User Tag List

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 202

Thread: God will not give His glory to another, or will He?

  1. #16
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    There are several examples that can be interpreted as Jesus claiming to be God, but there are no examples where Jesus actually made that claim.

    You seem to be making the same misinterpretation that the Jews made
    Hardly a misinterpretation, Jesus confirmed their interpretation.

    John 10:27-33
    27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
    28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
    29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
    30 I and my Father are one.
    31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
    32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
    33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

    Help me out here and continue reading. You'll arrive at a place where Jesus answers and says, "Is it not written in your law...?" Where does he quote from, and how might that possibly be applicable to the situation at hand?

    Psa 82:1-8 KJV
    (1) <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
    (2) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
    (3) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
    (4) Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
    (5) They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
    (6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
    (7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
    (8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.


    Jesus also identified himself as the judge of the quick and the dead, he said he was the one that would judge them in the kingdom to come. That makes him the God (with a capital G) in verse 1. It also makes him the "God" (capital G) that will judge the earth and inherit all nations.

    Unless you think Jesus didn't know what he was quoting... but his audience did and they were madder than ever.

  2. #17
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Hardly a misinterpretation, Jesus confirmed their interpretation.

    John 10:27-33
    27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
    28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
    29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
    30 I and my Father are one.
    31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
    32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
    33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

    Help me out here and continue reading. You'll arrive at a place where Jesus answers and says, "Is it not written in your law...?" Where does he quote from, and how might that possibly be applicable to the situation at hand?

    Psa 82:1-8 KJV
    (1) <A Psalm of Asaph.> God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
    (2) How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
    (3) Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
    (4) Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
    (5) They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
    (6) I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
    (7) But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
    (8) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
    Jesus corrected their misinterpretation by showing the that He was claiming to be the Son of the Most High, the Son of God.
    You must have missed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Jesus also identified himself as the judge of the quick and the dead, he said he was the one that would judge them in the kingdom to come. That makes him the God (with a capital G) in verse 1. It also makes him the "God" (capital G) that will judge the earth and inherit all nations.

    Unless you think Jesus didn't know what he was quoting... but his audience did and they were madder than ever.
    The words of Jesus clear up that misunderstanding as well.

    John 5:19-23
    19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
    20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
    21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
    22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
    23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  3. #18
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Jesus corrected their misinterpretation ... by showing the that He was claiming to be the Son of the Most High, the Son of God.
    Spoiler

    You must have missed it.


    The words of Jesus clear up that misunderstanding as well.

    John 5:19-23
    19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
    20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
    21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
    22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
    23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

    You seem to be trying to evade the force of this point:
    1. Jesus had identified himself as the judge of the quick and the dead who would judge the nations, see John 5:25-30
    2. Jesus directed the Jews accusation of "you being a man, makest yourself God" (John 10:33) to the 82nd Psalm
    3. The 82nd Psalm identifies the "ye are gods" (them) as men, and identifies he who judges the dead and the nations as "GOD."

    Jesus identified himself as "GOD" to his accusers, his defense was not that he didn't call himself God, but that he WAS God,.

    When Jesus identifies himself as "the Son of God" or "the Son" that is also nothing less than God. This should also be apparent from the first chapter of John.

  4. #19
    Over 5000 post club CherubRam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,526
    Thanks
    72
    Thanked 437 Times in 367 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1208
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    God gave a lot of things to Jesus.

    John 5:26-27
    26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
    27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.


    Whether Jesus is God or Jesus is the Son of God, the only way to read the New Testament with understanding is to read it as if Jesus is a man that God has chosen to honor with the highest honors.
    I do not disagree with that. Thanks for your post.

  5. #20
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    You seem to be trying to evade the force of this point:
    1. Jesus had identified himself as the judge of the quick and the dead who would judge the nations, see John 5:25-30
    2. Jesus directed the Jews accusation of "you being a man, makest yourself God" (John 10:33) to the 82nd Psalm
    3. The 82nd Psalm identifies the "ye are gods" (them) as men, and identifies he who judges the dead and the nations as "GOD."
    I don't see how your logic holds up, when Jesus makes sure that they know that His claim is to be the Son of God and not God Himself.

