1. 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!

Defending the Trinity

Discussion in 'Christian Debate Forum' started by Wormwood, Mar 27, 2014.

  1. Secondhand Lion

    Secondhand Lion New Member

    Messages:
    309
    Likes Received:
    22
    I am trying to digest this thread, it is a little confusing. I can certainly tell that everyone involved believes their position with great conviction. This is a topic that I have never fully decided what my position is. It is hard for me. I am a simple man.

    It seems to me there are problems on both sides of the debate. I am trying as hard as I can to take an honest look at it, but can not get around a couple of pretty major simple questions:

    1. For the trinity believers: How can you have a separation in the "persons" and not be worshiping multiple gods? How do you avoid putting one before the others? We are plainly not to have any gods besides the one true God.

    2. For oneness types: How can you have a distinction without a separation? Jesus plainly makes a distinction when praying to His "Father". I see no other evidence in the bible or in nature to point to having a distinction without a separation. To be talking about one tree, you, by definition, can not be talking about the other. "The one with the dark bark" for example.

    I am still confused about notheads arguments, which probably speaks for itself. I am not trying to be rude, however, if you can not put the cookies down on the shelf where everyone can reach...it is probably not truth.

    I am still not sure we can fully grasp the true nature of the Godhead.

    Could you please answer your respective questions for my better understanding (hopefully)

    SL
     
  2. nothead

    nothead New Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    11
    49.231% right, give or take a thousanth of a percentage point.

    Mainly man speaking of things he knows little about.

    Good try though. He could have been LESS right.
    I ain't Oneness type OR Trinitarian, since I plainly think Jesus is a lesser 'elohim' or KIND than the One True God. And the Holy Spirit is a spirit SENT by God, not another Person who is God.

    Of course all three are distinct. Jesus doesn't fly around like a bird and is not in all things like a pantheist might think, I believe he is in heaven locatively and his spirit may be in different places but how it works I don't know.

    And the spirit is what these Christians were describing experientially, not ontologically as God.
     
  3. aspen

    aspen “"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

    Messages:
    14,138
    Likes Received:
    4,778
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    here is where i see Protestants as being on shaky ground. They were the first to gut the church of authority and then freak out when people started questioning foundational Christian doctrine like the nature of God as a Trinity. Fixed dogs cannot reproduce......
     
  4. Wormwood

    Wormwood Chaps Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    329
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    aspen, your history is in error. Reformers were not out to question the foundational doctrines of the church. They were out to reform the corruption that existed among the leadership. Luther did not even want to split away from the Catholic church.

    nothead,

    If 98% of believers are Trinitarian, then the other 2% must all be on this board. I feel oddly outnumbered here.

    God didn't change his name. We received fuller revelation of who God is through the salvation process in the New Covenant. Um...Jesus was a man. Do we have to revisit this again?

    I beg of you to stop using Greek. You have no idea what you are talking about, and neither does this Jason character. Anyone can search Google to find something that fits what they want it to say. But you are completely and totally wrong. First, he is wrong that it should read "and God was the Word." You should study up on a rule of the Greek language known as Colwell's Rule. The reason there is no definite article on Theos is because it is a predicate nominative that precedes the copulative. The subject is after the copulative and the definite article tells the reader that this is the subject of the sentence, distinguishing it from the predicate nominative. Consequently, its the reason Theos does not have the definite article. Not because its being mystically transformed into an adjective.

    If the verse was translated "and God was the Word" the subject of the sentence would be God. But the subject of this sentence is not "God." The subject is "the Word" and "God" is the predicate nominative. The absence of the definite article does not make Theos, "godly." While you are searching the book of John for "the Word", why don't you search for the word "Theos" and see how many times Theos with no definite article is translated "godly.' In fact, look and see if such a translation would even make sense. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are abusing the Greek language to try to fit a circular peg into a triangular hole.

    No, actually I did not get this from them. It is what the word means. Look in any Greek lexicon.

    Since you love Vine's...
    Yes, I can see how this would be confusing to someone with your heretical disposition. Fortunately for those of us who hold to orthodox beliefs and accept what the Bible says without creating new Greek rules to change the text to make it more palatable to your heretical tastes.
     
  5. John

    John Member

    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry to be contributing so late in the thread, but have always wondered what the answer to this question was who believe Jesus was a created being

    John 1:3
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    This verse to me is very clear. Everything was made through Christ..... no exceptions, but just to make it very clear we get the second part of the verse. Nothing that was made was made without him. I believe this verse makes it clear, that Christ not only was not created, but is the creator and is eternal. If he was not created he is eternal. He has no beginning.

