Exactly…the passage in Hebrews 1 clearly declares the deity of Christ. What is your point?
jesus declared...."it is jehovah your god you must worship,and it is
to him ALONE you must render sacred service" {matthew 4:10}
starbird x x x
Scripture shows that Jesus is also worshipped,
Matthew 14:33 NIV
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
John 5:23 NIV
that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
John 9:38 NIV
Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
Philippians 2:10 NIV
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Hebrews 1:6 NIV
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him"
Revelation 5:6-14 NIV
6Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang:
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!"
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!" 14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
... then you have to conclude that Jesus must have been a liar since he was human.
No, one doesn't have to conclude Jesus was a liar just because he was a human or because he was a man. Again you are making erroneous assumptions because your are drawing conclusions that are not based on scripture. The "men" refered to in Numbers 23 is refering to men who are partakers of [we share fully in] Adam's flesh and blood. Jesus on the other hand, only took part, he was not a partaker (he did not share fully) of Adam's flesh and blood like you and I - rather he, Jesus, only took part of Adam's flesh. The part Jesus did not fully partake of in was of Adam's blood. In fact, the scripture in Hebrews 2:14 explains this further and it explains it quite clearly:
"For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [refering to Jesus] also himself likewise took part of the same..."
All men (with the exception of Jesus Christ) are descendants of Adam, and as such we all partake of Adam's flesh and blood. The Greek word for partake in this verse in Hebrews 2:14 is "koinoneo" which means to "share fully". All of Adam's descendents (including you and me) share fully in Adam's flesh and blood and likewise in Adam's sinful nature. But Hebrews 2:14 says that Jesus only "took part". Those two English words are just one word in the Greek, the word "metecho", which means to, "take only a part, not all".
Jesus took "some part" but he did not take all; He did not partake, koinoneo, share fully like you and I in the sinfulness of Adam's blood. However, according to the flesh Jesus Christ was exactly like you and I, and just like Adam. That is why scripture calls Jesus Christ the second Adam. But the life of the flesh is in the blood (read Leviticus 17:11) and the life of the flesh in the blood that was in Jesus Christ did not come by the way of Adam - (like your's and mine) rather it came by way of the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit, God.
Scripturally speaking, the sinfulness in man is in the blood. The people of the old testament understood this when they killed the passover lamb and ate it's flesh. That sacrifice of the passover lamb "cleansed them" but this was only a temporary cleansing as the children of Israel were commanded to celebrate that event annually. Jesus Christ's sacrifice of himself as the passover lamb is uniquely significant, as the sacrifice of himself, of his flesh and blood took care of man's sin problem once and for all. But men still make Jesus' sacrifice of no effect by keeping of the law mainly through their ignorance of Jesus' accomplished work.
Unlike your blood and mine, Jesus Christ's blood was totally and completely pure. This is a fact recorded in the Word of God. Just because his blood was completely and totally pure does not make him God, because God is not flesh and blood. God is Spirit (John 4:24). In the bible Jesus Christ is called the second or the last Adam. God is never called Adam anywhere or at anyplace in the bible, however his son Jesus Christ is! Jesus Christ, the second [the last] Adam fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation because God could not do that, but his son could. This was Jesus Christ's purpose for coming into the world.
No, one doesn't have to conclude Jesus was a liar just because he was a human or because he was a man. Again you are making erroneous assumptions because your are drawing conclusions that are not based on scripture.
What The Hey,
Sonofarthur's assumptions were not erroneous; the argument in your previous post was errant. It went:
The "Jesus is God" doctrine makes God into a man. This scripture tells us and reveals to us that men lie. (Some men do intentionally, some not intentionally. Whether it is done intentionally or not, the truth is, men still lie.) Since men DO lie, the doctrine of the Trinity becomes a lie as it "makes God into a man" who is also a liar. The trinitarians have done nothing except make God into a man who is therefore a liar.
No, one doesn't have to conclude Jesus was a liar just because he was a human or because he was a man. Again you are making erroneous assumptions because your are drawing conclusions that are not based on scripture.
I wasn't making that conclusion.. I was only pointing out that your logic would take you there if you followed your stated logic all the way through.
I agree that Jesus was sinless. I think that metecho means something different than you do, for other reasons, but that is off topic. Since we agree that Jesus was sinless, I don't think we need to go there right now. So I won't go down that road at present.
The "men" refered to in Numbers 23 is refering to men who are partakers of [we share fully in] Adam's flesh and blood.
Now you are the one who is reading INTO this verse (from Numbers) what you understand from the rest of scripture.
That is okay. We shouldn't take verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible.
But, notice that you sacrifice your original argument here.
If YOU say that Numbers 23 is only referring to a certain type of man which you say that Jesus was not, then how can you use this verse to say that Jesus could not be God??
If you have other verses we should discuss them, but I think you just put Numbers 23 to rest. It doesn't prove your point. According to how YOU just interpreted it, it merely says that God is not a man that takes part fully in Adam's Flesh and Blood. Since you say Jesus did not partake fully, then God could be Jesus.
Unlike your blood and mine, Jesus Christ's blood was totally and completely pure. This is a fact recorded in the Word of God.
I agree.
Just because his blood was completely and totally pure does not make him God...
I agree, but his pure blood doesn't mean that He was not God either.
because God is not flesh and blood.
You haven't shown this from scripture.
God is Spirit (John 4:24).
So what, so are you and so am I. 1 Thessalonians says that we are spirit, soul, and body. Just because the Bible declares that God is Spirit doesn't preclude Him from being other things as well.
In the bible Jesus Christ is called the second or the last Adam. God is never called Adam anywhere or at anyplace in the bible, however his son Jesus Christ is!
This, my friend, is an argument from silence, and it won't fly. The Bible never calls God an Adam but so what. I never claimed that being an Adam made Jesus God. He is God also, but these are not mutually exclusive.
Jesus Christ, the second [the last]Adam fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation because God could not do that, but his son could.
Hold the phone! If you are going to place limits on what God can do, then you are going to have to give me verses on that. The only thing that I have ever read that God cannot do is lie.
jesus declared...."it is jehovah your god you must worship,and it is
to him ALONE you must render sacred service" {matthew 4:10}
starbird x x x
This is accurate, because this is what is written.
and yet, Jesus Himself willingly received worship in the Bible, go fig! (The intent here is to mean since only God can be worshipped, this then makes Jesus God.)
