so, back to why I want to see some sense... since the assertion was made that God made it obvious in the bible to see the "truth" of the trinity, that's what I'm looking for here. it might be obvious to some people because they want to see it, but I'm not one of those, so it's going to be more of a challenge for me to see it. I'm not swallowing it just because someone else likes the idea. I also didn't say there's something wrong with it, but that also isn't enough to make me believe it.
Okay, gotcha. I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here. I don't worship the god of the bible, no many how many "persons" he is supposed to have. I'm just trying to encourage rational discussion. Sounds like you are too.
but much of this comes down to personal opinion... whether something is interpreted figuratively or literally. there is no believing what the bible says without make a subjective judgment. trinity is true if you take some things literally and the rest figuratively. Jesus is not God if you take other things literally and the rest figurately.
I'm left once again at my original statement, that I expect that something others consider so obvious should be easy to make sense of, and I think that's entirely reasonable.
I think we're saying the same thing...pretty much
what the whole church agreed that the Bible taught.
Invisible Dan has a lot of this stuff at the front of his brain, but "the whole church" didn't agree on very much until what became known as the orthodox crowded out the otehr groups.
thats fine darling...
most of my posts and replys have not been based on my own opinion,
i use the scriptures to prove a point..
and of course it is up to you to find for yourself the answers.
based on scriptural evidence..
love starbird x x x
You're right, everyone else who disagrees is wrong. Gotcha.
The rest of you just shut up and let starbird tell us what the bible says
...but much of this comes down to personal opinion... whether something is interpreted figuratively or literally. there is no believing what the bible says without make a subjective judgment. trinity is true if you take some things literally and the rest figuratively.
Well you are getting very close, but figures of speech are not merely one's own personal opinion. E.W. Bullinger, perhaps the greatest authority on figures of speech used in the bible would agree that figures of speech are not someones personal opinion. (Read the introduction of "Figures of Speech Used in The Bible by E.W. Bullinger for further insight on the matter.)
Unfortunately Bullinger gives more credence to figures of speech being the key to true interpretation than what it honestly deserves. While figures of speech are certainly a main key to interpreting the scriptures, they are not the "root" or the only main key to the scriptures interpretation. To quote Bullinger in regards to Figures of Speech used in the Bible, "It is not open to any one to say of this or that word or sentance, "This is a figure," according to his own fancy, or to suit his own purpose. We are dealing with a science whose laws and their working are known." (From: Figures of Speech Used In The Bible, E.W. Bullinger. p.vi)
There are other sciences that one can apply to the Word of God that are just as valid as "Figures of Speech". For example there are the idioms and the Eastern customs of the bible that one must fully consider as well. It's when all these various sciences harmonize on the scriptures where one is getting the closest to drawing the intended truth from the Word of God ...
One very common figure of speech used in the bible is the figure "condescencio" - the figure of speech used in the ascribing of human passions, actions and attributes to God. It is the literalizing of this figure which has only led men into the common error of believing that God can turn Himself into and actually become human flesh.
That's not 'honest discussion' (the title of this thread), it's misrepresenting what your other side thinks then flogging it. I forget which logical fallacy that is.
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.
The bible, God's Word does speak of and about a god who is a liar. If you think he's the one with the truth, then you've got some serious problems that you must be dealing with.
<- There's the trinity for you.
I don't understand the hostility. We should be able to have a reasonable discussion. But you posts raise a point germane to any doctrinal discussion, and that is the so-called 'keys to interpretation'. I think a reason Wierwille and his followers fell into some grievous errors was a glaring logical fallacy Wierwille presented in his class:
Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no
prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation.
In expounding on this he says something like: So if I dare not interpret it and you dare not interpret it, by sheer logic the only way is that the Bible interprets itself.
! Whoah, that's a huge leap, snatched out of the blue. Both Daniel & Joseph noted that interpretations belong to God and Jesus declared it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into the truth. When the Bible is turned into a Magic Walking Talking Self Interpreting organism (in true Bible-worshipping fashion) a few things happen.
-The Bible takes on an exaggerated place in the life of the Christian to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit.
-Application of keys rather than humbless, holiness and devotion becomes the path to enlightened knowledge. Which led to the institutional arrogance typified by the Way.
-A proper sense of mystery and unfathomability is lost.
I contend (and I'll spare you the biblical footnotes in support) that the Bible is a closed book that will only yield its mysteries to those who approach the Lord humbly through Christ. It matters not how large one's "key ring" is, it is a spiritual book and must be revealed by God's Spirit in order to see the spiritual God behind the printed page.
Application to the subject at hand:
In that both the Trinity and the "Godhead According To Wierwille" are incomplete reductions of the unfathomable, they should succeed at showing us all a sense of wonder and mystery of a Being whose fulness is quite beyond the capacity of the human mind to grasp. Unfortunately, too many take them to be a complete explanation and lose the sense of mystery.
