Defending the Trinity
- Thread starter Wormwood
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Floyd
You may consider this a game.
The God I know commands to be worshipped with sincerity and in truth (1 Cor 5:8; Josh 24:14KJV) and while I believe there are non-essential doctrines those salvic teachings concerning His Headship and Hieratical arrangements are essential in understanding John 17:3.
If this is your way of moving on which it appears so I will leave you with a number of thoughts to consider.
You and Wormwood as Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, if this is so, everything in Scripture which applies to God must necessarily apply to him.
However this results in many contradictions as follows:
•Visible despite being invisible (Col 1:15)
•Seen but “never seen” (John 1:18, I Timothy 6:16)
•Tempted even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13)
•“Made like his brothers and sisters in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17), yet not really made like them at all, since he is God and does not possess “fallen nature”
•“Died” on the cross despite being eternal (I Timothy 1:17)
•“Raised from the dead” (Matthew 28:7) and “released from the pains of death” by the Father (Acts 2:24), though he never truly died
•Omnipotent yet dependent upon the Father’s power for his miraculous works (John 14:10)
•Omniscient yet lacking knowledge (Matthew 24:36)
•Simultaneously “God” and “not-God”
These present to you Floyd problems of logic, forgetting all the fanciful terminology you and wormwood like to use at the heart of your teaching are things irreconcilable with the Word of God. Honest Trinitarians, which I am yet to find in this forum, call these problems “paradoxes”, unexplainable paradoxes which are left in the realm of the mysterious.
Does this make your teaching acceptable?
I suggest warning bells should sound that if a paradox is acceptable in your mind then you must conclude these contradictions are apparent and testify to their error.
I conclude here that all the contradictions which we are yet to consider a fraction of them in this thread are not merely apparent; they are real and insoluble.
Thanks for your contribution though brief it was.
Purity
You may consider this a game.
The God I know commands to be worshipped with sincerity and in truth (1 Cor 5:8; Josh 24:14KJV) and while I believe there are non-essential doctrines those salvic teachings concerning His Headship and Hieratical arrangements are essential in understanding John 17:3.
If this is your way of moving on which it appears so I will leave you with a number of thoughts to consider.
You and Wormwood as Trinitarians believe Jesus is God, if this is so, everything in Scripture which applies to God must necessarily apply to him.
However this results in many contradictions as follows:
•Visible despite being invisible (Col 1:15)
•Seen but “never seen” (John 1:18, I Timothy 6:16)
•Tempted even though God cannot be tempted (Matthew 4:1-11; cp. James 1:13)
•“Made like his brothers and sisters in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17), yet not really made like them at all, since he is God and does not possess “fallen nature”
•“Died” on the cross despite being eternal (I Timothy 1:17)
•“Raised from the dead” (Matthew 28:7) and “released from the pains of death” by the Father (Acts 2:24), though he never truly died
•Omnipotent yet dependent upon the Father’s power for his miraculous works (John 14:10)
•Omniscient yet lacking knowledge (Matthew 24:36)
•Simultaneously “God” and “not-God”
These present to you Floyd problems of logic, forgetting all the fanciful terminology you and wormwood like to use at the heart of your teaching are things irreconcilable with the Word of God. Honest Trinitarians, which I am yet to find in this forum, call these problems “paradoxes”, unexplainable paradoxes which are left in the realm of the mysterious.
Does this make your teaching acceptable?
I suggest warning bells should sound that if a paradox is acceptable in your mind then you must conclude these contradictions are apparent and testify to their error.
I conclude here that all the contradictions which we are yet to consider a fraction of them in this thread are not merely apparent; they are real and insoluble.
Thanks for your contribution though brief it was.
Purity
Thank you Wormwood.Wormwood said:
Context of Phil 2:
- Paul is drawing your attention to the mind of Christ “have this mind among yourselves”
- This mind which was developed in Christ is to also be in yourselves
- So the context here is a disposition of mind and NOT the nature of God or the nature of Christ.
- Paul in Phil 2 makes the connection utterly explicit – he is contrasting the first Adam (who sinned by reaching for equality with God, and fell) against the last Adam (who obeyed by humbling himself, and was exalted). The first Adam brought death; the last Adam brought life. Both are called “Son of God” and both are members of the literal creation, but only the “last Adam” offers salvation through a “new creation"
Anything outside of this context wormwood is mere wresting of Scripture.
TBC.
Nothing in your last point exists in Philippians 2. You use quotes as if those terms are in the chapter. Very untrue and misleading. Show me anything related to this first Adam, last Adam concept in that chapter please.
The first three points are right and Paul draws on the emptying Christ displayed in being in very form God becoming in the form of a serving and dying man as the ultimate example for the Philippians of what humbling oneself looks like and how such humility is rewarded.
So, the focus is on Philippian behavior, but the teaching example given is that of a divine Christ humbling himself to the point of dying on a Roman cross.
The first three points are right and Paul draws on the emptying Christ displayed in being in very form God becoming in the form of a serving and dying man as the ultimate example for the Philippians of what humbling oneself looks like and how such humility is rewarded.
So, the focus is on Philippian behavior, but the teaching example given is that of a divine Christ humbling himself to the point of dying on a Roman cross.
Floyd
You may consider this a game.
No Purity, I don't. I was referring to your game! The Sacred scriptures are sacrosanct to me; and have been for a very long time. They are The Word who was "made flesh"! I would never knowingly corrupt or change it; as you are doing!
As I have said (and others), you change the sacred text, or add to it, to further your objectives; which is at least not honourable; and at worst Satanic!!
When you defacto defended Satan; and attribute wrong meanings to verses, to me, you are doing the work of the great enemy!
Together with your at least haughty attitude, mixed with sarcasm and derision of others who resist you, as I said earlier, these are not Christ like approaches; they are signals of the enemy, which I have experienced many times since I became the Lord's man (Christian).
Some would say who I have met in the past, that you are "possessed" by an enemy spirit. However; only the Lord knows the truth of that; but I do urge you to re-examine your understandings of the Sacred Text.
Your knowledge of the Word is clearly extensive; which is why I kept asking you to "spell out" without ambiguity your meanings. Instead you kept adding a new layer of mystery to your statements, together with sarcasm to the respondent!
If you are the Lord's, you know that He will not be content with your pronouncements, as now is the gathering speed towards the end of this Age.
Please do not reply to this post if it is the usual!
Floyd.
You may consider this a game.
No Purity, I don't. I was referring to your game! The Sacred scriptures are sacrosanct to me; and have been for a very long time. They are The Word who was "made flesh"! I would never knowingly corrupt or change it; as you are doing!
As I have said (and others), you change the sacred text, or add to it, to further your objectives; which is at least not honourable; and at worst Satanic!!
When you defacto defended Satan; and attribute wrong meanings to verses, to me, you are doing the work of the great enemy!
Together with your at least haughty attitude, mixed with sarcasm and derision of others who resist you, as I said earlier, these are not Christ like approaches; they are signals of the enemy, which I have experienced many times since I became the Lord's man (Christian).
Some would say who I have met in the past, that you are "possessed" by an enemy spirit. However; only the Lord knows the truth of that; but I do urge you to re-examine your understandings of the Sacred Text.
Your knowledge of the Word is clearly extensive; which is why I kept asking you to "spell out" without ambiguity your meanings. Instead you kept adding a new layer of mystery to your statements, together with sarcasm to the respondent!
If you are the Lord's, you know that He will not be content with your pronouncements, as now is the gathering speed towards the end of this Age.
Please do not reply to this post if it is the usual!
Floyd.
1. The Christian here reading this with an open mind will ask themselves “How am I to emulate Christ’s example, if he was in nature, very God & man? How can Christ/Paul ask of me to have this like-mindedness and reach the levels of humility when I am not God?Wormwood said:
2. If Christ was God then the humility being taught cannot be related to those who were to “have this mind and disposition”. If you believe this then Christ was not like his brethren in every way, he was very different - you would make Paul a liar (Heb 2:17NET).