    I believe this verse goes a long way in answering your point #3
     
  6. nothead

    nothead New Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    11
    Yeah I feel like a bully and you only ever answered and refuted along YOUR argumentative lines, not MY Shema start.

    Sorry for bulldozing you. I try to answer all of your ad hominems sincerely.



    Kudos if you don't tout the "Name above all names" theme like a blast we can't get past.



    When God is referred to, THE GOD is the normal way. Don't try to smoke us with your Greek expertise. BeDuhn may not be the writer of Greek Grammar Books but I would guess he knows more than you, and has the PHD to prove it. 3-4 years plus is more than me and probably more than you, considering your narrow little rules you make. FENCING IN the possible meanings of God here.

    Really it is all moot since John would NEVER SAY "God was with God" it just IS NOT the way a Jew would ever communicate anything spiritual. I can make a RULE here and be much closer to the truth. NO NT AUTHOR ever says God is with God in the same sentence in the positive sense. Nothead Rule number 101. For John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Paul and Peter and James and Jude and Martha if she ever ghost writ.

    kai theos en ho logos...means the WORD was the subject, eh? HUM. Let's put this one aside. I've a hunch you are dead wrong, not being dead, yet still DEAD wrong.






    Flattery will get you nowhere, but may be indicative as to how much longer my presence will be tolerated. It can be somewhat gauged by the amount of ad hom which gets tendered, sir.

    God dying in the first place don't make no sense to the average person even if he AIN'T a nothead, and too how was it he felt separated from his partners at the end?
    "Eli eli lama sabachthani" don't make any sense either, sir.

    If he was ONLY a man, then WHOOP, now we have a plausible story.

    The weird thing again is that Paul and John don't include the Father in the so-called Creation statement, so one wonders if he meant Christ was CREATING the original things at all, or maybe is rather causal to the HARMONY of the NEW CREATION.

    Also the original story don't include him. Sorta like that ROCK which Paul said followed them in the Exodus. Wow wonder HOW BIG this so-called Rock following them was...maybe it was a PEBBLE and no one noticed it until Paul saw it in a dream...
     
  7. aspen

    aspen “"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

    Messages:
    14,138
    Likes Received:
    4,778
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    wormwood, i agree - the catholic church was in need of reform and I do not fault Luther for trying to do so, at first. unfortunately, he went way too far, describiing the Pope as an 'ass playing a harp" - with visuals of a human ass strumming a harp - yeah sounds like a serious reformer to me.......

    Look, Luther was right about reforming the church - just like Pope Francis is right now, today - but adding scripture "faith ALONE"? He went too far.

    it was the door that luther openned that led to rebellion - Calvin, Anibaptists, Church of England, Puritans, Mormans, JWs, Christian Science, Scientology......etc

    So, this raises an important question....is outright rebellion really the answer?
     
  8. justaname

    justaname Disciple of Jesus Christ Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Psalm 110:1
    1 The Lord says to my Lord:
    “Sit at My right hand
    Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
    2 The Lord will stretch forth Your strong scepter from Zion, saying,
    “Rule in the midst of Your enemies.”
    3 Your people will volunteer freely in the day of Your power;
    In holy array, from the womb of the dawn,
    Your youth are to You as the dew.

    There is but one Lord, David has but one God, yet in the Spirit he recognizes the Messiah as divine. David was a Jew through and through.

    Also to continue validating the divinity of Christ is the obvious John passage, the word became flesh...
    Another claim validating Jesus' divinity is His acceptance of worship both in the boat and by Thomas. No angels accepted worship, and men were struck down by God for accepting worship, yet Jesus did. How about Jesus' response to Phillip... If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father, or when He tells the Pharisees "I AM" How about being called Emmanuel, meaning "God with us".

    The case for Jesus as fully divine is clear. We need not see the flesh as sinful, placing a bias on our view of the text. We need only to read and accept the truth claims presented in scripture. There are cases where it is not either/or rather both/and. Jesus' divinity and humanity is one of those cases.

    I hope I am conjecturing properly here.

    God has revealed Himself as three distinct persons, Father, Son, and HolySpirit. In John's baptism of Jesus all three are revealed in scripture. (Voice, Dove, Jesus) In such God is one. The Trinitarian does see one God, yet revealed in three persons with different roles. Not that one person is subject to the other rather that all is subject to God's self. This concept is not an easy one to grasp and has spawned many a debate.
     