There's another expression of the Godhead not yet mentioned in this thread, and one to which I don't subscribe but is subscribed to by many non-trinitarian Pentecostals, the so-called "Oneness" doctrine. I encourage you to read up on it. An over-simplistic reduction could be "there is only one God, and His name is Jesus". Check it out.
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.
What The Hey,
By myopically focusing on one clause of a scriptural statement, your argument infers its way to an unscriptural and quite irreverent implication concerning the Lord.
That's not 'honest discussion' (the title of this thread), it's misrepresenting what your other side thinks then flogging it. I forget which logical fallacy that is.
It's called the Straw Man Fallacy (for those interested).
In expounding on this he says something like: So if I dare not interpret it and you dare not interpret it, by sheer logic the only way is that the Bible interprets itself.
I believe that the Bible does provide us all of the mental info we need to know what it means (although we do need the HS to help us sort it out for our understanding).
The problem with the Weirwillian approach is HOW he taught us that the Bible interprets itself. He said that every verse will be understood in this order:
1) in the verse where it is written, then
2) in the immediate context
3) as the topic (or word) has been used before
4) through the use of scripture buildup
Weirwille's order was all wrong here.
It was backwards.
The correct order should be
1) Fear God (this is the beginning of knowledge): This means we should first submit ourselves to God for Him to teach us (this is done through prayer and is witnessed by a determination to obey what we learn thus being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only)
2) Then, the HS will use the Bible to interpret the Bible as we read the Bible in this order:
A) Scope First: We need to understand the big picture (to whom, when, where, why, how a particular book of the Bible was written
B) Then we look at the immediate context (what is the point of the passage? What is the intent of the writer? What is the intent of the author (HS)? What change in our behavior or attitude is being solicited by the passage?
C) Finally, after doing all the previous, we can understand the individual verse, sentence, or phrase.
Application to the subject at hand:
In that both the Trinity and the "Godhead According To Wierwille" are incomplete reductions of the unfathomable, they should succeed at showing us all a sense of wonder and mystery of a Being whose fulness is quite beyond the capacity of the human mind to grasp. Unfortunately, too many take them to be a complete explanation and lose the sense of mystery.
I just spoke with my mother-in-law (a lifelong trinitarian) about this. The doctrine of the trinity has never been intended to be the complete, end-all statement about who God is. God is MUCH bigger than the nicene creed, or any other creed, can express. God is even bigger than the Bible itself can express. The Bible declares that we see through a glass dimly. We only have a glimpse of who God is.
The writers of these creeds recognized this. The only reason that they wrote the creeds was to battle division and heretical teachings that were beginning to become widespread in the church. Until then in the history of the church THERE WAS general agreement about the individual elements of the creed. Yes, there were always some false teachers around. They are even mentioned in the letters of Jude, 2 Peter, and 1 John, and others. But, these false teachers were NEVER considered to be genuine by any Christian communities at large. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, told a story of John's reaction to running into a well-known gnostic teacher of the time.
John was at a public bathhouse cleaning up (I think this was in Ephesus). Polycarp was outside waiting for him. When the gnostic teacher entered into the bathhouse, John donned a robe and ran outside drenching wet and told Polycarp, "let us depart... the enemy of the truth is here."
The point of this story is that some today tend to think that these false teachers were just as widespread as the true believers during the first few centuries of the church. The truth is that they only were there in pockets from time to time. The church as a whole was in agreement upon central tenets of the gospel and that is why the writings of these false teachers were NEVER accepted by the church (or any sections of the church beyond limited localities for one generation).
All of this was true until the coming of Arius. Why did he cause such a stir? It is because his NEW teachings that Jesus was not God (although he wasn't a unitarian either) started to attract a widespread following. It was because his teachings became so widespread that a church council had to be called. It was from this that it was recognized that a statement of faith had to be written so that the common, uneducated man would have help determining who the false teachers were. I think that the creed could have been written earlier if the church had had the need. Fortunately, when they did have a need to gather all of the leaders, the government was finished persecuting the church (for the time being). This allowed the leaders from far and wide to gather peacefully and discuss the issue.
Again, they never intended the creed to be a FINAL, EXHAUSTIVE statement about who God is.
By myopically focusing on one clause of a scriptural statement, your argument infers its way to an unscriptural and quite irreverent implication concerning the Lord.
Cynic makes a very interesting point. If you follow What the Hey's logic, then you have to conclude that Jesus must have been a liar since he was human.
I disagree with this conclusion and I disagree with the logic that produces it.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!
God is not a man THAT HE SHOULD LIE!
I find it interesting to note that the NT also tells us that God cannot lie, but it never says that God is not a man.
When the OT was written, the incarnation of God (Jesus) into human form had not occured yet.
Incidentally, no "creation" occured at the incarnation. Jesus is NOT a created being.
Another cool point, do you realize that Jesus was MORE human than you and I. As fallen beings, you and I fall short of what God designed "human" to be. Jesus, as the second Adam, was a perfect human.