    John 10:36
    36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?



    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Jesus identified himself as "GOD" to his accusers, his defense was not that he didn't call himself God, but that he WAS God,.
    Jesus corrected them by making sure that they knew He was not claiming to be GOD, but that He was claiming to be the Son of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    When Jesus identifies himself as "the Son of God" or "the Son" that is also nothing less than God.
    Words have meaning.
    Son does not mean same.
    Jesus called Himself the Son of God, not the same as God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    This should also be apparent from the first chapter of John.
    Many people have completely misunderstood the first chapter of John.
    Here is a hint: it doesn't actually say what you think it says.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  6. #21
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I don't see how your logic holds up, when Jesus makes sure that they know that His claim is to be the Son of God and not God Himself.

    John 10:36
    36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?




    Jesus corrected them by making sure that they knew He was not claiming to be GOD, but that He was claiming to be the Son of God.


    Words have meaning.
    Son does not mean same.
    Jesus called Himself the Son of God, not the same as God.


    Many people have completely misunderstood the first chapter of John.
    Here is a hint: it doesn't actually say what you think it says.
    Your mistake is in asserting that "Son of God" means "Not our God" without evidence. It is a clarification that he is indeed God. Jesus already gave the means of interpretation in the 82nd Psalm. Out of "God" and "gods" he is not the "gods" but the "God." The only way I could see you denying the force of that passage is if you also deny that Jesus claimed that he was the judge of the living and the dead.

    Daniel 3:24-25 KJV
    (24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
    (25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    I cited this to demonstrate the term's first usage: Granted that these are heathen speaking when they use the term "Son of God" here, but do you really think they thought that the fourth man was anything other than a god of the Hebrews?

    Matthew 4:3 KJV
    (3) And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

    The devil recognized that the Son of God can command reality and creation. He didn't ask him to "pray" that the stones be transformed, but rather recognized that the true "Son of God" could create and destroy with a word.

    1 John 5:20 KJV
    (20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

    Grammatically, John says that the Son of God is the true God and eternal life. It is hardly surprising considering how direct he was in the gospel of John, first chapter.

    Hebrews 7:1-3 KJV
    (1) For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
    (2) To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
    (3) Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

    Paul says that the Son of God has neither beginning of days nor end of life.. how many beings can both create and are uncreated?

    If you want to say that the logic does not hold up, please address the supporting points I made for the logical statement. Do you contend that Jesus did not (and had not already) established himself as the judge of all? That was one of the points.

  7. #22
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Your mistake is in asserting that "Son of God" means "Not our God" without evidence.
    I am not doing this "without evidence."
    The evidence I am using is that there is no possible reading of the words "Son of" that means "same as".

    Is Shem also Noah?
    Is Ham also Noah?
    Is Japheth also Noah?

    Genesis 10:1
    1 Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.



    Did God Himself come in unto the daughters of men and get them pregnant before the flood?

    Genesis 6:4
    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.




    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    It is a clarification that he is indeed God. Jesus already gave the means of interpretation in the 82nd Psalm. Out of "God" and "gods" he is not the "gods" but the "God."
    Jesus corrected any misinterpretation that someone would think Jesus was saying He is indeed God by clearly stating that His claim is that He is the Son of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Daniel 3:24-25 KJV
    (24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
    (25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

    I cited this to demonstrate the term's first usage: Granted that these are heathen speaking when they use the term "Son of God" here, but do you really think they thought that the fourth man was anything other than a god of the Hebrews?
    Yes, there is precedent that shows that they would not think the son of God seen in the furnace was God Himself.