  9. aspen

    aspen “"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few

    Messages:
    14,138
    Likes Received:
    4,778
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    sorry guys, but this thread is composed with a lot of gobbly-goop. The fact is God appears to us as three in one because of our Fall. He is "God in motion" - One, but three. Do not hang your hat on the notion, just recognize it for what it is. We see God who is One as three because of our perspective.
     
  10. nothead

    nothead New Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    11
    Being a Jew, David naturally calls two referents two Lords. What trins have done is called the ONE LORD a KIND of person, not the PERSON himself.

    Do you see the problem? It is most obviously in your own verse. Psalms 110 the Lord (althought the Hebrew has YHWH, this is RECITED "the Lord") said to my lord...

    Two lords. The one recited, and said to be Adonai, the second one said by Massoretic Text to be ADONI.

    ADONI is the word for a man-lord more often, quite distinct from ADONAI.




    This was quite incomprehensible for me for decades. How did TWO GODS exist before the world did, ONE of Them becoming flesh? Especially since ONE GOD is the constant refrain of every orthodox Jew who ever lived?

    "Jesus" became Jesus. Simple and I believe, true. The WORD is always what God or man says in John's gospel.


    Another claim validating Jesus' divinity is His acceptance of worship both in the boat and by Thomas.

    In the boat, all three synoptics: "What sort OF MAN is this who calms the wind and seas?" Obviously if he were God to them they wouldn't speak THIS WAY sir.

    Thomas: "My Lord and my elohim!" This is because oddly enough they did not have a word for GOD as we know it. Only 'elohim' which then was across the board TRANSLATED 'theos.'





    So did Saul and Solomon and David. The Psalms prove it.

    Sould not make sense for a trin either since Jesus ain't the Father even for you. Meant spiritually or metaphorically, obviously.




    "Ego eimi is seven times in John only translated "I am" one time in most translations. All other times "I am he." This is because the implicit 'he' is not said or written but MEANT. So no "I am" at all, but good try.

    Again trins don't know the difference between metaphorical meaning as opposed to literal. Who CALLED Jesus Emmanuel anyhow? Mary, his brothers in blood, Joseph?



    Not clear to anyone until Constantine forced the issue which came up approx one hundred years before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.



    You are conjecturing all right.




    God was ever only one God-person and being. Look it up. Person and Being are actually synonyms. WHO decided these terms are mutually exclusive?





    How about God is One just like the Signature at the bottom which you forgot about? YOU KNOW the actual Shema in Mark 12 which INCLUDES it. The FIRST COMMAND includes YHWH Elohim YHWH one. Love YHWH Elohim with all of your heart soul and might. The second is this: love your neighbor as yourself.

    So then?

    The main problem is a questionable transition from the One True and Only God of the Jews to the Three-in-one God of the Trinitarians.
    Of course rebellion is the answer. Look how BOTH protestant and Catholic stood by as the Holocaust reared her satanic head.

    SOMEONE has to stand up and say HEY this ain't COOL NO WAY!! And Deitrich Bonheoffer was one of the onliest ones who did.

    And I personally will make sure to PROSKUNEOW to him if I ever SEE HIM.
     
  11. Arnie Manitoba

    Arnie Manitoba Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    Likes Received:
    128
    .

    Calling all idiot humans .....


    There was a burning bush up on Mount Herob and a voice came out of it saying ....

    “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

    Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

    ....


    God can come down here as Jesus Christ if he wants

    God can come down here as a burning bush if he wants

    Get over it.
     
  12. justaname

    justaname Disciple of Jesus Christ Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I am coming late to this discussion, I apologize if I am re-admitting information.

    1. I am aware of of your interpretation of the Psalm, I disagree. I will show in further scriptures where the language is favorable to my interpretation.
    2.The flesh of Jesus did come into existence, hence His humanity. The scripture is referring to His existence with the Father before the creation of the world.
    3. Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!”
    The point is He accepted worship. Your point of the text further validates that Jesus is unique as a man.
    4.Genesis 1:1



    1





    a

    In



    the



    beginning



    b

    God



    c

    created





    the



    heavens



    and





    the



    earth

    .