3. In relation to the word “status”, this certainly was a clumsy way of highlighting the context of morphe in that passage. I was hoping after showing you the "servant" aspect in the text of Phil 2 you would put 1 + 1 together = status?
4. The meaning of the expression “in the form of God” is where you base a significant weight of Trinitarian meaning, true? Clearly it does not provide for all the intricate combinations found in Trinitarian theology. That is clear for all to see. The word morphē is used only three times in the New Testament, always with reference to the Lord Jesus Christ. Two of them are in this passage; the other is in Mark 16:12: “After that (Jesus) appeared in another form unto two of them.” The word for “transfigured” or “transformed” in Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2, Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18 contains morphē as a root. It is the double use of the word in the Philippians passage which should help you to interpret it correctly: He who was in the form of God took the form of a slave. It implies more than the fact that the Lord was of man’s nature; he accepted the "status" of a servant, the word having no reference to nature or even shape in this context. The passage is a hymn about what the Voice from heaven had declared at the Lord’s baptism. In clear reference to Psalm 2:7, “Thou art my Son; this day I have begotten thee”, God declared, “This is my beloved Son” (the Hebrew for “beloved” and “only son” is the same word). And in equally clear reference to Isaiah 42:1, “Behold my servant(Jesus) … in whom my soul delighteth”, He added, “In whom I am well pleased”.
It makes no sense in God being well pleased with Himself nor can it be reconciled how God can be a servant to Himself.
Scripture is clear that Christ’s divine (mind) status derived from his direct descent from God his Father; his status as servant he (Jesus) chose in obedience to his Father’s will. When his disciples saw him transfigured before them, the visage that was so marred more than any man’s shone with glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
As previously discussed but here once again reiterate for your benefit; the difference between the first and second Adam is the second Adam was “the” Son of God (begotten of the Holy Spirit)though born of a woman. It was his sonship which became the source of his mockings throughout his life. The Lord’s temptation in the wilderness, literal yet representative of all the temptations of his earthly ministry, centred upon the fact that, Son of God though he was (“If thou be the Son of God …”), he had the status of a servant: he emptied himself as Paul has it in our passage, not of a pre-existent divinity but of the privileges of a Son of God. Thereby glorify his Father’s name, as God Himself attested in the Voice from heaven (John 12:28). And the Father “glorified it again” when He raised His Son from the death to which his obedience had brought him—an emptying of himself indeed!—and raised him to His right hand. But there was more: the Father gave him the the Name which he had glorified! For so Paul declares: “That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The honour of God came by Jesus recognising Him as Father and attributing the Name to the Son, it is enhanced by the glorifying of the Son, even as the Lord himself had said: “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.”
NT Christology is based upon OT principles.Wormwood said:
Isn't this the premise to which all true Christianity is founded upon? The first Adam and the Second Adam? Nowhere is this more clear than in the apostle Paul’s use of OT terminology in the context of Jesus’ identity and saving work on the cross. Paul refers to Jesus as “firstborn of creation” (Colossians 1:15) and “the last Adam” (I Corinthians 15:45), using concepts derived from Genesis. Surely you must comprehend Phil 2 is a revelation of the triumphant victory of last Adam over that of the first?
In the garden of Eden, Adam was not able to resist the allure of the promise of being as God: he "grasped" at equality with God. This you must accept else you are incorrectly handling the word of Truth.
That is why Paul is speaking about the mind in Phil 2.
1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 † Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus
Jesus was of a different mind altogether: he did not seek equality with God; rather he “took upon him the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:6, 7). The eating in Eden brought death, whereas life comes through eating the “flesh of the Son of man” (John 6:53). In the consummation of all things—as John saw in vision—there will be a tree of life “bearing twelve manner of fruits”, and its leaves will be “for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2).
Adam and Eve were filled with shame and fear when they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and their eyes were opened. Cleopas and companion were filled with joy on having their eyes opened when Jesus was made known to them in the breaking of bread (Luke 24:31, 35).
In like manner your eyes need to be opened to a deeper context in Phil 2 which at present you are not willing to accept.
The first Adam brought death the last life.
But how did Jesus Christ overcome the flesh and its temptations?
Phil 2 Jesus "did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped"
Trinitarian authors who reference the first Adam in Philippians 2
1. Andrew Knowles (The Bible Guide):
Jesus put all his status and glory aside. He didn’t cling to it or grasp at it, as Adam and Eve did when they tried to become equal with God.
Question of Andrew/Wormwood: Why would Jesus grasp at something which is already in his possession and has no likelihood of losing? You would only grasp for equality if it was something not yet imparted through favour or merit.
2. Bonnie Thurston (Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians A Literary and Theological Commentary
A second interpretation of the first movement rejects the notion of pre-existence (of Christ) in the hymn and instead sees it as the story of the earthly Christ, in contrast to Adam in Genesis (1:26–27; 3:1–5). Adam was “in the image of God,” but responded to the serpent’s appeal by snatching at the opportunity to enhance his own status
, to “be like God.” His decision resulted in his losing what he had, in becoming a slave to corruption and death (cf. Wisd. Sol. 2:23–24). Christ is the Last Adam, who did not choose as Adam had, but instead freely accepted the consequences of Adam’s choice. “He made himself powerless” (ekenōsen), for which God exalted him.Statement: Christ's decision to assume the position of slave over son is likened to Luke 15:17,18,19,20 (thought Christ did no sin! he willing choose servitude over sonship). A slave has no power to excise accept that provided by the will of a master. Trinitarians forces God to empty Himself of power which has nothing at all to do with the text (and where this power goes who knows?) the context of Phil 2 is one of status; from the authority of a Royal Son to that of a slave.
Purity
Note: Here is another oxymoron which defies logic and reason:
Author: Thomas C. Oden (The Word of Life)
Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (harpagmon, “forcibly retained,” Phil 2:6). Recall that the essence of Adam’s disobedience had been a presumptuous grasping for equality with God. Oppositely, Christ did not grasp self-assertively at the divine majesty, for he already possessed it. :blink:
I know what you are thinking...."How can there be the "temptation" to assert ones Sonship with Power & Authority (divine majesty) if you already possess it? Its like lusting after a possession you already own.
Did Adam possess anything before he was formed of the dust? No
Did Christ possess anything before he as begotten? No
Thomas C Oden (a Trinitarian theologian) has totally lost the emphasis on Christ humility and sacrifice and removed his sufferings in five words.
Purity,
I appreciate you sharing your views as well as inquiring more about Trinitarian beliefs in light of Scripture. I think this is the only way that those who trust in Jesus Christ can grow and hopefully come to a unified and respectful relationship, even though there will always be disagreements over a variety of matters. I do believe this particular topic is critical as it deals with the very nature and purposes of God in the world. However, it is nice to be able to ask questions back and forth and challenge each other in areas where we feel the position lacks Scriptural merit. I hope you will find there is an abundance of Scriptural merit to the position of the Trinity
As for point #3, it will be helpful for me when you define a word or use quotes that you use precise definitions or explain how or why you are using quotes. Otherwise, it appears as if you are trying to change elements of this often technical discussion.
Also, you seem to be deliberately skipping a step in the kenosis in Philippians 2. Jesus "was in very form God" AND THEN "became in very form man" AND THEN "became in form of a servant" WHO THEN "was obedient to death, even death on a cross." It does NOT say that Jesus was made in very form man who was deemed the "status" of God's Son who then became a servant who was obedient to death.
So, according to your view, who exactly was Jesus and what does it mean to be the "only begotten Son." Was Jesus just a man supercharged by the Holy Spirit from birth, kinda like one of the prophets? "Very form God" would not appear to be the type of title given to a Spirit-filled man or even an angel.
