertarius
> *DON'T CONFUSE LIBERTARIUS WITH REALITY*
Neener, neener. Which is what your argument always seems to come down to.
Libertarius
>
> Libertarius
> > Jim Upchurch wrote:
> > >
> > > Libertarius
>
> > > > ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
> > > > of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
>
> > > You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the evidence points
> > > to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul entered the picture. In fact
> > > Paul was actively persecuted them.
>
> > ===>NONSENSE! Saul of Tarsus persecuted them even
> > because he was in the service of the PRO-ROMAN
> > ESTABLISHMENT and the
> > Jesus people were active REVOLUTIONARY ZEALOTS.
>
> Another error heaped onto the mounting pile. The Romans were tolerant
> of all forms of religions as long as there was no difficulty with them.
===>They certainly were not "tolerant" of Jewish
messianism. The killed
Judas the Galilean, founder of the movement of
which Jesus and after him
his brother James became leaders. They were
determined to reestablish
the Davidic "Kingdom of God", which made their
religion a subversive
movement. Jesus was not crucified because he
preached a religion that
the Romans could tolerate!
Which
> is why Christianity could florish at that point in time.
===>At WHAT "point in time"?
There is no evidence that
> Christians were trying to overthrow the state, had that been the case the Roman
> nation certainly could have supressed them.
===>Not "Christians". Those were GENTILES (and
some renegade Jews, like Saul
of Tarsus) who could not care less about the
liberation of Israel.
You have the added problem of
> Paul's own words who said he acted as a Pharisee.
===>He acted as an AGENT of the pro-Roman
establishment.
>
> > His "entering the
> > picture" was not a conversion but a SUBVERSION.
> > The religion HE preached
> > was his invention, which he CLAIMED to have
> > received via direct
> > revelation. By this he justified his preaching a
> > "gospel" that was
> > totally different from the "good news" of
> > LIBERATION of Jesus and his
> > people.
>
> Again, you are full of baloney...or something. I gave you passages that show
> Jesus was predicted and seen as savior of man's sins.
===>No such "prediction" exists ANYWHERE. You LIE!
Exactly what Paul preached.
===>Agreed. That is what Saul/Paul preached. But
not what Jesus preached.
> Paul Johnson agrees with this, you are left sitting on your own sawing off the limb
===>You misunderstood Johnson.
.
>
> > You are seeing pink elephants and I am
> > > certain they are equally real to you.
>
> > ===>You are "certain" of a LOT OF THINGS that
> > aren't so.
>
> "hooked on fonix"
===>You are hooked on phonies!
Libertarius
Jim Upchurch
> Jim Upchurch wrote:
> >
> > Libertarius
> > > ===>NONSENSE! Saul of Tarsus persecuted them even
> > > killed many of them,
> > > because he was in the service of the PRO-ROMAN
> > > ESTABLISHMENT and the
> > > Jesus people were active REVOLUTIONARY ZEALOTS.
> > Another error heaped onto the mounting pile. The Romans were tolerant
> > of all forms of religions as long as there was no difficulty with them.
> ===>They certainly were not "tolerant" of Jewish
> messianism. The killed
> Judas the Galilean, founder of the movement of
> which Jesus and after him
> his brother James became leaders. They were
> determined to reestablish
> the Davidic "Kingdom of God", which made their
> religion a subversive
> movement. Jesus was not crucified because he
> preached a religion that
> the Romans could tolerate!
You really showed your ignorance on this one ! If a religion became
subversive the the Roman government, they would indeed step in,
which is what I said, i.e. "if there was no trouble with them". Can you read ???
The Romans had no particular problem with Jesus. It was the Jews that
had the problem, the Roman government acted to appease them.
Matthew 27 NASB
17 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said to them,
"Whom do you want me to release for you? Barabbas, or Jesus who
is called Christ?"
18 For he knew that because of envy they had delivered Him up.
19 And while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him,
saying, "Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered
greatly in a dream because of Him."
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes to ask for
Barabbas, and to put Jesus to death.
21 But the governor answered and said to them, "Which of the two do you
want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barabbas."
22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?"
They all said, "Let Him be crucified!"
23 And he said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they kept shouting all the
more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!"
24 And when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a
riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude,
saying, "I am innocent of Man's blood; see to that yourselves."
25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children!"
Looks like you offered the newsgroup more bovine excement.
> Which
> > is why Christianity could florish at that point in time.
>
> ===>At WHAT "point in time"?
AT THAT POINT IN TIME ! We were discussing the beginnings of Christianity, REMEMBER ?
> There is no evidence that
> > Christians were trying to overthrow the state, had that been the case the Roman
> > nation certainly could have supressed them.
> ===>Not "Christians". Those were GENTILES (and
> some renegade Jews, like Saul
> of Tarsus) who could not care less about the
> liberation of Israel.
Jesus was a renagade too, Einstein.
> You have the added problem of
> > Paul's own words who said he acted as a Pharisee.
> ===>He acted as an AGENT of the pro-Roman
> establishment.
I already corrected your error on this by providing passages that disproved
your theory. Paul said he acted as a Pharisee. You have provided nothing to
back up your claim so it goes onto the steamy pile you've been shoveling.
> > > His "entering the
> > > picture" was not a conversion but a SUBVERSION.
> > > The religion HE preached
> > > was his invention, which he CLAIMED to have
> > > received via direct
> > > revelation. By this he justified his preaching a
> > > "gospel" that was
> > > totally different from the "good news" of
> > > LIBERATION of Jesus and his
> > > people.
> >
> > Again, you are full of baloney...or something. I gave you passages that show
> > Jesus was predicted and seen as savior of man's sins.
>
> ===>No such "prediction" exists ANYWHERE. You LIE!
Like telling me I've never read Paul Johnson ? And that after I quoted right
out of his book two days earlier.
Matthew 1 NASB
1 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is
He who will save His people from their sins."
Your steamy pile is going to topple onto you, better lookout !
> Exactly what Paul preached.
>
> ===>Agreed. That is what Saul/Paul preached. But
> not what Jesus preached.
Where are they different ? I've asked a number of times. You even lied and implied
Paul Johnson agrees with you. I quoted text out of his book that shed some light on who
the liar is here.
> > Paul Johnson agrees with this, you are left sitting on your own sawing off the limb
>
> ===>You misunderstood Johnson.
Who did ?
> > "hooked on fonix"
>
> ===>You are hooked on phonies!
>
> Libertarius
Like Liarterius ? Not me !
--
Stephen Bayzik
>Libertarius
>> >Kyle Dillon wrote:
>> ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
>> of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
> You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the
evidence points
>to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul entered the picture.
In fact
>Paul was actively persecuted them. You are seeing pink elephants and I am
>certain they are equally real to you.
Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine Pauline
Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological adversaries.
Libertarius
===>You are indeed "hooked on phonies". That phony
anti-Jewish
accusation has been refuted a thousand times, but
YOU are still
sold on that nonsense.
>
> Matthew 27 NASB
[Your pathetic lying quotation snipped]
> Looks like you offered the newsgroup more bovine excement.
===>That should be "excrement", and that is
exactly what your passage is!
>
> > Which
> > > is why Christianity could florish at that point in time.
> >
> > ===>At WHAT "point in time"?
>
> AT THAT POINT IN TIME ! We were discussing the beginnings of Christianity, REMEMBER ?
===>Christianity DID NOT EXIST until it was
created by Saul of Tarsus.
>
> > There is no evidence that
> > > Christians were trying to overthrow the state, had that been the case the Roman
> > > nation certainly could have supressed them.
>
> > ===>Not "Christians". Those were GENTILES (and
> > some renegade Jews, like Saul
> > of Tarsus) who could not care less about the
> > liberation of Israel.
>
> Jesus was a renagade too, Einstein.
===>Jesus? A renegade? Why? because he wished to
liberate his
people from foreign occupation? You are NUTS!
>
> > You have the added problem of
> > > Paul's own words who said he acted as a Pharisee.
>
> > ===>He acted as an AGENT of the pro-Roman
> > establishment.
>
> I already corrected your error on this by providing passages that disproved
> your theory. Paul said he acted as a Pharisee. You have provided nothing to
> back up your claim so it goes onto the steamy pile you've been shoveling.
===>Anyone with even the least amount of
understanding of Jewish history
knows that the RULING CLASS (Pharisees and
Sadducees) consisted of
pro-Roman traitors to the cause of Jewish national
liberation.
You really should study a bit before posting your
silly
comments.
>
> > > > His "entering the
> > > > picture" was not a conversion but a SUBVERSION.
> > > > The religion HE preached
> > > > was his invention, which he CLAIMED to have
> > > > received via direct
> > > > revelation. By this he justified his preaching a
> > > > "gospel" that was
> > > > totally different from the "good news" of
> > > > LIBERATION of Jesus and his
> > > > people.
> > >
> > > Again, you are full of baloney...or something. I gave you passages that show
> > > Jesus was predicted and seen as savior of man's sins.
> >
> > ===>No such "prediction" exists ANYWHERE. You LIE!
>
> Like telling me I've never read Paul Johnson ? And that after I quoted right
> out of his book two days earlier.
===>One can QUOTE from a book, without having read
it.
>
> Matthew 1 NASB
> 1 "And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is
> He who will save His people from their sins."
===>You are referring to that ridiculous "virgin
birth" narrative
concocted by the compiler of the "Matthew"
pseudo-biography of Jesus.
>
> Your steamy pile is going to topple onto you, better lookout !
===>As long as you are sitting on it, no one needs
to worry about it.
>
> > Exactly what Paul preached.
> >
> > ===>Agreed. That is what Saul/Paul preached. But
> > not what Jesus preached.
>
> Where are they different ?
===>In EVERY WAY! Jesus was a Zealot Jew,
Saul/Paul was a
LAWLESS, pro-Roman traitor.
I've asked a number of times. You even lied and
implied
> Paul Johnson agrees with you. I quoted text out of his book that shed some light on who the liar is here.
===>Then you are lying even about the quotes I
posted.
>
> > > Paul Johnson agrees with this, you are left sitting on your own sawing off the limb
> >
> > ===>You misunderstood Johnson.
>
> Who did ?
===>You. Read it again, if you ever have.
>
> > > "hooked on fonix"
> >
> > ===>You are hooked on phonies!
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
Libertarius
Libertarius
===>He can't. He has sworn to be voluntarily blind
to such data. -- L.
IOŽ
alt.religion.christian.biblestudy Libertarius
<The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
[ignorant and simply anti-Christian bigoted things clipped]
Jim Upchurch
> > You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the
> evidence points
> >to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul entered the picture.
> In fact
> >Paul was actively persecuted them. You are seeing pink elephants and I am
> >certain they are equally real to you.
> Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine Pauline
> Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
> James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological adversaries.
Very astute of you to pick up on what was so plainly written. The fact that there
was a dispute hasn't been questioned. The fact that alludes you is that there
was agreement with Paul on dropping the Jewish requirements. Looks like the
nonsense is between your ears.
Jim Upchurch
> Stephen Bayzik wrote:
> > Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine Pauline
> > Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
> > James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological adversaries.
>
> ===>He can't. He has sworn to be voluntarily blind
> to such data. -- L.
Show us "such data". I cannot see what you have never provided, nor can I
see into your bigoted brain.
--
Libertarius
>
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:393D6966.4BA29AE9@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > Kyle Dillon wrote:
> > >
> > > How can one assume so much about Christian origins without any
> contemporary
> > > external evidence? The earliest information we have about
> Christ/Christians
> > > comes from the Christians themselves, and they all are of a consistent
> > > Christology. All of the early Christian writers see Jesus of Nazareth as
> > > Messiah, who was crucified and raised from the dead to atone for the
> sins of
> > > mankind. This is an absolute that has universal roots in all early
> Christian
> > > writings.
> >
> > ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
> > of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
>
> That's an interesting view. I haven't ever heard of such a claim.
===>Except for the writings of Saul/Paul, those
books were all written
or compiled by Gentile Christians AFTER the fall
of Jerusalem and the
destruction of Jewish Messianic sect led by James
in Jerusalem.
If you
> could provide convincing evidence for this, I would be quite surprised.
===>What more "evidence" do you need?
But
> the fact of the matter is, there were twelve apostles that long preceded
> Paul;
===>Yes. They were the so-called "pillars", so
rudely spoken of
by Saul/Paul.
this is attested by Paul as well as some of the
original apostles
> themselves.
===>What "original apostles"?
I honestly don't know why liberal critics put so
much emphasis
> on Pauls influence on the early church.
===>By calling those scholars "liberals", you are
merely showing your bias
and prejudice. In fact Saul/Paul was the INVENTOR
of a Gentile "Christology"
whose believers were labeled "Christians".
I definitely agree that Paul was the
> prime cause of the widespread acceptance of Christianity over the Roman
> Empire, especially among the gentiles, but he was far from being the source
> of Christianity. Christ was the source,
===>The "Christos" of Saul/Paul never existed.
and we have a consistent testimony
> of this from the eyewitnesses.
===>What eyewitnesses?
> > But as the Gospel writers attempted to collect
> > some biographical evidence
> > of Jesus, they included enough detail to show that
> > Jesus was far from
> > considering himself the incarnate universal savior
> > god of Saul of Tarsus.
> > Rather, he viewed himself, and his followers
> > viewed him, as a designated
> > liberator king "God" anointed for Israel to FREE
> > THEM from the Romans,
> > not to be the "savior" or the Romans and other
> > Gentile "dogs".
>
> So you completely discount the credibility of the gospel authors?
===>From what are you inferring that? I see as
credible most of the
detail that is NOT consistent with the Pauline
Christology.
Their
> Christology was so patchy that the "dark truth" of the real Christ was able
> to seep through, even though these authors themselves were only converts of
> Paul (and therefore had no christology apart from Paul)?
===>Exactly, except I would not consider it a
"dark truth". Only possible truth.
You really have to
> go out on a limb to make such bold claims, especially in light of the
> complete lack of external evidence. You seem to accept only the gospel text
> which you see as contradictory to the "Paulian" christology as authentic to
> Jesus. I wonder why.
===>You have read me correctly. I am impressed!
The WHY is answered by the
very fact that there IS such detail. That, in the
context of Hebrew
scriptures, Jewish expectations and contemporary
history has convinced me
of my conclusions.
>
> > > And you forget that during the missionary work of Paul, the eyewitnesses
> of
> > > Christ were also preaching, and would have certainly debunked any claims
> of
> > > Paul that were not true to Jesus.
> >
> > ===>And they did. That is why the letters of
> > Saul/Paul are full of
> > bitter complaints about them
> >
> > > Yet we have no evidence of this.
> >
> > ===>Read the complaints of Saul/Paul against the
> > real apostles,
> > particularly against James and Peter.
>
> I have read them several times. They are disputes over the practices of old
> Jewish customs, not theology. And the apostles eventually came to agree with
> Paul.
===>That is the disinformation perpetrated by the
writers of those
pseudo-biographies. In fact it has been proven by
historical research
that the role of Jesus' brother James, for
instance, was completely obscured by
the writers or final editors of those books.
What this has to do with the evolution of
Christology, I have no clue.
===>The Christology of Saul/Paul is based on a
Pagan concept of
a savior god redeeming people from sin. The
Messianic gospel was
totally different, having to do with the
LIBERATION OF ISRAEL and
the RESTORATION of the legendary Davidic "Kingdom
of God".
>
> > In fact,
> > > the overwhelming evidence suggests that they were in complete agreement
> with
> > > Paul. The Apostle Peter even calls Paul's letters Scripture (2 Pet.
> > > 3:16)--if, in fact, we can attribute the Second Epistle of Peter to
> Peter,
> > > which seems a rather logical conclusion, based on the textual evidence
> and
> > > patristic testimony (although the latter is admittedly rather flimsy).
> >
> > ===>In fact 2 Peter was rejected by most of the
> > early Christian
> > sources!
>
> No, it wasn't rejected by any, to the best of my knowledge. It was
> questioned by most, but it was still regarded as authoritative and used by
> many of the early church fathers.
===>You name them, please.
Of course, I understand that the liberal
> approach
===>There you go again with your prejudice against
anything not
consistent with "orthodox" views.
to the Bible is to discredit as much of it as can
be allowed unless
> absolutely proven otherwise, so I wouldn't be surprised that you make such
> dogmatic claims.
===>That is the preposterous biblicist opinion
about scholarly
research. In fact what is being "discredited" is
NOT the Bible,
but the orthodox view of it.
>
> > Even
> > > so, there is no hint of rejection of the Christology of Paul by other
> > > Apostles. That said, there should be no reason to assume that Paul
> > > single-handedly "conjured up" a Jewish / Pagan mystery religion hybrid
> that
> > > came to be known as Christianity. If anything, apostolic Christology was
> > > based on Old Testament prophesies of a Messiah that would be "cut off,
> but
> > > not for himself" and be "pierced" (Daniel 9:24-25; Zechariah 12:10).
> Call me
> > > old-fashioned, but I prefer to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt.
> >
> > ===>Those passages were LATER applied, falsely, to
> > Jesus. The Jews NEVER
> > anticipated a "Messiah" that was supposed to be a
> > human sacrifice
> > for the "sins" of the Gentiles.
>
> I agree. That is why the majority of contemporary Jews did not convert to
> Christianity. They did not interpret the various Messianic passages as did
> the Christians, but that still doesn't change the fact that it was the
> Jewish Scriptures that founded Christology,
===>The Jewish Scriptures are BOOKS. They
"founded" NOTHING. It was
Saul of Tarsus and his cohorts who founded Gentile
Christianity and
MISUSED those scriptures to back up their
pagan-based mystery cult.
not the contemporary mystery
> religions, many of which came later than Christianity by several
> generations.
===>Some did, but their basic ideas go back all
the way to
Isis and Osiris!
Libertarius
John C.
> "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:DLB_4.7807$NT4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > Yes, Jesus clearly is higher in authority and power than all the human
> > > judges, false gods, angels, etc.
> > >
> >
> > That is not how the Bible describes it. He is declared to be Eternal,
> > Immutable, Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator
and
> > Sustainer, and Judge of all the Earth. To possess such makes Him God.
>
> Please share the scriptures with me that declare Jesus to be "Immutable,
> Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator"
>
Immutable--Heb. 1:12, 13:8
Self-existent--John 1:4, 5:26
Omnipotent--John 5:19
Omniscient--John 2:24, Matthew 11:27, John 21:17
Omnipresent--John 3:13, Matthew 18:20, 28:20
Creator--John 1:3, Colossians 1:16,17
And here's "eternal" and "judge" thrown in for free:
Eternal--Proverbs 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 1:1, Hebrews 7:3
Judge--John 5:22
> > His authority by no means compares in degree to these others than these
> > others compare to YHWH Himself (since the Bible also declares Him to
*be*
> > YHWH Himself--Psalm 23:1)
>
> "Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalms 23:1 ASV
>
> Please tell me where this scripture declares Jesus to be YHWH.
>
Please tell me where this scripture declares the Father to be YHWH.
The fact of Scripture is that Jesus is the One who is the shepherd (John
10:2), the good shepherd (John 10:11), and the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4).
Where is the Father called a Shepherd at all in the Scriptures?
> > > So it is only reasonable to compare other instances where this word
> Elohim
> > > is used to see if it is a plural intensive or a plurality of persons.
> So
> > > since Elohim and other plurals (Adhoneh, "lords") are applied to
> singular
> > > persons, the plural Elohim does not prove that God is some composite
> > persons
> > > within a person.
> >
> >
> > How can we truly do this if we believe the Bible, which states, that
> though
> > there are many that are called god, (1 Corinthians 8:5) they are not God
> by
> > nature (Galatians 4:8)?
>
> Quite simply. By accepting the fact that since "Elohim" is applied to
> singular false gods and singular humans, as well as to the true God, it
> proves nothing about a "plural" God. If it did, it would be used to refer
> to the true God only.
>
However the polarity (to borrow Dale Grider's phrase) of 1 Corinthians 8:5,6
does NOT place Christ with the false gods and singular humans. He is placed
in conjunction with the person of the Father as the One True God.
If He is simply to be viewed as a true god, you destroy the whole argument
of 1 Corinthians 8. If it is valid to serve/worship Christ as a true god,
yet not God by nature, in our effort to serve/worship God Himself, why can't
we serve/worship God through Moses, or the Pope, or other people or things
who are to us in the place of "elohim"?
> > How can we discern the nature of the One Only True God by examining
those
> > who are clearly NOT God by nature?
>
> This discussion isn't about God's "nature" it is about whether "Elohim"
> being plural proves anything about numbers. It doesn't.
>
Spoken like a true Hebrew scholar.
I have forgotten what Reslight originally published, but on what basis is
"elohim" simply a plural intensive, and not a 'quantitative plural' (like
the Hebrew "water" and "heaven") as G.A.F. Knight terms it?
Water, of course, can be viewed as a single raindrop, or the mass of the
ocean. Moses is one of the *drops* of the *ocean* of those that are "called
gods," but not God by nature.
In that sense, too, the Hebrews were able to comprehend of plurality in
unity in the being of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) while the manner and enumeration
of that plurality was not made clear to them.
> > How are we to know that the plural intensives are a reference to their
> (the
> > called gods) *person* and not their *being?*
>
> Where do the scriptures distinguish between "person" and "being"? And
> please explain how this same word refers to Joseph's(lords) "person" and
not
> "being".
>
> Scripture please. :-)
>
Was not Moses a human *being*? (Exodus 2:2; Exodus 4:2, 10, 11)
Was every single human made a 'god' to Pharaoh? (Exodus 7:1)
Therefore, it was the *person* of Moses, not Aaron or anyone else, that was
called "elohim."
The same applies to Joseph.
> > > Jesus was God's SERVANT, as scripture plainly teaches: "The God of
> > Abraham,
> > > Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant
> Jesus."
> > > Acts 3:13 NASB
> > >
> >
> > The MAN, Christ Jesus was God's servant. His human nature is not His
> divine
> > nature.
>
> Jesus was still referred to as God's servant after his death and
> resurrection, thus while in his divine nature.
Scriptures please that He was in His divine nature *only* when He was
referred to as God's servant.
Luke 24:39 "...for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
> Please read Acts 4:24-30.
> The Christians are praying to God and in this prayer they repeatedly
mention
> "your holy servant Jesus". This proves two things,
>
> 1) that Jesus was still God's servant (not God) after his death and
> resurrection, and
> 2) they were not praying to Jesus, they were praying to God.
>
But it doesn't prove that He was no longer human. See above.
> As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
deserted
> me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to part
of
> himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who considered
> himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted?
> Himself? That would not make sense. Jesus also said: "Father, into your
> hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what
reason
> should he entrust his spirit to the Father?
Who said His Divine nature ever cried this out, or entrusted anything?
The obvious answer to your question, of course, is, His human nature was not
God.
> After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for parts of three days. If he were
> God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: "O my God, my Holy One, you
> do not die." But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious in
> the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly dead,
he
> could not have resurrected himself.
Who said His Divine nature died? And if it did, for what reason? It wasn't
Divine nature that sinned.
What prevented His Divine nature, as God, from raising His human nature (the
only nature that died) from the dead?
Furthermore, if Christ was was not truly God as well as man, who sustained
the world for the three days that He was dead and completely gone? (Hebrews
1:3)
> On the other hand, if he was not
really
> dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for Adam's
> sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death.
Your strawman really falls down easily, doesn't it?
Besides, the death of the Christ I worship did not merely pay for "Adam's
sin," it paid for "our sins, also." 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 John 2:2
> So it was "God
> [who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death." (Acts 2:24) The
> superior, God Almighty, raised the lesser, his servant Jesus, from the
dead.
