Jesus is a human being but not the one true God

[Mungo]

My claim is based on math and the definition of nature.

That renders your two comparisons of God and nature irrelevant.

Even those who tried to reconcile the two knew that and so used the term "union of hypostatic" which essentially claims the two natures ares united in substance but don't ask me to describe what they mean because they do a poor job themselves.

Scripture teaches Jesus is united with the Spirit of God. Jesus has a physical human nature and the Spirit is the Spiritual nature of God and they are united because Jesus walks according to the Spirit through faith from first to last. A simple truth that was and is accomplished by the power and grace of God.

You make decisions about the nature of God based on human maths? Really!

You say your claim is based on the definition of nature and then say my comparisons of God and nature are irrelevant!. Really!

Do you realise that God is a supernatural being?

Do you know what supernatural means? It means above and beyond nature

"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary).
"unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature" (Merriam Webster).

Hypostatis

1. 
   person 3
   
2. 
   3 a : the substance or essential nature of an individual (Merriam Webster)
   

Origin: "C16: via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek hupostasis 'essence'" (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

The hypostatic union is the union of two hypostasis (essences/natures). In Christ that means the union of the two natures/essences - human and divine - in one person.

As far as we know it is unique to God just at the Trinity is unique to God.

But then God is unique - Yes/No?

Your problem is that you want to make God in man's image and likeness. You want to be able to explain God. We can't. We can know nothing about God except that which he had revealed to us about himself.

 

[Mungo]

You already know I disagree with your claim.

I also think it is an argument from ignorance for even if we have the knowledge of math and the meaning of the word nature you claim still would not be proven.

Though Job's words are true it does not mean we know nothing and therefore we know what God allows us to know even about himself.

The Merriam Webster's online dictionary uses the definitions " the genetically controlled qualities of an organism" and " the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing" but sometimes I find a dictionary harder to understand that a parable. I am going for the physical qualities/constitution of a person or thing. Is that acceptable.

If it is acceptable then you can see the relationship in one nature to every person or thing. If the definition is not then please write or cite one you prefer.

in sum I am claiming chose to reveal the definition of the word "nature" and the knowledge of math so that we could test the spirit of teachings that teachers claim are from Scripture.

kerwin,

Merriam Webster, or any human Dictionary is not making theological definitions about the nature of God. Selecting definitions that embed in them what you are trying to prove is false logic.

See my previous reply about God being supernatural.

You cannot prove that Jesus is not one person with two natures.

God is whatever he is, and is above and beyond your maths and your definitions. We don't start there - we start with what God has revealed about himself. And he has revealed that he is three persons with one divine nature - Trinity, He has also revealed that the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed a second nature complete and whole in Jesus Christ. The 'how' is beyond our understanding; beyond our maths.It is part of faith.

 

[kerwin]

That's still deflection and equivocation. If one practices is proper biblical hermeneutics, then one understands when the word 'God' refers to the Supreme Being of our universe and when 'god' refers to Kings and potentates. God in the Bible means what it says and all places. What Genesis 1:1 uses in reference to God does not mean the same as what John 10:35 uses for god and if you can't understand that then you really have no business commenting on the Bible.
...

Yes, context makes a difference but translators make their choice and their biases lead to seeing things in the context that may not be there. It is one of those things that make translating difficult.

...
FYI, the Koine Greek does not have lowercase letters even though our English does. The fact that English translators put a lowercase 'g' on gods is to differentiate as I already have explained. If you actually knew English or Greek, you would know this. This is just more equivocation and subterfuge on your part.
Y

You do realize libel is an evil action. It is called bearing false witness. It also serves to distract from the message. It is wise to hold your tongue from bitter waters.

Then you already knew that "Capitalization" in English language bibles is arbitrary except in certain situations such as the beginning of words.

Sorry, I missed your explanation. It would have saved us some writing.

...
You know what I mean, you just refuse to acknowledge the scriptures that I've already quoted you a few times, so it really doesn't matter what scripture you quote because it means nothing coming from someone who doesn't recognize everything that is in Scripture about Jesus being our God and savior.
...

I do not know what you mean because I cannot read minds and human nature lead people to change the meanings of word or to use the a different one than I do.

I read part of a Wikipedia article and still do not know what "union of hypostatic" means.

Jesus Christ is God incarnate. The fact that you can't or won't accept that is your problem. Jesus never claimed he had a god he claimed that his father was God, and his father is God because his father is the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:20

He also said if you've seen him you've seen the father. John 14:9

Again you cherry-pick certain verses but don't admit to all the verses that pertain to Jesus' deity.