Sorry this was so long. Lots of important points to look at.
I appreciate you sharing your views as well as inquiring more about Trinitarian beliefs in light of Scripture. I think this is the only way that those who trust in Jesus Christ can grow and hopefully come to a unified and respectful relationship, even though there will always be disagreements over a variety of matters. I do believe this particular topic is critical as it deals with the very nature and purposes of God in the world. However, it is nice to be able to ask questions back and forth and challenge each other in areas where we feel the position lacks Scriptural merit. I hope you will find there is an abundance of Scriptural merit to the position of the Trinity
Yes, this is why Trinitarians also believe Jesus was "fully human" and why Arianism was rejected early in church history. None of these issues you have conflict with Trinitarian teaching.
As for point #3, it will be helpful for me when you define a word or use quotes that you use precise definitions or explain how or why you are using quotes. Otherwise, it appears as if you are trying to change elements of this often technical discussion.
Well, I hope you can see from my OP that Phil. 2 is not the only passage that teaches a divine Christ. There are tons of them and I hardly scratched the surface in my OP for the sake of space.
These arguments would make great sense against Arians or modalists, however, Trinitarians are neither. Again, Jesus was completely and fully a human being and there are three persons with one essence in the Triune God.
I understand that this is how you understand these passages. However, I would argue that these passages do not teach this as you have presented it. For instance, John begins his Gospel with the concept of Christ's preexistence. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." John presents Jesus as the Word that created all things, gives light to all men and is full of divine grace and truth. These concepts permeate the entire Gospel and if you do not recognize what he is doing in chapter 1, the rest of the Gospel will not be understood correctly in my opinion.
Also, you seem to be deliberately skipping a step in the kenosis in Philippians 2. Jesus "was in very form God" AND THEN "became in very form man" AND THEN "became in form of a servant" WHO THEN "was obedient to death, even death on a cross." It does NOT say that Jesus was made in very form man who was deemed the "status" of God's Son who then became a servant who was obedient to death.
So, according to your view, who exactly was Jesus and what does it mean to be the "only begotten Son." Was Jesus just a man supercharged by the Holy Spirit from birth, kinda like one of the prophets? "Very form God" would not appear to be the type of title given to a Spirit-filled man or even an angel.
Well, I would argue that it is a stretch to try to go to such great lengths about the Second Adam in interpreting this particular passage of Scripture. However, if this passage is a play on the garden of Eden as some commentators suppose, this actually strengthens the argument for Christ's divinity. In essence, it is thought that this hymn is contrasting the mind of Jesus to that of Adam as Adam sought to extend himself beyond his humanity in order to seize that which was not his (becoming like God) for his own vain glory whereas Jesus willingly released his grasp on what WAS his (the very form of God) to embrace humanity. In any event, the point is moot. These are background details that may give fuller information on the hymn, but it certainly does not negate (but only enhances) the actual teaching of the hymn that Jesus was in the form of God and took on the form of humanity.
Well, I think Paul is talking about the mind because he wants the Philippians to be "of one mind" in the way the present the Gospel in a unified manner in Paul's absence. Regardless of the background, it doesn't contradict the immediate context which is quite sufficient to communicate what Paul is trying to say.
Like I said above, I do not reject this concept. I think it is clearly portrayed in Romans 5. However, this is not clearly spelled out in Philippians 2 and therefore should not the overriding focus of the passage. The focus is about the witness of a church in Paul's absence and his desire to have them unified in one mind as they hold out the word of life to a dark world, and it is also a "Thank you" letter for their gifts and news about Ephaphroditus. Again, if the background of the hymn does deal with Adam, it is not explicitly drawn upon other than perhaps as a contrast of mind in that Adam was man who sought arrogantly to become God whereas Christ was God who humbly embraced the form of man.
The Greek word in this structure is likely referring to utilizing something for selfish purposes or holding onto something one already has rather than striving for something one does not already possess.
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
Sorry this was so long. Lots of important points to look at.
I disagree with ALL of your itemized list.Wormwood said:
1. Jn 8 he declares God is his Father, and this makes him King of the Jews, 'equal to elohim' and legitimate 'elohim.' "Equal to God" you are interpreting as BEING God, which is not the case at all, the BEING GOD only needing a 'to be verb' not an EQUAL concept at all.
2. Col 2:9 is a pentecostal verse
Phillippians 2: 6
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[SIZE=.75em]7 [/SIZE]But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
[SIZE=.75em]8 [/SIZE]And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
[SIZE=.75em]9 [/SIZE]Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
[SIZE=.75em]10 [/SIZE]That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
[SIZE=.75em]11 [/SIZE]And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
...obvious juxtaposition between God and Jesus here...
Gal 1:1
[SIZE=1.25em]1 [/SIZE]Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
Well, the better argument from your end would be that Jesus is not termed MAN by Paul here, and my response would be that he is in fact a glorified man at this point, legitimate elohim, yet not YHWH Elohim.
But to refute you and your argument, I would have to say that yes, God gave the man, his glorified son the authority to call someone 'apostle' and 'send' him just as Jesus was sent by his own Father.
Rom 9:5 can be seen YHWH Elohim is being spoken of here, not the Son.
Jn 1 Prologue the Word is what God thinks and speaks, and pre-spoken is the oracle of Messiah, seen beforehand by messianic prophets. V. 14 God SPEAKS the Christ and he manifested in the flesh.
Jn 20:28 Thomas said "My Lord and my elohim," in my view. 5 out of 6 categories of being which are not the one true God.
1 Jn 5:20 again speaking of God and not Jesus...
Heb 1:3
[SIZE=.75em]3 [/SIZE]Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
Being the radiance of His Shekinah glory or Holy Spirit...the image of his royal splendor....and holding up all things by the Father's Word, when he had accomplished the taming of the whole world, sat down at the subordinate right hand of God.
The ONLY reference directly to deity is Mt 28:19 which I believe is an insert. Along with 1 John 5:7-8.
2 Cor 1:21-22 is the true subordinate and relational designation of your vaunted TRINITY, the Father being the God of us, the Son being his annointed and cherished creation, and the Holy Spirit being His presence invisibly among us.
[SIZE=.75em]21 [/SIZE]Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
[SIZE=.75em]22 [/SIZE]Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
2 Cor 13:14
[SIZE=.75em]14 [/SIZE]The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
Odd that Jesus is always called "lord" and God is "God" and the Holy Spirit is the Shekinah of God, eh brother?
1 Pet 1:2
[SIZE=.75em]2 [/SIZE]Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
...Jesus is not called "God" here either, sir. And I think the Bible is very careful not to. And I think the Bible is pretty disappointed in you sir.
1 Cor 12:4-6
[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
...could be read your way, or mine, Jesus and God both inhabit in my view the Spirit sent by the Father in the name of his Son.
Eph 4:4-6
[SIZE=.75em]4 [/SIZE]There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
[SIZE=.75em]5 [/SIZE]One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
[SIZE=.75em]6 [/SIZE]One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Em sir, I think this passage supports me, not you. Paul knew of more than one Lord obviously as he asks the NAME of the "Lord" who blinded him. Showing an obvious comprehension of more than one potential "lord." So then this "one lord" theory isn't really true is it? He must mean something else in v. 5 in other words.
I am tired. Maybe get to your other numerical mistakes. Maybe get moderated out of here, what? Never can tell...