YHWH, the lesser, is your Savior, Yellowbird? Isaiah 43:11
>
> > Who is YHWH, Yellowbird? The Father?....or, the everlasting father?
> >
> > Scripture, please?
>
> "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most
high
> over all the earth." Psalms 83:18 KJV
>
> Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called "Mighty God," though not the
> Almighty God,
YHWH is called "Mighty God" (Isaiah 10:21), does that exclude Him from being
Almighty God?
What does the context (ch. 10) of Isaiah 9:6 'really' explain to us?
> and that he would be the "Eternal Father" of all those
> privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, "Jehovah
of
> armies," would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God's Adversary,
> Satan the Devil, is called a "god" (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over
> men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and
> propriety is God's firstborn Son called "a god," "the only-begotten god"
as
> the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him.
> The Hebrew term used at Isaiah 9:6 shows a definite distinction between
the
> Son and God. There the Son is called "Mighty God," 媧l Gib搓ohr', not
> "Almighty God." That term in Hebrew is 媧l Shad搞ai' and applies uniquely
to
> Jehovah God
>
> Jesus proved that he was the One to be entrusted with the second
fatherhood
> of the human family. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Thus he is properly referred
to
> as "Eternal Father".
>
None of these verses show that YHWH is the Father.
> > So the question is, "Is the intent of the Bible to speak of the
essential
> > work of YHWH (i.e., salvation, creation, judgement) simply in a relative
> > way?"
>
> Relative to what?
To the way you insist He accomplishes salvation, etc. *through* other "true
gods." Isaiah 43:11, 14,15; 44:24
Isaiah 42:8 "I am YHWH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another, neither my praise to graven images."
Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with
me..."
>
> > Would Isaiah agree?
>
>
> Yes, fully. :-)
>
>
Really.
Deuteronomy, too?
John C.
John C.
message news:393AEB4A.A4A4AFCC@Nothing_But_The.Truth...> > news:39354e33$0$16...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net...> > > news:9daZ4.781$od5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > But none of them possess the incommunicable attributes of God as the
> > Bible
> > > > says that Jesus Christ does, obviously differentiating between Him
and
> > > these
> > > > others who are not God by nature (Gal. 4:8)
> > > >
> > > > So the comparison you are trying to make does not apply.
> > >
> > > judges, false gods, angels, etc.
> > >
> >
> > That is not how the Bible describes it. He is declared to be Eternal,
> > Immutable, Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator
and
> > Sustainer, and Judge of all the Earth. To possess such makes Him God.
>
> compiled in the
> Bible collection don't even describe "God" by
> those terms.
> Where do you get that list?
>
From studying what the Bible says that God is in exclusion to all other
creatures.
They didn't describe the coming into the flesh by the term, "incarnation,"
either. But that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach Christ's
incarnation.
John C.
Libertarius
===>The "Bible" does not "teach" ANYTHING. Some of
the WRITERS
compiled in the "Bible" did have some weird ideas
heavily influenced by
Greco-Roman and Persian Paganism. Other writers in
the collection
would have been deeply ashamed if they had know
that their book
would end up in the same compilation.
Kyle Dillon
message news:393FC316.AB8C532@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
[snip]
> > > ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
> > > of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
> >
> > That's an interesting view. I haven't ever heard of such a claim.
>
> ===>Except for the writings of Saul/Paul, those
> books were all written
> or compiled by Gentile Christians AFTER the fall
> of Jerusalem and the
> destruction of Jewish Messianic sect led by James
> in Jerusalem.
I don't see how you get your information. Firstly, the early church fathers
(Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics were written during and shortly
after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60 CE). Secondly, Matthew's Gospel
was probably originally written in a Hebraic dialect (Hebrew or Aramaic), as
evidenced by the unanimous agreement of the church fathers (this Hebrew
Gospel of Matthew existed as late as the time of Jerome). And AOMatthew
apparently made use of the Dead Sea Scroll tradition rather than the
Septuagint (see Jerome, "On Illustrious Men" ch. 3). This would certainly
not make sense if the Gospel of Matthew were written by a Gentile convert of
Paul, especially since a Hebrew-speaking Jewish audience did not exist after
the final diaspora!
[snip]
> I honestly don't know why liberal critics put so
> much emphasis
> > on Pauls influence on the early church.
>
> ===>By calling those scholars "liberals", you are
> merely showing your bias
> and prejudice. In fact Saul/Paul was the INVENTOR
> of a Gentile "Christology"
> whose believers were labeled "Christians".
I apologize if I came across as biased. Please understand that I use the
term "liberal" strictly in the academic sense--that is, the view that the
Bible should not be interpreted as the Word of God but as fallible writings
from misinformed and/or deceptive men. And by "conservative," I refer to the
view that the Bible is both morally and historically valid. It is certainly
a liberal approach to claim that Paul single-handedly invented our "Gentile"
version of Christianity.
[snip]
> > and we have a consistent testimony
> > of this [the agreement between Paul and the original Apostles] from the
eyewitnesses.
>
> ===>What eyewitnesses?
Particularly the Apostle Peter (definitely the author of 1 Peter, and maybe
the author of 2 Peter), the Apostle John (the "disciple whom Jesus loved,"
author of the Gospel of John), and James (author of the Epistle of James).
But I must also admit that the higher criticism of these books is ongoing,
and their authenticity is still questioned by some, but the overwhelming
majority of textual and patristic evidence points directly to their
traditional authorship. I personally do not see how anyone could disagree.
[snip]
> You really have to
> > go out on a limb to make such bold claims, especially in light of the
> > complete lack of external evidence. You seem to accept only the gospel
text
> > which you see as contradictory to the "Paulian" christology as authentic
to
> > Jesus. I wonder why.
>
> ===>You have read me correctly. I am impressed!
> The WHY is answered by the
> very fact that there IS such detail. That, in the
> context of Hebrew
> scriptures, Jewish expectations and contemporary
> history has convinced me
> of my conclusions.
Firstly, one cannot dogmatically claim that there exists a Christology woven
into the gospels that contracicts Paul's. There is room for interpretation
for every text, and to make such bold claims as if they were fact is
irresponsible. There is no reason to believe that Jesus didn't think he was
the Christ, or that he preached salvation was only for Jews. Regarding the
latter, it is true that Jesus' ministry was first directed to Jews, but he
was also accepting of faithful Gentiles (Mt. 8; Mt. 15), and the same can be
said of Paul (Ro. 1:16, Ac. 3:26, 13:46). You claim that the AOSynoptics
were converts of Paul, though they still have signs of the older, authentic
version of Christianity throughout their gospels. But such a claim fails
because it requires that these authors were confused and inconsistent in
their understanding of Christ. Obviously, if they were able to see their
gospel material harmoniously, so should we!
[snip]
> > I have read them [Paul's complaints against the other Apostles] several
times.
> > They are disputes over the practices of old
> > Jewish customs, not theology. And the apostles eventually came to agree
with
> > Paul.
>
> ===>That is the disinformation perpetrated by the
> writers of those
> pseudo-biographies. In fact it has been proven by
> historical research
> that the role of Jesus' brother James, for
> instance, was completely obscured by
> the writers or final editors of those books.
Historical research? You say that as if you know of some special outside
source. The only solid evidence we have from that time regarding
contemporary church history is the Bible itself. And there is no reason to
believe that the Bible was later edited. Not even apocryphal literature was
altered. If a book was considered to be of an inconsistent theology, it was
thrown out as apocryphal, not edited to be canonical.
> What this has to do with the evolution of
> Christology, I have no clue.
>
> ===>The Christology of Saul/Paul is based on a
> Pagan concept of
> a savior god redeeming people from sin. The
> Messianic gospel was
> totally different, having to do with the
> LIBERATION OF ISRAEL and
> the RESTORATION of the legendary Davidic "Kingdom
> of God".
There was no contemporary Pagan concept of a savior god that redeemed people
of sin. Roman mystery religions like Mithraism and the religions of
Isis/Osiris/Serapis and Dionysos were made from earlier, more primitive
religions, and then reshaped after the apostolic ministry, leading to a
conclusion opposite what you have drawn (namely, that Christianity
influenced Roman mystery religions, not vice versa). And even in these
religions, there was no atonement for sin made in the god's
death/resurrection. That is a concept unique to Christianity.
[snip]
Kyle Dillon
New Creation
> "Yellowbird" <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> news:393bb3c0$0$14...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net...
> > "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:DLB_4.7807$NT4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<SNIP>
>
> > As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
> deserted
> > me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
part
> of
> > himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who considered
> > himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted?
> > Himself? That would not make sense.
Have you ever considered that the Bible in Jesus' time did not have the
handy references that we have. When they wanted someone to read a certain
section of a book they would mention it by the first verse. Would it not
make sense that Jesus is pointing the people to the prophecies of Psalm 22?
A New Creation
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik
>> Jim Upchurch wrote in message
>> You have never submitted any evidence that Paul invented it. All the
>> evidence points to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul
entered the
>> picture. In fact Paul was actively persecuted them. You are seeing pink
elephants and I >> am certain they are equally real to you.
>> Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine Pauline
>> Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
>> James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological
adversaries.
> Very astute of you to pick up on what was so plainly written. The fact
that there
>was a dispute hasn't been questioned.
Why thank you. :-)
>The fact that alludes you is that there was agreement with Paul on dropping
the Jewish >requirements. Looks like the nonsense is between your ears.
Really! Now pick up your Bibil and go to the Lucinian Acts (not that I am
making an assertion as to the viability or none viability of the
pseudo-historical Acts at this point) and read carefully chapters 21, 22,
23, 24, and 25 - now remember, carefully.
Now assuming that there "was an agreement" (the so called Council of
Jerusalem) - where were the Jerusalem Apostles when all hell broke loose?
Considering existance of this so called agreement would you not consider
your "apostolic colleagues" as ones you could count upon in times of duress?
Headlines:- (with tongue and cheek) "Apostles fail to help one of their
comrades; appeal for saving Saul's arse directed to the Roman occupiers."
Stephen Bayzik
>Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:393ED1AF.562158D9@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>> Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> > Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine Pauline
>> > Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
>> > James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological
adversaries.
>> ===>He can't. He has sworn to be voluntarily blind
>> to such data. -- L.
> Show us "such data". I cannot see what you have never provided, nor can I
>see into your bigoted brain.
Now you may not like what Libertarius stated, nor even like him personally;
but he can in no way be classified as bigoted. My friend, it still amazes me
that most of those who define themselves as Bible Believing Christians have
little substantial knowledge of the contents of their "Bibles" (and that
includes most of their preachers/ministers). Perhaps you are not
"voluntarily blind", but just a member of that group of plane simple people
who have neither the education nor intellectual capability to read
critically.
John C.
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:39401F3D.559C02E0@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> ===>The "Bible" does not "teach" ANYTHING. Some of
> the WRITERS
> compiled in the "Bible" did have some weird ideas
> heavily influenced by
> Greco-Roman and Persian Paganism. Other writers in
> the collection
> would have been deeply ashamed if they had know
> that their book
> would end up in the same compilation.
>
And these assertions are based on...your authority???
The authority of experts? Who themselves are still finite?
Call me foolish, but I prefer infinite authority for knowledge vs. finite.
John C.
John C.
"New Creation" <kh...@nonospam.elkgrove.net> wrote in message
news:39407381$1...@206.170.63.121...> news:QrQ%4.6272$bj.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Yellowbird" <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:393bb3c0$0$14...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net...
> > > "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:DLB_4.7807$NT4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > > As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
> > deserted
> > > me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
> part
> > of
> > > himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who
considered
> > > himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he
deserted?
> > > Himself? That would not make sense.
>
> handy references that we have. When they wanted someone to read a certain
> section of a book they would mention it by the first verse. Would it not
> make sense that Jesus is pointing the people to the prophecies of Psalm
22?
>
Jesus? Isn't He the fulfillment of the types and prophecies of the OT?
Why point to the shadows when the light is present?
John C.
> A New Creation
>
>
3412
Here we read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The
Word for “God” at this verse in the Hebrew is myhla (el.oh.HEEM) literally
“gods”. This is the plural form of la (el, “god”). The fact that “God” in the
plural form, is sometimes used in reference to the Creator, has caused some to
conclude that Jehovah must be more than one person. If one considers the matter
carefully though, rather than concluding that Jehovah is described as more than
one person here and at the other scriptures in which He is referred to as
“elohim”, if “elohim” is taken here as a numerical plural, we are not faced with
more than one person; we are faced with more than one God! Will anyone admit to
such a situation? No one has been found to say they believe that the God of the
Bible is “Gods”. Yet, if we take “elohim” used in connection with Jehovah, as a
numerical plural, we are left with no other option; Jehovah must be “Gods”! If
He is one, why is He referred to in the plural, sometimes, and sometimes in the
singular—it should be remembered—in Hebrew?
The Hebrew language has as a feature that which is called “the plural of
excellency, majesty or eminence”. When a single person or object was considered
very important or outstanding, he or it was sometimes referred to with the use
of the plural form, even though he or it was singular. This usage can be seen in
Genesis 42:30 where Joseph of Egypt is called ynda (ah.doh.NOI) literally
“lords”. At Isaiah 19:4 Nebuchadnezzar is called “a cruel mynda” (ah.doh.NEEM)
another form of “lords”. First Samuel 19:13, 16 uses the word myprt
(tear.ah.FEEM) “images” plural of hpt (rah.FAH) “image” with reference to one
image. How many Josephs, Nebchadnezzars or images were there? Only one! However,
because of their importance or excellency, they were spoken of in the plural of
excellency. The same is true when Jehovah is spoken of in the plural. He is most
excellent, most majestic most eminent; but He is only one person; one God. The
fact that Jehovah is referred to in the singular over and over in the Scriptures
shows this. (Compare Gen. 35:1; 46:3; Ps. 31:5; 94:1; 95:3; Hos. 1:10, in the
Hebrew text.)
This usage can be studied using the listing of “God” in Strong’s…Concordance,
tracing the occurrences of word number 410 in his “Hebrew And Chaldee
Dictionary” toward the latter portion of his volume, and Gesenius’ Hebrew
Grammar, edition of 1910, Fifteenth impression 1980, pp. 394–5, 8–9.
17
The Greek language has a numerical plural; it does not use a “plural of
majesty”. Had the Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint (the translation of
the Hebrew Bible into Koine (“Common”) Greek understood “elohim” when applied to
Jehovah, to be a numerical plurality, they would have used the plural form of
the word for “God” in their translation. They did not! They used the word qeov?
(theos, theh-AHS, “God”) in the singular. They did not use the word qeovi
(theh-OI, OI as oi in “oil”, “Gods”) for the God of the universe. In the Greek,
Jehovah is o& (ho, hah, “the”) qeov? (“God”). He is not oi& (hoi, the definite
article, “the” in the plural number, which English does not have) qeovi
(“Gods”). Jehovah is called ‘the God’, not ‘the Gods’, in the Greek.
New Creation wrote:
> John C. <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:QrQ%4.6272$bj.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "Yellowbird" <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> > news:393bb3c0$0$14...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net...
> > > "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:DLB_4.7807$NT4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> <SNIP>
> >
> > > As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
> > deserted
> > > me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
> part
> > of
> > > himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who considered
> > > himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted?
> > > Himself? That would not make sense.
>
> Have you ever considered that the Bible in Jesus' time did not have the
> handy references that we have. When they wanted someone to read a certain
> section of a book they would mention it by the first verse. Would it not
> make sense that Jesus is pointing the people to the prophecies of Psalm 22?
>
> A New Creation
3412
Libertarius wrote:
> "John C." wrote:
> >
> > "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> > message news:393AEB4A.A4A4AFCC@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > > "John C." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Yellowbird" <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:39354e33$0$16...@wodc7nh1.news.uu.net...
> > > > > "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9daZ4.781$od5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > > > > But none of them possess the incommunicable attributes of God as the
> > > > Bible
> > > > > > says that Jesus Christ does, obviously differentiating between Him
> > and
> > > > > these
> > > > > > others who are not God by nature (Gal. 4:8)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So the comparison you are trying to make does not apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Jesus clearly is higher in authority and power than all the human
> > > > > judges, false gods, angels, etc.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is not how the Bible describes it. He is declared to be Eternal,
> > > > Immutable, Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator
> > and
> > > > Sustainer, and Judge of all the Earth. To possess such makes Him God.
> > >
> > > ===>As imaginative as they were, the authors
> > > compiled in the
> > > Bible collection don't even describe "God" by
> > > those terms.
> > > Where do you get that list?
> > >
> >
> > From studying what the Bible says that God is in exclusion to all other
> > creatures.
> >
> > They didn't describe the coming into the flesh by the term, "incarnation,"
> > either. But that doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach Christ's
> > incarnation.
>
> ===>The "Bible" does not "teach" ANYTHING. Some of
> the WRITERS
> compiled in the "Bible" did have some weird ideas
> heavily influenced by
> Greco-Roman and Persian Paganism. Other writers in
> the collection
> would have been deeply ashamed if they had know
> that their book
> would end up in the same compilation.
>
Jim Upchurch
> message news:393ED1AF.562158D9@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>
> >> Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>
> >> > Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine Pauline
> >> > Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
> >> > James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological
> adversaries.
>
> >> ===>He can't. He has sworn to be voluntarily blind
> >> to such data. -- L.
>
> > Show us "such data". I cannot see what you have never provided, nor can I
> >see into your bigoted brain.
> Now you may not like what Libertarius stated, nor even like him personally;
> but he can in no way be classified as bigoted. My friend, it still amazes me
> that most of those who define themselves as Bible Believing Christians have
> little substantial knowledge of the contents of their "Bibles" (and that
> includes most of their preachers/ministers). Perhaps you are not
> "voluntarily blind", but just a member of that group of plane simple people
> who have neither the education nor intellectual capability to read
> critically.
Like you right ? You made a statement which I challenged. Rather than support
it you digress into condescension and strutting. You don't even know the Bible well
enough to know that there was agreement over dropping Jewish regulations. Who
are you to give advice ?
3412
"John C." wrote:
> "New Creation" <kh...@nonospam.elkgrove.net> wrote in message
> news:39407381$1...@206.170.63.121...
> >
> > John C. <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:QrQ%4.6272$bj.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > "Yellowbird" <kanar...@zbzoom.net> wrote in message
> > > news:393bb3c0$0$14...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net...
> > > > "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:DLB_4.7807$NT4.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > > As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
> > > deserted
> > > > me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
> > part
> > > of
> > > > himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who
> considered
> > > > himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he
> deserted?
> > > > Himself? That would not make sense.
> >
> > Have you ever considered that the Bible in Jesus' time did not have the
> > handy references that we have. When they wanted someone to read a certain
> > section of a book they would mention it by the first verse. Would it not
> > make sense that Jesus is pointing the people to the prophecies of Psalm
> 22?
> >
>
Jim Upchurch
> Jim Upchurch wrote in message
>
> >Stephen Bayzik
>
> >> Jim Upchurch wrote in message
>
> >> evidence points to the contrary, that there were followers before Paul
> entered the
> >> picture. In fact Paul was actively persecuted them. You are seeing pink
> elephants and I >> am certain they are equally real to you.
>
> >> Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers of
> >> James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological
> adversaries.
>
> that there
> >was a dispute hasn't been questioned.
>
> Why thank you. :-)
>
> >The fact that alludes you is that there was agreement with Paul on dropping
> the Jewish >requirements. Looks like the nonsense is between your ears.
>
> Really! Now pick up your Bibil and go to the Lucinian Acts (not that I am
> making an assertion as to the viability or none viability of the
> pseudo-historical Acts at this point) and read carefully chapters 21, 22,
> 23, 24, and 25 - now remember, carefully.
Duh, OK Einstein. I try to keep up. I have Bibil rite hear.
> Now assuming that there "was an agreement" (the so called Council of
> Jerusalem) - where were the Jerusalem Apostles when all hell broke loose?
> Considering existance of this so called agreement would you not consider
> your "apostolic colleagues" as ones you could count upon in times of duress?
> Headlines:- (with tongue and cheek) "Apostles fail to help one of their
> comrades; appeal for saving Saul's arse directed to the Roman occupiers."
You are too brimming with pride and self promotion to know anything about
following Christ. What exactly you think the apostles should have done is beyond
me. How did they "fail to help" ? What do you think they should have done ?
But more importantly, where did you get the idea that my faith and hope was
in the apostles ???????
Yellowbird
> > Please share the scriptures with me that declare Jesus to be "Immutable,
> > Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator"
> >
>
> Self-existent--John 1:4, 5:26
"all things were made through him" RSV "as the Father has life in himself,
so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." RSV
So the Father made all things through the Son, and has GRANTED the Son to
have life in himself." None of this proves "self-existence". Notice the
Father is not "granted" anything ever, he does the granting, he alone is
God.
> Omnipotent--John 5:19
How does this prove omnipotence? Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that he cannot
do a single thing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.
That doesn't sound like an "omnipotent" being to me. Also notice verse 30:
"I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment
is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me."
> Omniscient--John 2:24, Matthew 11:27, John 21:17
This is really stretching it. The Greek word "pas" does not always mean
"everything". Strong's concordance puts it this way:
1.. individually
1.. each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2.. collectively
1.. some of all types
... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go afterChrist?
"then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."Was all Judea, or
all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God,little children", and the
whole world lieth in the wicked one". Doesthe whole world there mean
everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight
senses
in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken
individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has
redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor,
and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile" ...
(Strong's number 3956)
> Omnipresent--John 3:13, Matthew 18:20, 28:20
"omnipresent"? You mean physically present? Or just "with" in spirit? And
the fact that Jesus descended from heaven proves nothing about being
"omnipresent".
> Creator--John 1:3, Colossians 1:16,17
Ah, that word "pas" again! For an example: Jesus said literally "the fig
tree and all trees" when clearly it was NOT "all" trees.
And Colossians 1:16, 17 shows that as God's firstborn (read: born first)
all things were created THROUGH Jesus.
Rev. 3:14 leaves no doubt as to what "firstborn" means when it refers to
Christ as: "the Beginning of the creation of God." NASB
>
> And here's "eternal" and "judge" thrown in for free:
>
> Eternal--Proverbs 8:22,
Jesus was the beginning of "the LORD's" (Jehovah's) way. So Jehovah
God was there first.
Micah 5:2, This Hebrew word "owlam" (Strong's number 5769) can mean
eternal, and can also mean "ancient" "long ago" etc. So yes, Jesus has
existed longer than anything else except God himself.
John 1:1,
Yes, Jesus existed with God in the heavens and has been around longer than
anything or anyone except God himself.
Hebrews 7:3
Do you believe Melchizedek is God also? This scripture is drawing a
parallel between his dual kingship-priesthood and that of Christ. No
genealogy is listed for Melchizedek, he was "fatherless, motherless," etc.
> Judge--John 5:22
Notice Jesus was GIVEN the authority to judge. Given by whom? The Father,
who is God.
> > "Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalms 23:1 ASV
> >
> > Please tell me where this scripture declares Jesus to be YHWH.
> >
>
> Please tell me where this scripture declares the Father to be YHWH.
It doesn't say either. It says that Jehovah is a shepherd. Nothing more,
nothing less.
> The fact of Scripture is that Jesus is the One who is the shepherd (John
> 10:2), the good shepherd (John 10:11), and the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter
5:4).
>
> Where is the Father called a Shepherd at all in the Scriptures?
At Isaiah 64:8, Jehovah is called "our Father" and at Psalms 23:1, Jehovah
is called "the shepherd." So the Father is Jehovah and he is a Shepherd.