This is inaccurate, because this is NOT what is written.
Take another look at this verse, but this time let's read EXACTLY what is written. Here is the KJV of Matthew 4:10:
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
The last part of this verse of scripture does not say him only shalt thou worship. It says, him only shalt thou serve. The last word in this verse is the word serve, it's not the word "worship". The bible does not say one is only to worship God, however it does say that: him [God] only shalt you serve. One serving is not the same thing as one worshipping. Again, read EXACTLY what is written rather than reading into what is written.
So much wrong theology can be cleared up simply by one reading exactly what is written - and we haven't even gotten around yet to addressing the few scriptures that were intentionally forged in the KJV to say Jesus is God, i.e. like that one there in Timothy which says that: "God was manifest in the flesh." If you are already running into difficulty reading EXACTLY what is written in the bible, no doubt your going to have greater difficulty dealing with those few scriptures that were intentionally forged to say Jesus is God.
Just because the Bible declares that God is Spirit doesn't preclude Him from being other things as well.
If the bible declared God was something other than Spirit then it would say so. There are only two realms, the spiritual and the natural. The natural [flesh or senses] realm was created by God. God is not of or in the natural or senses realm, nor is He a created being. Making God out to be something other than Spirit is making God something "natural" or something created. Well, I suppose one could make their God into an "angel" (as angels are spirit beings) but angels were "created" and are therefore less and lower than God. See Hebrews.
"For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Hebrews 2:16. That verse says Jesus isn't even an angel - and if an angel is a lesser spirit being than God Almighty, then Jesus can't be the Supreme Spirit being [God] if Jesus isn't even a lesser spirit - an angel!
You said you read no other place in the bible of something that God can not do other than lie. Read James 1:13. James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. So not only is God incapable of lying, He can not be tempted with evil. The problem I see I am running into is with those who haven't even read the bible to begin to know what it says, much less saying anything about running into those who want to read into the Word of God to make it say something else other than what is written.
If the bible declared God was something other than Spirit then it would say so. There are only two realms, the spiritual and the natural. The natural [flesh or senses]realm was created by God. God is not of or in the natural or senses realm, nor is He a created being. Making God out to be something other than Spirit is making God something "natural" or something created. Well, I suppose one could make their God into an "angel" (as angels are spirit beings) but angels were "created" and are therefore less and lower than God. See Hebrews.
"For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Hebrews 2:16. That verse says Jesus isn't even an angel - and if an angel is a lesser spirit being than God Almighty, then Jesus can't be the Supreme Spirit being [God] if Jesus isn't even a lesser spirit - an angel!
Interesting passage in Hebrews, in that the writer addressing the notion of Jesus having the nature of angels must have been prompted by reason of contemporaries
No, one doesn't have to conclude Jesus was a liar just because he was a human or because he was a man. Again you are making erroneous assumptions because your are drawing conclusions that are not based on scripture. The "men" refered to in Numbers 23 is refering to men who are partakers of [we share fully in] Adam's flesh and blood. Jesus on the other hand, only took part, he was not a partaker (he did not share fully) of Adam's flesh and blood like you and I - rather he, Jesus, only took part of Adam's flesh. The part Jesus did not fully partake of in was of Adam's blood. In fact, the scripture in Hebrews 2:14 explains this further and it explains it quite clearly:
"For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [refering to Jesus] also himself likewise took part of the same..."
All men (with the exception of Jesus Christ) are descendants of Adam, and as such we all partake of Adam's flesh and blood. The Greek word for partake in this verse in Hebrews 2:14 is "koinoneo" which means to "share fully". All of Adam's descendents (including you and me) share fully in Adam's flesh and blood and likewise in Adam's sinful nature. But Hebrews 2:14 says that Jesus only "took part". Those two English words are just one word in the Greek, the word "metecho", which means to, "take only a part, not all".
Jesus took "some part" but he did not take all; He did not partake, koinoneo, share fully like you and I in the sinfulness of Adam's blood. However, according to the flesh Jesus Christ was exactly like you and I, and just like Adam. That is why scripture calls Jesus Christ the second Adam. But the life of the flesh is in the blood (read Leviticus 17:11) and the life of the flesh in the blood that was in Jesus Christ did not come by the way of Adam - (like your's and mine) rather it came by way of the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit, God.
Scripturally speaking, the sinfulness in man is in the blood. The people of the old testament understood this when they killed the passover lamb and ate it's flesh. That sacrifice of the passover lamb "cleansed them" but this was only a temporary cleansing as the children of Israel were commanded to celebrate that event annually. Jesus Christ's sacrifice of himself as the passover lamb is uniquely significant, as the sacrifice of himself, of his flesh and blood took care of man's sin problem once and for all. But men still make Jesus' sacrifice of no effect by keeping of the law mainly through their ignorance of Jesus' accomplished work.
Unlike your blood and mine, Jesus Christ's blood was totally and completely pure. This is a fact recorded in the Word of God. Just because his blood was completely and totally pure does not make him God, because God is not flesh and blood. God is Spirit (John 4:24). In the bible Jesus Christ is called the second or the last Adam. God is never called Adam anywhere or at anyplace in the bible, however his son Jesus Christ is! Jesus Christ, the second [the last] Adam fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation because God could not do that, but his son could. This was Jesus Christ's purpose for coming into the world.
o yeah ya got all this....
Lev 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil
The same flesh and blood is what it sounds like.
Note;
children-plural-he also 'himself' singular
If Jesus was taking anything or took anything it would be our sins - scripturally speaking of course.
Matt 8:17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
KJV: 1 Co 15:3
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
KJV: Ga 1:4
4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
KJV: Heb 1:3
3Who 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;
KJV: 1 Pe 2:24
24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
KJV: 1 Jn 2:2
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
KJV: 1 Jn 3:5
5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
KJV: 1 Jn 4:10
10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
KJV: Re 1:5
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
aahhh there it is - his own blood
and here's the flesh
Ephesians 2:15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
KJV: Heb 9:12
12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
KJV: Heb 13:12
12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
KJV: Re 1:5
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Here's the flesh and blood in Hebrews 9.