    Job 2:1
    1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Matthew 4:3 KJV
    (3) And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

    The devil recognized that the Son of God can command reality and creation. He didn't ask him to "pray" that the stones be transformed, but rather recognized that the true "Son of God" could create and destroy with a word.
    There was no "create and destroy" involved in the request to transform the stones into bread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    1 John 5:20 KJV
    (20) And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

    Grammatically, John says that the Son of God is the true God and eternal life. It is hardly surprising considering how direct he was in the gospel of John, first chapter.
    Grammatically, John is saying that the Father of Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.
    All the words I highlighted are referring to the same person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Do you contend that Jesus did not (and had not already) established himself as the judge of all? That was one of the points.
    According to your logic, Jesus lied in this statement:

    John 5:22
    22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  8. #23
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I am not doing this "without evidence."
    The evidence I am using is that there is no possible reading of the words "Son of" that means "same as".

    Is Shem also Noah?
    Is Ham also Noah?
    Is Japheth also Noah?

    Did God Himself come in unto the daughters of men and get them pregnant before the flood?


    "The Son of God" as used by Jesus was a title, not as a description to indicate lineage or creation status. Don't confuse titles with mundane adjectives. In application it means God in the flesh.

    Jesus corrected any misinterpretation that someone would think Jesus was saying He is indeed God by clearly stating that His claim is that He is the Son of God.
    Very strange how none of his audience gathered that meaning. That declaration infuriated them more.

    Yes, there is precedent that shows that they would not think the son of God seen in the furnace was God Himself.
    Job 2:1
    1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
    Assuming the Babylonians were familiar with the book of Job? Please pick which angle you are using. If you are claiming that "the sons of God" are angelic beings, I remind you that "sons of God" is not the same as "the only begotten Son of God" but if you are using the original point of the use of the term by the Babylonians, we are back to the understanding that they say the manifestation of a god. I only say "god" lowercase here because the Babylonians were polytheistic.

    There was no "create and destroy" involved in the request to transform the stones into bread.
    Right... so you want to argue that transmutation of solid mineral into baked foodstuffs doesn't involve creating and destroying? Is this the theory at Hogwartz?



    According to your logic, Jesus lied in this statement:

    John 5:22
    22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
    Seems to me that passage is a problem for your current position (not mine!)

    Psalms 82:1 KJV
    (1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.


    I already showed how Jesus used this passage to defend the Son of God from charges of blasphemy. If you're going to make that not Jesus, then you've got a conflict with John 5:22.

    John 20:28-29 KJV
    (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
    (29) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

    Genuine, I have heard almost every Unitarian argument before. I can say this because a friend of mine was formerly Unitarian and he literally went through almost every argument (from a list) at one point. What is the response for John 20:28 above? Was Thomas swearing?

  9. #24
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Genuine, I apologize if that last bit seemed antagonistic. Usually you have a pretty good consistency with accepting scripture as written and only now it seems to be starting to deviate, and it was a little surprising.

    1Ti 3:16 KJV
    (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

    This theme: that God himself came to us and walked among us, the Creator of all things speaking to us and calling himself the Son of God is reinforced and proven through so many ways in scripture, from Genesis, to the minor prophets, linking major prophets to Revelation, direct and indirect statements of Jesus, the Psalms, very plain statements in the gospel of John, acknowledgments from Paul in his epistles... this is not a wild crazy doctrine. It was planned from the beginning.

    Perhaps those with an outside of time theory might escape this, but how could God vouch his entire reputation of prophecy on a prediction that someone else would be sinless as God is sinless, to be a sacrifice for sins? The only way to guarantee something like that which requires the heart and free will of the person is to do it yourself.

    1Jn 3:16 KJV
    (16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.


    How would God sending someone else to die for us show that God loves us? It would show that the one who endured the dying loved us to be certain, but there is certainly less love demonstrated by sending someone else off to do the dying that you're unwilling to do yourself. And the denial of Jesus as God prevents one from knowing the character of God, because he was already right in front of us so we could see who he was. The perception of "God" will remain some sort of distant hazy notion because of the inability to see the clear Logos in the flesh.