4. Ignatius: Em, the problem was that the second and third gen fathers in the faith got ELOHIM mixed up with YHWH Elohim...the main thing is that the Hebrew language HAS NO TERM for God as we know this term means. The closest word the HEBREWS had for "God" was 'elohim' and this term has 5-6 categories of beingness, of beings in the heavens and outer worlds. And earth too.Wormwood said:
5. Don't quote Psalms to me, unless you want to go down this road. And most of your whimsical theories of Jesus' own divinity will go down the tubes. The Messiah-king took on a broader meaning among Jews, and David for one fit into this term as well as the eventual Messiah. Also the pre-existence of the Son by a Jew was meant IN CONTEXT of the WORD or PLAN of YHWH Elohim, that which was not yet spoken, yet known by prophets as the Word of God yet to come.
6. Jesus is never called "YHWH" and never will be except by nodders. Who know nodding.
He said he came "in the name of God" and this does not make his name God.
His name was Jesus, just saying.
7. No mountains of verse needed thank you. I will however mention a MOUNTAIN of singular verbs and pronouns attendant to the One True God. More than 10,000 of these first mentioned by Anthony Buzzard, titan of the Abrahamic faith.
Oh there WAS no number seven. You left it on the evil number SIX?? Aren't gematriatic are ye?
Or he meant that ultimate 'goodness' is the category of God only.Secondhand Lion said:
Yeah, that's the ticket. I believe him.
Wormwood,Wormwood said:
I also agree this topic is critical, though not in relation to nature as Trinitarian theology purports.
The nature of God is clearly defined in the Word (1 Tim 6:16; John 4:24). The Bible presents distinct differences between God and Jesus which includes nature and status. In nature, Jesus Christ was a man and in status he was a Son of God & Son of Man, though as we have firmly established Phil 2 reveals his status as a servant.
I appreciate how a Christian, like yourself, has been trained in Trinitarian theology all his life will struggle with Jesus being completely of our nature, though sinless – who through obedience overcame temptation and was highly exalted by the Father.
It takes much reflection upon the Gospel records of his perfect life, coupled with the many Biblical passages which deny that he was God, to come to a firm understanding and faith in the real Christ.
It is far easier to suppose that he was God Himself, and therefore automatically perfect. Yet this view demeans the greatness of the victory which Jesus won against sin and human nature.
He had human nature; he shared every one of our sinful tendencies (Heb. 4:15), yet he overcame them by his commitment to God's ways and seeking His help to overcome sin. This God willingly gave, to the extent that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" through His very own Son (2 Cor. 5:19).
I sense in our discussion you have accommodated the first Adam Second Adam context to Phil 2 as have many theologians. I now wish to build on this context to show how Phil 2 cannot be referring to a god who emptied himself of all that is God to become man.
1. The trinitarian idea is found to be contradictory to the Gospel message found in Christ Jesus:
- "God also hath highly exalted" Jesus and given him a name" (Phil 2:9)
This shows that Jesus did not exalt himself – Yahweh his Father did it. It follows that he was not in a state of being exalted before God did this to him at his resurrection. To assume so destroys the meaning of his exalted position.
- The whole process of Christ's humbling of himself and subsequent exaltation by God was to be "to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:11).
God the Father is not co-equal with the Son. Consider all that is to the Glory of the Father (Num 14:21) The creator is glorified in and through the created and not the creator.
2. The second point is going back to the context of Philippian’s; Paul does not just start talking about Jesus 'out of the blue' so to speak. As proven He refers to the mind of Jesus in Phil. 1:8,9. The actual context is established early on in the letter. Back in Phil.1:27 Paul starts to speak of the importance of our state of mind. This is developed in the early verses of chapter 2: "Being of one accord, of one mind...in lowliness of mind...look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus..." (Phil.2:2-5). Paul is therefore speaking of the importance of having a mind like that of Jesus, which is devoted to the humble service of others. The verses which follow are therefore commenting upon the humility of mind which Jesus demonstrated, rather than speaking of any change of nature.
From your overall response I “sense” you are beginning to digest the reality of this interpretation and its valuable exhortation to believers today.
3. Jesus was "In the form of God". I have shown that Jesus was of human nature, and therefore this cannot refer to Christ having a Divine nature. Nowhere in the Bible does Paul or any Apostle speak to a divine nature for Christ both while he was in the flesh or a pre-existent Christ
That "form" (Greek 'morphe') cannot refer to essential nature is proved by Phil.2:7 speaking of Christ taking on "the form of a servant". He had the form of God, but he took on the form of a servant.
Understanding how Paul is using the word morphe is essential as the nature of a servant is no different to that of any other man. In harmony with the context, we can safely interpret this as meaning that although Jesus was perfect, he had a totally God-like mind, yet he was willing to take on the demeanour of a servant.
Some verses later Paul encourages us to become "conformable unto (Christ's) death" (Phil 3:10). We are to share the 'morphe', the form of Christ which he showed in his death. This cannot mean that we are to share the nature which he had then, because we have human nature already. We do not have to change ourselves to have human nature, but we need to change our way of thinking, so that we can have the 'morphe' or mental image which Christ had in his death.
The Greek word 'morphe' means an image, impress or resemblance. Human beings are spoken of as having "a form ('morphe') of Godliness" (2 Tim 3:5). Gal.4:19 speaks of "Christ (being) formed in" believers. Because he had a perfect character, a perfectly God-like way of thinking, Jesus was "in the form of God". Because of this, it was not "robbery" for him to think or know that in this sense he was one with God. Jesus did not consider equality with God "something to be grasped at". This totally disproves the theory that Jesus was God. Jesus did not for a moment entertain the idea of being equal with God; he knew that he was subject to God, and not co-equal with Him.
4. Christ "made himself of no reputation", or "emptied himself" (R.V.), alluding to the prophecy of his crucifixion in Is.53:12: "He poured out his soul unto death". He "took upon himself the form (demeanour) of a servant" by his servant-like attitude to his followers (John 13:14), demonstrated supremely by his death on the cross (Matt 20:28). Is.52:14 prophesied concerning Christ's sufferings that on the cross "his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men". This progressive humbling of himself "unto death, even the death of the cross" was something which occurred during his life and death, not at his birth. We have shown the context of this passage to relate to the mind of Jesus, the humility of which is being held up to us as an example to copy.
Phil 2 must speak of Jesus' life on earth, in our human nature, and how he humbled himself, despite having a mind totally in tune with God, to consider our needs.
5. If Christ was God in nature and then left that behind and took human nature, as trinitarians attempt to interpret this passage, then Jesus was not "very God" while on earth; yet trinitarians believe that he was. This all demonstrates the contradictions which are created by subscribing to a man-made definition such as the trinity.
6. Finally, a point concerning the phrase "being in the form of God". The Greek word translated "being" does not mean 'being originally, from eternity'. Acts 7:55 speaks of Stephen "being full of the Holy Spirit". He was full of the Holy Spirit then and had been for some time before; but he had not always been full of it. Other examples will be found in Lk.16:23; Acts 2:30; Gal.2:14. Christ "being in the form of God" therefore just means that he was in God's form (mentally); it does not imply that he was in that form from the beginning of time.
In the Masters service
Purity
I think it’s wise to deal/develop one passage at a time, rather than moving to another to infer incorrect meaning.Wormwood said:
Maybe an old Irish joke will send this message home:
“Paddy stopped cutting the hedge as the big car drew up beside him and an English visitor enquired,
"Could you tell me the way to Balbriggan, Please?"
Paddy wiped his brow.
"Certainly, sor. If you take the first road to the left? no still that wouldn't do? drive on for about four miles then turn left at the crossroads? no that wouldn't do either."
Paddy scratched his head thoughtfully.
"You know, sor, if I was going to Balbriggan I wouldn't start from here at all."
You will never find the destination to truth if you start from Trinaterian theology (here).
Purity
Looks like I'm batting 1.000!
Well, seeing as how there is only one God, I don't know how someone can claim to be equal to God without being "God." In any event, Jesus does not say "elohim" he says "I am" (ego eimi) which is a direct reference to the meaning of God's name YHWH that he gave to Moses (and the meaning was not lost on the Jews which is why they tried to stone him).