And then there is some pure water. Water.
1 John 5:6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Man, don't you see it? Jesus was a man just like us. He defeated death.
Jesus became one with the Christ which was from the beginning.
The first Adam, before Adam and Eve. And he finished 'it'.
I wasn't making that conclusion.. I was only pointing out that your logic would take you there if you followed your stated logic all the way through.
I agree that Jesus was sinless. I think that metecho means something different than you do, for other reasons, but that is off topic. Since we agree that Jesus was sinless, I don't think we need to go there right now. So I won't go down that road at present.
Now you are the one who is reading INTO this verse (from Numbers) what you understand from the rest of scripture.
That is okay. We shouldn't take verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible.
But, notice that you sacrifice your original argument here.
If YOU say that Numbers 23 is only referring to a certain type of man which you say that Jesus was not, then how can you use this verse to say that Jesus could not be God??
If you have other verses we should discuss them, but I think you just put Numbers 23 to rest. It doesn't prove your point. According to how YOU just interpreted it, it merely says that God is not a man that takes part fully in Adam's Flesh and Blood. Since you say Jesus did not partake fully, then God could be Jesus.
I agree.
I agree, but his pure blood doesn't mean that He was not God either.
You haven't shown this from scripture.
So what, so are you and so am I. 1 Thessalonians says that we are spirit, soul, and body. Just because the Bible declares that God is Spirit doesn't preclude Him from being other things as well....
Excellent catch, Son of Arthur! It just goes to show yah – the dishonesty and/or illogic of a person intent on holding to their position. It's amusing to watch What the Hey quote Scripture and demand everyone just read what's written, fault everyone else for applying even a smidgen amount of reasoning skills to UNDERSTAND what's written. However he himself goes through such a convoluted and illogical argument, loading his doctrinal preferences into the passage and twist out a meaning that agrees with his viewpoint.
So much wrong theology can be cleared up simply by one reading exactly what is written - and we haven't even gotten around yet to addressing the few scriptures that were intentionally forged in the KJV to say Jesus is God, i.e. like that one there in Timothy which says that: "God was manifest in the flesh." If you are already running into difficulty reading EXACTLY what is written in the bible, no doubt your going to have greater difficulty dealing with those few scriptures that were intentionally forged to say Jesus is God.
I lean towards the notion that some wrong theology would be corrected by reading the Bible like you would any other book – it appears to me that you need to become aware and/or be honest that you have been READING INTO Scripture on this thread – forcing you're theology into it…John Stott in Understanding the Bible is a great little book that offers three easy points that in my opinion help a Christian gain an understanding of the Bible that is perhaps not as bound up by a doctrinal straitjacket. When reading the Bible he recommends to: 1. Look for the natural sense – the obvious, logical meaning. 2. Look for the original sense – historical, cultural, grammatical. 3. Look for the general sense – with an overview of the entire body of Scripture and how harmoniously it fits with other passages on the same subject.
this is another question I have to put on my list:
could Jesus have sinned? if he could have sinned, he couldn't be God, or we're saying God can sin.
if Jesus could not have sinned, being God, then the temptation to sin wasn't valid and he is not our high priest.
so, the question I need an answer to in addition to the others is, could Jesus commit sin?
This issue is a hotly debated issue among trinitarians. I do think it is a secondary point because of the following.
Whether or not the Bible calls Jesus "God" is not dependent on whether or not Jesus could sin. If the Bible calls Jesus God, which I contend that it does so clearly repeatedly, then our job is not to use this one issue that we don't understand as justification for the re-writing and twisting of all of the several clear verses declaring Christ's Deity.
Another thing VPW did teach correctly is this: we should NEVER interpret clear verses in the light of unclear verses. Instead, we should interpret unclear verses (or concepts) in the light of clear verses (or concepts).
I added the phrase "or concepts" in light of my previous post about how the Bible should be used as a manual in interpreting itself.
That being said, let us get back to the sub-topic at hand:
Clear statements of scripture:
1) Jesus was tempted in all points, but he never sinned (Hebrews)
2) God cannot be tempted to commit evil (James)
3) Jesus is called God (again in Hebrews 1:8 spec, but in several other verses we have made mention of and will again in the future.
What is unclear from a direct reading of scripture:
How was Jesus tempted?
Could Jesus have sinned? (it is clear that he didn't sin, but did he have the ability?)
Personally, I think that the second question here is not clearly answered in scripture.
I am satisfied with the following conclusion on this matter:
"Whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin, it seems clear that he had the ability to NOT sin."
It was not Jesus's ability to sin that made him a suitable redeemer... but it was his ability to live a perfect life resisting sin.
Hebrews 4:14Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.15For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
9:28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Why does this say 'the second time without sin' about Christ?
Was the first with sin?
And how will he appear the second time?
'unto salvation'
If it's 'unto' the second time, what was it the first?
Cman,
if you want good answers to good questions (which yours seem to be), then you will need to give us a good enough amount of time to respond. I, for one, do not live in front of the monitor.
So far, all of the points that What the Hey has brought up have been things I have already prayed through, studied through, and came to a resolution about. But, the exact question you brought up from Hebrews 9:28 is new to me.
Thus, I reserve the right to modify my answer later, but let me tell you what this verse does NOT say.
Just because Jesus will come in the future without sin does not mean that his first coming was with sin.
Just because Jesus will come in the future "unto salvation" does not mean that his first coming was not also "unto salvation".
At first consideration of your question I can say that this verse must be understood in the context of Hebrews 9, which is all about Christ fulfilling the duties of the high priest in atoning for our sins. He DID appear with sin (i.e. a sin offering) before the true Holy of Holies. There, after "ascending" to this heavenly temple but before appearing to the eleven and later finally ascending several days later, He offered his own blood (a sin offering) for the salvation of mankind.
When He returns He will not need to offer up a sin offering. This has already been accomplished.
"Unto Salvation":
Our salvation comes in tenses (as I point out in a different thread). Our future salvation (of our bodies) has not occured yet, although it has already been paid for. I am not sure, but perhaps this verse from Hebrews 9 is talking about the future tense of our salvation. At that time our bodies will be redeemed when we are resurrected.