    What do you believe is at stake here? Was Jesus deficient in any way, somehow less than perfect? Jesus was Good as God is Good, as in "There is none good but one, that is, God." Would you be upset to find that Jesus is that Only God because of some deficiency in his love or character?

    Joh 14:9 KJV
    (9) Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

    Jesus did stay low-key during his ministry, and he did allow people to reach their own conclusions without necessarily correcting them. There are enough statements even then that it can be detected providing one has a knowledge of the other scriptures, but the subtle approach starts dissolving as the New Testament progresses, folding back into the Old Testament, proclaimed plainly by John and Paul, and proclaimed in very uncertain terms in Revelation. This is something we were meant to know.

  10. #25
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    "The Son of God" as used by Jesus was a title, not as a description to indicate lineage or creation status. Don't confuse titles with mundane adjectives. In application it means God in the flesh.
    Please look at all the other uses of "son of God" in the Bible.
    In each of them, the application appears to be "someone that is not God that has the power of God".
    There is no way to make the claim that the application of any of them into meaning "God in the flesh".
    You are attempting to make the scriptures say something that it doesn't say because you want the term to mean something different for Jesus than it does throughout the rest of the Bible.
    Spoiler

    Genesis 6:2
    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.



    Genesis 6:4
    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.



    Job 1:6
    6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.



    Job 2:1
    1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.



    Job 38:7
    7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



    John 1:12
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:



    Daniel 3:25
    25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.



    Luke 3:38
    38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.



    Romans 8:14
    14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.



    Romans 8:19
    19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.



    Galatians 4:7
    7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.



    Philippians 2:15
    15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;



    Hebrews 7:3
    3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.



    1 John 3:1-2
    1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
    2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  11. #26
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    According to your logic, Jesus lied in this statement:

    John 5:22
    22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Seems to me that passage is a problem for your current position (not mine!)
    The Trinitarian position is that the verse says "I judge no one, but I have given authority to judge to Me".
    To me, there is a problem with that.

    My position is that the only way to read the New Testament with understanding is to read it as if Jesus is a man that God has chosen to honor.
    That means that the verse would be read: "God has stopped judging mankind because God has given a man, Jesus, the authority to judge mankind."
    That supports my position.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  12. #27
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Please look at all the other uses of "son of God" in the Bible.
    In each of them, the application appears to be "someone that is not God that has the power of God".
    There is no way to make the claim that the application of any of them into meaning "God in the flesh".
    You are attempting to make the scriptures say something that it doesn't say because you want the term to mean something different for Jesus than it does throughout the rest of the Bible.
    Spoiler

    Genesis 6:2
    2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.



    Genesis 6:4
    4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.



    Job 1:6
    6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.



    Job 2:1
    1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.



    Job 38:7
    7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?



    John 1:12
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:



    Daniel 3:25
    25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.



    Luke 3:38
    38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.



    Romans 8:14
    14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.



    Romans 8:19
    19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.



    Galatians 4:7
    7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.



    Philippians 2:15
    15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;



    Hebrews 7:3
    3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.



    1 John 3:1-2
    1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
    2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

    I already acknowledge that Adam ... the son of God is used in a difference sense, not as a title. Clearly Jesus and John use "the Son of God" as a unique title and in a difference sense.

  13. #28
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,268
    Thanks
    778
    Thanked 1,442 Times in 1,134 Posts

    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    195786
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    The Trinitarian position is that the verse says "I judge no one, but I have given authority to judge to Me".
    To me, there is a problem with that.

    My position is that the only way to read the New Testament with understanding is to read it as if Jesus is a man that God has chosen to honor.
    That means that the verse would be read: "God has stopped judging mankind because God has given a man, Jesus, the authority to judge mankind."
    That supports my position.
    I don't claim to be Trinitarian. It is a model meant to answer some questions but it has a few flaws and can create a few problems. But the New Testament can be read in the sense that Jesus is God our Creator (and this is stated several times in various places, not just John).