    [SIZE=83%]1[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]בְּ[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]→[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]רֵאשִׁ֖ית[/SIZE]





    [SIZE=83%]4[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]אֱלֹהִ֑ים[/SIZE]





    [SIZE=83%]3[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]בָּרָ֣א[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]5[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]אֵ֥ת[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=83%]6[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]הַ[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]7[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]שָּׁמַ֖יִם[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]8[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]וְ[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]9[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]אֵ֥ת[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=83%]10[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]הָ[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]11[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]אָֽרֶץ[/SIZE]













    [SIZE=83%]b[/SIZE]







    [SIZE=83%]rē(ʾ)·šîṯʹ[/SIZE]





    [SIZE=83%]ʾ[/SIZE][SIZE=83%]ě[/SIZE][SIZE=83%]lō·hîmʹ[/SIZE]





    [SIZE=83%]bā·rā(ʾ)ʹ[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]ʾēṯʹ[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=83%]hǎ[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]šā·mǎʹ·yim[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]w[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]ʾēṯʹ[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=83%]hā[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=83%]ʾāʹ·rěṣ[/SIZE]






























































    Elohim is plural in form, the scriptures have always equated God in that fashion. A limited view of the plural nature of the word "elohim" depicting "greatness" would hinder the correct view of the Godhead, which is triune.


    A scripture from the Old Testament...

    Isaiah 9:6-7
    6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
    And the government will rest on His shoulders;
    And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

    There is one God, yet the Prophet proclaims a child to be called "Mighty God". Not only that but He is also given the title "Eternal Father." How can a child be eternal, unless He is divine?

    Then from Jeremiah in case you discredit the validity of Isaiah.

    Jeremiah 23:5-6
    5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,
    “When I will raise up for David a righteous bBranch;
    And He will reign as king and act wisely
    And do justice and righteousness in the land.
    6 “In His days Judah will be saved,
    And Israel will dwell securely;
    And this is His name by which He will be called,
    ‘The Lord our righteousness.’
    Please note the use of "Lord" in verse 6





    c

    Lord







    [SIZE=83%]18[/SIZE] [SIZE=108%]יְהוָ֥ה׀[/SIZE]







    [SIZE=83%]yhwh[/SIZE]







    [SIZE=108%]יהוה[/SIZE]












    The adnoni case is invalid here.
    Lets stop here. I think this is a large enough chunk for now.
     
  13. Floyd

    Floyd Active Member

    Messages:
    937
    Likes Received:
    30
    Calling all idiot humans .....

    There was a burning bush up on Mount Herob and a voice came out of it saying ....

    “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

    Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God...


    God can come down here as Jesus Christ if he wants

    God can come down here as a burning bush if he wants

    Get over it.
    Arni Manitoba


    Good!!!
    Floyd
     
  14. nothead

    nothead New Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    11
    Em sir please I can't help but say the word "I" is a personal SINGULAR word put there for a reason...

    ...if THEY meant THEY can do whatever THEY please then maybe you have a right true Canadian argument. Otherwise you telling a Newfie joke.

    sincerely, nothead Alaskan peninsula.


    Can't wait.

    I am aware this is a common trin ploy. But maybe John only meant the Word was active before it was said. Hence someone could prophesy OF it.

    Hint: the Word of God is just as Jesus says in Jn 5:

    [SIZE=.75em]24 [/SIZE]Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
    [SIZE=.75em]25 [/SIZE]Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
    [SIZE=.75em]26 [/SIZE]For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
    [SIZE=.75em]27 [/SIZE]And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
    [SIZE=.75em]28 [/SIZE]Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    [SIZE=.75em]29 [/SIZE]And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
    [SIZE=.75em]30 [/SIZE]I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
    [SIZE=.75em]31 [/SIZE]If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
    [SIZE=.75em]32 [/SIZE]There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
    [SIZE=.75em]33 [/SIZE]Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth.
    [SIZE=.75em]34 [/SIZE]But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved.
    [SIZE=.75em]35 [/SIZE]He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light.
    [SIZE=.75em]36 [/SIZE]But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
    [SIZE=.75em]37 [/SIZE]And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
    [SIZE=.75em]38 [/SIZE]And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

    We see Jesus saying MY WORD at the beginning and then HIS WORD at the end. This is reconciled not in that they are equal Gods saying the same WORD, rather as it is portrayed here, the Father as Source of Word and Jesus as the mouthpiece of God.

    This could not be meant as God's son, since the Golden Calf was the 'son of El' in ancient heresy.

    And don't think I did not notice you SWITCHED the order:

    [SIZE=.75em]33 [/SIZE]Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.


    Of course a plural of majesty or attributes was meant, as the old Bull God EL was replaced with the new One True God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, attendant with 11,000 personal SINGULAR verbs and pronouns. The etymology of the word 'elohim' does not TRUMP the plain grammatical constructions, sir.

    His name was "Jesus" or Yahoshua. Not any of these literally. MIGHTY GOD is El gibber. EL and GIBBER are debatably other meanings.

    And this prophesy has many ties and shades of meaning very parallel to kings of Davidic lineage. The language in my opinion is the same.