Also, there were men called shepherds, in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as
the Greek. At Eph. 4:11, overseers in the congregation were to serve as
shepherds.
> However the polarity (to borrow Dale Grider's phrase) of 1 Corinthians
8:5,6
> does NOT place Christ with the false gods and singular humans. He is
placed
> in conjunction with the person of the Father as the One True God.
I never said Christ was placed with false gods or humans. "Polarity" has
nothing to do with it. God's Word puts it this way:
"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things came and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV
Quite clear. The Father is God, all things came from him. Jesus Christ is
Lord THROUGH whom all things came. (No mention of the holy spirit.)
> If He is simply to be viewed as a true god, you destroy the whole argument
> of 1 Corinthians 8.
Only if you are trying to read the trinity into it. And Jesus is a
"representation" of Jehovah, we worship THROUGH him. (Heb. 1:3, 1 Tim. 2:5)
If it is valid to serve/worship Christ as a true god,
> yet not God by nature, in our effort to serve/worship God Himself, why
can't
> we serve/worship God through Moses, or the Pope, or other people or things
> who are to us in the place of "elohim"?
Because none of those are spoken of as "one mediator also between God and
men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim 2:5
> > This discussion isn't about God's "nature" it is about whether "Elohim"
> > being plural proves anything about numbers. It doesn't.
> >
>
> Spoken like a true Hebrew scholar.
Thank you.
> I have forgotten what Reslight originally published, but on what basis is
> "elohim" simply a plural intensive, and not a 'quantitative plural' (like
> the Hebrew "water" and "heaven") as G.A.F. Knight terms it?
"That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea
of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is
especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a
singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . .
[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting
greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal
of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
> Water, of course, can be viewed as a single raindrop, or the mass of the
> ocean. Moses is one of the *drops* of the *ocean* of those that are
"called
> gods," but not God by nature.
>
> In that sense, too, the Hebrews were able to comprehend of plurality in
> unity in the being of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) while the manner and
>enumeration of that plurality was not made clear to them.
It's STILL not clear, even to Trinitarians. It's all a great "mystery."
And there is nothing in Deut. 6:4 to indicate that Jehovah was anything
other than one God. Quite simple. And there is no plurality mentioned, in
fact, it is stressed that God is One. (Not three) And since Elohim was
used to refer to non-triune gods (like Dagon, the god of the Philistines)
you just can't read plurality of numbers into Deut 6:4. It says what it
says, Jehovah is one God, made up of one person or being.
> > Where do the scriptures distinguish between "person" and "being"? And
> > please explain how this same word refers to Joseph's(lords) "person" and
> not
> > "being".
> >
> > Scripture please. :-)
> >
>
> Was not Moses a human *being*? (Exodus 2:2; Exodus 4:2, 10, 11)
>
> Was every single human made a 'god' to Pharaoh? (Exodus 7:1)
>
> Therefore, it was the *person* of Moses, not Aaron or anyone else, that
was
> called "elohim."
>
>
> The same applies to Joseph.
Still don't get it. A person is a being.
> > Jesus was still referred to as God's servant after his death and
> > resurrection, thus while in his divine nature.
>
> Scriptures please that He was in His divine nature *only* when He was
> referred to as God's servant.
"And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your
bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend Your
hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy
servant Jesus." Acts 4:29,30
When did this prayer take place? AFTER Pentecost 33 C.E. when the ascended
Jesus poured out the holy spirit and established the Christian congregation.
And since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50)
then this prayer was uttered when Jesus was FULLY divine.
> Luke 24:39 "...for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have."
Jesus was still on earth when he said this. Not so with the scripture in
Acts.
> But it doesn't prove that He was no longer human. See above.
Jesus was still on earth when he said this. Not so with the scripture in
Acts.
> > As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
> deserted
> > me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
part
> of
> > himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who considered
> > himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he deserted?
> > Himself? That would not make sense. Jesus also said: "Father, into your
> > hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what
> reason
> > should he entrust his spirit to the Father?
>
> Who said His Divine nature ever cried this out, or entrusted anything?
It doesn't, because this is a full human (Although perfect) calling out to
"my God". The "divine nature" god/man hybrid part is an invention of men.
Jesus was divine ONLY while in the heavens.
>
> The obvious answer to your question, of course, is, His human nature was
not
> God.
So Jesus was in heaven being Almighty God, while at the same time a human on
earth? That still doesn't explain it.
> > After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for parts of three days. If he were
> > God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: "O my God, my Holy One,
you
> > do not die." But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious
in
> > the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly dead,
> he
> > could not have resurrected himself.
>
> Who said His Divine nature died? And if it did, for what reason? It
wasn't
> Divine nature that sinned.
Jesus did not die as a "divine" being. He became fully human on earth,
although a perfect human. All this "divine nature" stuff just clouds the
Bible's very simple statements concerning this matter.
> What prevented His Divine nature, as God, from raising His human nature
(the
> only nature that died) from the dead?
>
> Furthermore, if Christ was was not truly God as well as man, who sustained
> the world for the three days that He was dead and completely gone?
(Hebrews
> 1:3)
God did. Because Jesus is not God. He completely died, as in not alive.
God resurrected him, thus proving he is not God.
> > On the other hand, if he was not
> really
> > dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for
Adam's
> > sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death.
>
> Your strawman really falls down easily, doesn't it?
What "strawman"? Jesus completely died. God raised him. And if Jesus did
not completely die, we are without hope. One who dies is not God. Dividing
him up so that one part can "die" while the other lives is unscriptural.
> Besides, the death of the Christ I worship did not merely pay for "Adam's
> sin," it paid for "our sins, also." 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 John 2:2
"Our sins" RESULT from "Adam's sin" Romans 5:12
> > So it was "God
> > [who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death." (Acts 2:24)
The
> > superior, God Almighty, raised the lesser, his servant Jesus, from the
> dead.
>
> YHWH, the lesser, is your Savior, Yellowbird? Isaiah 43:11
No, Jehovah God Almighty sent his first creation, Jesus as savior. If you
read the context of Isaiah 43:11, Jehovah was showing that the gods of the
nations were worthless, none of them had power to save.
Besides, Othniel the son of Kenaz is referred to as "savior" and no one
would argue that he is Jehovah. (Judges 3:9)
> > Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called "Mighty God," though not the
> > Almighty God,
>
> YHWH is called "Mighty God" (Isaiah 10:21), does that exclude Him from
being
> Almighty God?
I think you have it backwards. Only YHWH is called Almighty God. This is
NEVER said of Jesus. So this excludes him from being Almighty God
> What does the context (ch. 10) of Isaiah 9:6 'really' explain to us?
>
>
> > and that he would be the "Eternal Father" of all those
> > privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, "Jehovah
> of
> > armies," would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God's Adversary,
> > Satan the Devil, is called a "god" (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance
over
> > men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and
> > propriety is God's firstborn Son called "a god," "the only-begotten god"
> as
> > the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him.
> > The Hebrew term used at Isaiah 9:6 shows a definite distinction between
> the
> > Son and God. There the Son is called "Mighty God," ´El Gib·bohr', not
> > "Almighty God." That term in Hebrew is ´El Shad·dai' and applies
uniquely
> to
> > Jehovah God
> >
> > Jesus proved that he was the One to be entrusted with the second
> fatherhood
> > of the human family. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Thus he is properly referred
> to
> > as "Eternal Father".
> >
>
> None of these verses show that YHWH is the Father.
Never said they did. Isaiah 64:8 is the one that shows that. And just
because the term "Father" is applied to more than one person doesn't mean
they are a "composite" person.
If a certain title or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location
in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always
refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that
Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, because both were called "king of kings"
(Dan. 2:37; Rev. 17:14); and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus
Christ, because both were called "the light of the world." (Matt. 5:14; John
8:12) We should always consider the context and any other instances in the
Bible where the same expression occurs.
> > Relative to what?
>
> To the way you insist He accomplishes salvation, etc. *through* other
"true
> gods." Isaiah 43:11, 14,15; 44:24
I never said he accomplished anything through other "true gods" because
there aren't any. Any other gods are either false or a reflection of the
true God Jehovah. Hebrews 1:3
Jesus is called the "Faithful and TRUE witness" at Rev 3:14. But at Acts 1:8
Christians are said to be "witnesses". Are they false witnesses? Of course
not. All these uses of the TRUE are used archetypically, as opposed to a
copy of something. That is the way we should be looking at this.
> Isaiah 42:8 "I am YHWH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
> another, neither my praise to graven images."
Showing we must avoid idolatry, and also the fact that Jehovah will not
allow his glory to be taken away, all worship must be directed through the
proper channel, and today that is our mediator, Jesus Christ. (1 Tim 2:5)
Only then can it be worship that is "to the glory of God the Father." 1 Cor.
8:5, 6)
> Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god
with
> me..."
Showing that Jehovah alone is Almighty God to whom worship is to be
directed. Also proving that there is no "composite" God.
> > > Would Isaiah agree?
> >
> >
> > Yes, fully. :-)
> >
> >
>
> Really.
Yep.
> Deuteronomy, too?
Yep.
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik
>> >Stephen Bayzik
>> Why thank you. :-)
Slow down Jim, I'm not here to convert you, or tell you what you should or
should not believe - that's your business. And BTW I'm not related to
Albert. :-)
>> Now assuming that there "was an agreement" (the so called Council of
>> Jerusalem) - where were the Jerusalem Apostles when all hell broke loose?
>> Considering existance of this so called agreement would you not consider
>> your "apostolic colleagues" as ones you could count upon in times of
duress?
>> Headlines:- (with tongue and cheek) "Apostles fail to help one of their
>> comrades; appeal for saving Saul's arse directed to the Roman occupiers."
> You are too brimming with pride and self promotion to know anything about
> following Christ.
Again slow down Jim. I may be "brimming with pride and self promotion" or I
may not be. That was "not" my question.
> What exactly you think the apostles should have done is beyond
>me.
So you admit it's "beyond you" - fair enough; your answer (at least in
part).
>How did they "fail to help"?
>What do you think they should have done ?
I already have my opinion on the above two questions. But what I'm asking of
you is "what would "you" have done (or your explanation) in regard to the
scenerio as purported to have happened by the author(s) of the Lucinian
Acts. Could you give me (or for that matter that "bigoted" and nasty
Libertarius) your opinions (ie. answers)?
>But more importantly, where did you get the idea that my faith and hope was
>in the apostles ???????
What is it in then? The Bible? The Church? Tradition? The Holy Ghost? etc.
Stephen Bayzik
>"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
>message news:393FC316.AB8C532@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>[snip]
>> > > ===>In fact the NT books were written by converts
>> > > of Saul/Paul's Christos Cult.
>> > That's an interesting view. I haven't ever heard of such a claim.
I have, and leaving aside the correctness or incorrectness of the said claim
I would have thought that you have heard of a author by the name of McCoby.
>> ===>Except for the writings of Saul/Paul, those
>> books were all written or compiled by Gentile Christians AFTER the fall
>> of Jerusalem and the destruction of Jewish Messianic sect led by James
>> in Jerusalem.
>I don't see how you get your information.
It's comonly know among serious historical scholars of the New Testament.
>Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
CE).
Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
>Secondly, Matthew's Gospel was probably originally written in a Hebraic
dialect (Hebrew >or Aramaic), as evidenced by the unanimous agreement of the
church fathers (this >Hebrew Gospel of Matthew existed as late as the time
of Jerome).
Indeed such a Matthewian Gospel was know to have existed if we take the word
of a second century (circa 150 CE) Greek Bishop of Hierapolis, Papias, who
mentions a Matthew transcribed in Hebrew. But can one "assume" that the
canonical Matthew followed the now none extant Hebrew Bible?
As to your claim that that Gospel was available to St. Jerome; I am highly
suspect - but that can be left for a later discussion if you feel its
important.
>And AOMatthew apparently made use of the Dead Sea Scroll tradition rather
than the
>Septuagint (see Jerome, "On Illustrious Men" ch. 3). This would certainly
>not make sense if the Gospel of Matthew were written by a Gentile convert
of
>Paul, especially since a Hebrew-speaking Jewish audience did not exist
after
>the final diaspora!
Tell me would a Jew have written chapter 12 of the Matthewian Gospel in
light of the Dead Sea Scrolls? :-)
>> I honestly don't know why liberal critics put so
>> much emphasis
>> > on Pauls influence on the early church.
>> ===>By calling those scholars "liberals", you are
>> merely showing your bias
>> and prejudice. In fact Saul/Paul was the INVENTOR
>> of a Gentile "Christology"
>> whose believers were labeled "Christians".
>I apologize if I came across as biased. Please understand that I use the
>term "liberal" strictly in the academic sense--that is, the view that the
>Bible should not be interpreted as the Word of God but as fallible writings
>from misinformed and/or deceptive men. And by "conservative," I refer to
the
>view that the Bible is both morally and historically valid. It is certainly
>a liberal approach to claim that Paul single-handedly invented our
"Gentile"
>version of Christianity.
Fair enough, but the position of the Bible within the Christian Milieu is
far more complex than your simple definitions of what constitutes a
"liberal" and a "conservative"
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik
>> Jim Upchurch wrote in message >
>> >Libertarius <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
>> message news:393ED1AF.562158D9@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>> >> Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> >> > Nonsense, even within the Lucinian Acts as well as the genuine
Pauline
>> >> > Epistles you can easly spot the "Circumcision Boys" as the followers
of
>> >> > James (patriarch/rabbin of Jerusalem) and paul's Christological
>> >> > adversaries.
>> >> ===>He can't. He has sworn to be voluntarily blind
>> >> to such data. -- L.
>> > Show us "such data". I cannot see what you have never provided, nor can
I
>> >see into your bigoted brain.
>> Now you may not like what Libertarius stated, nor even like him
personally;
>> but he can in no way be classified as bigoted. My friend, it still amazes
me
>> that most of those who define themselves as Bible Believing Christians
have
>> little substantial knowledge of the contents of their "Bibles" (and that
>> includes most of their preachers/ministers). Perhaps you are not
>> "voluntarily blind", but just a member of that group of plane simple
people
>> who have neither the education nor intellectual capability to read
>> critically.
> Like you right ? You made a statement which I challenged. Rather than
support
>it you digress into condescension and strutting. You don't even know the
Bible well
>enough to know that there was agreement over dropping Jewish regulations.
Who
>are you to give advice ?
My academic capabilities can stand for themselves. My "condescension" may or
may not be a fact, but what would you have me do if indeed I was
condescending; be nasty instead?
I asked you a question (in another post under the same subject thread) and
you have only partially answered the said. Jewish "regulations"; what Jewish
regulations; do you know what is the Halaka?
Jerry Martin
JM
John C. wrote in message ...
Kip & Mindy Arnold
Terry <Grandp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_U_05.4713$ed7.1...@homer.alpha.net...
> > My advice Kyle. Take a trip to Office Max. Buy yourself a copy of
Encarta.
> (it's free after you get a rebate). Look up Mithraism. Note when and how
it
> got to Rome and were it came from.Then look up St. Paul Note were he was
> from. It will be obvious that Paul had to be aware of Mithraism and that
> Mithraism predated Christianity and that Christianity, as we know it
today,
> has much in common with Mithraism.
>
> Gramps
You actually don't even have to buy it just check it out here:
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=068F4000.
I would point out however, that it does mention that :
"It was a rival to Christianity in the Roman world."
"Mithraism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2000 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.
Libertarius
> "Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff/addesign wrote in message ...
>
> >>"Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Kyle Dillon wrote in message <3940...@mirror.fidalgo.net>...
>
> >>>>Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
> >>>were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
> >>>CE).
>
> >>>Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
> >>>aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
>
> >>Against Rome, or Hellenisation?
>
> >I guess you can answer for Kyle. Rome of course.
>
> I guess I might as well, since he seems to have gone off on a factless
> ramble about Mithraism, and ignored the question. 6 c.e., or 6 a.d.,
> if you prefer.
>
> There are none so sure of the origins of Christianity, as those who
> have never studied it's origins.
===>Very true. And the majority of Christians, especially those
of the Fundamentalist inclination, are not even interested in
studying their origins. Those who by some chance do, become
convinced about the lies and deceptions it was founded on.
Libertarius
*DON'T CONFUSE FICTION WITH REALITY*
>
>
> Jeff/addesign
> ********************************************************
> A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of
> exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate
> exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise,
> and independence to the mind. Games played with the
> ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for
> the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your
> gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.
> --Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr
> Paris, Aug 19, 1785
> ********************************************************
Libertarius
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:3943EF78.A867B630@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > "John C." wrote:
> >
> > > "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> > > message news:39401F3D.559C02E0@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> > > > ===>The "Bible" does not "teach" ANYTHING. Some of
> > > > the WRITERS
> > > > compiled in the "Bible" did have some weird ideas
> > > > heavily influenced by
> > > > Greco-Roman and Persian Paganism. Other writers in
> > > > the collection
> > > > would have been deeply ashamed if they had know
> > > > that their book
> > > > would end up in the same compilation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And these assertions are based on...your authority???
> > >
> > > The authority of experts? Who themselves are still finite?
> > >
> > > Call me foolish, but I prefer infinite authority for knowledge vs.
> finite.
> >
> > ===>And, of course, you consider your own authority "infinite". WOW!
> > Not the least bit conceited, are you?
> >
>
> Did I ever say that it was my own authority that I was relying on?
===>You indicate no "authority" other than your own uninformed
opinion.
Libertarius
Jeff/addesign
>"Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>news:_Xg05.837$MK4....@quark.idirect.com...
>[snip]
>> >Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
>> were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
>> CE).
>>
>> Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
>> aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
>If I remember correctly, our earliest evidence of Roman Mithraism, in the
>form that parallels Christianity, comes from the second century CE (the
>earliest monuments to Roman Mithraism cannot be dated earlier than 90-100
Guess again. Roman Mithraism predates Christianity.
>CE). Other mystery religions originated at around the same time, although
>their beginnings cannot be accurately ascertained, due to the scanty
or your lack of research.
>evidence. But I am not claiming that Christianity directly influenced these
>religions--firstly because their alleged similarities are generally few and
>insignificant, and secondly because we simply don't have enough information
"Mithras, Persian god of sun and truth, whose worship was latest great
Asian cult imported into Rome before establishment of Christianity;
many resemblances to Christianity in doctrine and rites"
--Compton's Interactive Encylopedia
"It was the lack of a definitely ethical appeal which accounts fo the
fact that Mithraism had only a temporary success. Christianity won
out over its rival because it taught that redemption involved both the
assurance of a blessed life in the hereafter and an experience of
moral renewal in the present life, which was a condition of future
blessedness." A History of the Early Christians Wm. Scott 1936 270il
SCO8
Christianity had a more enticing sales pitch, but many similarities.
>on their history. What I am claiming is that you have no right to say that
>Paul used these pagan mystery religions to form a "Christos cult." There
>just isn't enough information to say such things as if for granted. And what
>little evidence we do have points in the opposite direction.
Paul had heavy influence from Gnosticism, but so did the beginnings of
rabbinic Judaism. You might look for _My Religion_ by Emil G. Hirsch,
MacMillan, 1925. This actually a collection of sermons. Look for the
one that compares and contrasts the Christianity of Paul, the
teachings of Jesus, and modern Judaism. You may notice: Gnostic
influences and a delineation between the teachings of Jesus and the
Christology of Paul aren't anything new.
Gnositic influence:
'It should be apparent how Christianity directly adapted the concept
of Logos. For example, St. John begins "In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word as with God, and the Word was God." However, that is more
a Jewish doctrine than a Chrsitian one. Christianity made the "Son of
Man" equal to God, whereas the Jews made "the Word," that is, the
Torah, equal to God.' (E.G. Hirsch, _My Religion_, 1925)
<snip>
>Understand that I am not claiming any of this as fact. I am just making
>illustrations to show why you cannot assert your misguided opinions of
>Christian origins as if they were fact. The fact that such arguments to the
>contrary can be brought up--with significant evidence--only serves to show
>that no one can say for certainty where Christianity came from. Faith goes
>in all directions on such matters, but I am confident in my stance.
Those who have been posting in these threads, Libertarius et al, have
few misguided opinions. The fact is, those who present such arguments
have done more research on Christian origins than most any Chrsitian.
You don't want to know the true origins, because that goes agaisnt
what you believe as a matter of faith.
<snip>
>My point, again, is that you should not make such dogmatic statements like
>"Paul invented the Christos cult by combining Judaism and paganism" or "all
>the books of the NT were written by Gentile converts of Paul."
Also nothing new here. Most people who have taken a serious look at
Christian origins recognize the pagan influences.
"For Chrisitianity in its turn succeeded by again dragging the Deity
into the world of the senses, adopting the pagan myths of the birth
and death of the Gods, and sanctioning image worship." Kaufman Kohler,
_Jewish Theology_ p54 1918,1968 296KOH
>To say such
>things is to assume that the writers of the NT were liars, hypocrites, or
>madmen, and that we have no eyewitness accounts of the actual Jesus of
There are none, other than the claims in the NT. There is no
supporting evidence in any other historical record. The argument,
that the witnesses to the events would have supported or disputed the
early writings, does not hold up. The earliest writings aren't early
enough for any witnesses to likely have survived, and the primary
audience of the NT was gentiles, beyond Palestine, who would have no
means of verifynig the events.
>Nazareth. I will let you judge for yourself if you believe this to be true,
Nazereth did not exist at the time.
>but I would urge you to use logic, and consider the historical context of
>that time, and ask yourself how anyone could believe that such a monolithic
>force as early Christianity could arise from such a patchwork of ignorance
>and controversy all in a single generation (contemporary with the
>eyewitnesses, mind you!).
Any study of Chrstian orgins reveals exactly that: It arose from a
patchwork that was solidified some 3 centuries after the events, and
the centuries, the new creed was enforced with the sword, dissenters
and dissenting gospels burned.
I would urge you to use your logic, too. But first, do the research.
Logic is useless in the absense of facts. Just a study of the Arian
Controversey and the Council of Nicaea will quickly demosntrate that
Christianity in its first three centuries was exactly that: "a
patchwork of ignorance and controversy."
May I suggest:
_a history of the Christian Church during the 1st 6 Centuries,_ S.
Cheetham DD FSA, MacMillan 1898 270.2 C41
Jeff/addesign
>Jeff/addesign wrote in message ...
>>"Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>>Kyle Dillon wrote in message <3940...@mirror.fidalgo.net>...
>>>>Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
>>>were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
>>>CE).
>>>Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
>>>aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
>>Against Rome, or Hellenisation?
>I guess you can answer for Kyle. Rome of course.
I guess I might as well, since he seems to have gone off on a factless
ramble about Mithraism, and ignored the question. 6 c.e., or 6 a.d.,
if you prefer.
There are none so sure of the origins of Christianity, as those who
have never studied it's origins.
Jeff/addesign
John C.
Jumping to conclusions is an exercise best left to computer chair-potatoes,
and not conducive to fruitful discussion.
John C.
> Libertarius
>
> >
> >
> > John C.
John C.
> >> Please tell me where Jehovah says he is Jesus.
> >> JM
>
> Please
> > tell me where YHWH says He is the Father.
>
> "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our
> potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." Isaiah 64:8 ASV
>
It certainly shows that YHWH is a father. So Who is He, The Father, or the
everlasting father?
> > Obviously you missed the whole point of my post to Yellowbird which
showed
> > that Jesus, in His Divine Nature, is none other than YHWH God.
>
> It showed nothing of the kind.
>
> > But to answer your question simply: Zechariah 3:2 (cf. Matthew 4:10,
et
> > al.)