Now, I will stop on this tangent. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread.
he said O god....not my god
starbird x x x
So what!!!?!?!?
There is only ONE God!!!
Are you suggesting that the Father was engaging in Idolatry? God Forbid!! (exactly)
Take another look at this verse, but this time let's read EXACTLY what is written. Here is the KJV of Matthew 4:10:
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
The last part of this verse of scripture does not say him only shalt thou worship. It says, him only shalt thou serve. The last word in this verse is the word serve, it's not the word "worship". The bible does not say one is only to worship God, however it does say that: him [God] only shalt you serve. One serving is not the same thing as one worshipping. Again, read EXACTLY what is written rather than reading into what is written.
What the Hey,
I agree that Matthew 4:10 doesn't say that we can only worship God. But what verse from the OT was our Lord referring to? Do you even know? I guess that I will give you some benefit of the doubt.. afterall the verse reference is not too common. You have to go way back to an obscure reference in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!! But like I say, I shouldn't assume that you have ever read those. That would be way too presuming of me. I will quote it for you since it might be hard for you to find:
Exodus 20:1-4
1Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3“You shall have no other gods £before Me.
4“You shall not make for yourself £an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Notice that verse 3 says that you should have "no other gods before Me" and then verse 5 reads, "You shall not worship OR serve them..."
Jesus WAS saying we should ONLY WORSHIP GOD!!! He was quoting the OT, silly!
Someone will ask why Jesus's words sound a little different. Let us not forget, Jesus quoted from the "translation" of his day: The Septuagint. A little got lost in the translation, but we know that Jesus knew and his hearers at the time knew the reference to the OT to which He was referring. It was only the most revered part of the Hebrew scriptures!!
Also, it can be well-documented that Jesus would often paraphrase old testament passages to make points knowing full well that his hearers knew the rest of the passage he was paraphrasing. Bible teachers do that today. Paul the Apostle did it too. Certainly in Matthew 4, Jesus knew that Satan knew the reference. Jesus didn't need to get into the hebrew GRAMMAR with the devil to convince him. He just made reference to the SUM AND SUBSTANCE of the word of God from Exodus 20.
The principle here is that whenever the NT gives us a quote from the OT, then we should find the reference the quote is from and then read the context of the original verse so we can know what is meant by the person doing the quoting in the NT.
So much wrong theology can be cleared up simply by one reading exactly what is written - and we haven't even gotten around yet to addressing the few scriptures that were intentionally forged in the KJV to say Jesus is God, i.e. like that one there in Timothy which says that: "God was manifest in the flesh." If you are already running into difficulty reading EXACTLY what is written in the bible, no doubt your going to have greater difficulty dealing with those few scriptures that were intentionally forged to say Jesus is God.
I challenge you to demonstrate to me proof that those passages were "forged"!
This is SO typical of Way thinking!
This is the typical strategy:
If the Bible clearly says something that you disagree with, then call it a figure of speech.
If you can't find a way to call it a figure of speech, then call it a forgery (you don't need proof for that).
If all else fails, just ignore the verse and hope no one ever brings it up. If they do, tell them that they are possessed.
(What the Hey hasn't gotten to the last tactic yet, but I thought I would predict it just in case.)
One more note,
1 John 5:7 was a forgery. Everyone agrees with that. So don't throw that one at me.
But, you were not quoting 1 John 5:7 were you. What evidence do you have that the verse you quoted was a forgery?
If the bible declared God was something other than Spirit then it would say so. There are only two realms, the spiritual and the natural. The natural [flesh or senses] realm was created by God. God is not of or in the natural or senses realm, nor is He a created being. Making God out to be something other than Spirit is making God something "natural" or something created. Well, I suppose one could make their God into an "angel" (as angels are spirit beings) but angels were "created" and are therefore less and lower than God. See Hebrews.
My friend, that is sophistry. Pure and simple malarky.
You are, once again, engaging in an argument from silence. If you want to be technical, I believe the Bible DOES tell us how God (a spirit) became flesh (John 1:14). Even if you discount my reading of John 1:14, which waybrains have all messed up anyway, then you are still left with an argument from silence. I, for one, will not place limits upon God that He has not clearly placed upon Himself.
God manifested himself in the flesh realm SEVERAL times in the OT. Consider the burning bush for starters. If you think the bush was really just Spirit, then how did Moses (a natural man) see it?
Consider angels: they came into "concretion" (to use VPW's terms) many, many times. Are you saying that Angels can do something that God Himself is UNABLE to do??? Tskk, tskk!! You almost sound Gnostic!
You said you read no other place in the bible of something that God can not do other than lie. Read James 1:13. James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. So not only is God incapable of lying, He can not be tempted with evil.
Excuse me, but James 1:13 is not a limitation placed upon God, but upon evil. Evil is not strong enough to tempt him. This verse doesn't say that God cannot do something, but that something (evil) cannot do something to God.
The problem I see I am running into is with those who haven't even read the bible to begin to know what it says, much less saying anything about running into those who want to read into the Word of God to make it say something else other than what is written.
That is an ad hominem attack.
That is another ploy of the Waybrain. If your opponent starts to make too much sense, then just insult him.
I would like to put excerpts from a book on the discussion table – with the hope that we can raise the intellectual substance of this thread above some of the exercises in futility that have happened of late. Repeating my position mentioned before I am Trinitarian – and the author of this book is Trinitarian. My purpose in posting these excerpts is to provide some solid material that can be analyzed through discussion – rather than engaging in typical my-verse-counters-your-verse stuff. I'm not saying everything in this book is correct or even that my doctrinal position is correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm offering these excerpts as some evidence that does indeed favor the doctrine of the Trinity but hope that all will apply their best critical thinking skills to see if the author's points have merit.
The following excerpts are from The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey, 1996, Word Publishing Inc.:
Part II The Old Testament Evidence
Chapter Seven, A Multi-Personal God
Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it does not make much sense to discuss how many Persons there are in the Godhead and how They relate to each other until you have first established the multi-personal nature of God.
What to Expect
If the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would write about God in such a way as to indicate this idea to their readers. Thus, we must ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if its authors believed that God was multi-personal?"
