User Tag List

Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 202

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

  1. #91
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Maybe you missed the difference between the phrases: "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" and "King and Redeemer"?
    "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" is speaking about two different beings with different titles, but people that read those words with the belief that both the Father and the Son are a single being can't seem to understand what "and his" means in the phrase.
    "King and Redeemer" is speaking about only one being that has two (or more) titles.
    Do you have any evidence (something that you can show) that would demonstrate that anyone is interpreting that passage as you suggest? Or short of evidence that can be directly shared, do you have personal experience with someone explaining that passage to you in that way? I don't mean Unitarian websites grasping at straw men creating arguments for others (because I just found a few of those), I mean do you know anyone that actually presents such an argument?

    ... because that clearly isn't what it means. It is using the parallel structure that occurs throughout scripture of repetition and equivalence.
    No, that is what the phrase "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" does, not what the title "Son of man" does. The LORD the King of Israel (one) and his redeemer (the redeemer of Israel) the LORD of Hosts (the same).

    Regardless, attempting to form a "Trinity" from that passage would produce the problem that two is clearly not three, the Trinity does not admit three different beings but rather argues three different persons ... and good luck getting a definition of person by the way. It seems to be one of those purposely vague terms so that one can sometimes be three (or the other way around) on demand.The reason why I bring this passage to bear is because these twin titles of the same God are also used with his unique identification of "the first and the last" trice repeated in Isaiah, and four times used to show the identify of Jesus and Christ as God in Revelation. Jesus identifies himself with multiple titles including "the first and the last" and the meaning of that "first and the last" includes "beside me there is no God." The only reason titles exist is to identify He who bears that title. To ignore the scriptures in this aspect would be purposely omitting evidence.

    Which aspect of Jesus is emphasized by the phrase "Son of man"?
    Is it His divinity that Jesus is claiming makes Him LORD of the Sabbath?
    Or is it His humanity that Jesus is claiming makes Him master of the Sabbath?
    The "Son of man" emphasizes that aspect that Jesus was literally manifest in the flesh, he was among us and endured all things as we. See Matthew 16:13, where Jesus asks "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" ... .followed by their responses, finally ending with Peter's (correct) answer that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." The title of the Son of man emphasizes the more obvious human aspects of Jesus, that are easily seen enough as to be used in the question, whereas "the Son of the living God" is the ultimate answer that is revealed not by flesh and blood, but by God above.

    Jesus states that even in his current form, he is also (which means in addition to) the Lord of the Sabbath, with more right to be served on the Sabbath than the temple of God by its priests, with every right to state the intended meaning and application of the Sabbath or even to change its commanded practice. As the Creator of all things and He who made the Sabbath day, this is his innate right. Jesus uses a similar tactic to connect the link between the "Son of man" to "God" when he heals the man sick of palsy.

    Mark 2:5-11 KJV
    (5) When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
    (6) But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
    (7) Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
    (8) And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?
    (9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?
    (10) But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,)
    (11) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.

    The detractors saw only the Son of man, but said that when he called himself the Son of God that it was blasphemy, making himself God (John 10:33-36).

    If Jesus was attempting to declare humanity... or as I suspect you mean, mere exclusive humanity, these would not be the statements and actions to support such a claim. Created man is not master of the Sabbath... this is a basic Old Testament understanding:

    Exodus 31:14-15 KJV
    (14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
    (15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

    So how did this apply to Jesus? Simply put, the LORD of the Sabbath is is immune to charges of breaking the Sabbath.

    John 5:16-18 KJV
    (16) And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
    (17) But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
    (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

    Let's review this for a moment. Jesus said that the priests of the temple were held blameless when they profaned the sabbath in service of the temple. If he meant to say he was merely a man, then his answer need only have continued onward that as a priest serving God he was likewise blameless. Instead he chose to say that he (the son of Man) was also the Lord of the Sabbath. He did not say that "man" was Lord of the Sabbath, because there is only one such Lord. Any man who chose to work on the Sabbath was under the divine sentence of death.

    This also applies to the example where he healed the man sick of palsy. He could have said that he did not work, but it was his Father above in heaven... but rather in response to their murmurs that "only God can forgive sin" instead he reinforced the accusation with "so that you may know the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins..." (Mark 2:10) and demonstrates that even his command to "rise up and walk" must be obeyed and would even heal sickness.