The custom on the internet is to separate paragraphs by one space just as I did when quoting you to make them more readable. It reveals consideration for your reader and a desire to be better understood.

Jesus is the Logos incarnate and so not God incarnate but rather the Image of God incarnate. That is why Scripture claims Jesus is the image of God and not he is God.

Sorry, you are incorrect as Jesus literally states "my God" in John 20:17. Look it up and you will see. Most attribute those to his human "nature" as if he worships himself.

One does see God when you see Jesus because one sees God dwelling in Jesus via the Holy Spirit doing his works. (John 14:10)

The Holy Spirit did not have sex with Mary but instead caused the miraculous conception to occur, a type of parthenogenesis and genetic manipulation the details of which Scripture does not teach us. (Matthew 1:20) The Holy Spirit hovered over, aka overshadow, the earth during creation as well.(Genesis 1:2)

I admit I only explained one of several verses you quoted in one post but sometimes that is all that is needful since the rest are related. I should have gone back and made sure that was all that was needed. My error.

 

[H. Richard]

Phil 2:5-8
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
NKJV

Jesus is God, period

 

[Jun2u]

The Bible is a historical as well as a spiritual book. The majority of people critique and read it like it's an ordinary book. God has given us two principles by which we may know the deeper meanings of scripture circumscribed in 2 Tim 3:16 and 1 Co 2:14. The Bible cannot be understood by reading it literally because it is spiritually discerned.

For instance, the word "God" in Genesis 1:1 is the plural Hebrew word "Elohim." The Father drives home this point in Ge 1:26 as He declared, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness" suggesting there are more than one person in the Godhead. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

Another example, when John the Baptist announced Jesus as, "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world," are we now to understand Jesus is a literal animal? Of course not.

We read in the Old Testament about sacrificial ceremonial laws to atone for the sins of Ancient Israel, and in the New Testament, we read that Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice for sins. A mere man cannot atone for the sins of mankind unless he is God.

When you say Peter and Paul said that Jesus is a literal man and not God, this conclusion must be read in light of the whole Bible. And the Bible is replete with scriptures that declares Jesus is the true God of the Bible!

I'm betting you have no idea who or what is the name Jehovah represents for if you did you would not have posted this thread. The name Jehovah is crucial to your understanding of who really is God. Go ahead search out the scriptures.

To God Be The Glory

 

[StanJ]

My claim is based on math and the definition of nature.
That renders your two comparisons of God and nature irrelevant.
Even those who tried to reconcile the two knew that and so used the term "union of hypostatic" which essentially claims the two natures ares united in substance but don't ask me to describe what they mean because they do a poor job themselves.
Scripture teaches Jesus is united with the Spirit of God. Jesus has a physical human nature and the Spirit is the Spiritual nature of God and they are united because Jesus walks according to the Spirit through faith from first to last. A simple truth that was and is accomplished by the power and grace of God.

I have already clearly shown you that this is not the way one interprets the Bible. It is called biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. If you're not employing this method, then you're doing it wrong.

 

[kerwin]

I have already clearly shown you that this is not the way one interprets the Bible. It is called biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. If you're not employing this method, then you're doing it wrong.

No, you have not. Instead you have made a claim to authority fallacy. I am surprised you don't use the RCC as your authority though I am not sure of whose opinion of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis you actually hold to.

There is no real difference between biblical hermeneutics than hermeneutics in general as the writers were using the same language used elsewhere at the same time though early had jargon of their own. If so then the context most likely gives it away.

My hermeneutics and exegesis is simply to find a teaching that is not broken, does not disagree with Scripture, and is not an argument from ignorance. The later is can be confused with an argument from faith which makes it harder to judge.

I also consider the culture and teachings of the people of the time and teaching the Christ is God would have been teaching a new religion and not a new covenant. In short is would have been a cult because it was not an ancient religion. I looks like a variation of the Roman Emperor cult where Jesus is the emperor.

 

[StanJ]

No, you have not. Instead you have made a claim to authority fallacy. I am surprised you don't use the RCC as your authority though I am not sure of whose opinion of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis you actually hold to.

There is no real difference between biblical hermeneutics than hermeneutics in general as the writers were using the same language used elsewhere at the same time though early had jargon of their own. If so then the context most likely gives it away.

My hermeneutics and exegesis is simply to find a teaching that is not broken, does not disagree with Scripture, and is not an argument from ignorance. The later is can be confused with an argument from faith which makes it harder to judge.

I also consider the culture and teachings of the people of the time and teaching the Christ is God would have been teaching a new religion and not a new covenant. In short is would have been a cult because it was not an ancient religion. I looks like a variation of the Roman Emperor cult where Jesus is the emperor.