On the other hand if the authors of the Bible believed that God was only one person, i.e. they were Unitarians, then they would write about God in such a way as to indicate that idea. Thus, we are also warranted to ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if Unitarians wrote it?"…
The Oneness of God
The first question is how did the biblical authors, under inspiration of God, conceive of the oneness of God? There are nine different Hebrew words which at times are translated as the word "one."…[page 87]
…there is only one word which would indicate that God is one solitary person. If this word is applied to God in the Bible, this would be quite damaging to the Trinitarian position. The word is yachiyd [Strong's # 3173] and means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated "solitary" in Psalm 68:6…and refers to someone who is absolutely alone…When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture never applied yachiyd to God…In the list of Hebrew words which speak of oneness, the word echad [Strong's # 259] refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as "one." The following sample passages illustrate this compound meaning of oneness:
Genesis 1:5 The first day is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning.
Genesis 2:24 Adam and Eve became one flesh…
Genesis 3:22 Adam and Eve became one with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became "one" with God.
Genesis 11:6 The people were one. They were, thus, "one" and "many" at the same time.
Genesis 34:16,22 The Shechemites wanted to become one people with the Jews.
II Chronicles 30:12 God gave the people one heart. Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were "one" in a compound or composite sense.
Ezra 2:64 The congregation of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as one.
Jeremiah 32:39 Under the New Covenant, God will give His people one heart…[pages 88, 89]
…if the writers of Scripture believed that God was multi-personal then we would expect to find that they would apply echad to God because this would mean that God is "one" in a composite or compound sense…This is so central to the Old Testament concept of God that it is found in Israel's Great Confession:
"Hear, O Israel, [Yahweh] our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" [Deuteronomy 6:4]…
But how can this be the true understanding of echadwhen the Jews today reject the doctrine of the Trinity? The noted Hebrew scholar, David Cooper, explains:
"Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides, the unity of God was expressed by echad which, as has been proved beyond a doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the wordyachiyd which in the Tenach is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substitutingyachiyd which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense for echad which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage." [from: David L. Cooper, The Eternal God Revealing Himself (Harrisburg: Evangelical Press, 1928), 59-60]…[pages 89, 90]
Singular and Plural Words
If the authors of Scripture believed there was only one God, how could they express this idea in the Hebrew language? The only way, in terms of Hebrew grammar, was to use singular nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs in reference to God. Thus, they would refer to God as "He," "Him," and "His" and describe God saying, "I," "Myself," and "Me."…But, if they also believed that God was multi-personal, the only way this idea could be indicated in the Hebrew was to use plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. They would also refer to God as "They," "Them," and "Theirs" and describe God as saying "We," "Us," and "Ours."
While both Trinitarians and Unitarians expect to find singular words applied to God, because they both believe there is only one God numerically speaking, only Trinitarians expect to find plural words used of God as well…[page 90]
End of Excerpt
In my next post I'll continue with excerpts from this chapter on the use of plural pronouns.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
26
25
34
Popular Days
Jan 27
30
Jan 22
27
Jan 23
26
Jan 26
25
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 26 posts
potato 26 posts
cman 25 posts
sonofarthur 34 posts
Popular Days
Jan 27 2007
30 posts
Jan 22 2007
27 posts
Jan 23 2007
26 posts
Jan 26 2007
25 posts
Posted Images
T-Bone
Exactly…the passage in Hebrews 1 clearly declares the deity of Christ. What is your point?
Scripture shows that Jesus is also worshipped,
Matthew 14:33 NIV
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
John 5:23 NIV
that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
John 9:38 NIV
Then the man said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.
Philippians 2:10 NIV
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Hebrews 1:6 NIV
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him"
Revelation 5:6-14 NIV
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song:
"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
and they will reign on the earth."
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang:
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!"
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!" 14 The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
No, one doesn't have to conclude Jesus was a liar just because he was a human or because he was a man. Again you are making erroneous assumptions because your are drawing conclusions that are not based on scripture. The "men" refered to in Numbers 23 is refering to men who are partakers of [we share fully in] Adam's flesh and blood. Jesus on the other hand, only took part, he was not a partaker (he did not share fully) of Adam's flesh and blood like you and I - rather he, Jesus, only took part of Adam's flesh. The part Jesus did not fully partake of in was of Adam's blood. In fact, the scripture in Hebrews 2:14 explains this further and it explains it quite clearly:
"For as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he [refering to Jesus] also himself likewise took part of the same..."
All men (with the exception of Jesus Christ) are descendants of Adam, and as such we all partake of Adam's flesh and blood. The Greek word for partake in this verse in Hebrews 2:14 is "koinoneo" which means to "share fully". All of Adam's descendents (including you and me) share fully in Adam's flesh and blood and likewise in Adam's sinful nature. But Hebrews 2:14 says that Jesus only "took part". Those two English words are just one word in the Greek, the word "metecho", which means to, "take only a part, not all".
Jesus took "some part" but he did not take all; He did not partake, koinoneo, share fully like you and I in the sinfulness of Adam's blood. However, according to the flesh Jesus Christ was exactly like you and I, and just like Adam. That is why scripture calls Jesus Christ the second Adam. But the life of the flesh is in the blood (read Leviticus 17:11) and the life of the flesh in the blood that was in Jesus Christ did not come by the way of Adam - (like your's and mine) rather it came by way of the supernatural conception by the Holy Spirit, God.
Scripturally speaking, the sinfulness in man is in the blood. The people of the old testament understood this when they killed the passover lamb and ate it's flesh. That sacrifice of the passover lamb "cleansed them" but this was only a temporary cleansing as the children of Israel were commanded to celebrate that event annually. Jesus Christ's sacrifice of himself as the passover lamb is uniquely significant, as the sacrifice of himself, of his flesh and blood took care of man's sin problem once and for all. But men still make Jesus' sacrifice of no effect by keeping of the law mainly through their ignorance of Jesus' accomplished work.