>
> Neither of the above scriptures say that Jehovah is Jesus. On the
contrary,
> Matt. 4:10 showed that Jesus worshiped Jehovah. And just because both
> Jehovah and Jesus rebuked Satan does not make them the same person.
>
It does show that Jesus worshipped YHWH? How?
I never said they were the same person, at least not in your conception of
it (YHWH=the Father).
It certainly doesn't make them different.
It is also a bit bold since Michael, himself, dared not to rebuke Satan in
his own authority.
John C.
Yellowbird
> > "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our
> > potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." Isaiah 64:8 ASV
> >
>
> It certainly shows that YHWH is a father. So Who is He, The Father, or
the
> everlasting father?
The Father.
> > Neither of the above scriptures say that Jehovah is Jesus. On the
> contrary,
> > Matt. 4:10 showed that Jesus worshiped Jehovah. And just because both
> > Jehovah and Jesus rebuked Satan does not make them the same person.
> >
>
> It does show that Jesus worshipped YHWH? How?
<sigh> Satan tried to get Jesus to worship him, Jesus refused and quoted
Deut 5:9, which shows that Jehovah is a God exacting exclusive devotion.
Clearly showing who he did worship, and it wasn't Satan.
> I never said they were the same person, at least not in your conception of
> it (YHWH=the Father).
>
> It certainly doesn't make them different.
>
> It is also a bit bold since Michael, himself, dared not to rebuke Satan in
> his own authority.
Jesus didn't "rebuke" Satan concerning his other activities, he just quoted
scripture, told him to go away, he worshiped Jehovah and no one else.
Stephen Bayzik
>If I remember correctly, our earliest evidence of Roman Mithraism, in the
>form that parallels Christianity, comes from the second century CE (the
>earliest monuments to Roman Mithraism cannot be dated earlier than 90-100
>CE). Other mystery religions originated at around the same time, although
>their beginnings cannot be accurately ascertained, due to the scanty
>evidence. But I am not claiming that Christianity directly influenced these
>religions--firstly because their alleged similarities are generally few and
>insignificant, and secondly because we simply don't have enough information
>on their history.
Fair enough, I concur.
> What I am claiming is that you have no right to say that
>Paul used these pagan mystery religions to form a "Christos cult." There
>just isn't enough information to say such things as if for granted. And
what
>little evidence we do have points in the opposite direction.
The term "cult" in today's contemporary society is unfortunately used in a
pejorative fashion. So please do not take the phrase "Christos cult" in some
nasty "pagan" pejorative sense (the same can be said for the term "pagan").
All Greek or Persian related religious structures were defacto "cults" -
including the many varied Christologies which occupied the first three
centuries of the Christian milieu. As to what Saul/Paul did is open for
analysis, but we can't deny that, unlike the Palestinian quote unquote
"apostles", he was raised in the "Diaspora" and a Greek one at that. We also
know that Hellenism was influenced by the Persian mystique ever since the
death of Alexander, and continued even after the absorption of what was once
the Greek sphere of influence by Imperial Rome.
>> >Secondly, Matthew's Gospel was probably originally written in a Hebraic
>> >dialect (Hebrew >or Aramaic), as evidenced by the unanimous agreement of
>> >the church fathers (this >Hebrew Gospel of Matthew existed as late as
the time
>> >of Jerome).
>> Indeed such a Matthewian Gospel was know to have existed if we take the
>> word of a second century (circa 150 CE) Greek Bishop of Hierapolis,
Papias, who
>> mentions a Matthew transcribed in Hebrew. But can one "assume" that the
>> canonical Matthew followed the now none extant Hebrew Bible?
>> As to your claim that that Gospel was available to St. Jerome; I am
highly
>> suspect - but that can be left for a later discussion if you feel its
>> important.
>Understand that I am not claiming any of this as fact. I am just making
>illustrations to show why you cannot assert your misguided opinions of
>Christian origins as if they were fact.
I am not espousing my analysis as to the origin(s) of Christianity as
"fact". That being said, I do not accept the conventional traditional
perceptions of the origins of Christianity as fact either - including the
narratives contained in canonical Scripture.
>The fact that such arguments to the
>contrary can be brought up--with significant evidence--only serves to show
>that no one can say for certainty where Christianity came from. Faith goes
>in all directions on such matters, but I am confident in my stance.
Fair enough; however I would hope you would not be too "confident" in your
stance. :-)
>> >And AOMatthew apparently made use of the Dead Sea Scroll tradition
rather
>> >than the Septuagint (see Jerome, "On Illustrious Men" ch. 3). This would
certainly
>> >not make sense if the Gospel of Matthew were written by a Gentile
convert
>> >of Paul, especially since a Hebrew-speaking Jewish audience did not
exist
>> >after the final diaspora!
>> Tell me would a Jew have written chapter 12 of the Matthewian Gospel in
>> light of the Dead Sea Scrolls? :-)
>Absolutely. Content of this chapter aside, let's examine the text of it. In
>12:18-21, AOMatthew is quoting Isaiah 42:1-4. Now there are two traditions
>for this passage in Isaiah, the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew. If
>AOMatthew as a Gentile/Greek convert of Paul, we most certainly would
expect
>him to quote from the Septuagint (actually, we probably wouldn't expect him
>to quote from it at all; Gentiles were almost entirely ignorant of the Old
>Testament, and most from that time were anti-Semitic). But does he? No! In
>this passages, as well as in most other Matthean quotations of the OT,
>AOMatthew quotes from the Hebrew tradition! This is perhaps one of the
>strongest textual evidences that AOMatthew was a Hebrew-speaking Jew.
I was referring to the absolutely none-Hebrew action which depicts the
Christ strolling through the fields on the Sabbath with his disciples
picking ears of corn and eating them. In the Hebrew text of the Damascus
Rule (DSS) Column number 10. - *trans. "No man shall eat on the Sabbath day
except that which is already prepared. He shall eat nothing lying in the
fields." Admittedly the gentile author of Matthew (knowing nothing of the
Halaka), attempts to "justify" his purported Jesus figure by having the
latter quoting an incident in Kings I (Samuel) 21:6 where David receives
from the priest Achimelech hallowed bread because "David was hungry'. A
pretty big boner if indeed the canonical Matthew as ever composed by a Jew.
>But again, there still isn't enough evidence that AOMatthew was in fact
>Matthew the Apostle and that he wrote his gospel in Hebrew. The evidence
>would suggest as much, but we cannot be certain without having an actual
>Hebrew version of Matthew that dates back to the early apostolic/patristic
>era (although we do have Hebrew Gospels of Matthew, they are rather late,
>and I would suggest that they are corruptions of an original Hebrew Gospel
>of Matthew).
Fair enough, I concur.
>My point, again, is that you should not make such dogmatic statements like
>"Paul invented the Christos cult by combining Judaism and paganism" or "all
>the books of the NT were written by Gentile converts of Paul."
With the possible exception of the Jamison Epistle none of the canonical
books of the New Testament were written by other than gentiles (Paul being
the exception). Paul was the "driving force" which eventually lead to the
consensus Christology as articulated in the tomes of the First Ecumenical
Council. Paul was an apostate Diaspora Jew who was influenced by the
Hellenic thought. The earliest "proto-church" (the Ebionites) was Jewish,
the second oldest (and largest) proto-church was initially diverse group of
Hellenic Greek Gentile churches derived from the itinerant activity of Paul
throughout the eastern part of the Empire. The youngest proto-church was
that of the Roman (Latin) culture. The "Jewish Church was "Jewish" and held
to messianic expectation (not some hypostases - ie. Trinitarian) and not
"Christian in the contemporary sense". Needless to say with two abortive
Jewish Wars and the subsequent failure for an apocalyptic return of their
(Ebionite) messiach (their Christ) the Jewish proto-church failed into the
garbage can of history. (not to be confused to what today are called
Messianic Jews - who be just Evangelical Protestants using hebrew words)
Now up to this point you have responded in a rational manner Kyle. But
"liars", "hypocrites" "madmen" - pure paranoid lunacy.
>To say things is to assume that the writers of the NT were liars,
hypocrites, or
>madmen, and that we have no eyewitness accounts of the actual Jesus of
>Nazareth.
The writers of the manuscripts which eventually became the canonical New
Testament were sincere dedicated men who had a deep faith. They certainly
didn't give us viable historical accounts even though they "believed" in
their picture of the Christ. Their was no conspiricy of lies, for any
critical study of the said text indicate many inconsistancies, divergence of
accounts and events and even implied Christologies - that by itself rules
out any conspiricy to deceive. Now as to having "eyewitness accounts of the
actual Christ" - there are none! All we know from third party accounts of
such a man indicates that indeed there were a significant group of people
who were called Christoni and that they worshiped an individual (from whom
their name derived) who was said to have been executed by Pilate in
Palestine.
>I will let you judge for yourself if you believe this to be true,
>but I would urge you to use logic, and consider the historical context of
>that time, and ask yourself how anyone could believe that such a monolithic
>force as early Christianity could arise from such a patchwork of ignorance
>and controversy all in a single generation (contemporary with the
>eyewitnesses, mind you!).
As an objective judgment (as much as any a man can be "objective") no, I
don't believe in the "story" of the New Testament - though I accept it as a
part of my Faith and heritage. As to a patchwork of "ignorance", why most
people at that time were "ignorant" (at least by our twentieth century
standards) - and many are still ignorant in our contemporary world. And my
friend it didn't (Christianity as a development) occur in a single
generation - more like twelve generations (and its still growing and
developing). What I do "know", and can verify, and can observe is that
"Christianity" as a world movement did occur. And though there has been
debauchery, hypocrisy, cruelty etc. committed in its name; is has also lead
to nobility, a virtuous moral ethos, and many many good and decent people in
this world.
John C.
> > > "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou
our
> > > potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." Isaiah 64:8 ASV
> > >
> >
> > It certainly shows that YHWH is a father. So Who is He, The Father, or
> the
> > everlasting father?
>
> The Father.
>
How do you know, apart from implication?
Even this verse can't be counted as one that definitively declares the
person of the Father to be YHWH.
>
> > > Neither of the above scriptures say that Jehovah is Jesus. On the
> > contrary,
> > > Matt. 4:10 showed that Jesus worshiped Jehovah. And just because both
> > > Jehovah and Jesus rebuked Satan does not make them the same person.
> > >
> >
> > It does show that Jesus worshipped YHWH? How?
>
> <sigh> Satan tried to get Jesus to worship him, Jesus refused and quoted
> Deut 5:9, which shows that Jehovah is a God exacting exclusive devotion.
> Clearly showing who he did worship, and it wasn't Satan.
>
This verse says nothing about who Jesus *did* worship.
> > I never said they were the same person, at least not in your conception
of
> > it (YHWH=the Father).
> >
> > It certainly doesn't make them different.
> >
> > It is also a bit bold since Michael, himself, dared not to rebuke Satan
in
> > his own authority.
>
> Jesus didn't "rebuke" Satan concerning his other activities, he just
quoted
> scripture,
Really? Even in Matthew 16:23?
> told him to go away, he worshiped Jehovah and no one else.
>
One Scripture that shows that Jesus worshipped YHWH, please.
John C.
John C.
> "John C." <jan...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:QrQ%4.6272$bj.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > Please share the scriptures with me that declare Jesus to be
"Immutable,
> > > Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator"
> > >
> >
> > Immutable--Heb. 1:12, 13:8 Yes, not subject to change any more.
>
I see Scripture embellishment is one of your spiritual gifts.
There is no reason to add "any more" to the interpretation apart from trying
to push an unscriptural doctrine.
> > Self-existent--John 1:4, 5:26
>
> "all things were made through him" RSV "as the Father has life in himself,
> so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." RSV
>
Sorry. Whenever I try to produce this list from memory I usually goof
somewhere.
It should have been John 1:5 "In him was life..."
> So the Father made all things through the Son, and has GRANTED the Son to
> have life in himself." None of this proves "self-existence". Notice the
> Father is not "granted" anything ever, he does the granting, he alone is
> God.
>
Almost. He alone is Father. He is also eternally Father. Therefore,
whatever is given to the Son is given eternally, since He begets the Son
eternally.
It does not diminish the Nature of the Son because His Person is Eternally
*Begotten.*
Besides that, *given* or not, the Son possesses the same, self-existent life
of
the Father. 1 John 1:2
It is futher noted that it is *given* because human nature does not
naturally possess self-existence. So just as there was a time that the
eternal Son "took on" human nature, that human nature was *given* self
existence. John 10:18
> > Omnipotent--John 5:19
>
> How does this prove omnipotence? Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that he
cannot
> do a single thing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father
doing.
> That doesn't sound like an "omnipotent" being to me. Also notice verse
30:
> "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment
> is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me."
>
You're so insistent on interpreting the Bible according to your theology
that you blindly stumble right over the very point that needs to be made.
Christ's power is NOT limited by *ability,* but by *permission,* if you
will.
John 5:19 plainly declares that "what things soever he (the Father) doeth,
these also doeth the Son likewise."
If you think that this proves inferiority, then I ask you, "Is the Father or
the Spirit any different? Can they do anything that is not willed by the
Sovereign God?"
> > Omniscient--John 2:24, Matthew 11:27, John 21:17
>
> This is really stretching it. The Greek word "pas" does not always mean
> "everything". Strong's concordance puts it this way:
>
<snipped rabbit trail discussion of what *all* can mean.>
Is it really stretching it? Despite the interesting word study you carry
out, you fail to show that Christ's knowledge was limited in the instances
that these passages were referring to.
I know, you would have us believe that since His human nature--as Head of
the Church
(Ephesians 1:20ff.)--didn't know the hour of His own return (at least while
He was here on earth) this proves that He wasn't omniscient.
But I wasn't speaking of His human nature.
If we took an honest and studious look at Matthew 11:27, we must answer the
question, "What does One, who completely knows the incomprehensible Father,
not know?" (John 10:15)
> > Omnipresent--John 3:13, Matthew 18:20, 28:20
>
> "omnipresent"? You mean physically present? Or just "with" in spirit?
And
> the fact that Jesus descended from heaven proves nothing about being
> "omnipresent".
>
I might've guessed that you'd be using a translation that left out the last
phrase of John 3:13, "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."
It seems to be the latest craze to view the unfaithful translations that the
Church buried in a cave, or hole in the ground as more accurate than the
translation that the Spirit preserved in the Church throughout the ages.
Why do you keep trying to make this physical? I'm not trying to claim that
His human nature was God.
> > Creator--John 1:3, Colossians 1:16,17
>
> Ah, that word "pas" again! For an example: Jesus said literally "the fig
> tree and all trees" when clearly it was NOT "all" trees.
>
What does this have to do with John 1:3?
The divinely-inspired author makes it perfectly clear what he means by
"all."
"and without him WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE."
> And Colossians 1:16, 17 shows that as God's firstborn (read: born first)
> all things were created THROUGH Jesus.
>
You have committed a fatal exegetical error! Please reboot your lexicon and
try again.
First, "firstborn" does NOT read "born first." Jacob and Judah were
considered "firstborns."
Second, "firstborn" in v. 18, does not read "born first." It would make no
sense if it did.
Third, you haven't established that this applies to His Divine nature
instead of His human nature--who is the second Adam. (1 Corinthians
15:20-23; 45,47)
Fourth, "protótokos" can be translated "First Begetter," or "First Parent,"
by simply moving the accent mark to the next omicron--"prototókos."
Considering that accent marks were not used in Paul's day, it is a strong
possibility that the latter usage is meant, since the very next phrase is,
"FOR by him were all things created..."
> Rev. 3:14 leaves no doubt as to what "firstborn" means when it refers to
> Christ as: "the Beginning of the creation of God." NASB
>
Hardly. The "arche" of the Creation of God. Same word that we get our word
"architect" from.
Furthermore, as above, in taking the meaning you are trying to place upon
this phrase, you haven't proved that this refers to His Divine nature, and
not His human nature which was certainly foremost with regard to the
physical creation in the eternal counsel of God.
> >
> > And here's "eternal" and "judge" thrown in for free:
> >
> > Eternal--Proverbs 8:22,
>
> Jesus was the beginning of "the LORD's" (Jehovah's) way. So Jehovah
> God was there first.
>
Jesus was possessed by YHWH at the "beginning of YHWH's way." YHWH God was
not there before Wisdom. Are you trying to suggest that there was a time
that YHWH was without wisdom?
If so, creating Wisdom would, by definition, be an unwise act.
> Micah 5:2, This Hebrew word "owlam" (Strong's number 5769) can mean
> eternal, and can also mean "ancient" "long ago" etc. So yes, Jesus has
> existed longer than anything else except God himself.
>
Swing and a miss.
In case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't referring to "of old." I was referring
to the phrase "from everlasting" which is an expression used by the
Scriptures to refer to eternity past. (Psalm 90:2, 93:2)
> John 1:1,
>
> Yes, Jesus existed with God in the heavens and has been around longer than
> anything or anyone except God himself.
>
Looks like you are going to have a hard time proving it, though.
When was the immutable, eternal Father without the Son? When was He without
His Wisdom, Speech (John 1:1), and Power (1 Corinthians 1:24)?
> Hebrews 7:3
>
> Do you believe Melchizedek is God also? This scripture is drawing a
> parallel between his dual kingship-priesthood and that of Christ. No
> genealogy is listed for Melchizedek, he was "fatherless, motherless," etc.
>
You're treading water.
Your question has nothing to do with Hebrews 7:3. Melchizedec's priesthood
*pictures* the reality of the Son of God's priesthood, which is eternal.
No, I don't believe Melchisedec is God also. I believe he is a type of the
Son of God. That type, Hebrews tells us, includes not having beginning of
days. Thus the reality.
> > Judge--John 5:22
>
> Notice Jesus was GIVEN the authority to judge. Given by whom? The
Father,
> who is God.
>
GIVEN to His human nature which does not naturally possess the authority to
judge--being finite. So, the everlasting Father gives this authority to the
Son of man.
> > > "Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalms 23:1 ASV
> > >
> > > Please tell me where this scripture declares Jesus to be YHWH.
> > >
> >
> > Please tell me where this scripture declares the Father to be YHWH.
>
> It doesn't say either. It says that Jehovah is a shepherd. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
>
Aha. So we can stretch verses to assume that they mean "the Father" is
YHWH, but this verse cannot imply anything more?
>
> > The fact of Scripture is that Jesus is the One who is the shepherd (John
> > 10:2), the good shepherd (John 10:11), and the Chief Shepherd (1 Peter
> 5:4).
> >
> > Where is the Father called a Shepherd at all in the Scriptures?
>
> At Isaiah 64:8, Jehovah is called "our Father" and at Psalms 23:1, Jehovah
> is called "the shepherd." So the Father is Jehovah and he is a Shepherd.
>
The Father? Or, the everlasting Father? Certainly a father, but which
one--since it can't be both.
Jesus is much more directly called "the Chief Shepherd," than you can
manufacture *proof* that the Father is called "the shepherd."
> Also, there were men called shepherds, in the Hebrew Scriptures as well as
> the Greek. At Eph. 4:11, overseers in the congregation were to serve as
> shepherds.
>
Yes? And you think the Bible stammers in its meaning when it definitely
uses the term, "Chief Shepherd?"
Does Hebrews try to indicate that Jesus is just another biblical type?
> > However the polarity (to borrow Dale Grider's phrase) of 1 Corinthians
> 8:5,6
> > does NOT place Christ with the false gods and singular humans. He is
> placed
> > in conjunction with the person of the Father as the One True God.
>
> I never said Christ was placed with false gods or humans. "Polarity" has
> nothing to do with it. God's Word puts it this way:
>
> "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came
and
> for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
all
> things came and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV
> Quite clear. The Father is God, all things came from him. Jesus Christ
is
> Lord THROUGH whom all things came. (No mention of the holy spirit.)
>
The Father (as you insist) is also said to be an agent THROUGH whom are all
things--Romans 11:36--if we consistently apply your meanings to such words.
What part of Lord--LORD of Lords (Revelation 19:16), if you will--denotes
inferiority to God? Only the Supreme Being can be LORD of Lords.
So Paul assigns Supreme Being to the Father, and Supreme Ruler to the Son.
What is the contradiction between the two? Is the Father anywhere in
Scripture said to be LORD of the LORD of Lords?
(And if you say Psalm 110:1, I'll just respond again, where does it say that
the Father is YHWH? And then we can have our Isaiah 64:8 discussion all
over again.)
> > If He is simply to be viewed as a true god, you destroy the whole
argument
> > of 1 Corinthians 8.
>
> Only if you are trying to read the trinity into it. And Jesus is a
> "representation" of Jehovah, we worship THROUGH him. (Heb. 1:3, 1 Tim.
2:5)
Jesus is the visible form of YHWH (Numbers 12:8). He is not a
"representation."
Since you brought Hebrews 1:3 up, please explain how Jesus can be the
"brightness of His [YHWH's] glory," when YHWH doesn't give His glory to
another (Isaiah 42:8)?
>
> If it is valid to serve/worship Christ as a true god,
> > yet not God by nature, in our effort to serve/worship God Himself, why
> can't
> > we serve/worship God through Moses, or the Pope, or other people or
things
> > who are to us in the place of "elohim"?
>
> Because none of those are spoken of as "one mediator also between God and
> men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim 2:5
>
Ah. So you do make a difference between Jesus and all the other *elohim.*
> > > This discussion isn't about God's "nature" it is about whether
"Elohim"
> > > being plural proves anything about numbers. It doesn't.
> > >
> >
> > Spoken like a true Hebrew scholar.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > I have forgotten what Reslight originally published, but on what basis
is
> > "elohim" simply a plural intensive, and not a 'quantitative plural'
(like
> > the Hebrew "water" and "heaven") as G.A.F. Knight terms it?
>
> "That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea
> of plurality in . . . [´Elo·him'] (as applied to the God of Israel) is
> especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a
> singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . .
.
> [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting
> greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American Journal
> of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
>
So should all *elohim* be viewed this way--"being equal to The Great God"?
Our quotes are quotes are quotes.
> > Water, of course, can be viewed as a single raindrop, or the mass of the
> > ocean. Moses is one of the *drops* of the *ocean* of those that are
> "called
> > gods," but not God by nature.
> >
> > In that sense, too, the Hebrews were able to comprehend of plurality in
> > unity in the being of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) while the manner and
> >enumeration of that plurality was not made clear to them.
>
> It's STILL not clear, even to Trinitarians. It's all a great "mystery."
> And there is nothing in Deut. 6:4 to indicate that Jehovah was anything
> other than one God. Quite simple. And there is no plurality mentioned,
in
> fact, it is stressed that God is One.
Did any (understanding) Trinitarian ever say there was more than one God?
Furthermore, *echad* denotes composite unity.
> (Not three) And since Elohim was
> used to refer to non-triune gods (like Dagon, the god of the Philistines)
> you just can't read plurality of numbers into Deut 6:4. It says what it
> says, Jehovah is one God, made up of one person or being.
>
Just like man, right?
> > > Where do the scriptures distinguish between "person" and "being"? And
> > > please explain how this same word refers to Joseph's(lords) "person"
and
> > not
> > > "being".
> > >
> > > Scripture please. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Was not Moses a human *being*? (Exodus 2:2; Exodus 4:2, 10, 11)
> >
> > Was every single human made a 'god' to Pharaoh? (Exodus 7:1)
> >
> > Therefore, it was the *person* of Moses, not Aaron or anyone else, that
> was
> > called "elohim."
> >
> >
> > The same applies to Joseph.
>
> Still don't get it. A person is a being.