    At this point... just stop for a moment. If Jesus was merely a man (as you have suggested) then why did he continue to antagonize these Jewish leaders and lead them on in this fashion? Where he could have claimed to be a priest, he declared himself Lord of the Sabbath. Where he could have said that he was healing no one, but God above, he instead said that he would now demonstrate that he had the power to forgive sin. When he was to be stoned for "making himself God" after declaring that he was the judge of the living and the dead, he answered that they were the little gods that would die like men, whereas the context of the psalm was that God would judge among those gods.

    At any point Jesus could have said, "I am your fellow man" ...

    Acts 10:25-26 KJV
    (25) And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
    (26) But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

    But what was the reaction of Jesus to worship?

    Matthew 8:2-3 KJV
    (2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    (3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

    Matthew 9:18-19 KJV
    (18) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
    (19) And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.

    Matthew 14:32-33 KJV
    (32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
    (33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

    Matthew 15:25-28 KJV
    (25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
    (26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
    (27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
    (28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

    Matthew 28:9 KJV
    (9) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

    Matthew 28:16-17 KJV
    (16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
    (17) And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

    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.

    Men of God and angels do not accept worship. If Jesus was not worthy of worship, given so many occurrences like the above, why is there no record of Jesus ever refusing worship?

    Revelation 22:8-9 KJV
    (8) And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
    (9) Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

    By the way... sorry for the "wall of scripture" approach, but there is no shortage of such instances, and it is important to realize that this is not one isolated instance but rather the intended and intentional emphasis of these gospels.

  2. #92
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    That doesn't seem to be a sufficient argument if the Bible ever literally calls any other man "god".
    Jesus even points that out.

    John 10:34
    34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
    Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?" God judges among the gods, and they shall die like men.

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

    John 5:22-23 KJV
    (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.

    The Bible calls Jesus "God" (CAPITAL G) in more than those two places.

    Can you honestly say that you honor the Son even as you honor the Father? Aren't you spending an awful lot of time denying that the Son is worthy of that same honor?
    Last edited by Rosenritter; September 28th, 2018 at 08:19 AM.

  3. #93
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by CherubRam View Post
    Methuselah name means, “his death shall bring.” Noah's name means, "repose."

    His death shall bring / repose.
    Do you see any legitimate merit in combining Methuselah name with Noah in the context of revealed events?

    By this I also ask, do you see these names as being essentially random with no overarching purpose or names that may have been chosen by design? We know that God can quietly influence the choosing of a name (like Cyrus of Isaiah 44:28 who was prophesied by name) and he change of someone's name (like Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28) and even force the parent to pick a particular name (like John of Luke 1:63)... is it reasonable to think that the name Methuselah could be related to the flood.... with the benefit of our hindsight?
    Last edited by Rosenritter; September 28th, 2018 at 08:18 AM.

  4. #94
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,627
    Thanks
    14,740
    Thanked 37,239 Times in 18,605 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147804
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?" God judges among the gods, and they shall die like men.

    Psalms 82:1 KJV
    (1) A Psalm of Asaph. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
    Not only will they die like men....they were men.

    That Psalm is talking about the Judges of Israel who spoke for God when making their decisions.

    2 Chronicles 19:6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.

  5. #95
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?" God judges among the gods, and they shall die like men.

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

    John 5:22-23 KJV
    (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.

    The Bible calls Jesus "God" (CAPITAL G) in more than those two places.

    Can you honestly say that you honor the Son even as you honor the Father? Aren't you spending an awful lot of time denying that the Son is worthy of that same honor?
    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.

    Joh 20:28 KJV
    (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

    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.

    Those statements are fairly direct.... to add to the many deeds and statements that require at least a little bit of scriptural tie-in (and there's more of those we haven't touched on yet.)

  6. #96
    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 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    the phrase "the King of Israel, and his redeemer" . . . The LORD the King of Israel (one) and his redeemer (the redeemer of Israel) the LORD of Hosts (the same).
    A boy, and his dog. (his = the boy, his dog = the boy's dog)
    A father, and his child. (his = the father, his child = the father's child)
    A King, and his redeemer. (his = the king, his redeemer = the king's redeemer)