Unlike your blood and mine, Jesus Christ's blood was totally and completely pure. This is a fact recorded in the Word of God. Just because his blood was completely and totally pure does not make him God, because God is not flesh and blood. God is Spirit (John 4:24). In the bible Jesus Christ is called the second or the last Adam. God is never called Adam anywhere or at anyplace in the bible, however his son Jesus Christ is! Jesus Christ, the second [the last] Adam fulfilled all the legal requirements for our redemption and salvation because God could not do that, but his son could. This was Jesus Christ's purpose for coming into the world.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
What The Hey,
Sonofarthur's assumptions were not erroneous; the argument in your previous post was errant. It went:
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
I wasn't making that conclusion.. I was only pointing out that your logic would take you there if you followed your stated logic all the way through.
I agree that Jesus was sinless. I think that metecho means something different than you do, for other reasons, but that is off topic. Since we agree that Jesus was sinless, I don't think we need to go there right now. So I won't go down that road at present.
Now you are the one who is reading INTO this verse (from Numbers) what you understand from the rest of scripture.
That is okay. We shouldn't take verses out of the context of the rest of the Bible.
But, notice that you sacrifice your original argument here.
If YOU say that Numbers 23 is only referring to a certain type of man which you say that Jesus was not, then how can you use this verse to say that Jesus could not be God??
If you have other verses we should discuss them, but I think you just put Numbers 23 to rest. It doesn't prove your point. According to how YOU just interpreted it, it merely says that God is not a man that takes part fully in Adam's Flesh and Blood. Since you say Jesus did not partake fully, then God could be Jesus.
I agree.I agree, but his pure blood doesn't mean that He was not God either.
You haven't shown this from scripture.So what, so are you and so am I. 1 Thessalonians says that we are spirit, soul, and body. Just because the Bible declares that God is Spirit doesn't preclude Him from being other things as well.
This, my friend, is an argument from silence, and it won't fly. The Bible never calls God an Adam but so what. I never claimed that being an Adam made Jesus God. He is God also, but these are not mutually exclusive.
Hold the phone! If you are going to place limits on what God can do, then you are going to have to give me verses on that. The only thing that I have ever read that God cannot do is lie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Hmmmmm... how did I miss this?
Take another look at this verse, but this time let's read EXACTLY what is written. Here is the KJV of Matthew 4:10:
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
The last part of this verse of scripture does not say him only shalt thou worship. It says, him only shalt thou serve. The last word in this verse is the word serve, it's not the word "worship". The bible does not say one is only to worship God, however it does say that: him [God] only shalt you serve. One serving is not the same thing as one worshipping. Again, read EXACTLY what is written rather than reading into what is written.
So much wrong theology can be cleared up simply by one reading exactly what is written - and we haven't even gotten around yet to addressing the few scriptures that were intentionally forged in the KJV to say Jesus is God, i.e. like that one there in Timothy which says that: "God was manifest in the flesh." If you are already running into difficulty reading EXACTLY what is written in the bible, no doubt your going to have greater difficulty dealing with those few scriptures that were intentionally forged to say Jesus is God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That's just one reminder why I don't try to engage in rational discussions on this subject.
I came to my conclusion, and posters on both sides are welcome to disagree with it,
and I save a lot of time not trying to promote it-or attack either side.
One of the drawbacks of open discussion on an open board is there's no quality
control, so some of the excellent posts on this thread get mixed in with posts
that aren't excellent. Just the cost of doing business....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
If the bible declared God was something other than Spirit then it would say so. There are only two realms, the spiritual and the natural. The natural [flesh or senses] realm was created by God. God is not of or in the natural or senses realm, nor is He a created being. Making God out to be something other than Spirit is making God something "natural" or something created. Well, I suppose one could make their God into an "angel" (as angels are spirit beings) but angels were "created" and are therefore less and lower than God. See Hebrews.
"For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." Hebrews 2:16. That verse says Jesus isn't even an angel - and if an angel is a lesser spirit being than God Almighty, then Jesus can't be the Supreme Spirit being [God] if Jesus isn't even a lesser spirit - an angel!
You said you read no other place in the bible of something that God can not do other than lie. Read James 1:13. James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted with evil. So not only is God incapable of lying, He can not be tempted with evil. The problem I see I am running into is with those who haven't even read the bible to begin to know what it says, much less saying anything about running into those who want to read into the Word of God to make it say something else other than what is written.
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Interesting passage in Hebrews, in that the writer addressing the notion of Jesus having the nature of angels must have been prompted by reason of contemporaries
who held precisely such a belief.
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
WhatTheHey-
Matthew 27:4Squeezing that verse to say what you said is a stretch.
Got any other Word of God?
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
o yeah ya got all this....
Lev 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
hmmm.....no pureness requirement here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
WTH, I don't know where in the scripture this would be. Could you point it out. You keep making these claims without any scripture.
Not being nit picky just an honest discussion.
Though no one has tryed to answer my honest questions.
I must suppose no one has the answers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil
The same flesh and blood is what it sounds like.
Note;
children-plural-he also 'himself' singular
If Jesus was taking anything or took anything it would be our sins - scripturally speaking of course.
Matt 8:17That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
KJV: 1 Co 15:3
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
KJV: Ga 1:4
4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
KJV: Heb 1:3
3Who 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;
KJV: 1 Pe 2:24
24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
KJV: 1 Jn 2:2
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
KJV: 1 Jn 3:5
5And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
KJV: 1 Jn 4:10
10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
KJV: Re 1:5
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
aahhh there it is - his own blood
and here's the flesh
Ephesians 2:15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
KJV: Ac 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
KJV: Heb 9:12
12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
KJV: Heb 13:12
12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.
KJV: Re 1:5
5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
11And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Water, Pure water.
Lots of work to get these to you :)
just kidding...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
19Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, 20By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21And having an high priest over the house of God; 22Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Here's the flesh and blood in Hebrews 9.
And then there is some pure water. Water.
1 John 5:6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Man, don't you see it? Jesus was a man just like us. He defeated death.
Jesus became one with the Christ which was from the beginning.
The first Adam, before Adam and Eve. And he finished 'it'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Excellent catch, Son of Arthur! It just goes to show yah – the dishonesty and/or illogic of a person intent on holding to their position. It's amusing to watch What the Hey quote Scripture and demand everyone just read what's written, fault everyone else for applying even a smidgen amount of reasoning skills to UNDERSTAND what's written. However he himself goes through such a convoluted and illogical argument, loading his doctrinal preferences into the passage and twist out a meaning that agrees with his viewpoint.