When you actually practice hermeneutics and reading the Bible you don't need to hold anybodies opinion, you form your own. That opinion is usually consistent with most people who also use proper biblical hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics is indeed part of hermeneutics overall but specifically for the Bible it has its own rules which apparently you don't know or understand.

Hermeneutics is not yours, it is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Exegesis is the critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture. You have not employed either one of these.

Your assessment of what Christianity is under the New Covenant clearly indicates a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of the New Testament texts. Jesus was teaching a new way not a new religion. That's why it is called the New Covenant.

 

[kerwin]

When you actually practice hermeneutics and reading the Bible you don't need to hold anybodies opinion, you form your own. That opinion is usually consistent with most people who also use proper biblical hermeneutics.

Biblical hermeneutics is indeed part of hermeneutics overall but specifically for the Bible it has its own rules which apparently you don't know or understand.

Hermeneutics is not yours, it is the theory and methodology of interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts. Exegesis is the critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture. You have not employed either one of these.

Your assessment of what Christianity is under the New Covenant clearly indicates a severe lack of knowledge and understanding of the New Testament texts. Jesus was teaching a new way not a new religion. That's why it is called the New Covenant.

Nonsense!

I do not even think many of those that voice hermeneutic think think their opinion is not involved since they are fallible human beings. I hope they know the best they can hope for is that their opinion comes comes from being carried along by the Spirit.

From what you say it is some type of methodology used to interpret data. I simply use the scientific method with inductive reasoning preferable to deductive reasoning. If the method you speak of does not use the same essential idea then its mechanics are flawed. When serving God the Spirit must be involved or even the best mechanics are flawed.

I am not surprised that you consider my assessment of the New Covenant incorrect as I in turn consider the vast majority of Christians messages as flawed in that they both add add/or subtract from the gospel of Christ. There flaws are so obvious that one that is still searching can see them.

 

[StanJ]

Nonsense!

I do not even think many of those that voice hermeneutic think think their opinion is not involved since they are fallible human beings. I hope they know the best they can hope for is that their opinion comes comes from being carried along by the Spirit.

From what you say it is some type of methodology used to interpret data. I simply use the scientific method with inductive reasoning preferable to deductive reasoning. If the method you speak of does not use the same essential idea then its mechanics are flawed. When serving God the Spirit must be involved or even the best mechanics are flawed.

I am not surprised that you consider my assessment of the New Covenant incorrect as I in turn consider the vast majority of Christians messages as flawed in that they both add add/or subtract from the gospel of Christ. There flaws are so obvious that one that is still searching can see them.

Of course you think it's nonsense because you don't understand. Only those who live by the spirit can understand the things of the spirit.

 

[kerwin]

Of course you think it's nonsense because you don't understand. Only those who live by the spirit can understand the things of the spirit.

Your response reveals you are ignorant of the fallen human nature and the only way that is possible is if you deny its existence.

Human beings are driven by evil desires according to their natures and one of those desires leads to them being bias. Very few can overcome it without the Spirit and those that do sin in other ways. In addition human beings are limited and so make errors that are not sinful.

The only ones capable of using any methodology perfectly are those that are carried along by the Spirit as they do so.

Can you present any solid evidence that anyone taught that the Christ was God and by solid I do bot mean open to interpretation. The Jews themselves do not believe the claim and have never believed it as far as the evidence reveals. Its a claim that came from the Gentiles and their Emperor cult. It is more plausible that certain Gentiles saw Jesus as Emperor and because of that and holding on to Emperor cult came to believe he was the one true God. In this way polytheism and monotheism mixed and broken teaching were the result. In short the culture of the God-fearing of the first century was opposed to the idea the Christ is the one true God. Of course certain experts choose to ignore it because it does not fit their biases. Other experts do not which is one reason there is controversy in the field.

 

[FHII]

I apologize.... I am sure this has probably been discussed... But Kerwin, can you tell me your thoughts on John 1:14 and 1 John 3:16?

 

[kerwin]

I apologize.... I am sure this has probably been discussed... But Kerwin, can you tell me your thoughts on John 1:14 and 1 John 3:16?

John 1:14 is literal in that the word mentioned is literally the word of God by which he created all things. Philo of Alexander also uses the word logos the same way in his writ tings and his explanation of that particular doctrine is fairly good as far as I have looked at it. Jesus being human is the flesh part of the union. The union was accomplished when God gave Jesus his Spirit. (Matthew 12:18)

If you look John 1:1c then you will see that theos does not have the direct article preceding it and according to the first century Philo that means it is speaking about the image and not the one true God directly. He also declares the logos is the image and likeness of God.