I disagree. The point of these texts is they intermingle Father, Son and Spirit in ways that would be blasphemous if Jesus was not God. All three are active roles in which God strengthens and saves us. If only Father and Holy Spirit should be classified as "God" then why is Jesus named among them in random order and is listed under this "name" (not names).
This is nonsensical. Its like saying, "God is always referred to as "God" and not "Holy God. Therefore, the Holy Spirit must alone be Holy." However, Jesus is called both "Lord and God." Elohim is not used in the New Testament. This argument is also ridiculous. Elohim is the Hebrew word for "God." Simply because it is not specifically the name of God YHWH, does not mean its a lesser class of God. There is only one God. There is not YHWH and then lower gods called "Elohim." God in Genesis 1 is "Elohim." So are you saying the God who created the universe was not YHWH?
The point of this verse and others in this section was pointing out the regular use of the formula "Father, Spirit and Son" used interchangeably. You are tearing down straw men in your attacks on arguments I never made. I never said this verse referred to Jesus as God.
So...there is more than one potential "Lord" that Paul could be referring to as the "one Lord?"
Are you saying you have been moderated out of here before? As you can see from other posts, I do not moderate people out for disagreeing with me. If you are moderated out, it wont be simply because you disagree with me...and it likely wont be by me at all. You are welcome to your opinion and defending your views so long as you can do in a fashion that abides by the site rules you agree to.
Nodders who know nodding. Cute. Anyway, I would encourage you to read the verses again, as well as the verses that speak of YHWH that are quoted in reference to Jesus in the NT. I assure you that is not nodding.
I suppose those who look for reasons to reject something will find it, even if it is as silly as the number of points in a post.
Why do you believe these to be an interpolation? There is zero textual variants for Matthew 28:19. Is there a reason you believe this to be the case other than you don't like the teaching? The only variant for 1 John 5:7-8 espouses even further Trinitarian language in the Textus Receptus which is not included in my quote (as it is likely not original). In sum, there is absolutely no evidence that either of these passages are an interpolation.
____________________________________________________________________
Purity,
Again, you seem to not be grasping the concept of "three persons" in the Trinity. Jesus did not exalt himself as Jesus is not the Father. I am not a modalist. This is like the fourth time you are making this claim. You are barking up the wrong tree.
I am not sure what reality you are talking about. Yes, it is possible the background of this potential hymn may have ties to contrasting Jesus with Adam. My point was this is not Paul's primary emphasis (and he likely did not even have this thought in mind at all) nor does such an interpretation detract from what Paul actually teaches about Jesus in the form of God becoming the form of man. If anything, as I said previously, this understanding would enhance the divine nature of Christ as it contrasts it with Adam (Jesus being divine did not cling to his divinity but humbled himself where as Adam being man sought to grasp divinity through selfish pride). Arent you seeing this?
As for your point #3, you are making some great leaps. "Having a form of godliness" and being "in the form of God" are two very different concepts. First, the words are different. Simply because a root of morphe is in a word does not make the words equal. Butter and butterfly both share the word "butter" but that does not make them equal terms. Being formed in the likeness of his death (symmorphizo) is not the same as being the form of his death or being the form of God. You are comparing apples and oranges. One means "to cause to be similar, become like" Jesus dying on the cross while the other means that Jesus possessed all the necessary qualities that make God, God. Yes, we should take on the qualities of our crucified Lord. This is very different from saying I possess all the necessary qualities that make God, God. This is precisely the difference in the language here. Also, as the lexicons state clearly, the lack of object restricts this word from the meaning of "seizing" something. Rather, it carries the meaning of maintaining something. It is not saying Jesus did not "grasp for" equality with God, it says Jesus did not "maintain his grasp on" equality with God. I could quote for you 5 more lexicons that make this very point if you are still unconvinced.
#4. The emptied himself refers not only to being a servant, but being made "in the likeness of men and the appearance of a man."
"ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος” (Philippians 2:7, NA27)
Says who? This is like arguing that its impossible for God to be both loving and just. Or that God can "love the world" and yet condemn the world. If your philosophical view cannot permit this than I think it does not line up with the Bible. If the Bible teaches that Jesus was "God with us" then who am I to say that it is philosophically impossible? "All things are possible with God."
I never said "being" indicated eternity. However, "form of God" implies the qualities of God...which would include an eternal existence. This is also verified in John 1:1, as "the Word was with God and WAS God in the beginning." I take that to mean...the preincarnate Christ was with God and was God...when everything we see began...just as it says.
Well to begin with the Holy Spirit is not a person – its Gods power. Luke 1:35Wormwood said:
Your reluctance to commit to Pauls understanding on this is rather telling wormwood.
Yes it does because you are moving from the mind to nature which is not the content of his message.
Nowhere in the Epistle can you show nature to be the context but I have demonstrated thoroughly that the servant mind is the exhortation being conveyed.
I am not surprised you resist given what’s at stack.
So let me get this straight – you question / doubt the context only to then use it to support your Trinitarian theology?
Am I aloud to say this is weak on your part?
Wouldn’t it be more favourable to your position if you remained in denial of the true context and continue to push the changed nature path, rather than adapting the mind/status context to your doctrine?
At a stretch you need to change the meaning of “form” to mean nature and then change the context of Pauls message to infer God emptying Himself? Hop, Skip and a jump and wallah The Trinity!!!!
Come on wormwood – let’s see a little integrity on your part and not the “maybe it this or maybe that”
The end of this discussion is you cannot use Phil 2 to support you r Christology – it wasn’t Pauls and it certainly wasn’t the Lord Jesus Christs.
Yes but again we keep returning to the context already established.
You now need to move on and demonstrate why Paul who is speaking about a type of mind and status is taken to mean God emptying Himself of all Power to become a man.
You are no longer in a comfortable position where you can question the meaning of words, or root words. The background and underlying message is well established with chapter 1 and the early verses of chapter 2. Now you must wrestle with this context to custom fit your theology.
Is it impossible for God to lie? (Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2)
Is it impossible for God to be tempted? (James 1:13)
Is it impossible for God to look upon sin let alone dwell in its source? Hab 1:13KJV
Is it impossible for God to be a corrupt and dying man who is condemned to death?
Is it impossible for God who is eternal to die? (1 Tim 6:16)
Is it impossible for God to deny Himself (2 Tim 2:13)
So yes there are things which are impossible for God because the one who knows Him understands He is bound by His righteousness otherwise you would believe in a changing God who is unstable in all His ways – such God does not exist except in the minds of ungod
ly men.
One small step
Purity
Wormwood said:
N/t I found my post up the tree.
What's the difference between one and zero? My own blood father told me once: infinity. So then you are either batting zero, or infinity, take your pick.
"I am" binky theology. Not to mock of course, I personally LIKE binkys and nodders. Who know nod much.
The reason is, in the Greek 'ego eimi' is always with an implied complement, [he] when it has no explicit complement. 7 or 8 times in John I THINK it is there. With the Samaritan woman it is usually translated "I am [he]. Since NO REFERENCE to her could be said to be the claim of deity, no matter HOW you try to streeettchchch.
And too, chpt 9 has the expression said by the blind man. No reference to his deity at all, although he was after all blind to most things for a long time.
So then 8:58 the absence of the [he] is a THEOLOGICAL consideration, and not strictly the plain text. Thus confusing the general populace to no end.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit can only be said to be three names for three referents, according to Jewish POV. This would to them imply immediately three Gods. I am personally not thinking Matthew would speak like this, since he was after all a Jew.
I am not sure you understand my point. Thomas was speaking Aramaic in all probability. Their terms are informed by the Hebrew, said in every synagogue of the land in this language. In all probability, Thomas said "My lord and my eli," by which term 'eli' is either God almighty or some OTHER form of 'elohim.' This is because in their language, GOD includes 5 other otherworldly beings, spirits, ghosts, false gods, kings, prophets, angels, cherubim, seraphim, heavenly court, etc.