I lean towards the notion that some wrong theology would be corrected by reading the Bible like you would any other book – it appears to me that you need to become aware and/or be honest that you have been READING INTO Scripture on this thread – forcing you're theology into it…John Stott in Understanding the Bible is a great little book that offers three easy points that in my opinion help a Christian gain an understanding of the Bible that is perhaps not as bound up by a doctrinal straitjacket. When reading the Bible he recommends to: 1. Look for the natural sense – the obvious, logical meaning. 2. Look for the original sense – historical, cultural, grammatical. 3. Look for the general sense – with an overview of the entire body of Scripture and how harmoniously it fits with other passages on the same subject.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
This issue is a hotly debated issue among trinitarians. I do think it is a secondary point because of the following.
Whether or not the Bible calls Jesus "God" is not dependent on whether or not Jesus could sin. If the Bible calls Jesus God, which I contend that it does so clearly repeatedly, then our job is not to use this one issue that we don't understand as justification for the re-writing and twisting of all of the several clear verses declaring Christ's Deity.
Another thing VPW did teach correctly is this: we should NEVER interpret clear verses in the light of unclear verses. Instead, we should interpret unclear verses (or concepts) in the light of clear verses (or concepts).
I added the phrase "or concepts" in light of my previous post about how the Bible should be used as a manual in interpreting itself.
That being said, let us get back to the sub-topic at hand:
Clear statements of scripture:
1) Jesus was tempted in all points, but he never sinned (Hebrews)
2) God cannot be tempted to commit evil (James)
3) Jesus is called God (again in Hebrews 1:8 spec, but in several other verses we have made mention of and will again in the future.
What is unclear from a direct reading of scripture:
How was Jesus tempted?
Could Jesus have sinned? (it is clear that he didn't sin, but did he have the ability?)
Personally, I think that the second question here is not clearly answered in scripture.
I am satisfied with the following conclusion on this matter:
"Whether or not Jesus had the ability to sin, it seems clear that he had the ability to NOT sin."
It was not Jesus's ability to sin that made him a suitable redeemer... but it was his ability to live a perfect life resisting sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Cman,
if you want good answers to good questions (which yours seem to be), then you will need to give us a good enough amount of time to respond. I, for one, do not live in front of the monitor.
So far, all of the points that What the Hey has brought up have been things I have already prayed through, studied through, and came to a resolution about. But, the exact question you brought up from Hebrews 9:28 is new to me.
Thus, I reserve the right to modify my answer later, but let me tell you what this verse does NOT say.
Just because Jesus will come in the future without sin does not mean that his first coming was with sin.
Just because Jesus will come in the future "unto salvation" does not mean that his first coming was not also "unto salvation".
At first consideration of your question I can say that this verse must be understood in the context of Hebrews 9, which is all about Christ fulfilling the duties of the high priest in atoning for our sins. He DID appear with sin (i.e. a sin offering) before the true Holy of Holies. There, after "ascending" to this heavenly temple but before appearing to the eleven and later finally ascending several days later, He offered his own blood (a sin offering) for the salvation of mankind.
When He returns He will not need to offer up a sin offering. This has already been accomplished.
"Unto Salvation":
Our salvation comes in tenses (as I point out in a different thread). Our future salvation (of our bodies) has not occured yet, although it has already been paid for. I am not sure, but perhaps this verse from Hebrews 9 is talking about the future tense of our salvation. At that time our bodies will be redeemed when we are resurrected.
Now, I will stop on this tangent. Perhaps we can continue it on another thread.
So what!!!?!?!?
There is only ONE God!!!
Are you suggesting that the Father was engaging in Idolatry? God Forbid!! (exactly)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
well, don't bother sonofarthur..........
we don't see eye to eye anyway on enough to build
maybe some other time
peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
What the Hey,
I agree that Matthew 4:10 doesn't say that we can only worship God. But what verse from the OT was our Lord referring to? Do you even know? I guess that I will give you some benefit of the doubt.. afterall the verse reference is not too common. You have to go way back to an obscure reference in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!!!! But like I say, I shouldn't assume that you have ever read those. That would be way too presuming of me. I will quote it for you since it might be hard for you to find:
Exodus 20:1-4
1Then God spoke all these words, saying,
2“I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
3“You shall have no other gods £before Me.
4“You shall not make for yourself £an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Notice that verse 3 says that you should have "no other gods before Me" and then verse 5 reads, "You shall not worship OR serve them..."
Jesus WAS saying we should ONLY WORSHIP GOD!!! He was quoting the OT, silly!
Someone will ask why Jesus's words sound a little different. Let us not forget, Jesus quoted from the "translation" of his day: The Septuagint. A little got lost in the translation, but we know that Jesus knew and his hearers at the time knew the reference to the OT to which He was referring. It was only the most revered part of the Hebrew scriptures!!
Also, it can be well-documented that Jesus would often paraphrase old testament passages to make points knowing full well that his hearers knew the rest of the passage he was paraphrasing. Bible teachers do that today. Paul the Apostle did it too. Certainly in Matthew 4, Jesus knew that Satan knew the reference. Jesus didn't need to get into the hebrew GRAMMAR with the devil to convince him. He just made reference to the SUM AND SUBSTANCE of the word of God from Exodus 20.
The principle here is that whenever the NT gives us a quote from the OT, then we should find the reference the quote is from and then read the context of the original verse so we can know what is meant by the person doing the quoting in the NT.
I challenge you to demonstrate to me proof that those passages were "forged"!
This is SO typical of Way thinking!
This is the typical strategy:
If the Bible clearly says something that you disagree with, then call it a figure of speech.
If you can't find a way to call it a figure of speech, then call it a forgery (you don't need proof for that).
If all else fails, just ignore the verse and hope no one ever brings it up. If they do, tell them that they are possessed.
(What the Hey hasn't gotten to the last tactic yet, but I thought I would predict it just in case.)
One more note,
1 John 5:7 was a forgery. Everyone agrees with that. So don't throw that one at me.
But, you were not quoting 1 John 5:7 were you. What evidence do you have that the verse you quoted was a forgery?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
My friend, that is sophistry. Pure and simple malarky.