Humans were not designed to lie. This is a result of the fall. However, if we were to accept the reasoning of What the Hey, then we would think that MAN=LIAR and thus God designed it that way.
When God says that he is not a man THAT He should lie... He is not even equating manhood with liarhood. If he were, then Jesus would be a liar.
All that God was saying is that He (God) is not a [fallen] man in that He does not lie.
Men do lie. But that doesn't mean that everything men say is a lie.
Even dummies get 100% on tests once in a while.
The human writers of the Bible like Paul, John, Moses, Ezekiel,... they were all fallen men and thus sinful. But, that doesn't mean that the Bible is a lie. But, if we read the Bible like What the Hey has read it, then we should chuck out the whole thing as a book of lies.
And it would be the same as whoever it speaks of here?
and i don't see where we are ever told that we are in a fallen state at anytime in our lives. I don't buy the 'fallen state' theory
Cman-
I don't see how what I said about Jesus being the second Adam has anything to do with the verse about the pre-fallen perfection of Lucifer that you quoted.
When I say that Jesus was a perfect human, what I mean to say is that He was human as human was designed to be. He walked in unfettered communion with the Father through the Holy Spirit.
He was sinless.
God created man and designed him to perfect. Adam sinned and all humans (except Jesus) have inherited sinfulness from Adam. Romans 5 says,
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a £type of Him who was to come.
We also read in Romans 3:23 that,
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
The only exception to this rule is the Man Jesus as we read in Hebrews 4:15:
For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.
Call it what you will (fallen state, depravity, etc), until a person has been redeemed by Christ then he is separated from God and destined to commit sin. Whether he inherits the penalty that Adam earned or not doesn't matter much since every man commits his own sin thus making himself "worthy of death".
One more point of clarity: I don't worship Jesus because He was a perfect man. He wasn't the first perfect man. Until Adam sinned he was also a perfect man.
We worship Jesus because He is more than perfect man. He is also God and Lord.
But this time, read EXACTLY what is written rather than 'reading into' what is written.One of the first steps in rightly dividing the Word of God is to read exactly what is written instead of reading into the Word of God. This verse does not say God is not like a man. This scripture distinctly says God is NOT a man. This scripture doesn't say God is "like" men anymore than is says God is not "like" men, because the word "like" does NOT appear in that verse to begin with.
And why should I care whether you agree or you disagree with my grammar when this isn't a grammer issue to begin with? Grammar deals with syntax and the rules that govern language. So why are you making this an issue over grammar when this is an issue on reading exactly what is written - it's not about grammar or a grammar issue.
First of all, it is not my grammar. (The correct spelling of the word is grammar BTW, - it's not: grammer.) Rather, this is an issue on someone reading and being able to read exactly what is written. Of course you may not like what is written, and perhaps that maybe why you are trying to change the Word of God into something other than what is written. Now you may disagree with what is written (that is your privilage) but it is God's Word you are disagreeing with - it's not my "grammer" or anybody elses "grammer" for that matter...
.
You're confusing the issue. It's more than just reading what's written – it's UNDERSTANDING what's written. Grammar is a system of rules that a culture has adopted as a standard and structure of their language – which I think is helpful towards a more accurate communication of an idea, thought, feeling, etc.
But getting back to your notion of "One of the first steps in rightly dividing the Word of God is to read exactly what is written instead of reading into the Word of God" – that's another one of VPW's deceptive premises to try and guarantee that his interpretation would be unassailable…And the more I think about it – what your statement does is reduce the role of the reader to nothing more than an automatic-reading-machine like computer software that reads a word document out loud. Computer software has no comprehension – no understanding of what it's reading. But it will read out loud exactly what's written. It is very similar to how a spell-checker and grammar-checker work in a word processor. I could do draft a three page document on "Absolute Proof that God is a Krispy Kreme Donut and is Damning all those who eat at Dunkin' Donuts to Hell" and my word processor would ensure my spelling and grammar is perfect – yet it is incapable of analyzing my premise, logic, proof or arguments, if it was a serious intellectual endeavor on my part or meant to be silly. Most people who read my posts tend to have that glazed-over-look anyway.
Maybe a better question would be - do you UNDERSTAND what's written? Or in reference to discussing Scripture you might ask HOW do you UNDERSTAND this passage?...Let's yank a sentence out of context from a spy novel: "The secret agent told me to meet him by the bank again." Is he referring to a building that handles money, a ridge raised above the surrounding area, or the raised ground bordering some lake or river? The author hopes the reader has read more than just that sentence – but has actually read everything before that and remembers enough relevant details to garner a meaningful understanding from that sentence. Like when the author described their previous meeting place. Simple things like noting context and previous usage are basic keys to UNDERSTANDING any book – not just the Bible.
You said "Now you may disagree with what is written (that is your privilage) but it is God's Word you are disagreeing with - it's not my "grammer" or anybody elses "grammer" for that matter" – no one is disagreeing with what is written. Again this is VPW's old safeguard tactic of trying to protect your point of view and a gross arrogant assumption that you are absolutely right – and anyone who disagrees is wrong…I am disagreeing with YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the verse.