If this is confusing it is because we look at the term GOD from our own perspective, not from the Jews.'
And the English "God" only includes either A false god, or God Almighty.
There are logical considerations too, as to why Thomas did not MEAN what you think the plain exclamation was:
1) No synoptic thought it was important enough to include. And all synoptics are somewhat disappointed in you, Wormwood.
2) IF in fact the event precipitated the presupposition, OR cemented a previous view that Jesus was God Almighty which was already held by some...
THEN this would naturally be the most numerous and dominant formulae of all, in the NT, "Jesus our Lord and God." And how many times is this repeated, readers?
Exactly zero times, no not infinity times at all. My dad wasn't THAT smart.
3) Well, number (2) above did it for me. Oh, April Fools Day is past?
Otay, I stand down here.
I think the 'one Lord' is the Paraclete among men. This manifestation of YHWH Elohim was then so prevalent, Ananias and Saphirra found out the hard way and were self-struck dead.
Now you can CALL the one Lord "Jesus" but this is because the Holy Spirit came (was sent by YHWH) in his name. He himself said: "I will not leave you alone." This probably implies his PERSON among us in some way, not to speculate like nodders and binkys.
Nice to know, maybe we can get down to deeper levels than most Christian debate forums. Unfortunately this is not the case for me in the past. Some let me stay a few weeks. Some a few months. Some a few days, as soon as they identify JUST HOW radical I am.
But Purity seems to be another radical and maybe a long-timer. WHOO HOO!! Haven't found much to argue with her about neither.
Yeah I'm cute like a button. Press yours yet, brother.
Did I press the wrong one? Wonder what that arrow was for. Anyhow I don't keep score. Must find some to agree with, for that. Purity is a possibility, WHOO HOO!!
Number one reason for moi: All four times a baptism actually occurred in Acts, they were conducted in the name of Jesus, not the Trin Formula.
Number two reason: Eusebius mentions 18 times a short form of Mt 28:~19 without it, before Nicea, and a long form 3x after Nicea. Also he mentions an original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, abeit from other's mentioning it.
I mean E mentions 3x OTHERS mentioning a Hebrew Matthew. Shem Tov Matthew does not have the long form. I don't know what to think about Shem Tov right now.
But why would E mention a short form especially THIS one which EMPHASIZES the singular name of Jesus?
Theophania,
Same as above, Book 5, Chpt 17
“What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, '' Ye shall conquer in my name." For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): "In my name." Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, "God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth." It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, "In my name." He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, "It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations”
Purity,
Paul says - Philippians, if you have the Spirit of God, you need to take on the qualities of the Spirit. Don't be selfish, but think of others first.
Here's an example of how you should think:
Consider Jesus Christ:
I have a meeting. Got to run.
No, the Spirit is a person.
I would say its "your understanding" that I am reluctant (or unwilling) to commit to. In my mind, I understand Paul quite well in this passage.
No, you are allowing the context of the Philippians call to think differently to define the word "morphe" for you. Paul is calling the Philippians to have the mind of Christ and then shows how Christ thinks in his releasing his grasp of the "very form of God" and "taking on the form of human, even a man." Why does the "mind of Christ" that the Philippians are supposed to embrace change how we define "morphe" as Christ possessing the very qualities that make God, God...as this so clearly says? Nature is a meaning of the word morphe? Are you suggesting we allow every word in every sentence to be defined by "mind?" Are you suggesting Jesus took the "mind" of a man as well? You seem very slanted in this text to make it fit your presuppositions rather than just allowing the words to mean what they actually mean.
Yeah, you're right. What do the 100+ Greek language scholars know who interpreted the NIV? It seems you are much more fluent in Koine Greek than they are. By the way, how many years of Greek have you taken?
No, what I am saying is that I don't think this historical background of the hymn (if its a hymn) should provide the overriding interpretation of these verses. However, scholars that do take this focus (which I would disagree with) see it as providing even more emphasis on Christ's divinity. Don't you find it strange that the commentators your point to that view the verse, agree with me and not with you? I assure you its not because they are reluctant to commit to some obvious understanding that apparently only you see.
Well, I've done that a few times. Let me try a more picturesque attempt to see if that helps.
Paul says - Philippians, if you have the Spirit of God, you need to take on the qualities of the Spirit. Don't be selfish, but think of others first.
Here's an example of how you should think:
Consider Jesus Christ:
- He was in very form God but didn't hold on to that and humbled himself to become the form of a servant.
- He became a human who humbled himself to a humiliating death: even on a cross!
- As a result of His humility, he has been given a name above every name!
I have a meeting. Got to run.
Wormwood said:
Spirit is the emanation of a person, not the person itself en whole. LEGION was the spirit of many persons, all probably evil in some diabolical manner or person.
So too the Holy Spirit is an emanation or sent entity of power information and yes person, but not the person itself, holistically.
Proof: the "Holy Spirit" is not a name, never was. OT only mentions 3x in all. The Jewish paradigm of this RADIANCE or SHEKINAH of glory and light is em, a concept of RADIANCE, SHEKINAH and LIGHT.
Secondly no one has ever never ever in Bible prayed to this entity directly or even addressed it directly as person-to-person. Say where. I say neverwhere.
Also you gonna have to give up on the MORPHE argument you have. The word in the Lexicons primarily means OUTWARD APPEARANCE, and this comes nowhere close to inner being or ontology.
The royal splendor of a man who would be King, i.e. King of the Jews is what Jesus eschewed. (Don't know what else he ate). Thus are you and me to behave, as servants and not as King in our own minds. Easy?
Simon Simple is the verse. How are we to be humble like God if God needs not to BE humble? Is this not a righteous action for man, and not God after all?
In the OT God is only HUMBLE in one sense. He MIGHT listen to a pleader down below and grant mercy.
nodhead,
Uh, what? So Jesus was just saying, "Before Abraham was, I am [he]" and he just happened to forget to say the "he" part. Apparently, all the Jews were consumed with "binky theology" since their reaction was to stone Jesus for blasphemy. It seems that the church throughout history, almost every scholar who writes on the topic today and the Jews who were listening to Jesus were not confused at all about what Jesus was saying. So if there is confusion, I think its on your end.
Except that Matthew lists them as the "name" and not "names." Perhaps Matthew spoke like this because he was quoting from Jesus. Matthew, as a Jew, would probably also not be in favor of doing away with animal sacrifice either....however his interactions with Jesus changed a few things.
Yep, gotcha. The Holy Spirit was inspiring John to translate Thomas in a misleading way so that what Thomas probably really meant by perhaps using eliohim was something along the lines of "angel" or "prophet." So, John was inspired to write Theos to interpret this possible Aramaic term that might have been elohim when he maybe should have used something more like prophetos or angelos because that is what he possibly meant. Makes perfect sense. :huh:
Poor John. Most of his Gospel isn't even "important enough" to be included in the synoptics. Not only are the synoptics disappointed in me, they must be in John as well. I'll go ahead and pull that Gospel out of my Bible since you have shown it to be an inferior testimony.
Yeah, all those texts about Jesus being Creator, was God in the beginning, the radiance of God, the exact image of God, one with the Father, Lord and God, the one true God, equal with God don't count because they don't fit your formula. Besides, they all probably used elohim anyway. They may have been referring to a stray cat now that I think about it. Inspiration is tricky that way.
Unfortunately for you, there is not a shred of evidence of your Trinitarian conspiracy theory and the adding of the Trinitarian formula. No serious scholar even notes such a concept in textual studies. This has been constructed by Unitarians who are grasping at straws. Sorry.
Play on monikers is allowed? Okaydokay. Just so I know. HA, funny.
