Brakelite
Well-Known Member
You sound almost Catholic... Believe as we do or else...
This really grabbed me today!
- Thread starter stunnedbygrace
- 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!
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
It's not just Catholics my friend... LoL
Most people on this forum are like that.
They have firm beliefs and labell anyone who doesn't agree a heretic
Why do you attribute "theos" in John 1:1 as being Yahweh and not the times "theos" refers to Jesus?
When it comes to rejecting and denying Christ, those people are heretics.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
What makes you think "begotten" means "not created"? In every other mention of "monogenes" in the Bible, it speaks of an only child. There is no special word in the case of Jesus that means "uncreated".
A "begotten" child needs a 'begetter' who caused their existence and who preceded them in time.
John 17:20-22....KJV
" Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one".
This is a unity of thought and purpose.....nothing to do with Jesus being God....its about him being one with God, in full agreement....and the disciples also being in full agreement with them both.
Why pick just that one out of all those meanings? Ever heard of "the plural of majesty"...the royal "We"?
This word in Hebrew can relate to even divinely authorized human beings and angels. Try again....
When God said "Let us make man in our image" he was not talking to himself, but since all creation came into existence through the agency of his son, God was addressing his "Master workman" who was at his Father's side during the whole creative process. (Proverbs 8:30-31)
All creation came "through" the son, not from him. (Colossians 1:15-17) The son is not God. He is a "servant" of his Father. (Acts 4:27)
Read that again...it isn't saying what you think it is.....
In context it says....
"The words of Agur the son of Jakeh; The oracle. The man saith unto Ithiel, unto Ithiel and Ucal: 2 Surely I am more brutish than any man, And have not the understanding of a man; 3 And I have not learned wisdom, Neither have I the knowledge of the Holy One.
4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, and descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in his garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou knowest?" (ASV)
Not much is known about this writer of Proverbs 30, but he confesses no knowledge of the Holy One.
He asks rhetorically, "Who hath ascended up into heaven and descended?" This is asking who went up to heaven and came back down again.
At that time, asking "what is his name and what is his son's name?" was just about finding out who a person was....their name and the name of their son was their identity in those times....the reason why someone was known as "the son of...."
At that time no one knew that God was going to have human son. The only human son of God named in scripture up to that time, was Adam. (Luke 3:38) Christ's divine nature was revealed only when Jesus began his ministry and taught his disciples who he was. The Jews had no prior knowledge that their Messiah was to be a "son of God". They just knew he was to be a human king who would fulfill many prophesies and rule Israel, restoring God's people to their homeland and bringing them back to pure worship...something they had difficulty maintaining throughout their woeful history.
This is why the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus and accused him of blasphemy.....because he claimed God as his Father. He never once claimed to be God.
Yes, "he which is of God, he hath seen the Father"....or as the NSAB puts it..."Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father."
Where is that saying that Jesus is God?
Again you read right over what you don't see to highlight what seems to agree with your POV.
Verse 2...."Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds"
Why not highlight that verse?
Does God appoint his equal self to inherit what is already his? How is Jesus an "heir" if he is God....How can you make sense of any of this?
How about including the rest of that verse?....
"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."
"The express image of his person"......an image is a reflection and Jesus was a perfect reflection of his God....as Strongs points out...
"Christ is called in Hebrews 1:3 ἀπαύγ. τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ, inasmuch as he perfectly reflects the majesty of God; so that the same thing is declared here of Christ metaphysically, which he says of himself in an ethical sense in John 12:45 (John 14:9)"
But how does God sit beside himself?
'To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto Himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us
the word of reconciliation.'
(2Cor. 5:19)
Praise His Holy Name!
reconciling the world unto Himself,
not imputing their trespasses unto them;
and hath committed unto us
the word of reconciliation.'
(2Cor. 5:19)
Praise His Holy Name!
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Do you know of any other of whom the Father said, "This is My Son, hear ye Him"?
Yes. A Father. And your point?
You are correct. But you are relying on your cleverness to debate and obfuscate rather than simply look for truth. In the scripture you quote above, indeed that is a unity of purpose and agreement, just as you say. But in the scripture I quoted , the one you are attempting to explain, is far far more than a uni9ty of purpose and agreement, because the Jews took up stones to kill Jesus. For believing He agrees with God?