    El Gibbor means something like "Great Warrior" sir. Not exactly MIGHTY GOD. Which king could be said to be the MIGHTY GOD?? If you look up all uses of 'el gibber' you will see that kings were called this.



    Same as Jer 33:16 JERUSALEM called the same. Wow a whole city is God. Good exegesis, sir.



    Not according to the Massorettes. Even if they didn't wear short skirts.




    I chew you chew. Now you turn brah.
     
  15. Wormwood

    Wormwood Chaps Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    329
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    I'm not going to bother answering arguments that focus on your assumptions of what Jewish people thought and how that effects what could or could not be the case with New Testament revelation. These are all speculations on your part and I don't want to waste my time addressing speculations of what you think Jews would or would not have accepted. Most Jews did not accept the Gospel Paul preached, period. Clearly God was not concerned with making his message palatable for the Jewish masses.

    This isn't a "smoke" screen. You are bringing up the Greek language to prove your point. I am showing how your points display a complete lack of knowledge about the Greek language. I don't know how you can bring up a point using Greek language, I respond to that point by showing you that you don't know how Greek grammar works, and suddenly I am trying to "smoke" you with Greek expertise. One guy with a PhD does not prove a point. We could take 1000 PhD's with expertise in the Greek language and I am absolutely confident the other 999 would disagree with Jason if he is arguing that "God" is the subject and that it should be used as an adjective meaning "godly." So if you want to use scholarship as rationale for your beliefs, then you are fighting a losing battle here.

    I find your second statement telling....once again. You have already DETERMINED what John would and would not say and you are bound and determined to find someone who agrees with you. This is not scholarship and it is not theologically honest. Scholars look at the information and allow the truth to determine their conclusions. They don't make conclusions and allow that to determine what they will allow to be truth. I appreciate your honesty in your biases, but if you are going to be biased in this manner, you should stop trying to justify your bias with scholarship. Your position has nothing to do with Greek, scholarship or what is actually written in any particular passage. It has everything to do with what you have already determined based on your preconceived notions developed from your self-education through Google.

    Yeah. I'm dead wrong along with all the major English Bible translations ever produced. And you know this because Jason says so? (My brief looking at reviews on his assessment of the NWT does seem to indicate that he believes Theos should be translated "godly"...FYI)

    Here's a tuition free Greek lesson for you...

    kai Theos en ho Logos.

    We know both Theos and Logos are nouns due to their -os endings. In Koine Greek, word order doesn't matter. In English, the subject is at the beginning of the sentence, but not so in Greek. In Greek, the subject can be in the beginning, end or middle of the sentence. What matters is not the order, but the endings. So, here we have two possible subjects...Theos and Logos. How do we know which is the subject? Well, that is why one has the definite article and the other does not. The definite article tells us that Logos is the subject because it has the definite article "ho." So, this means that Theos is the predicate nominative. It means it could be translated "and the Word was God" or "and the Word was a god." More likely is the translation, "and the Word was God."
    Well if God was "fully man" then he could most certainly die. Although it was merely the body of the man Jesus that died. His Spirit did not die, but because he was truly a man and not a ghost, he was capable of dying. Jesus was quoting Psalm 20. Read the entire Psalm. In the midst of his feelings of separation, there is complete trust in God, knowing that he would live and God would be glorified. What doesn't make sense is why God would allow a third party to die for our sins and how this would somehow cleanse the sin of the entire would and yet God would "alone" be the Savior of all. You have not answered many of my questions and the ones you have tried to answer....well, again...you need to steer clear of the Greek language if you plan to answer my theological questions for you (and Purity who has apparently checked out once they were called upon to defend their theology).
     
  16. nothead

    nothead New Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    11
    I will respond with a famous rule made by an accepted Trin scholar respected by all. Gordon Fee, Number One Rule of Exegesis: Consider the historical context overall.

    Amen. Touche.



    I don't really argue from Greek language at all, primarily but rather from the basis of Judaic Religion which is your basis also, sir. I am not a Greek expert and never said I was, but neither are you from what I can see, deciding things can only be interpreted ONE WAY every time in the Greek.

    Hint: Just as in English, every verse can be taken at least 5-6 ways and be significantly different a few ways. If you don't understand THIS then maybe you don't understand language in general, sir. The cohesion of verse in the Body of Written Word as a whole must be from reason and common sense in the end. Why? Why....since God intended the Written Word to be read by and to common men, women and children not just scholars like YOU who can scintillate meanings over others.