In reference to this passage I said in post # 48, "The reference in Numbers 23:19 is saying God is not a man that he should lie – contrasting the unreliability of man as seen in the passage's context of Balaam himself." That is MY understanding of the verse [which may also be wrong as well] – I think it is more in line with what the whole passage is about. Contrasting the lying, fickle nature of man with God's truth and consistency. This verse is dramatically highlighted against the background of Balaam's double-mindedness, his duplicity, his deception – a man that did speak the Word of God at times – but also acted as prophet-for-hire …commissioned by Balak to curse Israel. God is not like that!
...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.
The bible, God's Word does speak of and about a god who is a liar. If you think he's the one with the truth, then you've got some serious problems that you must be dealing with.
<- There's the trinity for you.
How does saying Jesus is God turn God into a man? I look at Him as the God/Man when He walked the earth. I don't understand the doctrine of Jesus' divinity being one of the reduction of God into a human. While on earth He was known as the Son of God [referring to His divine nature] and also as the Son of Man [referring to His human nature]. If we want to make an oversimplified statement of His nature – maybe we could say He had a twofold nature. How are they able to be combined – how do they connect? I don't know…We are beings made in the likeness of God. And yet how is that immaterial part joined to our flesh and blood? I don't know…I think you may have a MISUNDERSTANDING of Trinitarian doctrine. I don't think it tries to make God into a man. I think it tries to explain the dynamics of a relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
When seeking understanding of something, one rule of thumb is
Ockham's Razor.
thanks for bring up Ockham's Razor... I have to agree with you that maybe we're just missing the additional and simplest explanation of the biblical facts. damned if I know what it could be though.
I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here. I don't worship the god of the bible, no many how many "persons" he is supposed to have. I'm just trying to encourage rational discussion. Sounds like you are too.
yep... you know I'm gonna hassle you along with everyone else, though
Isn't that the amazing thing? Jesus NEVER sinned. That is why when he did die he wasn't paying for His sins. Thus his payment that legally atone for your sins, as he chooses to do so when you receive his offer of forgiveness.
All other humans ARE worthy of death in that they DO sin. I don't see how you can argue with Romans 3:23 when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only way you can make an exception to this verse is where the Bible itself makes an exception (i.e. Jesus as we read in Hebrews).
It seems to say that when he was tempted to sin he didn't.
Things were different after Jesus' death, even for Jesus.
In other words, his death changed a whole lot of things.
And there is a lot to reconcile.
You are making two statements that seem to say the same thing.
I agree that Jesus was tempted. Being tempted to sin is not the same thing as actually sinning.
Jesus was tempted. He just never fell prey to the temptation. He never sinned.
Honestly, cman, I don't understand how ANYONE can actually be a born again Christian that thinks that Jesus ever sinned. This is one of the most central tenets of the Faith. Even wayites believe that Jesus was sinless.
If Jesus sinned, then He died for his own sin, and then we would still need to pay for ours also!!
Perhaps a good side-conversation would be about the definition of death since Wayology honked that one up bigtime too... but I don't think that we need to resolve that one in order to answer the question of whether or not Jesus was God.
I would love to have that side topic after we finish this one. However, typing online is NOT my main priority.
I don't know about anyone else here since I don't know any of you (except Evan) personally.
My main service to the Body is currently reaching out to and sharing the Gospel with Hindus that come to college in the USA and then training them to be disciples of Jesus Christ.
I am not here to change anyones mind. I am here to sharpen my own understandings and skill at explaining. In that process I am wanting others to analyze and critique what I have to say (currently about who God is).
Honestly, I am finding this thread extremely helpful to me as it forces me to think through and revisit certain verses and ideas that I haven't thought about in a while. Praise God!!
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.
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
knew-
4583 seleniazomai { sel-ay-nee-ad’-zom-ahee}
middle voice or passive from a presumed derivative of 4582;; v
AV - be lunatick 2; 2
GK - 4944 { selhniavzomai }
1) to be moon-struck or lunatic
2) to be epileptic
2a) epilepsy being supposed to return and increase with the increase of the moon. This meaning is doubtful as the Greeks knew nothing of epilepsy.
1st made-
4160 poieo { poy-eh’-o}
apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; TDNT - 6:458,895; v
AV - do 357, make 113, bring forth 14, commit 9, cause 9, work 8, show 5, bear 4, keep 4, fulfil 3, deal 2, perform 2, not tr 3, misc 43, vr do 3; 579
GK - 4472 { poievw }
1) to make
1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
1b) to be the authors of, the cause
1c) to make ready, to prepare
1d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
1f) to make a thing out of something
1g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
1g1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
1g2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything
1h) to put one forth, to lead him out
1i) to make one do something
1i1) cause one to
1j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
2) to do
2a) to act rightly, do well
2a1) to carry out, to execute
2b) to do a thing unto one
2b1) to do to one
2c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
2d) to celebrate, keep
2d1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
2e) to perform: to a promise
For synonyms see entry 4238, prasso.