>
Okay, let me explain it more simply then. Two persons can be the same
being. Three persons can be the same being. Why, even a father and a son
can be the same being without either being being less of a being than the
other person.
They can be human.
And if they are married, they can be one (echad) flesh.
> > > Jesus was still referred to as God's servant after his death and
> > > resurrection, thus while in his divine nature.
> >
> > Scriptures please that He was in His divine nature *only* when He was
> > referred to as God's servant.
>
> "And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your
> bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend
Your
> hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your
holy
> servant Jesus." Acts 4:29,30
>
> When did this prayer take place? AFTER Pentecost 33 C.E. when the
ascended
> Jesus poured out the holy spirit and established the Christian
congregation.
> And since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.
15:50)
> then this prayer was uttered when Jesus was FULLY divine.
>
Corruptible flesh and blood. "All flesh is not the same flesh..." (1
Corinthians 15:39) There is a difference between that and
spiritual/incorruptible flesh and blood. "So is the resurrection of the
dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption." (1
Corinthians 15:42) What excludes "the man, Christ Jesus?" Have we no more
mediator?
What exactly is Christ the firstfruits of (1 Corinthians 15:23) if He does
not have an incorruptible bodies in heaven?
Christ was always FULLY Divine. Even in the grave (Romans 1:4). If He was
not, He could not have borne the infinite wrath of God against sin.
> > Luke 24:39 "...for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me
have."
>
> Jesus was still on earth when he said this. Not so with the scripture in
> Acts.
>
Guess what? Last Peter knew, he saw His body going up to heaven!
Fancy that.
> > But it doesn't prove that He was no longer human. See above.
>
> Jesus was still on earth when he said this. Not so with the scripture in
> Acts.
>
See above.
>
> > > As he neared death, Jesus cried out: "My God, my God, why have you
> > deserted
> > > me?" (Mark 15:34, JB) To whom was Jesus crying out? To himself or to
> part
> > of
> > > himself? Surely, that cry, "My God," was not from someone who
considered
> > > himself to be God. And if Jesus were God, then by whom was he
deserted?
> > > Himself? That would not make sense. Jesus also said: "Father, into
your
> > > hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) If Jesus were God, for what
> > reason
> > > should he entrust his spirit to the Father?
> >
> > Who said His Divine nature ever cried this out, or entrusted anything?
>
> It doesn't, because this is a full human (Although perfect) calling out to
> "my God". The "divine nature" god/man hybrid part is an invention of men.
> Jesus was divine ONLY while in the heavens.
>
Not so. He was "Son of God" even in the grave. (Romans 1:4)
He was fully human, and fully God. If not, He could not have paid for our
sins.
> >
> > The obvious answer to your question, of course, is, His human nature was
> not
> > God.
>
> So Jesus was in heaven being Almighty God, while at the same time a human
on
> earth? That still doesn't explain it.
>
Why not?
> > > After Jesus died, he was in the tomb for parts of three days. If he
were
> > > God, then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: "O my God, my Holy One,
> you
> > > do not die." But the Bible says that Jesus did die and was unconscious
> in
> > > the tomb. And who resurrected Jesus from the dead? If he was truly
dead,
> > he
> > > could not have resurrected himself.
> >
> > Who said His Divine nature died? And if it did, for what reason? It
> wasn't
> > Divine nature that sinned.
>
> Jesus did not die as a "divine" being. He became fully human on earth,
> although a perfect human. All this "divine nature" stuff just clouds the
> Bible's very simple statements concerning this matter.
>
What happened to His Divine nature, then?
If it is immutable as the Bible claims (Hebrews 1:12, 13:8), where was it
when Jesus was "fully human?"
>
> > What prevented His Divine nature, as God, from raising His human nature
> (the
> > only nature that died) from the dead?
> >
> > Furthermore, if Christ was was not truly God as well as man, who
sustained
> > the world for the three days that He was dead and completely gone?
> (Hebrews
> > 1:3)
>
> God did. Because Jesus is not God. He completely died, as in not alive.
> God resurrected him, thus proving he is not God.
>
I'm sure it proves it to you, but I notice you give absolutely no Scriptural
proof.
> > > On the other hand, if he was not
> > really
> > > dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for
> Adam's
> > > sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death.
> >
> > Your strawman really falls down easily, doesn't it?
>
> What "strawman"?
Your insinuation that we think only part of Jesus' body died.
I was agreeing with you. It is a very ridiculous position.
>Jesus completely died. God raised him. And if Jesus
did
> not completely die, we are without hope. One who dies is not God.
Mostly agree. For certain, that nature that dies is not God.
> Dividing
> him up so that one part can "die" while the other lives is unscriptural.
>
Who is dividing Him up? Scripture clearly states that Christ has two
nature--one immutable (Hebrews 1:12) and one human (Luke 24:36-40).
> > Besides, the death of the Christ I worship did not merely pay for
"Adam's
> > sin," it paid for "our sins, also." 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 John 2:2
>
> "Our sins" RESULT from "Adam's sin" Romans 5:12
>
But everyone is culpable for his *own* sins. Ezekiel 18:4
Therefore, I need cleansing from, not only my corrupt nature, but also my
sins. Psalm 51:9
>
> > > So it was "God
> > > [who] resurrected [Jesus] by loosing the pangs of death." (Acts 2:24)
> The
> > > superior, God Almighty, raised the lesser, his servant Jesus, from the
> > dead.
> >
> > YHWH, the lesser, is your Savior, Yellowbird? Isaiah 43:11
>
> No, Jehovah God Almighty sent his first creation, Jesus as savior. If you
> read the context of Isaiah 43:11, Jehovah was showing that the gods of the
> nations were worthless, none of them had power to save.
>
> Besides, Othniel the son of Kenaz is referred to as "savior" and no one
> would argue that he is Jehovah. (Judges 3:9)
>
Your seminar responses miss the point. While the context does include idol
gods, the point of the last half of the book of Isaiah is that YHWH Himself
is the Ultimate Savior. It is YHWH that saves with an "everlasting
salvation" (Isaiah 45:17) That is what makes Othniel so tangential to this
discussion. And it is in this regard that YHWH looks and finds no one that
can bring salvation of this kind. Therefore, He Himself clothes Himself
with righteousness, and vengeance. His own arm brings this salvation
wherewith Israel is saved. (Isaiah 59:16, 17; 63:5) Jesus Christ saves
with an everlasting salvation. Therefore, Jesus Christ is called "God our
Savior" several times in the NT. (Titus 2:13, Jude 25)
>
> > > Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called "Mighty God," though not
the
> > > Almighty God,
> >
> > YHWH is called "Mighty God" (Isaiah 10:21), does that exclude Him from
> being
> > Almighty God?
>
> I think you have it backwards. Only YHWH is called Almighty God. This is
> NEVER said of Jesus. So this excludes him from being Almighty God
>
Hmm. He can do everything the Almighty Father doeth (John 5:19). How does
this exclude Him from being Almighty?
(On a side note, it is interesting that you keep limiting Isaiah's usage of
*god* strictly to idol gods when you wish to expand it to "true" or
"reflective" god in 9:6.)
> > None of these verses show that YHWH is the Father.
>
> Never said they did. Isaiah 64:8 is the one that shows that.
Does it really? A father, yes. The Father?
> > To the way you insist He accomplishes salvation, etc. *through* other
> "true
> > gods." Isaiah 43:11, 14,15; 44:24
>
> I never said he accomplished anything through other "true gods" because
> there aren't any. Any other gods are either false or a reflection of the
> true God Jehovah. Hebrews 1:3
>
Reflective gods, then. Does Deuteronomy 32:39 apply any less?
> Jesus is called the "Faithful and TRUE witness" at Rev 3:14. But at Acts
1:8
> Christians are said to be "witnesses". Are they false witnesses? Of course
> not. All these uses of the TRUE are used archetypically, as opposed to a
> copy of something. That is the way we should be looking at this.
>
> > Isaiah 42:8 "I am YHWH: that is my name: and my glory will I not give
to
> > another, neither my praise to graven images."
>
> Showing we must avoid idolatry, and also the fact that Jehovah will not
> allow his glory to be taken away, all worship must be directed through the
> proper channel, and today that is our mediator, Jesus Christ. (1 Tim 2:5)
> Only then can it be worship that is "to the glory of God the Father." 1
Cor.
> 8:5, 6)
>
Is that *all* it shows?
> > Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god
> with
> > me..."
>
> Showing that Jehovah alone is Almighty God to whom worship is to be
> directed. Also proving that there is no "composite" God.
>
>
Keep it up, Clinton.
Redefine everything enough, and I'll agree with you. YOU can't find
anything about the Trinity in the Bible.
John C.
Yellowbird
> > > > "But now, O Jehovah, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou
> our
> > > > potter; and we all are the work of thy hand." Isaiah 64:8 ASV
> > > >
> > >
> > > It certainly shows that YHWH is a father. So Who is He, The Father,
or
> > the
> > > everlasting father?
> >
> > The Father.
> >
>
> How do you know, apart from implication?
>
> person of the Father to be YHWH.
And the scriptures you quote can't be counted as definitively declaring that
Jesus is Almighty God. Look, you're complicating the matter unnecessarily.
God's identity didn't suddenly change between the OT and the NT. Psalms
83:18 plainly identifies who the Most High is.
All the first Christians were Jews. They accepted this plainly stated
truth: "Know ye that Jehovah, he is God: It is he that hath made us, and we
are his; We are his people, and the sheep of his pasture." Psalms 100:3
Jesus was a Jew. It is reasonable to conclude that he prayed (repeatedly)
to the God of the Jews, and that God was Jehovah. When the term "God the
Father" is used, it is always used to refer to someone other than Jesus
Christ. And you will notice that the terms "God the Son" and "God the holy
spirit" NEVER ONCE appear in the Bible.
> > > > Neither of the above scriptures say that Jehovah is Jesus. On the
> > > contrary,
> > > > Matt. 4:10 showed that Jesus worshiped Jehovah. And just because
both
> > > > Jehovah and Jesus rebuked Satan does not make them the same person.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It does show that Jesus worshipped YHWH? How?
> >
> > <sigh> Satan tried to get Jesus to worship him, Jesus refused and
quoted
> > Deut 5:9, which shows that Jehovah is a God exacting exclusive devotion.
> > Clearly showing who he did worship, and it wasn't Satan.
> >
>
> This verse says nothing about who Jesus *did* worship.
If you came to me and said "I'll give you all these things if you bow down
and worship me" and I said "Go away! For it is written: 'It is Jehovah your
God you must worship, and to him alone you must render sacred service'" who
would you think I worshiped? C'mon!
> > Jesus didn't "rebuke" Satan concerning his other activities, he just
> quoted
> > scripture,
>
> Really? Even in Matthew 16:23?
Jesus wasn't rebuking Satan, he was rebuking Peter by forceful illustration.
You're certainly not saying that Peter actually WAS Satan, are you?!
> > told him to go away, he worshiped Jehovah and no one else.
> >
>
> One Scripture that shows that Jesus worshipped YHWH, please.
Matt. 4:10, which quotes Deut. 6:13 where Jehovah's name appears as God's
name, it can't be any plainer. And Jesus does worship a God, for he
repeatedly refers to "my God."
John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to
the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my
Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"-NIV
Eph 1:3 "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"-NIV
Eph 1:17 "keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious
Father."-NIV
Rev 3:2 "Wake up! Strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have
not found your deeds complete in the sight of my God."-NIV
Rev 3:12 "Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God.
Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and
the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out
of heaven from my God."-NIV
(1) How many times does Jesus have to say that he has a God before you
believe him?
(2) How many times do other Bible writers have to say that Jesus has a God
before you believe them?
(3) If you do accept the statements of Jesus and others, who have stated
unequivocally that Jesus has a God, then how can you continue to believe
that Jesus is God?
Qbaal
<The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>Kyle Dillon wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>> news:_Xg05.837$MK4....@quark.idirect.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > >Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
>> > were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
>> > CE).
>> >
>> > Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
>> > aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
>>
>> If I remember correctly,
>
>===>But you remember it INCORRECTLY. All of the mystery religions
>originated in tribal cults long before Christianity, and the Mithraism
>of Tarsus, a transformation of the worship of Perseus, was already
>well developed and established before the birth of Saul of Tarsus,
>who grew up exposed to those mystery religions from which he
>clearly borrowed to create his own cult of Christos. The Eleusian
>mysteries originated hundreds of years earlier and continued well into
>the Christian era. Their teaching was the "death" of the believer's soul
>an
On the surface, I agree with you. Only some kind of fool would fail
to see the Christ of Paul is not the synoptic Christ (Messiah of
Jewish expectations). Rather a processed Christ. Processed by
the mind of St. Paul who was certainly influenced greatly
by the mystery- religion thing back home in Tarsus. Thus, Paul
is remarkably detached from, you could almost say ignorant of, the
historic Jesus, his teachings, his deeds and, sometimes as re
woman, his attitudes. And his references to the exalted Christ
and the Holy Spirit, where did they come from? Palestine and
the Book of Daniel etc. Not likely. How many passages does
this Hebrew of Hebrews quote from the Old Testament? Paul
is focussed on the death and resurrection of Jesus. And even
then does not seem to know much about those earth shaking
details of the physical resurrection. Little details like who, when,
how and where???????? And he doesn't care much either.
And says so in plain English, er Greek.
Think about it - Jesus busts a gut to project himself to Israel
at the end as, per Zechariah, the humble Messiah. The
gosple writers bust another gut heaping every Old Testament
passage they can with the smallest of reasons upon their
Jesus. And "prove" he is the Messiah and sacrifice offering
for sin.
Paul doesn't or very little. Despite protestations to the contrary,
he has another book of reference for understanding Jesus -
the mystery religions that permeated the Graeco-Roman
culture of 1st century AD Roman Empire.
Howerver, now for the kicker. What if we say the mystery
religions are as much revelation, mind of God and door
to the Kingdom of God as the Hebrew religion? Why not?
God never did go for religious exclusive -ism. What if God
secretly loved Aristotle and Pericles and Caesar Augustus
as much as Abraham or Isaiah? Maybe more.
The Jesus Seminar folk think many of Jesus' wise sayings,
and he was a creator of witty wise one liners, were actually
maybe Greek and Persian, Egyptian etc in origin. Why
not? Every good story gospel and myth needs a little padding.
The Judeo-Christian tradition has done a mighty job of
projecting God as the God of Jew and Christian believer.
I personally think God is a lot bigger than that. And this is
NOT anti-Semitism. It's pro- homo sapian- ism.
Qbaal
<The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>Kyle Dillon wrote:
>
>> "Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>> news:_Xg05.837$MK4....@quark.idirect.com...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > >Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
>> > were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
>> > CE).
>> >
>> > Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
>> > aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
>>
>> If I remember correctly,
>
>===>But you remember it INCORRECTLY. All of the mystery religions
>originated in tribal cults long before Christianity, and the Mithraism
>of Tarsus, a transformation of the worship of Perseus, was already
>well developed and established before the birth of Saul of Tarsus,
>who grew up exposed to those mystery religions from which he
>clearly borrowed to create his own cult of Christos. The Eleusian
>mysteries originated hundreds of years earlier and continued well into
>the Christian era. Their teaching was the "death" of the believer's soul
>and its rebirth in "God" into a new life, and after the physical
>life, a new life in heaven. In Euripides describes how Dionysus
>was believed to have discarded his divine nature and walked among men.
>Men are encouraged not to resist him, because such resistance
>is futile, since Dyonisus is "God". People who try to resist him
>are not struggling against mere flesh and blood but against a god.
>"You are mortal, he is immortal. If I were you, I would control my rage
>and worship him (literally: "sacrifice to him"), rather than
>KICK AGAINST THE PRICKS."
>
Libertarius
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 17:55:29 -0600, Libertarius
> <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
>
> >Kyle Dillon wrote:
> >
> >> "Stephen Bayzik" <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
> >> news:_Xg05.837$MK4....@quark.idirect.com...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > >Firstly, the early church fathers (Irenaeus, etc.) say that the Synoptics
> >> > were written during >and shortly after Peter and Paul preached in Rome (60
> >> > CE).
> >> >
> >> > Well what is it "during" or "shortly after"? Now tell us when the first
> >> > aborted Jewish Uprising occured?
> >>
> >> If I remember correctly,
> >
> >===>But you remember it INCORRECTLY. All of the mystery religions
> >originated in tribal cults long before Christianity, and the Mithraism
> >of Tarsus, a transformation of the worship of Perseus, was already
> >well developed and established before the birth of Saul of Tarsus,
> >who grew up exposed to those mystery religions from which he
> >clearly borrowed to create his own cult of Christos. The Eleusian
> >mysteries originated hundreds of years earlier and continued well into
> >the Christian era. Their teaching was the "death" of the believer's soul
===>Yes, indeed. One is EVERY BIT as valid, or, in my opinion,
INVALID as the other. No "God" has EVER written ANYTHING.
EVERYTHING ever written, inside or outside of Judaism and
Christianity is simply the opinions, speculations, and fantasies
of MEN! Some make some sense, most don't.
> God never did go for religious exclusive -ism. What if God
> secretly loved Aristotle and Pericles and Caesar Augustus
> as much as Abraham or Isaiah? Maybe more.
===>And what if there is no such entity to "love" ANY of the above?
At least those you mentioned are not said to have run off to worship
the Baals, like his "Son" is accused of by Hosea.
> The Jesus Seminar folk think many of Jesus' wise sayings,
> and he was a creator of witty wise one liners, were actually
> maybe Greek and Persian, Egyptian etc in origin. Why
> not? Every good story gospel and myth needs a little padding.
===>"There is nothing new under the sun" -- at least nothing
new as far as religious speculations go.
> The Judeo-Christian tradition has done a mighty job of
> projecting God as the God of Jew and Christian believer.
> I personally think God is a lot bigger than that. And this is
> NOT anti-Semitism. It's pro- homo sapian- ism.
===>The BIGGEST of them all is that of Einstein, or rather
that of Spinoza, whom Einstein acknowledged.
Libertarius
Dale Grider
God the Son. Again, it is Scripture that I am referring to, so I hope you will
respond directly to the Scriptural contexts I cite as you disagree with the
conclusion they draw. The following is a long post that I responded to
concerning the original in this thread. Your argument against Christ's deity
rests on two false assumptions 1) Because Jesus can be seen to have a human
nature, then it is impossible for Him to concurrently have a parallel one of
deity, and 2) subordination proves Jesus less in nature than the Father. Both
are false as the following essay will demonstrate for you. But try not to read
it too defensive and hard hearted. If you diagree, reason with me from the
scriptures, not the above false human intellectual arguments. Chapter and verse
and proper context please (and a legitimate translation that honors the
original manuscripts would be nice ie. not the NWT)
Dear Ronald,
I apologize for the length of this post (posts) but I felt it important to
include response to the essays found at the urls you referred readers to, as
they bore directly upon the issues at hand.
I had said,
“In terms of the longer second post you put up in response, the point is
basically the same. You are confusing the defining of terms here in an
irresponsible way (irresponsible because if, as you say, you are a serious
Bible student, you Must realize the distinctions in the application of the
word"god" by the contextual comparison of those you have lumped all together
as being biblical "gods" as if there were no meaningfully determinate
distinctions to consider).”
You responded saying,
“Yes, there are meaningful distinctions to consider, that is the whole point.
Thus there is a meaningful distinction to consider when Jesus is called
elohim or theos.”
You then place 2 urls to web pages that presented essays alleging that those
“distinctions” prove Jesus as less than God the Son; less than true Deity. I
want to respond to the assumptions that underpin those essays as well as direct
comments you made in response to my last post.
The essays can be found at:
http://reslight.addr.com/john20-28.html
and: http://reslight.addr.com/youaregods.html
At John 20:28 we find one of the inarguable indicationsthat Jesus was God in
the flesh. In this passage Thomas, in his final realization of just who Jesus
Christ was, proclaimed directly to Him that He was “my Lord and my God”. Mr
Day, in his two essays, will try to rationalize around this absolute statement
by attempting to change the apparent meaning of it with an argument from
context. He will assert that the word god being often used in a lesser meaning
than Almighty God, coupled with indications of Jesus’ personal distinction and
submissive relation to the Father, proves that He cannot be considered God in
the sense of the one true and living God Almighty. He says,
“If we examine John 20:28 in light of the entire Bible, we should realize that
Thomas was not stating that the Almighty Yahweh, the unseen God, was actually
standing there before him in a human body.”
As we look at his argument, I will reveal through a genuinely true and full
contextual look at what Scripture says that;
1) the underlying assumptions he makes that would lend validity to his
argument are false ones.
and;
2) That he is evading a whole layer of the full contextual consideration that
necessarily proves his case a false one.
Ronald states,
“Jesus earlier used a similar statement: Jesus said unto her, Touch me not; for
I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. -- John
20:17.”
What this has to do with Thomas later calling Jesus God I can’t imagine. It
adds or detracts nothing from what Thomas said. Within the immediate context of
observing in amazement the literally resurrected Jesus from the dead, such a
statement as Thomas’s would absolutely need to have been clearly established by
Jesus or the New Testament chronicler of the event in the meaning Ronald wants
to attribute to it. Left as it is, even in the immediate context of
melodramatic circumstances, the validity of such an interpretation as Ronald’s
for such an absolute statement, without any qualifying commentary whatsoever
from the NT author, becomes as unreasonable as outright blasphemy unrebuked.
The lack of any immediate contextual support for Ronald’s argument leaves
Ronald reading his interpretation INTO the text. So, without immediate
contextual support, Ronald will try to create support elsewhere in a broader
sense.
The point Ronald attempts with John 20:17 is in the fact that Jesus, the man,
had a God, and thus can’t be God. Trinitarian belief fully realizes, however,
that Jesus Christ, having assumed a human nature in addition to His eternal
deific one, certainly had a God. As a fully human man, Jesus looked to the
Father as His God. As is typical of anti Trinitarian arguments, Ronald focuses
upon the humanity of Jesus to the exclusion of the Scriptural indications that
tell us that He concurrently had a God nature as well. It is not a
contradiction to say that Jesus as a man, had a God, and that Jesus, as Creator
of the universe (Col.1:16 ) and personal eternal judge of all mankind (Jn.5:22
)
was and is God the Son. That the mutual indications of one person carrying two
natures concurrently presents the human intellect with a level of mystery
evading comprehension is a fact. That Scripture proclaims the fact in terms we
are responsible for apprehending is, however, just as much a fact. God’s nature
and very Essence of being, will necessarily, at some point, be ultimately
beyond full human comprehension. That’s not a hard pill to swallow Ronald.
Thus, Trinitarian belief has NEVER rested on an argument from
comprehendability, and it becomes a red herring to present an argument based
upon human intellectual comprehension to deny the doctrine. We must study ALL
of the Scriptural context, not just that through which we can build a human
“understanding” of the fullness of God’s nature. Trinitarian belief comes out
of accepting ALL of what the Scriptural context tells us about who Jesus is.
Ronald goes on in this vein for a while longer, demonstrating the full fledged
humanity of Jesus, complete with Christ’s distinguishing Himself from the
Father in person and relating his role of subordination to the Father. Not only
does this recognition of Jesus’ humanity and individuality of person not prove
that He is not God the Son, but neither does the subordination he has with
respect to the Father, as will come out later in this post when Ronald more
directly approaches that aspect of Jesus’, the submissive “Son”.
Ronald next directly deals with Thomas’ confession saying,
“So what can be said of Thomas' expression to Jesus in John 20:28? Was Thomas
here calling
Jesus Yahweh? Was he here calling Jesus the Holy Spirit?”