    Joh 1:1-3 KJV
    (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    (2) The same was in the beginning with God.
    (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    "Father" and "Son" are figurative terms. It has nothing to do with a literal father and son, it is not an indicator of Creator and Created. I think you will find that it is more accurate to observe that "the Father" is how God is referred to as God distant and away from us, whereas the Son refers to God as we knew him in the flesh. There's less precise need for that distinction now, but those terms were introduced for the purpose of the Incarnation. And as far as the title "Father" goes, it's first (and only) use as an actual Title (not merely as adjectives) before the New Testament was in a prophetic reference to that time, and it is applied to the Son.

    Isa 9:6 KJV
    (6) For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

    You'll find Jesus using the title "the Father" to refer to God without directly referring to himself. Yes, it may seem a bit confusing. It could be Jesus being indirect, or it is possible that God was actually in two different states at the same time: above, in heaven; and beneath, on earth; both true to his essence and character, but one form in full glory and the second in less than full glory. This practical distinction would dissolve when Jesus ascended to the glory which he said he once had, and it would also explain how come so many references seem to blend and point both ways. A reference now to "the Son" or "the Father" would point back to the same unified God, a God which was both in heaven and on the cross, a feat that is impossible for us but possible for God.

    My approach to this is to establish first what the Bible gives us as absolutes (and assume that the scripture is true) and only afterwards allow our models to fall into place. We have so many ways shown us that Jesus who ascended is returning and He is returning as our God, and that even before he was conceived by the Holy Spirit that he created the worlds. And if Jesus is not God, then why does he call himself by all the unique names and titles of God in Revelation and appear to take over as the true God?

  14. #29
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Usually you have a pretty good consistency with accepting scripture as written and only now it seems to be starting to deviate, and it was a little surprising.
    I am not deviating.
    When I read the scriptures, I try to understand how the people writing would understand what they wrote and how the audience they were writing for would understand what they wrote.

    There are a few passages in the Bible that can be used to defend that doctrine, and a couple of handful of passages that can be used to defend a Binity doctrine.
    It took three hundred years for the Binity doctrine to be developed (325 CE), and another fifty years after that for the Trinity doctrine to be developed (381 CE).

    I have to consider the mindset of the Jews during the time of Christ in order to understand what they were writing.
    During the forty years between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem, not even one of the writers of the New Testament could even have conceived of the idea of the Trinity.
    If Jesus had told His disciples that He was God, they would have turned away from Him and refused to accept Him as the Messiah (Christ).


    1Ti 3:16 KJV
    (16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


    Paul would not have used the word "God" (θεός) in that statement.

    1 Timothy 3:16 NET
    16 And we all agree, our religion contains amazing revelation:
    He was revealed in the flesh,
    vindicated by the Spirit,
    seen by angels,
    proclaimed among Gentiles,
    believed on in the world,
    taken up in glory.


    The change in the verse appears to have happened over two hundred years after Paul wrote the epistle.