See entry 5871 for comparison of synonyms.
2nd made-
1096 ginomai { ghin’-om-ahee}
a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; TDNT - 1:681,117; v
AV - be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52, become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3, be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2; 678
GK - 1181 { givnomai }
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29 "Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
I don't see the passage as emphasizing the Spirit as being greater – what strikes me about the account is that both parties were referring to what really drove out the demons. The Pharisees said it was Beelzebub – Jesus said it was the Spirit of God. I'm not sure what the unforgivable sin was or if it's something that one can commit in this age. Perhaps it's significant to note that one of Jesus' favorite ways to refer to Himself was as "The Son of Man" – which emphasized His humanity. He looked like everybody else. Maybe that's why speaking against the Son of Man – who appeared as a humble human – was understandably a less serious sin – one that was forgivable.
It seems the healing of this demon-possessed man was truly amazing because it states, "all the people were astonished." Judging by the crowd's reaction it was undeniable proof of the power of God and made them wonder if Jesus was indeed the Messiah – yet the Pharisees attributed it to Satan…The only comparison I see of who is greater than who – is that the Holy Spirit is stronger than Beelzebub…So perhaps – it was forgivable to speak against Jesus – who looked like an ordinary human – but to witness an undeniable proof of the power of Spirit of God – to see a miracle like this and yet speak against the Holy Spirit by denying who really did it – is unforgivable…Refusing to acknowledge the Spirit's work places one in a very precarious position – for it is the Spirit who bears witness to Christ [John 15:26] and who convicts the sinner [John 16:7-11].
Scripture clearly portrays the Son as subordinate to the Father – I don't see what the problem is. There is a passage where the Father does address the Son as God:
Hebrews 1:5-9 NIV
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"?
6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him."
7 In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire."
8 But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
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
Oakspear
The rest of you just shut up and let starbird tell us what the bible says
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Well you are getting very close, but figures of speech are not merely one's own personal opinion. E.W. Bullinger, perhaps the greatest authority on figures of speech used in the bible would agree that figures of speech are not someones personal opinion. (Read the introduction of "Figures of Speech Used in The Bible by E.W. Bullinger for further insight on the matter.)
Unfortunately Bullinger gives more credence to figures of speech being the key to true interpretation than what it honestly deserves. While figures of speech are certainly a main key to interpreting the scriptures, they are not the "root" or the only main key to the scriptures interpretation. To quote Bullinger in regards to Figures of Speech used in the Bible, "It is not open to any one to say of this or that word or sentance, "This is a figure," according to his own fancy, or to suit his own purpose. We are dealing with a science whose laws and their working are known." (From: Figures of Speech Used In The Bible, E.W. Bullinger. p.vi)
There are other sciences that one can apply to the Word of God that are just as valid as "Figures of Speech". For example there are the idioms and the Eastern customs of the bible that one must fully consider as well. It's when all these various sciences harmonize on the scriptures where one is getting the closest to drawing the intended truth from the Word of God ...
One very common figure of speech used in the bible is the figure "condescencio" - the figure of speech used in the ascribing of human passions, actions and attributes to God. It is the literalizing of this figure which has only led men into the common error of believing that God can turn Himself into and actually become human flesh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
literal-figurative...ha!
the bible is written in tongues-
that whosoever..............
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I don't understand the hostility. We should be able to have a reasonable discussion. But you posts raise a point germane to any doctrinal discussion, and that is the so-called 'keys to interpretation'. I think a reason Wierwille and his followers fell into some grievous errors was a glaring logical fallacy Wierwille presented in his class:
In expounding on this he says something like: So if I dare not interpret it and you dare not interpret it, by sheer logic the only way is that the Bible interprets itself.
! Whoah, that's a huge leap, snatched out of the blue. Both Daniel & Joseph noted that interpretations belong to God and Jesus declared it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into the truth. When the Bible is turned into a Magic Walking Talking Self Interpreting organism (in true Bible-worshipping fashion) a few things happen.
-The Bible takes on an exaggerated place in the life of the Christian to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit.
-Application of keys rather than humbless, holiness and devotion becomes the path to enlightened knowledge. Which led to the institutional arrogance typified by the Way.
-A proper sense of mystery and unfathomability is lost.
I contend (and I'll spare you the biblical footnotes in support) that the Bible is a closed book that will only yield its mysteries to those who approach the Lord humbly through Christ. It matters not how large one's "key ring" is, it is a spiritual book and must be revealed by God's Spirit in order to see the spiritual God behind the printed page.
Application to the subject at hand:
In that both the Trinity and the "Godhead According To Wierwille" are incomplete reductions of the unfathomable, they should succeed at showing us all a sense of wonder and mystery of a Being whose fulness is quite beyond the capacity of the human mind to grasp. Unfortunately, too many take them to be a complete explanation and lose the sense of mystery.