Again we immediately notice that Ronald is confusing what Trinitarian belief
is. He asks if Jesus is being called Yahweh or the Holy Spirit. What Ronald
misses here is that, in the New Testament context, “Yahweh” is often assumed to
equate with the “Father”. In the Old Testament, without the context of Jesus
demonstrated life and demonstrated relationship with the Father, Yahweh is more
generally taken to simply mean the oneness of Almighty God as a being, without
specific consideration of the possibility that that His singular being might
exist in more than one person. The subtle, but vital distinction here is to
recognize that when in the New Testament Almighty God is being referred to, it
is often specifically “The Father” that is being referred to. The Specifics of
“Almighty God” are being given more subtle distinction in this regard in the
New Testament and relationship within the godhead being revealed with more
clarity than was formerly possible. Ronald wants us to consider Yahweh as
merely being monopersonal in being. But in the New Testament, we find that this
is not the case. In the context of Jesus mortal life on Earth, Yahweh now
becomes referred to as a distinct person in relationship of utter spiritual
oneness with the person of this Jesus. There is a Father, and a Son, and a
Spirit who are both revealed to be distinct, AND YET utterly bound in absolute
spiritual unity of being. Thus for Ronald to ask if Jesus was being called the
Father, or the Spirit, misses the point as badly as those who ask, “Well, is
God speaking to himself like, me, myself and I?” No, because “me myself and I”
still refer back to ONE person. Trinitarian belief does not assert that Jesus
is the Father or the Spirit (modalism). It discovers from the Word that while
there is only one omnipotent being called God Almighty, that that being reveals
Himself to us as existing in three persons, Father Son ,and Spirit, bound up in
utter oneness of being and spiritual agreement.
Ronald goes on at this point to demonstrate that the word “god” can have
multiple meanings in Scripture, all but one of which, mean something less than
Almighty God. Yet his conclusion must still find a specific broad based
contextual support for arguing that Thomas did not mean Almighty God when he
flatly called Jesus God. As I formerly observed, the onus is on Ronald to
really find conclusive evidence for his interpretation since there is not only
NO immediate contextual support for his interpretation from the passage where
Thomas confesses Jesus as God, but that context, if left in the immediate
dramatic circumstances of Thomas’s confession, and with NO Scriptural
commentary to clarify it away from it’s apparent meaning, would more than imply
that Thomas was recognizing in this Jesus, self raised from the Dead (John
10:18), his literal Lord and God.
Ronald goes on, attempting to build that context saying,
The Jews had earlier accused Jesus of blasphemy because, being a man, he made
himself "God"—but this was a false and exaggerated accusation against Jesus
which he never is recorded as saying. Jesus’ response was, "Is it not written
in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If
he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot
be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the
world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" (John 10:34-36).
Jesus pointed out that those to whom
the Word of God came were called "gods." (The original early manuscripts were
written with all capitals. Hence, translators must decide whether to capitalize
or not.) But Jesus did clarify who he was. He said, "I am the Son of God."
However notice that Jesus here did not say that He was not God the Son. Neither
did He say that being God’s Son negated the possibility that He could be, in
another sense, God the Son. Ronald’s argument so far, only proves that Jesus
was the Son of God. It does not prove anything about whether or not He was also
God the Son. The argument rests on the fact that Jesus was distinct in person
(which is in agreement with Trinitarian belief) and that Jesus is submissive to
the person of the Father (which is in agreement with Trinitarian belief).
Neither of those two facts, as we shall discover, proves Jesus not to be God
the Son, Almighty. The distinction in person of Jesus, and the submissive role
He voluntarily assumed agreed upon, there must be OTHER contextual
considerations that bear on why Trinitarian belief would be the 2,000 year
position of the church, even through the cleansing fire of Reformation. As my
response develops we will see how a true and full consideration of everything
Scripture says about the Messiah, Savior, Jesus answers this question.
“Jesus, in John 10:34-36, is referencing Psalm 82:6, where the sons of God are
called elohim
- gods. The Hebrew word elohim and its variations of el and eloah is used in
many different
ways. Thomas, being a Hebrew was no doubt aware of this. El signifies strong or
powerful.
... it is applicable to any powerful being and especially so the most powerful
- the Almighty Yahweh, and is thus used in relative terms applicable to those
whom or what it is being applied.”
Notice here that Ronald wants to bend Thomas’s confession away from its
apparent meaning, assuming that Thomas would have been “aware” of alternate,
lesser meanings for the word god. Yet he also wants to bend the Scriptures
meaning in exactly the same way in reverse when he attempts to negate the
Scriptural indications from the pharisees that reveal that Jesus was coming
across, to their fury, as a blasphemer. Again, Thomas flatly calls Jesus God,
and Jesus does not correct him, but instead affirms the confession without
comment or qualification. Nor does John qualify his confession. Likewise, the
Pharisees flatly accuse Jesus of being a blasphemer claiming to be God. And
Jesus, while qualifying their accusations, never denies the accusation outright
as would have been easy and most reasonable to have done given A) the fact that
this was to be recorded as Scripture for all to learn from, and B) the vital
and absolute nature of the accusation.
My point so far is to say that Ronald’s interpretation of the passages is
unreasonable given the specifics of the passages themselves. Such
interpretation assumes that both Jesus and the NT authors were horrible
communicators and left us with a plain meaning that is wrong on vital issues
and critical points of doctrine, and that could have easily been clarified if
the plain meaning of the passages had needed additional qualification.
Ronald again exhaustively demonstrates that god can mean something less than
deity. It does not prove what usage is intended for Jesus, but it does show
that god can mean something less than God Almighty in Scripture. He says,
“Notice the above texts carefully and critically; all will agree that the
context in every case shows the meaning of the Hebrew word El to be powerful
one. How clearly it is stated in the last three quotations that Yahweh is the
chief "El" and rules over all other ones called "el" - powerful ones.”
But Ronald goes on saying,
“And it should be noted that Yahweh is the name applied to none other than the
Supreme Being - our Father, and him whom Jesus called Father and God.” (John
17:1,3: 20:17; Psalm 110:1; Matt. 22:43-45; 26:64; Mark 12:35-37; Luke
20:41-44; Acts 2:34; 7:55: Rom. 8:34; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:13; 10:12,13; 1 Pet.
3:22)”
Notice that Ronald again blurs the NT/OT distinction between simply referring
to the being of Almighty God (OT Yahweh) and the NT personal distinction in a
“Son” referring to “the Father”. We see his blind recognition of the
distinction anyway as we observe that all of Ron’s references save Psalm 110
(the text of which is irrelevant to the point), is New Testament Scripture.
Again, in advance of establishing my own argument, I recognize the fact that
Jesus is distinct in person to the Father, that Jesus refers to the Father as
His “God”, and is in a relationship of submission to the Father. All of those
facts are in agreement with Trinitarian belief. None of them prove that He
could not be God the Son. And, most importantly, those facts about Jesus, while
they do not prove that He cannot be God the Son, still form an INCOMPLETE
context of consideration. As I conclude this post I will fill in some of those
missing pieces of the puzzle.
Now comes the argument that assumes that Jesus Submission to the Father proves
Him as lesser in being, Essence and nature. From the flawed perspective of our
human natures it is easy to see how we could be fooled into immediately
assuming that submission must mean something bad, or weak, or “less”. Yet this
is not only not the case from reason, it is flatly unbiblical. Ronald says,
“"He is Lord of all" - next to the Father for "The head of Christ is God." (1
Corinthians 11:3) They are one in mind, purpose, etc., because Jesus willingly
submitted his own will to that of the Father (John5:30) just as we also must
submit our own will, mind, spirit to that of the Father if we would be made
heirs and sons of God.”
And so Ronald assumes that Jesus submission to the Father proves him lesser in
nature. Yet even in Ronald’s comments we find a critical aspect of Jesus
submission to the Father that gives us a clue that will lead us to a very
different conclusion. Ronald concedes that Jesus, “willingly submitted his own
will to that of the Father.” In other words Jesus made the personal and
autonomous decision to submit. It was not out of weakness. It was not out of
being domineeringly coerced. And, it was a perfect submission beyond mere
mortal ability. If we study closely we will find no proof of Jesus’ being less
in spiritual nature than the Father because of His fully voluntary, utterly
perfect submission. It is an indication of the nature of God wherein selfless
giving is a fundamental. Jesus glorified the Father, and the Father glorified
Jesus in a mutual agape love in which the separation of authority is in such
perfect mutual and unified agreement that we, in our sinful natures, cannot
comprehend it beyond the self centered way in which we exercise authority with
cruelty and selfishness and submit with resentment and shame against our self
pride.
But let’s look at an absolute Scriptural parallel that demonstrates the
invalidity of Ronald’s assumption that Jesus submission must prove something
less about His Nature. In Genesis we find that man was created first and out of
him woman was made. We find that Eve was first tempted and that it was through
her that Adam was tempted. We find that somehow this plays out in a way that
New Testament writers teach us that wives are to be in spiritual submission to
husbands. A God ordained authority sets the man in authority over the woman who
is to be submissive to him “as to God” (Collosians 3:18). The question then
comes before us, are women lesser in nature than men? Of course not. Both men
and women are created equally in God’s image and neither is less or more in the
Essence of their being than the other because of the issue of authority. The
two considerations, authority and nature of being, are demonstrated to be
apples and oranges. Thus, in the case of Jesus, wherein His submission was
completely voluntary and supernaturally perfect, it would stand more as an
evidence for his deity than one against it.
Ronald asks,
“Did Thomas then believe something different than Jesus claimed for himself? If
those to whom the word of God came were called "gods," what would be
extraordinary about Thomas calling Jesus "My Lord and my God"?”
The point is not whether Thomas believed something different than Jesus
claimed. The point is that Ronald is hedging on just what Jesus claimed, in the
fullness of His claims. Jesus use of the Psalm wherein those who were given the
Law were called gods carries specific meaning Ronald is not sharing. His
mention to the Pharisees that those to whom the law came were called “gods”
served to negate their wooden legalistic accusation against him, and, at the
same time was a none to subtle accusation against their own lack of
spirituality. For if we read on in the Psalm we find that the passage tells us
that they were false gods who showed “partiality to the wicked”. They were
neither Almighty God OR righteous mighty ones, but corrupt ones who held the
responsibility but failed to live up to it. Thus, this passage and Jesus usage
of it could not possibly have anything to do with Thomas’s confession of the
Jesus who he certainly wasn’t categorizing with those who would favor the
wicked.
Next Ronald uses a popular argument that Thomas was expressing his shock and
surprise and that My Lord and my God was just an exclamatory statement. Ron
says,
“This, undoubtedly, was a very emotional moment for Thomas and certainly not an
attempt on his part to offer advanced theology. The fact that he
says "the Lord of me" and "the God of me" seems appropriate to his emotional
state wherein
he accepts Jesus as his resurrected "the Lord" and "the God."”
First of all, it is an absolute fact that using such language in a emotional
expression of surprise would be a direct violation of a fourth commandment and
a gross example of using the Lord’s name in vain, particularly in the presence
of Jesus and recorded as Scripture, and without rebuke or correction or even
comment from the John, but only immediate affirmation by Jesus!. This is an
impossible and degrading interpretation against Scripture.
Second, it is absolute scripture twisting to say that Thomas called Jesus “the”
Lord, or “the” god, which carries with it the none to subtle implication of
“god” as a generic term in the intention of Thomas, which is utterly absent
from the passage in any way shape or form. Thomas confessed Jesus as, “my” Lord
and “my” God”, which more than implies the deity.
If we look for context to help understand Thomas calling Jesus “my” God (as
opposed to “the” god) we find it in passages like 1Corinthians 8:5
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as
there be gods many, and lords many,) <<<But to us there is but one God>>>, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by him.”
Now Ronald will see even in this passage that the Father is the immediate
person labeled as “God”. Yet he will likewise have to concede some other things
in the passage that give indication that Jesus is “God” on the same side of
deity as the Father, in an absolute polarity established in this passage that
leaves no other viable alternative. On one side of the polarity are those “so
called” gods who are contrasted on the other side by the Father (God) and Jesus
(Lord). The distinction in persons is a recognized reality in Trinitarian
belief. So is the indication of the Father as being the human Jesus’ “God”, and
even submissive if you will to Him. But the fact that Jesus is set as Lord,
along with the Father, and distinctly apart from all other usages of “god”,
refutes Ronald’s reading a lesser meaning into Thomas’ confession and
establishes that Jesus is a person of absolute deity. Again, recognize, even if
you cannot agree, that Trinitarian belief asserts that ONE God exists in THREE
persons. So the fact that the Father and Jesus are set on the side of the
polarity establishing Jehovah from other so-called gods is a part of the
context that establishes the “apprehendable” doctrine of the triune God, though
incomprehendable from the perspective of human intellectual understanding.
Also, In recognizing a personal “god” (“my” god) the distinction is clear that
though there are many who are said to be gods (false or figurative) for “us”
there is only ONE God. Thus, when Thomas calls Jesus “my” god, even in
isolating this passage with the recognition that “god” doesn’t always mean
Almighty God, the weight of implication leans with overwhelming weight to the
assumption that Thomas was recognizing God Almighty in Jesus Christ, calling
Him both Lord and God in a personal sense. This statement by Thomas is also
revealing in that, while 1Corinthians 8:6 carries a PERSONAL distinction
between the Father as God and Jesus as Lord on the deity side of its dual
comparative for the use of “god”, we find here a contextual cross reference
that demonstrates that in terms of BEING of deity, Jesus as “Lord” is still
intended to refer to deity, not Lord in some “lesser” sense, but specifically
Lord AND (or one could say “Lord” “as” God) The distinction is thus in person
only, God and Lord, not in being. Jesus is Thomas’ Lord AND God, both of which
lie of the deity side of the polarity established for the possible meaning of
“god” established at 1Cor 8:6.
Ronald next assumes,
“His very Jewishness prohibits us from concluding he thought Jesus was the
Almighty Yahweh. He could not possibly have fused Jesus and God the Father into
one being.”
This is a completely false assumption. Jesus was a Jew as were all of His
earliest followers including those who wrote the New Testament. He, with their
allegiance, established a religion that claimed fulfillment of the Jewish
Scriptures which had foretold a Messiah Savior. Embedded within those very Old
Testament Scriptures are all of the doctrinal material necessary to recognize
Jesus’ deity as that Savior.
Isaiah 43:11
I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.
Isaiah 45:21
“And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none
but me.”
Isaiah 59:16
“And He (Jehovah) saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no
intercessor: therefore His arm brought salvation unto Him; and His
righteousness, it sustained Him.”
It does not follow that Thomas’s “very Jewishness” would have prevented him
from recognizing the fulfillment of God’s observation about mortal mankind’s
universal unworthiness, His establishment and revelation to us about what
parameters define a Savior, and personal proclamation about being Himself the
only worthy Savior in Isaiah. For God’s Words in Isaiah are as “Jewish” as any
can be. And Jesus is absolutely proclaimed as the Savior of all mankind, a
universal and ultimate Savior that could have no lesser meaning or standard
than that established in Isaiah by Jehovah Himself. Of course, when Ronald uses
the term “Jewish” it falls upon today’s ears that associate the label with an
AD Christ rejecting Judaism that doesn’t even get past the point of accepting
Jesus as Messiah, much less following the inevitable implications of that
acceptance to discover His deity.
Ronald continues,
“The Apostle Thomas was a Jew who held to
the view that "Yahweh our God is one." To argue that he forsook his Jewish
religious training at the moment in question and received Jesus as (the) God
Yahweh is an unlikely scenario.”
But Ronald refuses to concede that Trinitarian belief fully accepts and
recognizes that God is one. It just recognizes that that oneness is revealed as
a unity of three persons existing in one utterly unified being. And how could
one come to such a mysterious and ultimately incomprehendable doctrine as far
as human intellectual understanding? Because the Revelation of God’s Word
leaves NO ALTERNATIVE. “Jewish training” that looks at the Jewish Old Testament
Scriptures (like the passages from Isaiah just cited), AND the equally JEWISH
AUTHORED New Testament ones that identify Jesus as Messiah, will discover, not
only that Jesus’ deity as Savior is a “likely scenario”, it is an absolute rule
of God’s defining that such a Savior must be!
Ronald continues to obfuscate with irrelevant observations,
“John, who is aged and serene while writing his Gospel, summarizes this entire
chapter saying,
"Jesus is the Christ, the son of God." That’s what he wanted us to believe—and
that’s what Thomas believed as well.”
So do all Trinitarian believers who go, however, beyond the human context of
the revealed human Jesus, to discover the equally revealed context of Savior
-God that is a parallel identity of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, and the identity
Thomas realized and confessed when confronted with the risen Christ.
Ronald goes on to make comments that help underscore my point. He tries to blur
the distinct way in which Jesus Christ must be identified as “god” to be
Savior. Ron says,
“Additionally, we might note that Jesus is prefigured by Moses, who is also
called elohim. (Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23; Exodus 4:16; 7:1 -- The KJV
adds the words "instead of" before "God" in Exodus 4:16, which words do not
appear in the Hebrew.)”
But Moses is a demonstrated sinner and not identified as the Messiah/Savior to
come, One we notice that he himself was a prophet of, and certainly not the
fulfillment of his own prophecy! Jesus, as that Savior foretold, fulfills the
prophecy of Messiah (and Isaiah) by virtue of His utter sinless perfection, a
quality God found in no merely mortal man in Isaiah, and who thus declared that
the One to come would be able to be none but Himself, Jehovah God. So obviously
Ronald, in bringing Moses in as a comparative example of one called a “god”, is
comparing apples and oranges when set beside Jesus in considering how we might
interpret the meaning and use of the term “god”. Reflecting back upon
1Corinthians 8:6 we find that Moses would have to be considered one of those
“so called” Gods on the front end of the polarity established there. While
Jesus, the Savior, falls distinctly on the other Godhead side of that
polarity...”But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in him; AND one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by
him.” Again, Jesus is distinctly set on the deific side of a polarity here. On
one side are all instances of “so-called” gods, and on the other (the side
Jesus is identified on) is the one Jehovah God. There are no other options for
interpretation. For Thomas the general recognition of the oness of God is
proclaimed as he recognizes in Jesus as “Lord” , also “God”. The distinction in
persons in 1Corinthians thus takes nothing away from the recognition of an
absolute unity in Essence of deity of Jesus as God Almighty as revealed and
cofessed by Thomas. For Trinitarian belief is able and willing to recognize and
accept BOTH the inarguable declaration of Jesus’ full deity established in the
polarity of 1Cor 8:6, as well as the obvious distinction in persons (though
always a distinction qualified as existing in pure and absolute spiritual
oneness and unity of BEING). Ronald, and all anti Trinitarians, recognize what
is obvious on the surface, (that Jesus assumed a human nature and reality and
that He is distinct in person from the Father), but refuse to accept the
EQUALLY revealed parallel running Revelation of who He HAD to be as Savior of
all humanity. They formulate invalid arguments by virtue of focusing only on
one aspect of the revealed Savior Messiah, and/or they formulate irrelevant
arguments against Trinitarian belief that exist in points Trinitarian belief
accepts and incorporates within its far fuller acceptance of Scripture’s
complete Revelation of Jesus. (It is a straw man to keep bringing up the
indications of Jesus’ individuality in person, human nature, or subservience to
the Father, as if it proves Trinitarian belief wrong, in disregard for the fact
that Trinitarian belief recognizes and synthesizes those facts into its
Christology with full support directly from the Scriptures.)
So now we begin to see contextual considerations that reveal fundamental flaws
of omission on the part of Ronald’s outlook. At this point those flaws become
ever more apparent as we go on in Ronald’s comments. He says,
“Hebrews 1:8,9 is quoted from Psalm 45:6,7:
"Your throne, O Mighty One [elohim, theos -- god], is forever and
ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore
God, Your God [Elohim, that is, Yahweh], has anointed You [the
elohim being spoken to] with the oil of gladness more than Your
companions."
Two beings are spoken of here. One is the Superior to the other.
One anoints the other with the oil of gladness. The one being
anointed has companions. These companions are probably his
"brothers" mentioned in Hebrews 2:11; does God Almighty have
"brothers"? “
We find Ronald feeling confident at this point to insert “O mighty one” in
place of “God” in the passage of Hebrews in his attempt to deflect this most
revealing proclamation of Jesus’ deity. But we should observe that Ronald’s
interpretation sets him in disagreement with Jehovah’s own defining parameters
for the Savior in Isaiah. Ronald by changing the apparent meaning of what is
being said here, qualifying it according to his unbelief, sets Jesus on the
front end of the polarity we observed in 1Corinthians 8:6, AGAINST SCRIPTURE.
Fro Jesus there is distinctly NOT in the category of being one of the
“so-called” Gods who are less than Jehovah God. But he is defined on the other
side of that polarity apart from lesser false or figurative uses for the word
God.
Two “beings” are NOT being spoken here. But two PERSONS are being spoken of.
This is no trivial distinction and lies at the heart of how anti Trinitarian
unbelievers attempt to confuse terms; “being” and “person” which are clearly
distinct in the language and definition of Trinitarian belief. One is NOT
necessarily “superior” in “being” to another because of issues surrounding
authority (as has already been demonstrated in the Scriptural comparison of men
and women),. And that Jesus, the fully human man, had “companions” is utterly
irrelevant to the acceptance of His Revealed dual nature as God the Son,
incarnate as the “Word made flesh”.
Ronald, in his direct response to my post, had said,
“We define deity as based in the Hebraic context, in which it is used in more
than one way; it does not always mean the Supreme Being. Thus saying Jesus
is deity (or divine) does not necessarily mean that he is God Almighty,
anymore than saying that the angels are divine beings.”
But Ronald is obviously leaving out a huge swath of that “Hebraic context” to
support his presupposition that Jesus is not God. And that full consideration
DOES “necessarily mean that he is God Almighty”.
I had said,
“Moses never claimed that he was "one" with the Father. The Father never said
so either.”
Ronald responds,
“However, Jesus also claims his followers to be one with him and the Father.
According to the above reasoning, all the church would be God Almighty.”
But now we have to consider how context must legitimately qualify both
statements to see if Ronald’s attempt to downplay the case in Jesus’ instance
is legitimate. Ron needs to bring Jesus down to the spiritual level of all
human believers to make his point. Does Jesus mean pure and untainted unity,
full in every sense, when He speaks of His unity with the Father? And can that
be the meaning when Jesus speaks of the unity we as sinful, human believers
have in Him? Unless both are Scriptural Ronald has made a false comparison and
drawn an invalid conclusion. It won’t take long to pull together the Scriptural
context for both instances to reveal Ron’s invalid attempt. Jesus said in Mark
10:18 that “God alone is good”. But in Hebrews 4:15 we find that Jesus was
“good”, even spiritually perfect, in Exactly the religious, moral, spiritual
context of His statement in Mark. Thus, not only do we find another inarguable
context proclaiming Jesus absolute deity, but we find that, in Jesus case, the
statement “I and the Father are one” is an absolute statement of literal and
complete spiritual unity of being. What about our unity with Jesus? Well, the
same text at Mark 10:18 that qualifies who is “good” immediately establishes a
context wherein we cannot legitimately attribute the same level of meaning as
in Jesus case, as if the statements were parallel examples. Paul, a soldier of
a saint and model for us all, called himself a “wretched man” who DID NOT
fulfill pure untainted unity with God. So obviously (and the point could be
developed but need not be here) Jesus means to say, with respect to the born
again life within the believer, that that life that is “in” Him, exists in
unity with the Father as HE has unity with the Father; only that part of us.