1 John 3:16 is about serving other Christians, which is an act of love. Jesus actions reveal he did that to the point dying on the cross. Love is an facet of God's word.

Jesus teaches us to deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow him and John is just reminding Christ that is what they pledged to do.

 

[FHII]

John 1:14 is literal in that the word mentioned is literally the word of God by which he created all things. Philo of Alexander also uses the word logos the same way in his writ tings and his explanation of that particular doctrine is fairly good as far as I have looked at it. Jesus being human is the flesh part of the union. The union was accomplished when God gave Jesus his Spirit. (Matthew 12:18)

If you look John 1:1c then you will see that theos does not have the direct article preceding it and according to the first century Philo that means it is speaking about the image and not the one true God directly. He also declares the logos is the image and likeness of God.

1 John 3:16 is about serving other Christians, which is an act of love. Jesus actions reveal he did that to the point dying on the cross. Love is an facet of God's word.

Jesus teaches us to deny ourselves, pick up our cross, and follow him and John is just reminding Christ that is what they pledged to do.

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

[StanJ]

John 1:14 is literal in that the word mentioned is literally the word of God by which he created all things. Philo of Alexander also uses the word logos the same way in his writ tings and his explanation of that particular doctrine is fairly good as far as I have looked at it. Jesus being human is the flesh part of the union. The union was accomplished when God gave Jesus his Spirit. (Matthew 12:18)
If you look John 1:1c then you will see that theos does not have the direct article preceding it and according to the first century Philo that means it is speaking about the image and not the one true God directly. He also declares the logos is the image and likeness of God.

John 1:14 refers to the same WORD that is in John 1:1 and if you read John 1:1, which I can only assume you didn't based on your response here, it will show you that the WORD was with God and WAS God. Again you fail to understand the plain words of the Bible.

 

[kerwin]

John 1:14 refers to the same WORD that is in John 1:1 and if you read John 1:1, which I can only assume you didn't based on your response here, it will show you that the WORD was with God and WAS God. Again you fail to understand the plain words of the Bible.

I happen to read Scripture and I am told God spoke his word and all that was came to be.

The word is used the same way in Isaiah where God states "the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return" (Isaiah 45:23 [AV of the KJV]).

Historic Principle:

Philo of Alexandria wrote at the same time or earlier than John and his opinion of how the logos was used in Scripture is a point of view from that time period and fits with its use in John 1:1. Even some of those that believe Jesus is God today agree with him except they include being the one God as a quality of God and he does not since his tenet that God is unapproachable requires a degree of separation from the one true God.

I already used the Synthesis Principle to start out this thread. I use it again at the start of this post.

exegesis

 

[StanJ]

I happen to read Scripture and I am told God spoke his word and all that was came to be.

The word is used the same way in Isaiah where God states "the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return" (Isaiah 45:23 [AV of the KJV]).

Historic Principle:

Philo of Alexandria wrote at the same time or earlier than John and his opinion of how the logos was used in Scripture is a point of view from that time period and fits with its use in John 1:1. Even some of those that believe Jesus is God today agree with him except they include being the one God as a quality of God and he does not since his tenet that God is unapproachable requires a degree of separation from the one true God.

I already used the Synthesis Principle to start out this thread. I use it again at the start of this post.

exegesis

You happen to read scripture with a little comprehension of basic grammar. Your continued attempt to equivocate and deflect about word meanings is very evident in all your posts. You do not understand context or refuse to understand context in order to listen to that voice in your head that's telling you something different and the bottom line is that it is not God that goes against and contradicts his own written word.

 

[kerwin]

You happen to read scripture with a little comprehension of basic grammar. Your continued attempt to equivocate and deflect about word meanings is very evident in all your posts. You do not understand context or refuse to understand context in order to listen to that voice in your head that's telling you something different and the bottom line is that it is not God that goes against and contradicts his own written word.

False accusations are one of the fruits of the fallen nature of humanity.

The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language. ( got Questions.org:What is good biblical exegesis?)

I pointed out what that the word 'god' has more than one meaning in English and then put forward a common example to demonstrate it. In this way I established my point. I said that the Koine Greek word theos can likewise be applied to humans. You mentioned it was capitalized and I mentioned that that was the arbitrary choice of the translator. This choice of the translator is based on what the context perceive and I see no such context in the passage. I also see where that interpretation violates The Synthesis Principle of exegesis as Scripture literally teaches Jesus is a human being.