    Let me allow for your decrepidation of my inherent lack of character. And tell you a simple paradigm which changed my whole line of investigation 2 years ago. The first three Creeds of the Christian Church has NO STATEMENT that Jesus is God. Very telling, not of YOUR CHARACTER sir, but of the Character of the first two generations of Christianity:

    Ireneus Rule of Faith 3rd Century

    . . . this faith: in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the seas and all the things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who made known through the prophets the plan of salvation, and the coming, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and his future appearing from heaven in the glory of the Father to sum up all things and to raise anew all flesh of the whole human race . . .


    ****************************************************************************************************************

    Third Century Old Roman Symbol


    I believe in God the Father almighty;
    and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,
    Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,
    Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

    on the third day rose again from the dead,
    ascended to heaven,
    sits at the right hand of the Father,
    whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;

    and in the Holy Spirit,
    the holy Church,
    the remission of sins,
    the resurrection of the flesh
    (the life everlasting).[7]

    *******************************************************************************************************************


    Fourth Century Apostolic's Creed
    1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
    2. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
    3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
    4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
    5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
    6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
    7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
    8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
    9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
    10. the forgiveness of sins,
    11. the resurrection of the body,
    12. and life everlasting.
    Amen.





    He does allow for a more qualitative word "God" than the usual meaning of THE GOD, sir. My own [ly] is a nothead flourish. I know you love 'em, sir. That's why you keep coming back for more, sir.


    Maybe you know just enough to get you patooty in the slammer. I knew a few know-it-alls like that in High School. Smarty pants they were.

    For your info and in order for us to convo please don't tell me there is a RULE which says the definite noun has to be the subject. All the definite article does is make a noun specific, sir. I don't know how to convince you of this. You might have to think on it a little.



    Well, I'm fully man and when I die I won't be able to do much. In fact for awhile I'll probably be sleepin' and from my own experience or from what my wife tells me I'm not much good for doing anything but snoring. However Jesus was a man greater than me by far, so who knows...

    ...maybe he COULD raise his own self up, even though he was snoring at the same time. This is possible, theoretically. Just not from anything I ever saw.

    Most people dead for instance can't even get out of the dirt they got put in, as far as I know.





    I guess your 'would' is 'world.' Jesus is the Savior who was planned and created for just such a thing. Salvation. So who then is the Savior? God first. Jesus second.

    And Purity is too pure for a blood and guts battle. I can see how he would stay away. However nothead isn't, he too dumb to know he's in the sewer of an argument.

    Ignorance is sometimes bliss.
     
  17. Wormwood

    Wormwood Chaps Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    329
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hmmmm.....this must explain why Gordon Fee agrees with you about John 1:1-3. Oh, wait.... Amen and Amen and Touche' and Let it be so upon thouest noddy who likes to take both the Bible and its scholars out of context. Amen.

    Well, actually you tried to until it was found you cant argue from it...

    Well, I understand that there are 4-5 different meanings to what you are saying here. So clearly you agree with me since the meaning I am taking from what you are saying is that you believe me to be exactly correct in every way. Wow. I like approaching language this way!

    Your history is as bad as your Greek. The very first ecumenical council addressed this issue in 325 due to the Arian controversy. Arian, who held a position similar to yours was condemned as a heretic in this council and the creed that was developed there said: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#The_original_Nicene_Creed_of_325

    Perhaps creeds not formed from ecumenical councils prior to this did not have such confessions, but the issue didn't really arise until heretics like Arian and Apollinaris arose with doctrines that twisted what the church until that time had accepted as truth. Creeds were formed to establish orthodoxy and show that fringe doctrines formed by some were not what was accepted by the church as a whole. So prior to the arrival of heretical teachers with bad views about Jesus that did not mesh with the overall view of the church, no creed was needed to protect against errors that previously did not exist. Its the same reason an official canon of Scripture was not developed until the fourth century. It wasn't because there were no inspired texts and the church was unaware of what those texts were. It was because there was no need for an official canon until a heretic named Marcion started forming his own canon that was not what the church as a whole accepted to be the inspired works of the Christian faith.

    The Apostles Creed does not predate the Nicene Creed.

    Not trying to be a "smarty pants." Just trying to explain why things are interpreted as they are. Apparently you are not closely reading what I am writing. I never said the definite article always determines the noun to be the subject. Usually the subject is obvious because the other nouns are objects and end with -ov. This has to do with predicate nominatives that precede a copulative.
    Well the people you know aren't the one and only Son of God either.