There's another expression of the Godhead not yet mentioned in this thread, and one to which I don't subscribe but is subscribed to by many non-trinitarian Pentecostals, the so-called "Oneness" doctrine. I encourage you to read up on it. An over-simplistic reduction could be "there is only one God, and His name is Jesus". Check it out.
Edited by TheEvanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
What The Hey,
By myopically focusing on one clause of a scriptural statement, your argument infers its way to an unscriptural and quite irreverent implication concerning the Lord.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Great Post TheEvan
The cross and what happened there is a learning that is unlimited.
What did it nean 'it is finished'.
Anyeways - the topic.
So many want to rely on what was taught them and will not go any further.
Let's not stay in one rut...Rock on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
It's called the Straw Man Fallacy (for those interested).
I believe that the Bible does provide us all of the mental info we need to know what it means (although we do need the HS to help us sort it out for our understanding).
The problem with the Weirwillian approach is HOW he taught us that the Bible interprets itself. He said that every verse will be understood in this order:
1) in the verse where it is written, then
2) in the immediate context
3) as the topic (or word) has been used before
4) through the use of scripture buildup
Weirwille's order was all wrong here.
It was backwards.
The correct order should be
1) Fear God (this is the beginning of knowledge): This means we should first submit ourselves to God for Him to teach us (this is done through prayer and is witnessed by a determination to obey what we learn thus being a doer of the Word and not a hearer only)
2) Then, the HS will use the Bible to interpret the Bible as we read the Bible in this order:
A) Scope First: We need to understand the big picture (to whom, when, where, why, how a particular book of the Bible was written
B) Then we look at the immediate context (what is the point of the passage? What is the intent of the writer? What is the intent of the author (HS)? What change in our behavior or attitude is being solicited by the passage?
C) Finally, after doing all the previous, we can understand the individual verse, sentence, or phrase.
I just spoke with my mother-in-law (a lifelong trinitarian) about this. The doctrine of the trinity has never been intended to be the complete, end-all statement about who God is. God is MUCH bigger than the nicene creed, or any other creed, can express. God is even bigger than the Bible itself can express. The Bible declares that we see through a glass dimly. We only have a glimpse of who God is.
The writers of these creeds recognized this. The only reason that they wrote the creeds was to battle division and heretical teachings that were beginning to become widespread in the church. Until then in the history of the church THERE WAS general agreement about the individual elements of the creed. Yes, there were always some false teachers around. They are even mentioned in the letters of Jude, 2 Peter, and 1 John, and others. But, these false teachers were NEVER considered to be genuine by any Christian communities at large. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, told a story of John's reaction to running into a well-known gnostic teacher of the time.
John was at a public bathhouse cleaning up (I think this was in Ephesus). Polycarp was outside waiting for him. When the gnostic teacher entered into the bathhouse, John donned a robe and ran outside drenching wet and told Polycarp, "let us depart... the enemy of the truth is here."
The point of this story is that some today tend to think that these false teachers were just as widespread as the true believers during the first few centuries of the church. The truth is that they only were there in pockets from time to time. The church as a whole was in agreement upon central tenets of the gospel and that is why the writings of these false teachers were NEVER accepted by the church (or any sections of the church beyond limited localities for one generation).
All of this was true until the coming of Arius. Why did he cause such a stir? It is because his NEW teachings that Jesus was not God (although he wasn't a unitarian either) started to attract a widespread following. It was because his teachings became so widespread that a church council had to be called. It was from this that it was recognized that a statement of faith had to be written so that the common, uneducated man would have help determining who the false teachers were. I think that the creed could have been written earlier if the church had had the need. Fortunately, when they did have a need to gather all of the leaders, the government was finished persecuting the church (for the time being). This allowed the leaders from far and wide to gather peacefully and discuss the issue.
Again, they never intended the creed to be a FINAL, EXHAUSTIVE statement about who God is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Cynic makes a very interesting point. If you follow What the Hey's logic, then you have to conclude that Jesus must have been a liar since he was human.
I disagree with this conclusion and I disagree with the logic that produces it.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT!!!
God is not a man THAT HE SHOULD LIE!
I find it interesting to note that the NT also tells us that God cannot lie, but it never says that God is not a man.
When the OT was written, the incarnation of God (Jesus) into human form had not occured yet.
Incidentally, no "creation" occured at the incarnation. Jesus is NOT a created being.
Another cool point, do you realize that Jesus was MORE human than you and I. As fallen beings, you and I fall short of what God designed "human" to be. Jesus, as the second Adam, was a perfect human.
Humans were not designed to lie. This is a result of the fall. However, if we were to accept the reasoning of What the Hey, then we would think that MAN=LIAR and thus God designed it that way.
When God says that he is not a man THAT He should lie... He is not even equating manhood with liarhood. If he were, then Jesus would be a liar.
All that God was saying is that He (God) is not a [fallen] man in that He does not lie.
Men do lie. But that doesn't mean that everything men say is a lie.