The later brings in the Literal Principle and the question of whether the statement that Jesus is a human being is literal and his being addressed as God "non-literal" or whether his being addressed as God is literal or "symbolic". Since you and I both agree that Jesus is human we did not discus the answer to that question. Last I have pointed out that God-fearing people did not believe that the Christ was the one true God in the first century. That fulfills the requirements of the Historic Principle of exegesis and it is the last one except for the Practical Principle; which is done by applying the knowledge.

None of this is equivocating.

I have many failures including thinking faster than I write and lack of going back and editing my works to correct errors. My English instructors do not judge my grammar as being bad an they are more qualified to do so than you. Never the less, I do edit before handing papers into them so almost certainly there are still flaws in my unedited posts. Sometimes my sentence structure is influenced by Scripture which is considered bad form to my English instructors. They do not really like the run on sentences present in the AV of the KJV. On the other hand, I certainly know good grammar though I do not always practice it. In addition, I can tell when a verb is present tense and when it is past tense.

Notes;

• I am not sure "symbolic" is the correct word to use when it involves employing a different meaning of the word than a different interpretation but the Literal Principle still seems the best applicably one then.
• got Questions.org recommends Basic Bible Interpretation By: Roy B. Zuck but I do not since I found no way to access it online.

 

[kerwin]

Ok. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

I am not sure it is an opinion since I have seen no reliable data from the first century that supports any other argument.

In science it would be called a theory since it could be disproved if reliable evidence came forward that revealed John did not see the use of logos as his contemporary Philo of Alexandria did.

 

[StanJ]

The Grammatical Principle. The Bible was written in human language, and language has a certain structure and follows certain rules. Therefore, we must interpret the Bible in a manner consistent with the basic rules of language.

That's absolutely correct, so I suggest you start following those rules.

I pointed out what that the word 'god' has more than one meaning in English and then put forward a common example to demonstrate it. In this way I established my point. I said that the Koine Greek word theos can likewise be applied to humans. You mentioned it was capitalized and I mentioned that that was the arbitrary choice of the translator. This choice of the translator is based on what the context perceive and I see no such context in the passage. I also see where that interpretation violates The Synthesis Principle of exegesis as Scripture literally teaches Jesus is a human being.

The fact of the matter is God has only one meeting in English which is why it is used in the Bible. It may have a few different applications but it only has one meaning and that basically is a Supreme Being.
The synthesis principle means that the Bible interprets itself and as such the Bible does not say that Jesus is only a human being, the Bible says God became a human being and that Jesus is the very representation of God in physical form. That's what the Bible says. What you do is equivocate about what the Bible says without using all of scripture, which means you don't employ the synthesis principle, despite referencing it.

The later brings in the Literal Principle and the question of whether the statement that Jesus is a human being is literal and his being addressed as God "non-literal" or whether his being addressed as God is literal or "symbolic". Since you and I both agree that Jesus is human we did not discus the answer to that question. Last I have pointed out that God-fearing people did not believe that the Christ was the one true God in the first century. That fulfills the requirements of the Historic Principle of exegesis and it is the last one except for the Practical Principle; which is done by applying the knowledge.

Literal principle is the third of three principles involved and hermeneutics and you continue to avoid the other two. Literalness does not connote exclusivity. The issue is not whether Jesus is a human being because we know that he is and what, the issue is that he is not only a human being but he is also God and a hypostatic union and you ignored scripture that indicates that so again you fail to follow the synthesis principle. Not a matter of dissecting hermeneutics, it's a matter of understanding how they all fit together in the whole process and it is very apparent that you don't understand that.

None of this is equivocating.
I have many failures including thinking faster than I write and lack of going back and editing my works to correct errors. My English instructors do not judge my grammar as being bad an they are more qualified to do so than you. Never the less, I do edit before handing papers into them so almost certainly there are still flaws in my unedited posts. Sometimes my sentence structure is influenced by Scripture which is considered bad form to my English instructors. They do not really like the run on sentences present in the AV of the KJV. On the other hand, I certainly know good grammar though I do not always practice it. In addition, I can tell when a verb is present tense and when it is past tense.

The issue is not whether you think faster than you write, the issue is whether or not you can convey complete thoughts in writing which sadly you have demonstrated that you cannot. Your thoughts are stinted and incohesive, which sometimes makes your posts incoherent. You can't learn as you go and try to make it appear as if you have the knowledge, you have to actually have the knowledge fully implemented into your own psyche in order to be able to convey it. I can assure you that ESL instructors may know the basics of English but they don't necessarily know the vernaculars of Christianity and the Bible better than I do. I was born and raised in English and have a very substantial vocabulary that is not as prevalent with most people. If you do know the difference between present and past tense, then you should not confuse the two when stating an opinion on scripture, as you have done numerous times.