    “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” (Acts 2:24, ESV)

    Oh I see. But wouldn't every Jew who recited the Shema KNOW that God does not give his glory to another and that God alone saves? Why is Jesus receiving all glory, honor and power and referred to as the "Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end"? Why is the depiction of Jesus in Revelation the same images used to describe God in the OT? Why do al the elders fall on their faces and worship him? Certainly every good Jew would know such things do not happen to a mere man, angel or anyone but God alone. Hmmm.
     
  18. nothead

    nothead New Member

    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    11
    I liketh that rule. I liketh you too Worm. Doesn't mean you theology any great shakes. Just means you likable is all.


    Only because YOU dear steered the steers to their eventual slaughter. Think I don't know where you heading us with your electric prods of direckshun?


    Naw I am just saying the plain text is old language and well, we don't speaketh it fluently too well, and well, so too are perspectives and POV's and Worldviews
    and cultural/presuppositional constructs different then, and well...you know what I mean Jellybean? Jellybean: a right scholarly scintillator of confusing unmitigated crenellated muck. Sir, in English sir.

    OR a hero on a white horse who looks like Clint Eastwood, Jellybean, Websters Pictionary. Take your pick, sir.

    Arian is not even close to me. I never knew her but reportedly she wasn't too pretty anyways.

    The ONE OUSIA shared with the Father and the Son is right ridiculous, sir. Reason why, em I think uh that um God's substance or ESSENCE is not too well known by mere men, and that the Jews of the day were smart enough to know this but the PHILOSOPHERS of Greek Schools did not...so then THESE KNOW IT ALLS decided they knew God's ESSENCE or SUBSTANCE was the same as Jesus' own. How could they know this sir? What kind of genetic code, DNA, material or substance would this be sir? CAN YOU tell me sir? See the problem here, sir?
    I read the first half of the first line and retched. IF the divinity of Jesus is important enough FOR YOU to haggle me to no end over THEN it would be important enough to list as a faith premise, sir. NOTHEAD SPOKE and this should be obviously obvious to the obvious most obvious degree, sir.




    But the Roman Rule of Faith probably informed the Apostle's Creed which of course was added onto as Athanasian considerations reared her ugly heads.

    BeDuhn argues top of the line scholars sir, and would have stood down a decade ago if you were right. I have read scantily of his official debates with them. And this don't mean I read them with only a few skivvies on.

    God cannnot die, PERIOD. Nothead Rule Number 197.


    Maybe he couldn't be held down since he OVERCAME THE WORLD. God doesn't overcome the world. God knows the backdoors to both hardware and software in the world.

    God does not overcome the world by DEFINITION, since God MADE ALL WE INHABIT and percieve.



    How about the one OVER the angels, em? He would naturally be in rank over ANY KING WHOM we ever bowed down to, historically.
     
  19. justaname

    justaname Disciple of Jesus Christ Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,348
    Likes Received:
    149
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    4 Who has ascended into heaven and descended?
    Who has gathered the wind in His fists?
    Who has wrapped the waters in His garment?
    Who has established all the ends of the earth?
    What is His name or His son’s name?
    Surely you know!

    I believe surely you do know even if you suppress it; it is Jesus or Yahoshua, and it equates to YHWH. I see you denying the Jesus as Christ in your statement of literal Everlasting Father is not the same as literal Jesus. The case of Jesus as Messiah was assumed, I apologize. Before I continue I need to understand your position. Can you plainly state that or direct me where you already did?