Nonsense. Every woman in the line of descendants from Eve, particularly in Jewry, hoped to be the mother of the Messiah. In fulfilment of Genesis 3:15
Who is He heir to? Is He not a Prince? Does that not make Him a part of the Royal family?
Oh please. I thought better of that from you, thinking you would use that intelligence you no doubt have. The use of such straw men and ridiculous suggestions does you no credit.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
"Theos" means..."a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities" (Strongs) so calling Jesus "theos" without the definite article (ho) can mean "a god" or a "god-like" or divinely authorized personage. It is also used to describe the human judges in Israel who were divinely appointed.
Jesus is called God's "holy servant" (Acts 4:27)....so right away we can see that God cannot be his own servant.
John 1:1 reads in the Mounce Greek Interlinear....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."
When you have God alone referred to in a verse of scripture, the definite article (ho) is not always used but when there is more than one "god" (divine personage) the definite article identifies Yahweh. (ho theos) You can see there that the definite article (ho) is only used once, which means that the second "theos" is not Yahweh.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Everytime you do this, you deny the Father and the Son.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Can you apply the same logic to the following in light of your insistence that Jesus is merely one of many created beings and therefore one of many 'sons'?
KJV 1 John 4:14
14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.
Cristo Rei
Well-Known Member
That's a good question. It's like how and why does God talk and pray to himself and call himself a Son of himself... How does God begot himself... And how does He sit beside himself.
One must use a degree of mental gymnastics to explain such things...
It makes more sense that Jesus is God's son just how God said
Hidden In Him
Well-Known Member
Yes. This is one of the things that bothers me about debating with non-Trinitarians. There's this strange admixture of sound, even scholarly argumentation combined with blatantly dismissive and childish stuff that makes you think they're not actually even paying attention to you. Very irritating, as if they're deliberately being obstinate, and it catches you off guard because it seems so strangely out of place in the discussion sometimes.
I find it maddening myself sometimes.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
No, it's a dumb question and doesn't belong in an intelligent discussion. We all agree, although perhaps not on the timing, that Jesus is the Son of God. So when we are discussing praying to the Father... Sitting next to the Father... Etc etc etc, we are talking about two distinct individual beings. And we are talking about relationship. The question is... Is the Son also God, as well as the Father? After all, are they not one.
Saying nonsense that God is talking to God, sitting next to God, etc, does nothing toward discovering truth, because it's designed only to sounds clever and make a mockery of others posts.
And here’s why I didn’t want to argue with either of you, it begins to sound insane to me and it begins to look like a passive aggressive control thing with words like “blasphemous” thrown in and a gaslighting argument that I am picking which verse is true when I’m not doing that but am saying they are both true. But you won’t see that I have said they both are true even if I say it again and put the evidence of that in writing before you five more times and will keep insisting I’m picking one and saying the other is not true when I’m actually not doing that. Then comes the “word soup” problem and anger when I won’t validate you. This is the whole crazy making cycle of a narcissist. That’s how I know I’m not even dealing with you but am dealing with the covert tactics of someone stronger than you or I.
Last edited:
It’s maddening by design. But if you know what the main goal of it is you can finally figure out what’s going on.
And I’m not a trinitarian but you don’t see those dismissive and childish things from me, so trinitarianism is not the problem here. Not the current one I am addressing anyway.
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
If I may correct this: The Trinity doctrine says we are talking about two distinct persons, but a single essence or being. Personhood and being are apparently not the same thing. The Nicene fathers expressed this in Greek philosophical terms. This is not the way we think, and I completely understand why we all can't agree on it. I just would hope we could agree on what the doctrine actually says.
Calm and measured reason will not work here but I love your peacemaking heart.
Edit: that was Brakelite - calm and reason works with him. I failed to note who you were responding to.
No one called you a heretic, so you aren’t a victim of that. Now it was intoned very strongly that I am blasphemous, but no one said anything like that to you, so making yourself a victim won’t work here.
Similar threads