Maybe FROM my end. The thinking end.
But no, I think not, when I do think. You are sort of missing the whole context of Jn 8 en whole. I mean you miss en whole something holy important about John 8.
No, not WHAT John ate about John 8. See he ate I mean the chapter has two witnesses mentioned and two witnesses by Jewish law are needed to testify to Jesus. He says GOD is one and he is one. In Jn 5, these two are John the Baptist, and the Father. Both cases are testifying to a MAN, why....why since God needs no witness to testify to.
Eh? Think about this brother, and the light may brighten your usual nods to premise. Listen up, the argument is moot if Jesus is saying he is God. Two witnesses my patooty. (My other end). God again needs no witness since God is not under the Law He made.
THEN Jesus goes further Jn 8:24 to say the ego eimi claim without the complement: If ye believe not I am [he] ye shall die in your sins.
Wow, NOW they gonna git madder en wet hens, um yeah. Why? Why....why since he is claiming MESSIAH, not God at all. But that as LORD of the Jews, they are gonna have to bow down to him, and if they DON'T then they are sinning and will die in them same sins of UNBELIEF. See your paradigm can't work, why?
Why...since in v. em eh let me find it...
[SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning.
Oh yeah, the very next verse. See NO ONE was being told Jesus is God, NO WHERE is this said in the NT...so where in the world does THIS come from, EVEN THAT I SAID TO YOU FROM THE BEGINNING?
That is to say, if Jesus is God, just WHEN did he ever claim this? From the oddball silence of John, em Luke and Matthew and Mark too? HUH??
Oh so then he goes on to say THEIR father was the Devil since THEY love iniquity and HIS Father is God since HE comes from God in Word, in deed, and in countenance.
So then I disagree Jesus is even saying he is God at all. You can disagree at your own discretion. If your own discretion ain't reasonable though I will point that out.
But Jesus never told Matthew he was God, or he did and Matthew FORGOT when it came down to writing gospel hour. I mean day. I mean days.
Secondly wow, God changed his NAME, now to be three NAMES in one NAME with no pronouncement at all? Oh you are saying Matthew MAKES the pronouncement right here and now. UH.
God's name is YHWH Elohim said in Ex 3 to be for ALL generations, FOREVER. Em I guess forever then ain't forever, then. Oddball NAME though. You really think so?
Who among you are named three names of three referents of the same God I mean human? This ain't exactly KOSHER and I don't even know any yiddish.
No you still didn't get it. Hebrews did NOT have a term "God" as we use it. I repeated myself three times and it hasn't sunk in.
Proof Jn 10 Jesus argument: "Ye are Gods" it is said in the scripture which no canna be broke...translated the SAME INCOMPREHENSIBLE WAY, from 'elohim' in Psalms 82.
Took me more than twenty years to figure out this one. When the light turned on, I said to myself, "I must tell Wormwood, he has to know this one."
More likely they viewed the event as:
1) not of consequence since Thomas' doubting that Jesus was RESURRECTED was not really edifying to the general reader.
2) Since Jn 10 Jesus gives previous DEFINITION to them of the word ELOHIM, then what Thomas said wasn't any different than the pervasive testimony: Jesus was raised up by his God after three days.
I think Purity may be the one to ask about Jesus being the Creator. She seems to know he isn't, and never said he was. And no one else did either.
Besides, the Creation Story don't have him in character within atall. Not even a hint, like Mr. Holy Spirit is....(hovering).
Conspiracies can be well meant and still earth shakingly awry. This is eternal life, that they know HIM (YOU) the Only True God, and Jesus Christ (OTHER HIM, ME) whom YOU have sent.
No man dead or alive can get around this verse of John, PROVING he didn't mean the Prologue as you think.
Not even rollin' in their graves. Which is distinct from rollin' in the aisles.
Ha, well I am glad you caught my joke. Most of them go unnoticed, and I refuse to believe its because I am not funny. I am hilarious. You make me laugh though, unfortunately your theology makes me cry. Plays on monikers are allowed only for me. I think that's in the web rules somewhere.
Let me put it to you like this since you are kinda new to how this language stuff works and you seem to be regurgitating the stuff your Unitarian Sunday school teacher shared with you....
The word Elohim is used 2,596 times in the Old Testament. Lotta elohim...whole lotta elohim.
What is AMAZING is that 2,580 times it is translated as....... wait for it....wait for it....(hear the drum roll)....God/god!
So, something like 99.98% of the time (don't check my math there), elohim refers to a divine being (either referring to a false divine being other cultures worship or the true God).
So, this leaves us with 16 times elohim is translated as something other than God/god...stuff like "heavenly" or goddess, mighty or godly. Pretty much all stuff that is in the same neighborhood as...god/God.
Your confusion lies in the fact that sometimes Israel was referred to as being "gods" (as in that Psalm you love so much).
This is clearly a literary device (as we have in literature). Like if someone looks at my stunning figure and says, "You are a Greek god." We don't say, "oh, well the word 'god' must mean a person of Irish decent." No no. We understand that this is a play on words that is emphasizing something about someone and using hyperbole to make a point.
So, the sum total of our findings leads us to conclude that Elohim does, in fact, mean God/god. If you want to say that Jesus was perhaps speaking Aramaic and might have used the word Elohim, that would not change anything. The word elohim = theos = God. Now, you CAN say that Jesus is being figurative. He didn't actually MEAN "God" but was using the term in a hyperbolic sense. At this point, we look at the context and try to determine. For instance, "Is Wormwood really listed among the Greek gods?" Oh, nope. Must be a figurative concept related to his abs of steel.
Yet when we look at Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, 'I am'" and people want to stone him as a result...we say. My, what made them so mad. Oh, well God calls himself "I AM." That sure would make Jews mad. Yep, that's it. Or, Thomas says, "My Lord and my God!" Hmm...is Thomas being hyperbolic? Maybe he means hes just godlike, but really isn't trying to say Jesus is God. But...wait. Whats this? Thomas falls down and...gasp...worships him? Oh, isn't that what people did when they see God. Oh, wait...I know...Jesus said, "Stop, worship God alone!" like the angel does to John in Revelation. But wait...that's not there either. Yep, sure looks like Thomas is calling him God alright seeing as how that is the natural meaning of the word.
So, this is how language studies are done. I am out of time.
Hmmm, well it seems you and Purity are both having trouble here and I would draw you a picture if I could. Trinity = one, no two, no....three persons. One God...three persons. That is the concept. I know its hard to get your head around, but when it says "three persons" that is really what the concept means. Its not one God with three different masks. No no. That would not be three persons. That would be one person with three masks. Thus this would only be one witness and your argument would blow my socks off. Whew. Fortunately for me, I am not a modalist.
Yeah, you're right. Besides, even if he did, he wouldn't mean it because he would have been speaking Aramaic and Matthew would have been like, "Whoa, Jesus. Your a king?" And Jesus would have been like, "Yes, but no." And Matthew would have been like, "Oh so you are like a ghost then?" And Jesus would have been like, "How bout the Holy Spirit put it to you like this: "I am Theos made flesh."" And then Matthew would have been like, "Oh, so you mean theos in the elohim sense of the word? Like a good man?" And then Jesus would have said, "Just go sit in the corner with nodhead and wait another 20 years."
Wow, yeah I didn't get that. I mean, all those classes taking Hebrew and Greek...and still...vooom. Right over my head. Man, I feel bad for those poor Israelites. They just didn't know how to communicate. I mean, they read Genesis 1 and it reads, "In the beginning, elohim created the heavens and the earth...." And they are like....whoa dude, a king created all this? No man, it was a ghost. Nah, it was us Israelites that did it. No dude, it was the god of the Canaanites. And then they all would have jumped off a cliff because they have no way to understand their own Scriptures because their words mean whatever someone wants them to mean.