You are, once again, engaging in an argument from silence. If you want to be technical, I believe the Bible DOES tell us how God (a spirit) became flesh (John 1:14). Even if you discount my reading of John 1:14, which waybrains have all messed up anyway, then you are still left with an argument from silence. I, for one, will not place limits upon God that He has not clearly placed upon Himself.
God manifested himself in the flesh realm SEVERAL times in the OT. Consider the burning bush for starters. If you think the bush was really just Spirit, then how did Moses (a natural man) see it?
Consider angels: they came into "concretion" (to use VPW's terms) many, many times. Are you saying that Angels can do something that God Himself is UNABLE to do??? Tskk, tskk!! You almost sound Gnostic!
Excuse me, but James 1:13 is not a limitation placed upon God, but upon evil. Evil is not strong enough to tempt him. This verse doesn't say that God cannot do something, but that something (evil) cannot do something to God.That is an ad hominem attack.
That is another ploy of the Waybrain. If your opponent starts to make too much sense, then just insult him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I would like to put excerpts from a book on the discussion table – with the hope that we can raise the intellectual substance of this thread above some of the exercises in futility that have happened of late. Repeating my position mentioned before I am Trinitarian – and the author of this book is Trinitarian. My purpose in posting these excerpts is to provide some solid material that can be analyzed through discussion – rather than engaging in typical my-verse-counters-your-verse stuff. I'm not saying everything in this book is correct or even that my doctrinal position is correct and everyone else is wrong. I'm offering these excerpts as some evidence that does indeed favor the doctrine of the Trinity but hope that all will apply their best critical thinking skills to see if the author's points have merit.
The following excerpts are from The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey, 1996, Word Publishing Inc.:
Part II The Old Testament Evidence
Chapter Seven, A Multi-Personal God
Trinitarians believe that while there is only one God, numerically speaking, yet within this one God, there exists more than one person, ego, intellect or self. This is the fundamental principle underlying the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus it does not make much sense to discuss how many Persons there are in the Godhead and how They relate to each other until you have first established the multi-personal nature of God.
What to Expect
If the authors of the Bible believed that God was multi-personal, then we would expect to find that they would write about God in such a way as to indicate this idea to their readers. Thus, we must ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if its authors believed that God was multi-personal?"
On the other hand if the authors of the Bible believed that God was only one person, i.e. they were Unitarians, then they would write about God in such a way as to indicate that idea. Thus, we are also warranted to ask, "What would we expect to find in the Bible, if Unitarians wrote it?"…
The Oneness of God
The first question is how did the biblical authors, under inspiration of God, conceive of the oneness of God? There are nine different Hebrew words which at times are translated as the word "one."…[page 87]
…there is only one word which would indicate that God is one solitary person. If this word is applied to God in the Bible, this would be quite damaging to the Trinitarian position. The word is yachiyd [Strong's # 3173] and means an absolute or solitary oneness. It is even translated "solitary" in Psalm 68:6…and refers to someone who is absolutely alone…When we turn to the Bible, what do we find? The authors of Scripture never applied yachiyd to God…In the list of Hebrew words which speak of oneness, the word echad [Strong's # 259] refers to a compound oneness in which a number of things together are described as "one." The following sample passages illustrate this compound meaning of oneness:
Genesis 1:5 The first day is a combination of two things – the evening and the morning.
Genesis 2:24 Adam and Eve became one flesh…
Genesis 3:22 Adam and Eve became one with God. But they did not lose their personhood when they became "one" with God.
Genesis 11:6 The people were one. They were, thus, "one" and "many" at the same time.
Genesis 34:16,22 The Shechemites wanted to become one people with the Jews.
II Chronicles 30:12 God gave the people one heart. Obviously, the thousands of individual hearts were "one" in a compound or composite sense.
Ezra 2:64 The congregation of forty two thousand, three hundred and sixty persons was described as one.
Jeremiah 32:39 Under the New Covenant, God will give His people one heart…[pages 88, 89]
…if the writers of Scripture believed that God was multi-personal then we would expect to find that they would apply echad to God because this would mean that God is "one" in a composite or compound sense…This is so central to the Old Testament concept of God that it is found in Israel's Great Confession:
"Hear, O Israel, [Yahweh] our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!" [Deuteronomy 6:4]…
But how can this be the true understanding of echad when the Jews today reject the doctrine of the Trinity? The noted Hebrew scholar, David Cooper, explains:
"Prior to the days of Moses Maimonides, the unity of God was expressed by echad which, as has been proved beyond a doubt, has as its primary meaning that of a compound unity. Maimonides, who drafted the thirteen articles of faith, in the second one sets forth the unity of God, using the word yachiyd which in the Tenach is never used to express God's unity. From these facts it is evident that a new idea was injected into this confession by substituting yachiyd which in every passage carries the primary idea of oneness in the absolute sense for echad which primarily means a compound unity. Hence from the days of Maimonides on, an interpretation different from the ancient one was placed upon this most important passage." [from: David L. Cooper, The Eternal God Revealing Himself (Harrisburg: Evangelical Press, 1928), 59-60]…[pages 89, 90]
Singular and Plural Words
If the authors of Scripture believed there was only one God, how could they express this idea in the Hebrew language? The only way, in terms of Hebrew grammar, was to use singular nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs in reference to God. Thus, they would refer to God as "He," "Him," and "His" and describe God saying, "I," "Myself," and "Me."…But, if they also believed that God was multi-personal, the only way this idea could be indicated in the Hebrew was to use plural nouns, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. They would also refer to God as "They," "Them," and "Theirs" and describe God as saying "We," "Us," and "Ours."
While both Trinitarians and Unitarians expect to find singular words applied to God, because they both believe there is only one God numerically speaking, only Trinitarians expect to find plural words used of God as well…[page 90]
End of Excerpt
In my next post I'll continue with excerpts from this chapter on the use of plural pronouns.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
T-bone!!
Where can I get that book?
Thank you for redirecting the conversation in a productive way... I think I allowed myself to get distracted off the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I bought my copy through Christian Book Distributors:
http://www.christianbook.com/?p=1018818
It came up here when I Googled the title:
http://www.amazon.com/Trinity-Evidence-Iss...y/dp/0529106922
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.