    Sorry nothead I believe I understand now. You might find this interesting...
    • The Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2). See Matthew 2:1-6, Luke 2:1-20.
    • The Messiah would be more than a man. He would be God in human form (Isaiah 9:6-7, Jeremiah 23:5-6, Psalm 110:1, Proverbs 30:4). See John 1:1, 20:28; Hebrews 1:8.
    • The Messiah had to come before Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD (Daniel 9:24-27). See Luke 1:5, 2:1-7.
    • The Messiah had to be a direct descendant of King David, a member of the royal family of Israel (Jeremiah 23:5-6, Isaiah 9:6-7). See Matthew 1.
    • The Messiah was to be tried and unfairly condemned, even though He was perfectly innocent (Isaiah 53:8). See Matthew 27:1-2, Luke 23:1-25.
    • The Messiah would die to make atonement for the sin of Israel and the world (Isaiah 53:5-6, 8, 10-12; Daniel 9:24-27; Zechariah 9:9, 12:10; Psalm 16:10, 22). See John 1:29, 11:49-52; 1 Corinthians 15:53.
    • The Messiah was to be a light to the nations, so that God’s salvation could reach to the ends of the Earth (Isaiah 49:6). Yeshua is the most popular, the most studied and the most influential figure in the history of mankind. He is the most famous Jew who ever lived: more famous than Abraham, more famous than Moses, more famous than King David or any of the prophets, more famous than Freud or Einstein! If people throughout the world know about Israel, or pray to the God of Israel, or read the Holy Scriptures of Israel, it is because of Yeshua. No Jewish person should be indifferent to the fact that this Jewish man has had such a tremendous part in the history of mankind. The love He has inspired, the comfort He has given, the good He has engendered, the hope and joy He has kindled are unequaled in human history. He truly has become the light of the world!
    The Messiah would rise from the dead (Isaiah 53:8-12; Psalm 16:10, 118:21-24; Zechariah 12:10). The New Testament records that after His death and resurrection, Yeshua appeared to a wide variety of Jewish people in varying numbers and under varying circumstances. He appeared to Mary (John 20:11-18); to some other women (Matthew 28:8-10); to Simon Peter (Luke 24:34); to two on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35); to 10 of the apostles (Luke 24:36-43); to all 11 apostles eight days later (John 20:24-29); then to seven by the Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee – see John 21:1-23). Yeshua appeared to 500 people at once, most of whom were alive and could verify the event when the New Testament was written (1 Cor. 15:6)! Yeshua appeared to His brother James, who became the leader of the Jerusalem Congregation (1 Corinthians 15:7), and to Rabbi Paul of Tarsus, who became better known as the Apostle Paul (Acts 9:1-16). Since the first century there have been millions of people, both Jews and Gentiles (including some of the greatest thinkers, philosophers and scientists), who have claimed to have encountered the resurrected Yeshua. What transformed all of these people? Only one explanation makes sense – He is alive today!
     
  20. Wormwood

    Wormwood Chaps Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,346
    Likes Received:
    329
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    justaname,

    I think nodhead's official position is best summarized by his statement below:

    my dear nodhead. If only the antiquity of the language and the historical context could allow us to flip the biblical text on its head, pull it inside out and make it read the exact opposite of what it is clearly understood to mean would your position hold water. Unfortunately for you, the first century world is heavily studied and we have an incredible understanding of the culture and historical setting of the New Testament writings. You see, there are these people who study this for a living, and they write books...you know, those things with pages and words that have...well, a particular meaning (not 5-6 meanings...which is a shame cause I could read a book 5x and get a different meaning every time and save a lot of dough...5 for 1 discount). In fact, I have quite a few of those books on the shelf behind me. I just opened one and it reads, "nodhead is a blubbering nincompoop." Well, I made that last tidbit up, but you get the point.

    Also, the Koine Greek language is very precise. Much more so than this silly English language we are currently using. Interesting thing about Koine Greek is that because about half the Bible was written in this language, people have been studying it for 2,000 years. That's a lot of insight and a lot of study. But hey, who knows. According to nodhead language 101, we might as well just throw it all away cause, who knows... John 1:1 could read, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Or it could read, "In the beginning was the prespoken Word that wasn't really a Word yet because it was yet to be spoken and that Word was kinda being thought about with God and that Word was sure a godly Word alright." After all, those Greek letters are so old and scribbly...hard to make sense of that.....kinda looks like gibberish to me.

    Well the ousia is philosophical language to explain the theological teachings. You know, verses that teach that Jesus was in very form God before he became a man. Verses that say he is the "exact image" of the invisible God. Verses where Jesus says, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father....I and the Father are one....I AM", verses that say Jesus the radiance of God's glory and that all things were made by him and for him. That he holds all things together by his powerful Word. And then there are those verses that say Jesus was completely human, tempted in every way, yet was sinless. See, we have to believe these things if we agree these are God's Words and these teachings are formed into an understanding about the nature of Jesus and his relationship with the Father. So when people say, "Jesus was just a dude who was really nice" or "Jesus was a god who was never really human, he only appeared that way" or people might say, "Jesus was just some kinda weird halfbreed angel/man God-thing that wasn't realy either God or a man" the people who actually read and believe the Bible can say, "Nope, that is not the Jesus of the Bible." So, you are in the catergory of "Nope, that's not the Jesus of the Bible" according to Christians throughout history. Your Jesus is not the Jesus of the Bible. He is not the creator, not of the very nature and form of God and is not the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Hes just some dude who showed up one day with superpowers to take away the worlds sin on a cross.

    Nope, not the Jesus of the Bible I am afraid. You are describing the Jesus of your personal imagination based on what you think Jews would have accepted which so happens to be uninformed by the actual teaching of the New Testament Scriptures.
     
Loading...