Even dummies get 100% on tests once in a while.
The human writers of the Bible like Paul, John, Moses, Ezekiel,... they were all fallen men and thus sinful. But, that doesn't mean that the Bible is a lie. But, if we read the Bible like What the Hey has read it, then we should chuck out the whole thing as a book of lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
sonofarthur-
Where did you get this idea?And as opposed to what kind of human?
And it would be the same as whoever it speaks of here?
and i don't see where we are ever told that we are in a fallen state at anytime in our lives. I don't buy the 'fallen state' theory
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Cman-
I don't see how what I said about Jesus being the second Adam has anything to do with the verse about the pre-fallen perfection of Lucifer that you quoted.
When I say that Jesus was a perfect human, what I mean to say is that He was human as human was designed to be. He walked in unfettered communion with the Father through the Holy Spirit.
He was sinless.
God created man and designed him to perfect. Adam sinned and all humans (except Jesus) have inherited sinfulness from Adam. Romans 5 says,
We also read in Romans 3:23 that,The only exception to this rule is the Man Jesus as we read in Hebrews 4:15:
Call it what you will (fallen state, depravity, etc), until a person has been redeemed by Christ then he is separated from God and destined to commit sin. Whether he inherits the penalty that Adam earned or not doesn't matter much since every man commits his own sin thus making himself "worthy of death".
One more point of clarity: I don't worship Jesus because He was a perfect man. He wasn't the first perfect man. Until Adam sinned he was also a perfect man.
We worship Jesus because He is more than perfect man. He is also God and Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
hmmm not much to go on here
sin entered the 'world'
that doesn't force me to sin
and so for Jesus to be "worthy of death"
wouldn't he have had to earn death by sinning?
Jesus died-my bible tells me so
he had power to lay his down and take it up
so Jesus would have had to earn the death wages
the wages of sin is death
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You're confusing the issue. It's more than just reading what's written – it's UNDERSTANDING what's written. Grammar is a system of rules that a culture has adopted as a standard and structure of their language – which I think is helpful towards a more accurate communication of an idea, thought, feeling, etc.
But getting back to your notion of "One of the first steps in rightly dividing the Word of God is to read exactly what is written instead of reading into the Word of God" – that's another one of VPW's deceptive premises to try and guarantee that his interpretation would be unassailable…And the more I think about it – what your statement does is reduce the role of the reader to nothing more than an automatic-reading-machine like computer software that reads a word document out loud. Computer software has no comprehension – no understanding of what it's reading. But it will read out loud exactly what's written. It is very similar to how a spell-checker and grammar-checker work in a word processor. I could do draft a three page document on "Absolute Proof that God is a Krispy Kreme Donut and is Damning all those who eat at Dunkin' Donuts to Hell" and my word processor would ensure my spelling and grammar is perfect – yet it is incapable of analyzing my premise, logic, proof or arguments, if it was a serious intellectual endeavor on my part or meant to be silly. Most people who read my posts tend to have that glazed-over-look anyway.
Maybe a better question would be - do you UNDERSTAND what's written? Or in reference to discussing Scripture you might ask HOW do you UNDERSTAND this passage?...Let's yank a sentence out of context from a spy novel: "The secret agent told me to meet him by the bank again." Is he referring to a building that handles money, a ridge raised above the surrounding area, or the raised ground bordering some lake or river? The author hopes the reader has read more than just that sentence – but has actually read everything before that and remembers enough relevant details to garner a meaningful understanding from that sentence. Like when the author described their previous meeting place. Simple things like noting context and previous usage are basic keys to UNDERSTANDING any book – not just the Bible.
You said "Now you may disagree with what is written (that is your privilage) but it is God's Word you are disagreeing with - it's not my "grammer" or anybody elses "grammer" for that matter" – no one is disagreeing with what is written. Again this is VPW's old safeguard tactic of trying to protect your point of view and a gross arrogant assumption that you are absolutely right – and anyone who disagrees is wrong…I am disagreeing with YOUR UNDERSTANDING of the verse.
In reference to this passage I said in post # 48, "The reference in Numbers 23:19 is saying God is not a man that he should lie – contrasting the unreliability of man as seen in the passage's context of Balaam himself." That is MY understanding of the verse [which may also be wrong as well] – I think it is more in line with what the whole passage is about. Contrasting the lying, fickle nature of man with God's truth and consistency. This verse is dramatically highlighted against the background of Balaam's double-mindedness, his duplicity, his deception – a man that did speak the Word of God at times – but also acted as prophet-for-hire …commissioned by Balak to curse Israel. God is not like that!
How does saying Jesus is God turn God into a man? I look at Him as the God/Man when He walked the earth. I don't understand the doctrine of Jesus' divinity being one of the reduction of God into a human. While on earth He was known as the Son of God [referring to His divine nature] and also as the Son of Man [referring to His human nature]. If we want to make an oversimplified statement of His nature – maybe we could say He had a twofold nature. How are they able to be combined – how do they connect? I don't know…We are beings made in the likeness of God. And yet how is that immaterial part joined to our flesh and blood? I don't know…I think you may have a MISUNDERSTANDING of Trinitarian doctrine. I don't think it tries to make God into a man. I think it tries to explain the dynamics of a relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I don't think this says Jesus didn't sin.