Let me put it to you like this since you are kinda new to how this language stuff works and you seem to be regurgitating the stuff your Unitarian Sunday school teacher shared with you....
The word Elohim is used 2,596 times in the Old Testament. Lotta elohim...whole lotta elohim.
What is AMAZING is that 2,580 times it is translated as....... wait for it....wait for it....(hear the drum roll)....God/god!
So, something like 99.98% of the time (don't check my math there), elohim refers to a divine being (either referring to a false divine being other cultures worship or the true God).
So, this leaves us with 16 times elohim is translated as something other than God/god...stuff like "heavenly" or goddess, mighty or godly. Pretty much all stuff that is in the same neighborhood as...god/God.
Your confusion lies in the fact that sometimes Israel was referred to as being "gods" (as in that Psalm you love so much).
This is clearly a literary device (as we have in literature). Like if someone looks at my stunning figure and says, "You are a Greek god." We don't say, "oh, well the word 'god' must mean a person of Irish decent." No no. We understand that this is a play on words that is emphasizing something about someone and using hyperbole to make a point.
So, the sum total of our findings leads us to conclude that Elohim does, in fact, mean God/god. If you want to say that Jesus was perhaps speaking Aramaic and might have used the word Elohim, that would not change anything. The word elohim = theos = God. Now, you CAN say that Jesus is being figurative. He didn't actually MEAN "God" but was using the term in a hyperbolic sense. At this point, we look at the context and try to determine. For instance, "Is Wormwood really listed among the Greek gods?" Oh, nope. Must be a figurative concept related to his abs of steel.
Yet when we look at Jesus saying, "Before Abraham was, 'I am'" and people want to stone him as a result...we say. My, what made them so mad. Oh, well God calls himself "I AM." That sure would make Jews mad. Yep, that's it. Or, Thomas says, "My Lord and my God!" Hmm...is Thomas being hyperbolic? Maybe he means hes just godlike, but really isn't trying to say Jesus is God. But...wait. Whats this? Thomas falls down and...gasp...worships him? Oh, isn't that what people did when they see God. Oh, wait...I know...Jesus said, "Stop, worship God alone!" like the angel does to John in Revelation. But wait...that's not there either. Yep, sure looks like Thomas is calling him God alright seeing as how that is the natural meaning of the word.
So, this is how language studies are done. I am out of time.
Not funny or fair, then. You can do it do it but not everyone is doing it? Only mods? My theology makes you cry? I'm sorry you crybaby, dear.
Jesus never said he is God. Ever. And I agree with him.
Er, a modalist believes in like modes. But the Trin believes in Persons of like being. Same as a pantheon IMHO. Same definition. Gods of like being, family of Gods, em like uh the ancient Canaanite God EL who had a wife and numerous sons, three of which were Hadad, Yam and Mot. Got that one wiped of the forum right quick.
Yet youall seem to be doing the same thing here, in principle. 3 Persons of like OUSIA are in fact three Gods of like kind. Tell me more and I will tell you more about heresies in general.
Who do you say that I am? I think Jesus asks THEM this. And what were they saying, in three synoptics, "What sort of MAN calms the wind and seas?" So at least at that point they did not know the extent of Jesus' annointedness. That he was not only King of Jews, but the extent of this elohim was even over the angels. Greater than even Moses who was the agent of miracle. Propitiation, not a usual attribute of Messiah, to be able to mediate sin. But in this case the full extent of the term SON OF GOD was not known even by those who walked with him.
And they would not know the extent of Jesus' power or authority as ELOHIM until the upper room when he would come as emanation of Paraclete. Sent by God as he was originally sent by God.
WHO ART THOU was asked by the detractors of Jesus which also meant WHAT ART THOU? in Jn 8. And you ignore my argument that Jesus was telling them he was God from the beginning (your POV) even though the gospels have nary a hint of this anywhere, much less to the ones with stiff necks, sir.
And the next verse tells you something else. They did not understand the CONCEPT that Jesus was SENT by his God:
26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.
27 They understood not that he spake to them of the Father.
What does this verse tell you? That the Word of God came not from Jesus as Source, but from the Father as Source. And not from any GodHEAD at all, either, which was a foreign concept to the Jew.
See, nothead has many lessons for you, sir. No charge, donations will be accepted.
Um yeah. Correction. 2600 times approx in Bible, 250 times for entities OTHER than God.
It was them 10% of the times which stumble you and me. Not Purity, she seems to know everything.
Like I said, IF Thomas view that Jesus was both Lord and God WAS the presupposition of the day, THEN by the time the gospels got written the formulation JESUS LORD AND GOD would be bar none the dominant formulation.
Can you see this, brother? So then Why oh Why (sings nothead in tune) is this formulation not ever ever ever ever not once repeated?
.Um, no unitarian taught me this, I investigated online 2.5 years ago from being a Oneness Pentecostal.
You say 16 I say 250. But and yet I say the important verses you say are saying God are not.
'Cest la vie as they say in France. They like saying it too.
Jesus' reference to "Ye are Gods" in Psalms is metaphorical?
HUH? Duh, buh and guh? NOW you have me inside out. How would THAT logic work?
Jews: HEY DUDE YOU just said you are GOD. YOU WILL DIE FOR THIS.
Jesus: Well isn't it said poetically as a literary device in Psalms, YE ARE GODS??
And wasn't I saying I was God too in poetic metaphorical vagueness?
So would you stone a poet or what? Am I that bad a bard, does my poem ryhme so bad?
This might be true except Jesus made a specific lesson about 'elohim' which is contained in Jn 10. Being a red letter lesson, it behooves us to understand the actuality of the INTERMEDIATE ELOHIM which he refers to in Jn 10... and the reason WHY he gives this lesson.
Because he too is INTERMEDIATE ELOHIM and NOT YHWH Elohim, sir. Thank you for your understanding, I hope.
No, now I said "I am" theology is narky, I mean oh I forgot what I said now.
Nodly. Because not only from the Greek end ego eimi without an explicit [he] still has in meaning an IMPLICIT sense of it, also from the Hebrew end the theory does not hold water.
Or juice, grape juice called 'vino' by David Wilkerson's anti-wine theology, but that's neither here nor there...so disregard. Where was I? Oh YEAH, in the Hebrew the term is found in Exodus 3 when Moses asks God what name should he tell the people God is, and the answer, ta daaa:
I will be that which I will be. Imperfect tense, "I am" is impossibly in the present perfect tense. WRONG translation, sir. And the second clause: "Tell them the BEING ONE sent you." NOT I AM AGAIN.
No Jews with rocks at the Thomas Doubting Event. Thomas said the accurate statement, since Jesus was glorified as elohim over the angels, also called 'elohim' in heaven.
Em where does Thomas fall down and worship? What gospel you have? Not the gospel of Thomas I hope.
So, this is how language studies are done. I am out of time.
Listen it ain't language edifying to define THEOS from God which is English not invented yet. THEOS even for the Jew was informed by THEIR word, 'elohim.'
Don't take no language expert to know this. Just ask nothead.
Wormwood,
I asked a question a while back and either you didn't see it or I missed your response. It is getting crowded.
I asked:
Is your position that they (Father, Son, Holy spirit) can act individually from each other? They can be one but also separate?
SL
Purity,
If Jesus didn't exist before He took on flesh...how did He write Psalm 16? Sorry so elementary, but it is the obvious question. I am not trying to act like you are stupid by asking.
SL
I asked a question a while back and either you didn't see it or I missed your response. It is getting crowded.
I asked:
Is your position that they (Father, Son, Holy spirit) can act individually from each other? They can be one but also separate?
SL
Purity,
If Jesus didn't exist before He took on flesh...how did He write Psalm 16? Sorry so elementary, but it is the obvious question. I am not trying to act like you are stupid by asking.
SL
Similar threads