That still leaves, in the case of the born again mortal believer, a sinful
flesh to be died to daily, a mortal sinful aspect that wars against the new man
in Christ, and a sinful man that we yield imperfectly to in our sinful lack of
the pure and absolute unity; a level of absolute unity that Jesus ALONE has
with the Father.
I had observed, as I do in this response that Ronald’s position often depends
upon an almost purposeful confusion in defining the immediate use of terms. I
had said, for example, that “In Scripture god is not God.”
Ronald responds saying,
“There is no such distinction in the writing of the earlier Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts; translators themselves put the capital "G" or small "g" in the
word GOD; thus translators themselves would be the ones who would be making the
determination of any difference between the two in the circumstances where they
choose to use one or the other.”
But Ronald knows well and good that I am not referring to upper case/lower case
grammatical usage, but am referring to the absolute duality in meaning for the
USE of the word “god” as defined in 1Corinthians 8:6.
Ronald concludes his response summing up with the following,
“Jesus is not anymore God Almighty than when Yahweh appoints Moses as elohim
(nor did Yahweh appoint Moses as a false elohim; he was faithful in his
stewardship -- Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3:2,5); Jesus likewise is appointed to
his position of mightiness (which is greater than Moses') by Yahweh.
(Deuteronomy 18:18,19; Acts 3:19-23; 7:37; Hebrews 3:1-3) This does not make
Jesus Yahweh -- such would have Jesus anointing himself, since Jesus is
anointed by Yahweh, his Father, his "only true God". -- Isaiah 61:1; John
17:1,3.”
But Moses was specifically not ultimately faithful Ronald.
Deuteronomy 32:51
“This is because both of you (Moses and Aaron) broke faith with me in the
presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin
and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites.”
And this is the whole point. When you try to equate the use of “god” for Moses
with Jesus, you degrade Jesus by definition. For Moses was a “so called” God
and Jesus is specifically NOT in that sinful, lesser category of usage.
We have already seen how Jesus’ individuality of person, humanity, and
voluntary submissiveness to the Father distinctly do not prove him to be less
than God the Son in “being”. We have seen that the use and meaning for
Scriptural instances where Jesus is called “god” cannot be attributed to a
lesser meaning in His own case, and Thomas, as would seem from a plain reading
of the text, necessarily meant God Almighty in the fullest sense when he said
that Jesus was “my Lord and my God.” And so what we are then left with is a
host of additional contextual considerations that leave no legitimate doubt as
to the deity of Jesus Christ.
In closing I would like to point out just one of those that has been put upon
my heart as I have worked through this response. Briefly, let us consider the
full implications of Jesus virgin birth. In an absolute sense there was no
virgin birth at all. Let me sat that once again. Jesus was not born of a virgin
in an absolute sense, and that is Scripture. So often when we consider Jesus’
virgin birth we gloss over the full meaning of what the true intention of it
is. What it says is that, in HUMAN terms, Mary was a virgin and Jesus had no
HUMAN father. But Scripture goes much farther than that, and for profound
reason. For Jesus is said to have had a literal Father. Mary is made to be with
child by the will of a Father. The literal, direct, and absolute Father is
Jehovah God. Now lest we go the wrong way in just how this played out it needs
to be quickly recognized that this does not mean what the Mormons say (that a
physical God the Father had physical relations with Mary). But it does mean, in
the inarguable absolute sense that we recognize the meaning and implications of
parentage, that the child Jesus was conceived in a human womb by Jehovah God
Himself, and thus, by definition, Jesus Christ was fully human by virtue of His
absolute mother, and fully God by virtue of His absolute and literal Father,
albeit conceived through a direct supernatural act of God’s Will. There was no
other Father of Jesus but Jehovah God, literally. And thereby we see the the
true significance of the “humanly fatherless” “virgin” birth. The virgin birth
was not just some arbitrary miracle made unique so that we could identify the
Messiah, like the place of His birth foretold by Micah was. It is a
foundational doctrinal statement about the identity of who that Messiah is. No
son is a true son but that he is defined by the very essence and nature of his
father (and mother). Jesus, by way of Scripture’s proclamation of the facts of
His conception, is not a figurative “son” of God, but a LITERAL AND ABSOLUTE
one. And He is, in this sense, said to be God’s “one and only” Son. Thus, when
anti Trinitarians approach the reality of Jesus as God’s “son”, as if to prove
that this means He cannot be God the Son, they touch directly upon one of
Scripture’s most inarguable proclamations of the Essence of very Jehovah God
directly sired within the thereby God incarnate human Jesus by His absolute
and literal Father, Almighty God.
In Jesus, who by virtue of His deity is the worthy Savior proclaimed in Isaiah,
Dale:)
Stephen Bayzik
>God never did go for religious exclusive -ism. What if God
>secretly loved Aristotle and Pericles and Caesar Augustus
>as much as Abraham or Isaiah? Maybe more.
>The Jesus Seminar folk think many of Jesus' wise sayings,
>and he was a creator of witty wise one liners, were actually
>maybe Greek and Persian, Egyptian etc in origin. Why
>not? Every good story gospel and myth needs a little padding.
A well articulated and reasonable perspectve Qball.
>The Judeo-Christian tradition has done a mighty job of
>projecting God as the God of Jew and Christian believer.
>I personally think God is a lot bigger than that. And this is
>NOT anti-Semitism. It's pro- homo sapian- ism.
If I may engage in a often misused "pious phrase" - Amen!
Carl Rooker
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth_@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3943F071.F74FF40@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> Jim Upchurch wrote:
>
> > Stephen Bayzik
> > > Jim Upchurch wrote in message >
in
Nor do they care to. They only search the Scriptures to attempt to find
fault with it, completley disregarding the message, context, history, and
common rules of language needed to understand any writing. It is not a
matter of intellect, but of will.
>
> ===>What "agreement"? If there had been such an "agreement", Saul/Paul
> would not complain so much about the men "from James" interfering with
> his Gentile Christian congregations.
>
> Libertarius
>
Acts 15 is the agreement (not to set aside the regulations, but to not force
them upon the new Gentile believers. Those Jews who chose to abide by them
were welcome to.)
AC 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some
time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my
lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart,
showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he
did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified
their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on
the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been
able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus
that we are saved, just as they are." NIV
12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But
when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the
Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision
group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their
hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
GAL 2:14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of
the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you
live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force
Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
GAL 2:15 "We who are Jews by birth and not `Gentile sinners' 16 know
that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be
justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by
observing the law no one will be justified. Gal.2:12-15 NIV
The agreement stated that all (Jew and Gentile) were saved only by the Death
and Ressurection of Jesus Christ. Paul's argument came with those who would
try to force the Gentiles believers to partake in Mosaic Law for salvation.
Even though the Circumcision party was associated with James, he was part of
the agreement in Acts 15.
(James speaking at the Jerusalem counsel);
AC 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it
difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should
write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from
sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in
the synagogues on every Sabbath." NIV
So, those who were arguing with Paul did NOT have James athority to do so.
God Bless
Carl
Libertarius
===>That is funny. James clearly sent out
emissaries to investigate
the activities of Saul/Paul, Saul/Paul himself
refers to those men as
"some from James" and speaks disrespectfully about
the apostles in
general, preaches the OPPOSITE of that
"agreement", i.e. that it is
OK to eat anything you wish so long as it is with
good conscience, and
to top it all, he develops an entire cult BASED ON
BLOOD, including
the requirement to eat the flesh an drink the
blood of his savior
god Christos.
Libertarius
Yellowbird
> > > > Self-existent, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Creator"
> > > >
> > >
> > > Immutable--Heb. 1:12, 13:8 Yes, not subject to change any more.
> >
>
> I see Scripture embellishment is one of your spiritual gifts.
>
> There is no reason to add "any more" to the interpretation apart from
trying
> to push an unscriptural doctrine.
What am I trying to push? And where does this scripture state that Jesus is
almighty God, or that he is Jehovah?
> > > Self-existent--John 1:4, 5:26
> >
> > "all things were made through him" RSV "as the Father has life in
himself,
> > so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." RSV
> >
>
> Sorry. Whenever I try to produce this list from memory I usually goof
> somewhere.
What "list"?
> It should have been John 1:5 "In him was life..."
John 1:3 says "in him was life..." Yes. He had life. All things were made
through him, as verse 3 says.
> > So the Father made all things through the Son, and has GRANTED the Son
to
> > have life in himself." None of this proves "self-existence". Notice
the
> > Father is not "granted" anything ever, he does the granting, he alone is
> > God.
> >
>
> Almost. He alone is Father. He is also eternally Father. Therefore,
> whatever is given to the Son is given eternally, since He begets the Son
> eternally.
"He" who? And there are no scriptures to prove these assertions. Given is
still given. The giver has more authority than the recipient.
> It does not diminish the Nature of the Son because His Person is Eternally
> *Begotten.*
Sounds more like Eustathius than Scripture.
> Besides that, *given* or not, the Son possesses the same, self-existent
life
> of
> the Father. 1 John 1:2
The NASB has cross-references for this scripture (1 John 1:2), one is John
10:28, the other is John 17:3, where it refers to the "eternal life" that
Jesus gives to his followers. It has nothing to do with the length of his
existence.
> It is futher noted that it is *given* because human nature does not
> naturally possess self-existence. So just as there was a time that the
> eternal Son "took on" human nature, that human nature was *given* self
> existence. John 10:18
Sounds more like Eustathius than Scripture. God is not some schizoid in two
places at once.
> > > Omnipotent--John 5:19
> >
> > How does this prove omnipotence? Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that he
> cannot
> > do a single thing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father
> doing.
> > That doesn't sound like an "omnipotent" being to me. Also notice verse
> 30:
> > "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my
judgment
> > is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent
me."
> >
>
> You're so insistent on interpreting the Bible according to your theology
> that you blindly stumble right over the very point that needs to be made.
>
> Christ's power is NOT limited by *ability,* but by *permission,* if you
> will.
You're so insistent on interpreting the Bible according to your theology
that you blindly stumble right over the very point that needs to be made.
Almighty God needs no one's "permission" for anything.
> John 5:19 plainly declares that "what things soever he (the Father) doeth,
> these also doeth the Son likewise."
>
> If you think that this proves inferiority, then I ask you, "Is the Father
or
> the Spirit any different? Can they do anything that is not willed by the
> Sovereign God?"
The Father IS the Sovereign God. And if I told you that I do nothing on my
own, I do only what I see someone else doing, would you think we were the
same person?
> > > Omniscient--John 2:24, Matthew 11:27, John 21:17
> >
> > This is really stretching it. The Greek word "pas" does not always mean
> > "everything". Strong's concordance puts it this way:
> >
>
> <snipped rabbit trail discussion of what *all* can mean.>
>
> Is it really stretching it? Despite the interesting word study you carry
> out, you fail to show that Christ's knowledge was limited in the instances
> that these passages were referring to.
And you fail to show that it was UNlimited.
> I know, you would have us believe that since His human nature--as Head of
> the Church
> (Ephesians 1:20ff.)--didn't know the hour of His own return (at least
while
> He was here on earth) this proves that He wasn't omniscient.
>
> But I wasn't speaking of His human nature.
Neither is Ephesians. Jesus is the Head of the congregation even now. And
Ephesians was written when Jesus was in heaven, thus divine, not human.
None of this proves "omniscience." And Jesus isn't two people, that would
make your trinity a quadrinity, he is one person in one place at one time.
Bruce Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament- Its Transmission, Corruption
and Restoration" gives us this interesting statement: "Jesus' statement,
'But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father only' (Matt. xxiv. 36 and Mark xiii. 32), was
unacceptable to scribes who could not reconcile Jesus ignorance with his
divinity, and who saved the situation by simply omitting the phrase OUDE O
UIOS[nor the Son]." p.202
Why would the scribes have to tamper with God's Word then, why not just say,
it wasn't talking about his human "nature"?
> If we took an honest and studious look at Matthew 11:27, we must answer
the
> question, "What does One, who completely knows the incomprehensible
Father,
> not know?" (John 10:15)
"just as the Father knows me and I know the Father" I know my husband and
he knows me, but does that mean that I know EVERYTHING he knows? Or that I
am the same age as him? Or vice versa? Of course not.
> > > Omnipresent--John 3:13, Matthew 18:20, 28:20
> >
> > "omnipresent"? You mean physically present? Or just "with" in spirit?
> And
> > the fact that Jesus descended from heaven proves nothing about being
> > "omnipresent".
> >
>
> I might've guessed that you'd be using a translation that left out the
last
> phrase of John 3:13, "even the Son of Man which is in heaven."
Does it have to be a particular translation? Here are some examples:
NIV "the one who came from heaven"
NASB "but He who descended from heaven"
RSV "he who descended from heaven"
KJV "he that came down from heaven"
Which do you prefer?
> It seems to be the latest craze to view the unfaithful translations that
the
> Church buried in a cave, or hole in the ground as more accurate than the
> translation that the Spirit preserved in the Church throughout the ages.
Huh?
> Why do you keep trying to make this physical? I'm not trying to claim
that
> His human nature was God.
Why do you keep trying to separate this into physical/not physical? None of
these scriptures distinguish whether it applies to this or that "nature",
that is your own invention. Scriptures written about Jesus before or after
he came to earth must be assumed to apply to him while divine unless stated
otherwise. Either Jesus is God or he isn't. Rev. 3:12-14 was uttered by
Jesus while most certainly in heaven. Here Jesus refers to MY GOD no less
than four times, and is referred to as the "beginning of the creation of
God."
The prayer at Acts chapter 4 was uttered to God and repeatedly referred to
"Your holy SERVANT Jesus" and this was most certainly when Jesus was in
heaven also.
So all the protests of "that doesn't apply to his divine 'nature'" are
invalid. How many times does the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ have to say
he has a God, is God's servant, and is created before you believe him?
> > > Creator--John 1:3, Colossians 1:16,17
> >
> > Ah, that word "pas" again! For an example: Jesus said literally "the
fig
> > tree and all trees" when clearly it was NOT "all" trees.
> >
>
> What does this have to do with John 1:3?
Everything., because "all" ("pas") does not always mean every single
thing. Since Jesus is clearly identified as the beginning of God's
creation, and since he is the one THROUGH whom creation was accomplished,
then he is the "only begotten" direct creation of God. Everything else was
created through him.
>
> The divinely-inspired author makes it perfectly clear what he means by
> "all."
>
> "and without him WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE."
Of course.
> > And Colossians 1:16, 17 shows that as God's firstborn (read: born
first)
> > all things were created THROUGH Jesus.
> >
>
> You have committed a fatal exegetical error! Please reboot your lexicon
and
> try again.
>
> First, "firstborn" does NOT read "born first." Jacob and Judah were
> considered "firstborns."
Yes, and they weren't God. And WERE part of creation.
>
> Second, "firstborn" in v. 18, does not read "born first." It would make
no
> sense if it did.
It most certainly does make sense. He is the first one to be resurrected
from the dead to immortal heavenly life, thus the "firstborn" from the dead.
>
> Third, you haven't established that this applies to His Divine nature
> instead of His human nature--who is the second Adam. (1 Corinthians
> 15:20-23; 45,47)
Colossians was written AFTER Jesus returned to heaven. So it would be
reasonable that this applies to his divine "nature". While in heaven he
certainly was divine. And Paul makes no mention of this applying only at a
particular time, to a particular "nature", and he uses the PRESENT tense,
not the past (i.e. when Christ was human). How much plainer can it be?
> Fourth, "protótokos" can be translated "First Begetter," or "First
Parent,"
> by simply moving the accent mark to the next omicron--"prototókos."
> Considering that accent marks were not used in Paul's day, it is a strong
> possibility that the latter usage is meant, since the very next phrase is,
> "FOR by him were all things created..."
"First Begetter," or "First Parent" is a desperately made-up meaning that
has absolutely NO support anywhere in the scriptures. Since "firstborn" is
a PARTITIVE WORD (it is a part of the group to which it is compared), it
unequivically places Jesus "within" creation, a "part" of it. Jesus is a
part of creation.
To support your argument, you would need to prove that the TA PANTA "all
things" has the same reference as "all creation" PASHS KTISEWS.
The "by" here is not direct agent, it is intermediate agent (Greek: EN), or
an adverbial. For example, see Hebrews 1:2 where God spoke EN Jesus. God is
the source. Jesus is intermediate agent. In Col 1:15, God creates EN Jesus,
or, God is the creator and Jesus the agent. Col 1:15 plainly places Jesus as
a creature.
> > Rev. 3:14 leaves no doubt as to what "firstborn" means when it refers
to
> > Christ as: "the Beginning of the creation of God." NASB
> >
>
> Hardly. The "arche" of the Creation of God. Same word that we get our
word
> "architect" from.
And "arche" is used by John more than 20 times, and it always means
"beginning" NOT "beginner". It's also the same word that we get
"arche"angel from. (like Michael) He wasn't God, was he? Yet this word
clearly applied to him.
In the Septuagint, "arche" usually denotes temporal beginning (also in the
prepositional expressions found in the NT). Occasionally it is a stock
phrase for primeval time. "Arche" is used for "position of power" of the
office of high priest, "person who exercises influence" and at Luke 20:20 it
denotes the official power of the Roman procurator. In the Septuagint, the
sun is said to be "ruler" (arche) of the day. That does not make the sun
the Creator of the day, it is merely in a position of "rulership".
> Furthermore, as above, in taking the meaning you are trying to place upon
> this phrase, you haven't proved that this refers to His Divine nature, and
> not His human nature which was certainly foremost with regard to the
> physical creation in the eternal counsel of God.
How much plainer can it get? Revelation, like Colossians, was written AFTER
Jesus' return to heaven, thus of course applies to his divine "nature". And
the apostle John makes no mention of this applying only at a particular
time, to a particular "nature", and he uses the PRESENT tense, not the past
(i.e. when Christ was human).
You are making up artificial rules to try to disqualify the Bible's obvious
statements concerning the fact that Jesus Christ is a created being.
> > > And here's "eternal" and "judge" thrown in for free:
> > >
> > > Eternal--Proverbs 8:22,
> >
> > Jesus was the beginning of "the LORD's" (Jehovah's) way. So Jehovah
> > God was there first.
> >
>
> Jesus was possessed by YHWH at the "beginning of YHWH's way." YHWH God
was
> not there before Wisdom. Are you trying to suggest that there was a time
> that YHWH was without wisdom?
You're so insistent on interpreting the Bible according to your theology
that you blindly stumble right over the very point that needs to be made.
The LORD(Jehovah) brought me forth as the first of his works NASB
The LORD(Jehovah) created me at the beginning of his work. RSV
Jesus, as wisdom personified, was created first. And this scripture was
penned centuries before Jesus took on human "nature".
>
> If so, creating Wisdom would, by definition, be an unwise act.
Explained above.
> > Micah 5:2, This Hebrew word "owlam" (Strong's number 5769) can mean
> > eternal, and can also mean "ancient" "long ago" etc. So yes, Jesus has
> > existed longer than anything else except God himself.
> >
>
> Swing and a miss.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't referring to "of old." I was
referring
> to the phrase "from everlasting" which is an expression used by the
> Scriptures to refer to eternity past. (Psalm 90:2, 93:2)
It is the same Hebrew word I spoke of earlier, `oh·lam' . Lexicographer
Gesenius defines it as meaning "hidden time, i.e. obscure and long, of which
the beginning or end is uncertain or indefinite." (A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by E. Robinson, 1836, p. 746)
Accordingly, expressions such as "time indefinite" (Ps 25:6), "indefinitely
lasting" (Hab 3:6), "of old" (Ge 6:4), "a long time ago," "of long ago" (Jos
24:2; Pr 22:28; 23:10), and "long-lasting" (Ec 12:5) appropriately convey
the thought of the original-language term.
`Oh·lam' does not in itself mean "forever." It often refers to things that
have an end, but the period of such things' existence can be said to be 'to
time indefinite' because the time of their end is not then specified. For
example, the 'indefinitely lasting' Law covenant came to an end with Jesus'
death and the bringing in of a new covenant. (Ex 31:16, 17; Ro 10:4; Ga
5:18; Col 2:16, 17; Heb 9:15) And the 'indefinitely lasting' Aaronic
priesthood similarly came to an end.-Ex 40:15; Heb 7:11-24; 10:1.
Another Hebrew term, "adh", denotes unlimited future time, everlastingness,
or eternity. So if "eternity" or "everlasting" was meant this word would
have been used. It wasn't.
> > John 1:1,
> >
> > Yes, Jesus existed with God in the heavens and has been around longer
than
> > anything or anyone except God himself.
> >
>
> Looks like you are going to have a hard time proving it, though.
I have proved it abundantly throughout this post. And NONE of these
scriptures you speak of mention the holy spirit. "Trinity" means "three"
does it not?
>
> When was the immutable, eternal Father without the Son? When was He
without
> His Wisdom, Speech (John 1:1), and Power (1 Corinthians 1:24)?
What about His Foolishness and His Weakness? (1 Corinthians 1:25)? What
does any of this prove?
> > Hebrews 7:3
> >
> > Do you believe Melchizedek is God also? This scripture is drawing a
> > parallel between his dual kingship-priesthood and that of Christ. No
> > genealogy is listed for Melchizedek, he was "fatherless, motherless,"
etc.
> >
>
> You're treading water.
>
> Your question has nothing to do with Hebrews 7:3. Melchizedec's
priesthood
> *pictures* the reality of the Son of God's priesthood, which is eternal.
>
> No, I don't believe Melchisedec is God also. I believe he is a type of
the
> Son of God. That type, Hebrews tells us, includes not having beginning of
> days. Thus the reality.
So you actually believe Melchizedek is eternal? That's the conclusion you
would have to make if you insist that this scripture is trying to illustrate
the length of someone's existence. If you look at the context, you will see
that the scripture is talking about priesthood authority, which according to
the flesh, always came through the tribe of Levi. Jesus was in the royal
tribe of Judah, so he did not receive his priesthood according to fleshly
descent, but by direct appointment by God, as Melchizedek did. Also
Melchizedek was also a King as well as High Priest, thus also foreshadowing
Jesus.
Also a priest is NEVER God. He may be God's representative, but he is NOT
God. The fact that such pains are taken to show Jesus is a priest
additionally proves that he is not Almighty God.
> > > Judge--John 5:22
> >
> > Notice Jesus was GIVEN the authority to judge. Given by whom? The
> Father,
> > who is God.
> >
>
> GIVEN to His human nature which does not naturally possess the authority
to
> judge--being finite. So, the everlasting Father gives this authority to
the
> Son of man.
Yes, Jesus received this authority from God.
> > > > "Jehovah is my shepherd; I shall not want." Psalms 23:1 ASV
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me where this scripture declares Jesus to be YHWH.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Please tell me where this scripture declares the Father to be YHWH.
> >
> > It doesn't say either. It says that Jehovah is a shepherd. Nothing
more,
> > nothing less.
> >
>
> Aha. So we can stretch verses to assume that they mean "the Father" is
> YHWH, but this verse cannot imply anything more?
Isaiah 64:8 says what it says, no "stretching" necessary, and no
"implication" necessary, either. You originally brought up Psalms 23:1 to
try to prove something in a roundabout way about shepherds. I don't need
to prove anything with Psalms 23:1. It says "Jehovah is my shepherd". If
you get "Jesus is Jehovah" out of that, I think that's "stretching" verses.
> > At Isaiah 64:8, Jehovah is called "our Father" and at Psalms 23:1,
Jehovah
> > is called "the shepherd." So the Father is Jehovah and he is a
Shepherd.