    1 Timothy 3:16 NET notes
    The Byzantine text along with a few other witnesses (אc Ac C2 D2 Ψ [88 pc] 1739 1881 �� vgms) read θεός (theos, “God”) for ὅς (hos, “who”). Most significant among these witnesses is 1739; the second correctors of some of the other mss tend to conform to the medieval standard, the Byzantine text, and add no independent voice to the discussion. A few mss have ὁ θεός (so 88 pc), a reading that is a correction on the anarthrous θεός. On the other side, the masculine relative pronoun ὅς is strongly supported by א* A* C* F G 33 365 pc Did Epiph. Significantly, D* and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun, ὅ (ho, “which”), a reading that indirectly supports ὅς since it could not easily have been generated if θεός had been in the text. Thus, externally, there is no question as to what should be considered original: The Alexandrian and Western traditions are decidedly in favor of ὅς. Internally, the evidence is even stronger. What scribe would change θεός to ὅς intentionally? “Who” is not only a theologically pale reading by comparison; it also is much harder (since the relative pronoun has no obvious antecedent, probably the reason for the neuter pronoun of the Western tradition). Intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with ὅς, appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for ὅς (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style (cf. also Col 1:15; Phil 2:6 for other places in which the relative pronoun begins a hymn, as was often the case in poetry of the day). On the other hand, with θεός written as a nomen sacrum, it would have looked very much like the relative pronoun: Θ̅Σ̅ vs. ΟΣ. Thus, it may have been easy to confuse one for the other. This, of course, does not solve which direction the scribes would go, although given their generally high Christology and the bland and ambiguous relative pronoun, it is doubtful that they would have replaced θεός with ὅς. How then should we account for θεός? It appears that sometime after the 2nd century the θεός reading came into existence, either via confusion with ὅς or as an intentional alteration to magnify Christ and clear up the syntax at the same time. Once it got in, this theologically rich reading was easily able to influence all the rest of the mss it came in contact with (including mss already written, such as א A C D). That this reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading, ὅ. The neuter relative pronoun is certainly a “correction” of ὅς, conforming the gender to that of the neuter μυστήριον (mustērion, “mystery”). What is significant in this reading is (1) since virtually all the Western witnesses have either the masculine or neuter relative pronoun, the θεός reading was apparently unknown to them in the 2nd century (when the “Western” text seems to have originated, though its place of origination was most likely in the east); they thus supply strong indirect evidence of ὅς outside of Egypt in the 2nd century; (2) even 2nd century scribes were liable to misunderstand the genre, feeling compelled to alter the masculine relative pronoun because it appeared to them to be too harsh. The evidence, therefore, for ὅς is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that θεός has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as θεός. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to θεός, a far more natural choice would have been χριστός (Christos, “Christ”) or κύριος (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341–42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    This theme: that God himself came to us and walked among us, the Creator of all things speaking to us and calling himself the Son of God is reinforced and proven through so many ways in scripture, from Genesis, to the minor prophets, linking major prophets to Revelation, direct and indirect statements of Jesus, the Psalms, very plain statements in the gospel of John, acknowledgments from Paul in his epistles... this is not a wild crazy doctrine. It was planned from the beginning.
    God walked with Adam in the beginning.
    God had His chosen people build a dwelling place for Him to meet with them.
    God will come down to earth with New Jerusalem and will dwell in the temple in the midst of the Temple there.
    The only part of your theme that does not match is the idea that God called Himself the Son of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Perhaps those with an outside of time theory might escape this, but how could God vouch his entire reputation of prophecy on a prediction that someone else would be sinless as God is sinless, to be a sacrifice for sins? The only way to guarantee something like that which requires the heart and free will of the person is to do it yourself.
    No, there is another way that neither relies on God to become flesh or God to be outside of time.

    Matthew 21:33-41
    33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
    34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
    35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
    36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
    37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
    38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
    39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
    40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
    41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    1Jn 3:16 KJV
    (16) Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
    Is it the love that money has for us, or our love for money that is the root of all evil?

    1 Timothy 6:10
    For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.


    If "love of money" is not referring to the love that money has for us, then we should be cautious in assuming that "love of God" is referring to the love that God has for us.
    Does the love God has for us need to be perfected, or is it our love for God that needs to be perfected?

    1 John 2:5
    5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    How would God sending someone else to die for us show that God loves us? It would show that the one who endured the dying loved us to be certain, but there is certainly less love demonstrated by sending someone else off to do the dying that you're unwilling to do yourself.
    Wouldn't Jesus dying for us show how much Jesus loves God instead of how much God loves us?

    1 John 3:16
    16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  15. #30
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,506 Times in 1,091 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501710
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I already acknowledge that Adam ... the son of God is used in a difference sense, not as a title. Clearly Jesus and John use "the Son of God" as a unique title and in a difference sense.
    No, it is not clear that Jesus is using the phrase "Son of God" differently than it has been used in the Old Testament.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us