It seems to say that when he was tempted to sin he didn't.
Things were different after Jesus' death, even for Jesus.
In other words, his death changed a whole lot of things.
And there is a lot to reconcile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
thanks for bring up Ockham's Razor... I have to agree with you that maybe we're just missing the additional and simplest explanation of the biblical facts. damned if I know what it could be though.
yep... you know I'm gonna hassle you along with everyone else, though
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
Isn't that the amazing thing? Jesus NEVER sinned. That is why when he did die he wasn't paying for His sins. Thus his payment that legally atone for your sins, as he chooses to do so when you receive his offer of forgiveness.
All other humans ARE worthy of death in that they DO sin. I don't see how you can argue with Romans 3:23 when it says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only way you can make an exception to this verse is where the Bible itself makes an exception (i.e. Jesus as we read in Hebrews).
Cman, are you saying that you have never sinned?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
You are making two statements that seem to say the same thing.
I agree that Jesus was tempted. Being tempted to sin is not the same thing as actually sinning.
Jesus was tempted. He just never fell prey to the temptation. He never sinned.
Honestly, cman, I don't understand how ANYONE can actually be a born again Christian that thinks that Jesus ever sinned. This is one of the most central tenets of the Faith. Even wayites believe that Jesus was sinless.
If Jesus sinned, then He died for his own sin, and then we would still need to pay for ours also!!
Perhaps a good side-conversation would be about the definition of death since Wayology honked that one up bigtime too... but I don't think that we need to resolve that one in order to answer the question of whether or not Jesus was God.
I would love to have that side topic after we finish this one. However, typing online is NOT my main priority.
I don't know about anyone else here since I don't know any of you (except Evan) personally.
My main service to the Body is currently reaching out to and sharing the Gospel with Hindus that come to college in the USA and then training them to be disciples of Jesus Christ.
I am not here to change anyones mind. I am here to sharpen my own understandings and skill at explaining. In that process I am wanting others to analyze and critique what I have to say (currently about who God is).
Honestly, I am finding this thread extremely helpful to me as it forces me to think through and revisit certain verses and ideas that I haven't thought about in a while. Praise God!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Not at all. Not saying I don't sin.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls...ned&spell=1
And why put it on me that I'm saying I don't sin?
The discussion isn't about me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
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.
More versions of the scripture can be found here-
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBibl...urrentChapter=4
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?
So Trinity? Well a threefold cord is not easily broken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
cman--
Let us be clear.
Do you believe that Jesus has ever sinned?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
knew-
4583 seleniazomai { sel-ay-nee-ad’-zom-ahee}
middle voice or passive from a presumed derivative of 4582;; v
AV - be lunatick 2; 2
GK - 4944 { selhniavzomai }
1) to be moon-struck or lunatic
2) to be epileptic
2a) epilepsy being supposed to return and increase with the increase of the moon. This meaning is doubtful as the Greeks knew nothing of epilepsy.
1st made-
4160 poieo { poy-eh’-o}
apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; TDNT - 6:458,895; v
AV - do 357, make 113, bring forth 14, commit 9, cause 9, work 8, show 5, bear 4, keep 4, fulfil 3, deal 2, perform 2, not tr 3, misc 43, vr do 3; 579
GK - 4472 { poievw }
1) to make
1a) with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
1b) to be the authors of, the cause
1c) to make ready, to prepare
1d) to produce, bear, shoot forth
1e) to acquire, to provide a thing for one’s self
1f) to make a thing out of something
1g) to (make i.e.) render one anything
1g1) to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
1g2) to (make i.e.) declare one anything
1h) to put one forth, to lead him out
1i) to make one do something
1i1) cause one to
1j) to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
2) to do
2a) to act rightly, do well
2a1) to carry out, to execute
2b) to do a thing unto one
2b1) to do to one
2c) with designation of time: to pass, spend
2d) to celebrate, keep
2d1) to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
2e) to perform: to a promise
For synonyms see entry 4238, prasso.
See entry 5871 for comparison of synonyms.
2nd made-
1096 ginomai { ghin’-om-ahee}
a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; TDNT - 1:681,117; v
AV - be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52, become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3, be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2; 678
GK - 1181 { givnomai }
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
he said O god....not my god
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sonofarthur
and yet, Jesus Himself willingly received worship in the Bible, go fig!
take a gander at these verses:
Matthew 2:11
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 28:9
Matthew 28:17
John 9:38
But when others were worshiped, like other men or angels, they would rebuke the one doing the worshiping:
Acts 10:25 is just one example but there are others too.
Starbird, the verse you quoted is one of the strongest evidences in the Bible that Jesus is God.
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.