> >
>
> The Father? Or, the everlasting Father? Certainly a father, but which
> one--since it can't be both.
Why not? "Everlasting" can mean starting at a finite point and continuing
forever, it does not have only one meaning. Just as more than one person is
called "Father". Adam was our father originally, and would have continued
to be to eternity here on earth, (thus being our "Eternal Father") if he
hadn't sinned, but would that have made him Almighty God? Of course not.
> Jesus is much more directly called "the Chief Shepherd," than you can
> manufacture *proof* that the Father is called "the shepherd."
Look, the scriptures plainly say that Jehovah is the Father (Isaiah 64:8)
and that he is a shepherd (Psalms 23:1). I don't have to "manufacture"
anything. The scriptures are quite plain, the proof is there, but
nevertheless, what is this supposed to prove? Jesus is also called the Son
of God, Redeemer, Christ, Messiah, Rabbi, Firstborn...and the Father is
NEVER referred to by any of these terms. Neither is the holy spirit. There
are also terms that are used to refer to the Father that are never used to
refer to Jesus. All this proves is that they can't be the same person,
since there are terms used unique to each.
> > Also, there were men called shepherds, in the Hebrew Scriptures as well
as
> > the Greek. At Eph. 4:11, overseers in the congregation were to serve as
> > shepherds.
> >
>
> Yes? And you think the Bible stammers in its meaning when it definitely
> uses the term, "Chief Shepherd?"
Of course not. It is you who attach such great importance to this term. I
have no problem with God's Word referring to Jesus as a chief shepherd. If
imperfect humans can be referred to as shepherds how much more so the Son of
God? However, being "chief shepherd" does not make him Almighty God.
> Does Hebrews try to indicate that Jesus is just another biblical type?
Most certainly not. All the Biblical types point to him. He has authority
greater than anyone except God himself
(1 Cor. 15:27, 28)
But, he is STILL not Almighty God.
>
>
> > > However the polarity (to borrow Dale Grider's phrase) of 1 Corinthians
> > 8:5,6
> > > does NOT place Christ with the false gods and singular humans. He is
> > placed
> > > in conjunction with the person of the Father as the One True God.
> >
> > I never said Christ was placed with false gods or humans. "Polarity"
has
> > nothing to do with it. God's Word puts it this way:
> >
> > "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came
> and
> > for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
> all
> > things came and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6 NIV
> > Quite clear. The Father is God, all things came from him. Jesus Christ
> is
> > Lord THROUGH whom all things came. (No mention of the holy spirit.)
> >
>
> The Father (as you insist) is also said to be an agent THROUGH whom are
>all things--Romans 11:36--if we consistently apply your meanings to such
>words.
This word translated "through" is "dia" which is different than the one at
Colossians 1:15, 16, which is "en". This word "dia" can also be translated
"by" and quite a few translations render this scripture "Because from him
and by him and for him are all things..."
>
> What part of Lord--LORD of Lords (Revelation 19:16), if you will--denotes
> inferiority to God? Only the Supreme Being can be LORD of Lords.
Where does the Bible say that only the Supreme Being can be Lord of lords?
Nebuchadnezzar was "king of kings" but he wasn't Almighty God, was he?
> So Paul assigns Supreme Being to the Father, and Supreme Ruler to the Son.
> What is the contradiction between the two? Is the Father anywhere in
> Scripture said to be LORD of the LORD of Lords?
He doesn't have to be, in view of how Jesus addressed him at Matthew 11:25.
He wasn't talking to himself, some divine "nature" part of himself in
heaven. Obviously, he was referring to a separate person, and his superior.
Again, you are making up these word games and attempting to use them to
invalidate the crystal clear Word of God.
>
> (And if you say Psalm 110:1, I'll just respond again, where does it say
that
> the Father is YHWH? And then we can have our Isaiah 64:8 discussion all
> over again.)
Look, I'm just not going to play these circular word games with you. If you
wish to deny what God's Word says at Isaiah 64:8, that's your business, I'm
just the messenger.
> > > If He is simply to be viewed as a true god, you destroy the whole
> argument
> > > of 1 Corinthians 8.
> >
> > Only if you are trying to read the trinity into it. And Jesus is a
> > "representation" of Jehovah, we worship THROUGH him. (Heb. 1:3, 1 Tim.
> 2:5)
>
> Jesus is the visible form of YHWH (Numbers 12:8). He is not a
> "representation."
Who else does this scripture mention besides Jehovah and Moses?
> Since you brought Hebrews 1:3 up, please explain how Jesus can be the
> "brightness of His [YHWH's] glory," when YHWH doesn't give His glory >to
another (Isaiah 42:8)?
Look at the context of Isaiah 42:8. Jehovah was warning ancient Israel
against graven images. Images do NOT bring any glory to God. Jesus does.
In fact, Jesus actually encouraged his followers to seek glory from God.
(John.5:44) And at John 8:50 Jesus said he was NOT seeking glory for
himself, so he can't be Jehovah.
> > If it is valid to serve/worship Christ as a true god,
> > > yet not God by nature, in our effort to serve/worship God Himself, why
> > can't
> > > we serve/worship God through Moses, or the Pope, or other people or
> things
> > > who are to us in the place of "elohim"?
> >
> > Because none of those are spoken of as "one mediator also between God
and
> > men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim 2:5
> >
>
> Ah. So you do make a difference between Jesus and all the other *elohim.*
Of course. Only Jesus is "firstborn" of creation, he is the oldest in
existence next to God himself. He is the absolute best mouthpiece Jehovah
God has ever privileged with this responsibility. Only Jesus is our
Mediator and High Priest, no other.
> > [´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting
> > greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God."-The American
Journal
> > of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.
> >
>
> So should all *elohim* be viewed this way--"being equal to The Great God"?
"Equal" in what way?
>
> Our quotes are quotes are quotes.
Huh?
> > > Water, of course, can be viewed as a single raindrop, or the mass of
the
> > > ocean. Moses is one of the *drops* of the *ocean* of those that are
> > "called
> > > gods," but not God by nature.
> > >
> > > In that sense, too, the Hebrews were able to comprehend of plurality
in
> > > unity in the being of God (Deuteronomy 6:4) while the manner and
> > >enumeration of that plurality was not made clear to them.
> >
> > It's STILL not clear, even to Trinitarians. It's all a great "mystery."
> > And there is nothing in Deut. 6:4 to indicate that Jehovah was anything
> > other than one God. Quite simple. And there is no plurality mentioned,
> in
> > fact, it is stressed that God is One.
And we are not made in "water's" image, we are made in God's image. Water
is not even a living breathing thing, thus an unrealistic comparison.
> Did any (understanding) Trinitarian ever say there was more than one God?
No such thing. And three is three, not one, whether you admit it or not.
> Furthermore, *echad* denotes composite unity.
Of course. Unity does not make these two the same person.
> > (Not three) And since Elohim was
> > used to refer to non-triune gods (like Dagon, the god of the
Philistines)
> > you just can't read plurality of numbers into Deut 6:4. It says what it
> > says, Jehovah is one God, made up of one person or being.
> >
>
> Just like man, right?
Do you know anyone that is more than one person?
> > > > Where do the scriptures distinguish between "person" and "being"?
And
> > > > please explain how this same word refers to Joseph's(lords) "person"
> and
> > > not
> > > > "being".
> > > >
> > > > Scripture please. :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Was not Moses a human *being*? (Exodus 2:2; Exodus 4:2, 10, 11)
> > >
> > > Was every single human made a 'god' to Pharaoh? (Exodus 7:1)
> > >
> > > Therefore, it was the *person* of Moses, not Aaron or anyone else,
that
> > was
> > > called "elohim."
> > >
> > >
> > > The same applies to Joseph.
> >
> > Still don't get it. A person is a being.
> >
>
> Okay, let me explain it more simply then. Two persons can be the same
> being.
No they can't.
>Three persons can be the same being.
No they can't.
>Why, even a father and a son
> can be the same being without either being being less of a being than the
> other person.
Huh? Circular. And unscriptural. And impossible.
> They can be human.
Ah! Something that makes sense! :-)
>
> And if they are married, they can be one (echad) flesh.
Of course. But they are still SEPARATE persons, beings, and of different
ages (usually) and one has more authority than the other, and also probably
more knowledge than the other.
> > > > Jesus was still referred to as God's servant after his death and
> > > > resurrection, thus while in his divine nature.
> > >
> > > Scriptures please that He was in His divine nature *only* when He was
> > > referred to as God's servant.
> >
> > "And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your
> > bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend
> Your
> > hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your
> holy
> > servant Jesus." Acts 4:29,30
> >
> > When did this prayer take place? AFTER Pentecost 33 C.E. when the
> ascended
> > Jesus poured out the holy spirit and established the Christian
> congregation.
> > And since "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor.
> 15:50)
> > then this prayer was uttered when Jesus was FULLY divine.
> >
>
> Corruptible flesh and blood. "All flesh is not the same flesh..." (1
> Corinthians 15:39) There is a difference between that and
> spiritual/incorruptible flesh and blood. "So is the resurrection of the
> dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption." (1
> Corinthians 15:42) What excludes "the man, Christ Jesus?" Have we no
more
> mediator?
Huh?
> What exactly is Christ the firstfruits of (1 Corinthians 15:23) if He does
> not have an incorruptible bodies in heaven?
Who said he didn't have an incorruptible body in heaven? He is the
firstfruits of those who died and were resurrected to heavenly life.
> Christ was always FULLY Divine. Even in the grave (Romans 1:4).
This scripture says nothing about Jesus being "divine" while in the grave.
If He
was
> not, He could not have borne the infinite wrath of God against sin.
Unscriptural. It was a perfect fleshly human that sinned, not a divinity.
Jesus became fully human while on earth.
> Guess what? Last Peter knew, he saw His body going up to heaven!
>
> Fancy that.
Until "a cloud caught him up from their vision". Acts 1:9 Here is what
happened after that:
"even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so
no longer". 2 Corinthians 5:16 NAB
> > But it doesn't prove that He was no longer human. See above.
> >
> > Jesus was still on earth when he said this. Not so with the scripture
in
> > Acts.
> >
>
> See above.
Dealt with above.
> > It doesn't, because this is a full human (Although perfect) calling out
to
> > "my God". The "divine nature" god/man hybrid part is an invention of
men.
> > Jesus was divine ONLY while in the heavens.
> >
>
> Not so. He was "Son of God" even in the grave. (Romans 1:4)
How does being the Son of God make him divine while on earth? Adam was also
considered to be "Son of God" Luke 3:38
> He was fully human, and fully God. If not, He could not have paid for our
> sins.
Unscriptural. A perfect human life was paid to ransom perfect human life.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..." Equal value.
> > So Jesus was in heaven being Almighty God, while at the same time a
human
> on
> > earth? That still doesn't explain it.
> >
>
> Why not?
Because we're made in God's image, and I don't know about you, but I
certainly can't be in two places at once. (Although it would be nice.) If
that's the case, then he prayed to himself, publicly talked to himself,
resurrected himself, (thus, we have no hope because he never really died)
and he is not some schizoid in two places at once.
> > > Who said His Divine nature died? And if it did, for what reason? It
> > wasn't
> > > Divine nature that sinned.
> >
> > Jesus did not die as a "divine" being. He became fully human on earth,
> > although a perfect human. All this "divine nature" stuff just clouds
the
> > Bible's very simple statements concerning this matter.
> >
>
> What happened to His Divine nature, then?
His "divine nature" was not some separate entity, the Bible nowhere says
this. He was created divine. He voluntarily obeyed his Father and was born
on earth fully human (although perfect), thus no longer divine. When he
died, he was dead, which is the opposite of life. He existed only in
Jehovah God's memory while dead. Then, he was resurrected (re-created) in
divine form once again. His complete and total death was necessary to pay
the price for our sins, if any part of him continued alive, then we are
without hope.
>
> If it is immutable as the Bible claims (Hebrews 1:12, 13:8), where was it
> when Jesus was "fully human?"
This scripture doesn't say any particular "nature" was "the same yesterday,
today, and forever" it says JESUS was. What ever kind of body he had,
whether spirit form or physical, he was still the same person.
> > > What prevented His Divine nature, as God, from raising His human
nature
> > (the
> > > only nature that died) from the dead?
> > >
> > > Furthermore, if Christ was not truly God as well as man, who
> sustained
> > > the world for the three days that He was dead and completely gone?
> > (Hebrews
> > > 1:3)
> >
> > God did. Because Jesus is not God. He completely died, as in not
alive.
> > God resurrected him, thus proving he is not God.
> >
>
> I'm sure it proves it to you, but I notice you give absolutely no
>Scriptural proof.
Please think. There are abundant scriptural examples of resurrections I'm
sure you can call to mind. (Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the widow's son..)
In each of those cases, did some other part of the dead person keep living
and resurrect the dead part? No. The dead are completely powerless to do
anything, that's why we call it DEAD. (Eccl 9:5,6 10) Think what "dead"
means. It is the OPPOSITE of "alive". If there is any part of the person
living, then they are NOT dead, they are alive.
> > > > On the other hand, if he was not
> > > really
> > > > dead, his pretended death would not have paid the ransom price for
> > Adam's
> > > > sin. But he did pay that price in full by his genuine death.
> > >
> > > Your strawman really falls down easily, doesn't it?
> >
> > What "strawman"?
>
> Your insinuation that we think only part of Jesus' body died.
First of all, who's "we"? And it doesn't really matter to me which Jesus
you think "died" all that really matters is that if he didn't really
completely DIE (as in not alive) then our faith is useless, our sins are not
paid for.
Please tell me your religious persuasion, you already know mine. :-)
> I was agreeing with you. It is a very ridiculous position.
>
>
> >Jesus completely died. God raised him. And if Jesus
> did
> > not completely die, we are without hope. One who dies is not God.
>
> Mostly agree. For certain, that nature that dies is not God.
Unscriptural. There are NO scriptures that say Jesus is a "split" person,
one part can die while the other part lives. He was divine. Then he became
human. He died, as the animal sacrifices of Israel that foreshadowed his
sacrifice. (Eccl.3:19,20) When he was human, he was fully human. After his
COMPLETE death, Jehovah God resurrected him to heavenly life once again.
> > Dividing
> > him up so that one part can "die" while the other lives is unscriptural.
> >
>
> Who is dividing Him up? Scripture clearly states that Christ has two
> nature--one immutable (Hebrews 1:12) and one human (Luke 24:36-40).
Hebrews says nothing about "nature" it says JESUS is the same. Those who
go to heaven to rule with Jesus are still the same people, are they not?
Yet that does not prove they have two "natures". And the fact that Jesus
could materialize bodies at will that could eat does not prove that he has
two "natures" either.
What about the angels that visited Lot? Did they have two "natures" or were
they simply spirit creatures that could materialize fleshly bodies?
Genesis 19:1-3 says that these angels ate a meal at Lot's house. Yet they
were still the same: angels, as Scripture refers to them.
> > > Besides, the death of the Christ I worship did not merely pay for
> "Adam's
> > > sin," it paid for "our sins, also." 1 Corinthians 15:3, 1 John 2:2
> >
> > "Our sins" RESULT from "Adam's sin" Romans 5:12
> >
>
> But everyone is culpable for his *own* sins. Ezekiel 18:4
Amen! And the scripture you cite says that our soul dies.
> Therefore, I need cleansing from, not only my corrupt nature, but also my
> sins. Psalm 51:9
Amen!
> > read the context of Isaiah 43:11, Jehovah was showing that the gods of
the
> > nations were worthless, none of them had power to save.
> >
> > Besides, Othniel the son of Kenaz is referred to as "savior" and no one
> > would argue that he is Jehovah. (Judges 3:9)
> >
>
> Your seminar responses miss the point. While the context does include
idol
> gods, the point of the last half of the book of Isaiah is that YHWH
Himself
> is the Ultimate Savior. It is YHWH that saves with an "everlasting
> salvation" (Isaiah 45:17) That is what makes Othniel so tangential to
this
> discussion. And it is in this regard that YHWH looks and finds no one
that
> can bring salvation of this kind. Therefore, He Himself clothes Himself
> with righteousness, and vengeance. His own arm brings this salvation
> wherewith Israel is saved. (Isaiah 59:16, 17; 63:5) Jesus Christ saves
> with an everlasting salvation. Therefore, Jesus Christ is called "God our
> Savior" several times in the NT. (Titus 2:13, Jude 25)
Titus 2:13 can be translated "the great God and our Savior", and this is
the translation that most agrees with the grammar of the sentence. For more
info on what scholars have to say about this scripture, please go to
http://franklin.oit.unc.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?visit=b-greek This is NOT a JW
site.
Jude 25 speaks of TO "God our Savior" and THROUGH "Jesus Christ our Lord"
> Hmm. He can do everything the Almighty Father doeth (John 5:19). How
does
> this exclude Him from being Almighty?
This scripture does NOT say Jesus can do EVERYTHING the Almighty does. If I
told you that I could do NOTHING of my own accord, but ONLY what I saw
someone else doing, I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent
me, would you get the impression that I was somehow two people?
"for God is not a God of confusion but of peace"...1 Corinthians 14:33
> (On a side note, it is interesting that you keep limiting Isaiah's usage
of
> *god* strictly to idol gods when you wish to expand it to "true" or
> "reflective" god in 9:6.)
The context clearly determines the meaning. For example, when Moses was at
the fiery thornbush, it was Jehovah's angel appearing in the midst of it.
(Ex. 3:2) But in verse 4, it says God called to him from the thornbush, and
in verse 6 this angel speaking for God said "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob...."
Was this angel a "false god"?
> > > None of these verses show that YHWH is the Father.
> >
> > Never said they did. Isaiah 64:8 is the one that shows that.
>
> Does it really? A father, yes. The Father?
"The Father" is what it says (at least in the 30 Bible translations that I
have)
> > > To the way you insist He accomplishes salvation, etc. *through* other
> > "true
> > > gods." Isaiah 43:11, 14,15; 44:24
> >
> > I never said he accomplished anything through other "true gods" because
> > there aren't any. Any other gods are either false or a reflection of
the
> > true God Jehovah. Hebrews 1:3
> >
>
> Reflective gods, then. Does Deuteronomy 32:39 apply any less?
Most certainly not. In fact, if anything, Deut. 32:39 proves that God is
not some "composite" God. And there is still no one equal in authority with
him. As I asked above, was that angel in the fiery thornbush a "false" god?
After all it DID say, "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob...."
You are absolutely correct! Because the "trinity" ISN'T in the Bible to
begin with, it is an invention of men.
Carl Rooker
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:394BAF10.26F57751@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
>
> ===>That is funny. James clearly sent out
> emissaries to investigate
> the activities of Saul/Paul, Saul/Paul himself
> refers to those men as
> "some from James" and speaks disrespectfully about
> the apostles in
> general, preaches the OPPOSITE of that
> "agreement", i.e. that it is
> OK to eat anything you wish so long as it is with
> good conscience, and
> to top it all, he develops an entire cult BASED ON
> BLOOD, including
> the requirement to eat the flesh an drink the
> blood of his savior
> god Christos.
>
> Libertarius
See how he (Libertarius) distorts the Bible to his arguments.
1. Jesus Christ instituted the Communion (the ceremony whereby the wine is
called the Blood, and the bread called the Body of Christ), not Paul.
28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the
forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the
vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's
kingdom." Matt 26:28-29 NIV
MK 14:23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they
all drank from it.
MK 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of
the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of
God." NIV
LK 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This
cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NIV
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is
real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and
I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the
Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the
bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
he who feeds on this bread will live forever." John 6:54-58 NIV
And, just to make the point clear that He (Jesus) did not mean literal flesh
and blood...
JN 6:61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to
them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to
where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. NIV
It was Jesus Himself that instituted this ceremony, not Paul.
Also, even though Catholics believe that the wine and bread become the Blood
and Body of Christ, the chemical composition of what goes into the mouth is
ALWAYS wine (or grape juice) and bread.
Here again, Libertarius distorts the facts in an effort to slander the
Gospel.
IF anyone wants a good laugh at these distortions, read 1 Corinthians
chapter 8, and find out what Paul really says about what we can and cannot
eat.
Your Distortions are getting more pathetic by the post.
God Bless
Carl
P.S. And, by the way. Here is what Paul really preached about the ceremony
of the Communion;
1CO 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The
Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had
given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do
this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the
cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever
you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and
drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
Libertarius
> "Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
> message news:394BAF10.26F57751@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> >
> > ===>That is funny. James clearly sent out
> > emissaries to investigate
> > the activities of Saul/Paul, Saul/Paul himself
> > refers to those men as
> > "some from James" and speaks disrespectfully about
> > the apostles in
> > general, preaches the OPPOSITE of that
> > "agreement", i.e. that it is
> > OK to eat anything you wish so long as it is with
> > good conscience, and
> > to top it all, he develops an entire cult BASED ON
> > BLOOD, including
> > the requirement to eat the flesh an drink the
> > blood of his savior
> > god Christos.
> >
> > Libertarius
>
> See how he (Libertarius) distorts the Bible to his arguments.
>
> 1. Jesus Christ instituted the Communion (the ceremony whereby the wine is
> called the Blood, and the bread called the Body of Christ), not Paul.
===>Nonsense. If that were true, he would have learned it from his
disciples, not from "revelation" (he "received it from the Lord").
The Gospel writers, even among them only the
"synoptics", copying one another, simply made an episode
out of it for their "biography". See 1 Cor. 11, where the idea
is FIRST introduced. It is an adaptation of the Mithraic
blood ritual. The author of "John" makes a totally different story
out of it, in which Jesus, EARLY in his career, makes the Mithraic
pronouncement that his followers must "eat his flesh and drink his
blood", as you are also quoting below.
> 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the
> forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the
> vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's
> kingdom." Matt 26:28-29 NIV
> MK 14:23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they
> all drank from it.
> MK 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
> many," he said to them. 25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of
> the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of
> God." NIV
>
> LK 22:20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This
> cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. NIV
>
> 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
> raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is
> real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and
> I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the
> Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the
> bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but
> he who feeds on this bread will live forever." John 6:54-58 NIV
>
> And, just to make the point clear that He (Jesus) did not mean literal flesh
> and blood...
===>No difference. No self-respecting Jew would even THINK
about drinking the forbidden BLOOD, really or symbolically.
And I believe Jesus and his followers WERE self-respecting
Jews, referred to as "ZEALOTS OF THE LAW"!!!
>
> JN 6:61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to
> them, "Does this offend you? 62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to
> where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing.
> The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. NIV
>
> It was Jesus Himself that instituted this ceremony, not Paul.
===>It is patently obvious that Jesus DID NOT initiate any such
ritual.
> Also, even though Catholics believe that the wine and bread become the Blood
> and Body of Christ, the chemical composition of what goes into the mouth is
> ALWAYS wine (or grape juice) and bread.
===>No one to my knowledge claimed otherwise.
> Here again, Libertarius distorts the facts in an effort to slander the
> Gospel.
===>TRUTH is not "slander".
> IF anyone wants a good laugh at these distortions, read 1 Corinthians
> chapter 8, and find out what Paul really says about what we can and cannot
> eat.
>
> Your Distortions are getting more pathetic by the post.
>
> God Bless
> Carl
>
> P.S. And, by the way. Here is what Paul really preached about the ceremony
> of the Communion;
>
> 1CO 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The
> Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had
> given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do
> this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the
> cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever
> you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and
> drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
===>Right. This describes the ORIGINAL introduction of that ritual into
the Christos Cult. Just like his new-fangled "gospel", this also did NOT
come to him by way of the disciples and apostles of Jesus.