    Want to try again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Regardless, attempting to form a "Trinity" from that passage would produce the problem that two is clearly not three, the Trinity does not admit three different beings but rather argues three different persons ... and good luck getting a definition of person by the way. It seems to be one of those purposely vague terms so that one can sometimes be three (or the other way around) on demand.
    Yes, the Trinity doctrine has problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    The reason why I bring this passage to bear is because these twin titles of the same God are also used with his unique identification of "the first and the last" trice repeated in Isaiah, and four times used to show the identify of Jesus and Christ as God in Revelation. Jesus identifies himself with multiple titles including "the first and the last" and the meaning of that "first and the last" includes "beside me there is no God." The only reason titles exist is to identify He who bears that title. To ignore the scriptures in this aspect would be purposely omitting evidence.
    I do not deny that there are passages in the Bible that can support a Binity doctrine (Jesus and the Father are both the same God).
    I do say we have to be suspicious of those passages because they appear to contradict the vast majority of scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    If Jesus was attempting to declare humanity... or as I suspect you mean, mere exclusive humanity, these would not be the statements and actions to support such a claim. Created man is not master of the Sabbath... this is a basic Old Testament understanding:

    Exodus 31:14-15 KJV
    (14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
    (15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

    So how did this apply to Jesus? Simply put, the LORD of the Sabbath is is immune to charges of breaking the Sabbath.
    Jesus was declaring that he was a man (Son of man) and that as a man He is a master of the Sabbath and can eat grain off the stalk without violating the commandments.
    Jesus was not declaring Himself to be God and that by being God He was not subject to the Law that God gave to Moses.

    Do you really believe that Jesus would allow His disciples to break the Sabbath commandments?
    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

  7. #97
    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 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Let's review this for a moment. Jesus said that the priests of the temple were held blameless when they profaned the sabbath in service of the temple. If he meant to say he was merely a man, then his answer need only have continued onward that as a priest serving God he was likewise blameless.
    Jesus was not a Levitical priest, so there was no way He would have lied by claiming that He was a priest.
    Were the priests of the temple men or gods?
    If the priests were men, then the example Jesus is giving is of how men can still be blameless when they do certain things that can be considered to be profaning the Sabbath.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    If Jesus was merely a man (as you have suggested) then why did he continue to antagonize these Jewish leaders and lead them on in this fashion?
    Jesus continued to antagonize the self-proclaimed experts of the Law by revealing their errors relating to the Law.
    I can provide dozens of examples of Jesus doing that very thing, if you want.
    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. #98
    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 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Acts 10:25-26 KJV
    (25) And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
    (26) But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

    But what was the reaction of Jesus to worship?

    Matthew 8:2-3 KJV
    (2) And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
    (3) And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.

    Matthew 9:18-19 KJV
    (18) While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
    (19) And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.

    Matthew 14:32-33 KJV
    (32) And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
    (33) Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

    Matthew 15:25-28 KJV
    (25) Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
    (26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
    (27) And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
    (28) Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

    Matthew 28:9 KJV
    (9) And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

    Matthew 28:16-17 KJV
    (16) Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
    (17) And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

    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.

    Men of God and angels do not accept worship. If Jesus was not worthy of worship, given so many occurrences like the above[B], why is there no record of Jesus ever refusing worship?
    If Jesus will be sitting on the throne of David, He is worthy of worship as a king without needing to be worthy of worship as a god.
    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

  9. #99
    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 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Do you know the difference between "God" and "gods?"
    Here are both uses in the same Psalm.

    Psalm 82:6,8
    6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
    אֲֽנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיֹון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃
    8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
    קוּמָה אֱלֹהִים שָׁפְטָה הָאָרֶץ כִּֽי־אַתָּה תִנְחַל בְּכָל־הַגֹּויִֽם׃


    I highlighted God and gods in both verses.
    Please note that the Hebrew word is EXACTLY the same in both verses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    The Bible calls Jesus "God" (CAPITAL G)
    You do realize that the capital G in God was added by the translators, right?
    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

  10. #100
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    A boy, and his dog. (his = the boy, his dog = the boy's dog)
    A father, and his child. (his = the father, his child = the father's child)
    A King, and his redeemer. (his = the king, his redeemer = the king's redeemer)

    Want to try again?
    No, I think you are arguing by reflex here. I'll use the same explanation a second time and maybe you'll see it.

    Isaiah 44:6 KJV
    (6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

    Identity: the LORD.
    Title / role 1: the LORD the the King of Israel,
    Title / role 2: the redeemer of Israel, the LORD of hosts

    God as the redeemer is well established in scripture already: Job 19:25, Psalms 19:14, and many more besides.

    Psalms 78:35 KJV
    (35) And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

    Surely you wouldn't say that is a "Trinitarian" edit to try to make two Gods (please say no?) Because that's an almost identical structure to the passage in Isaiah. That isn't a "Trinitarian edit" but rather a consistent means of translation of the Hebrew.

    Identity: God
    Title / role 1: their rock
    Title / role 2: the high God their redeemer

    Yes, the Trinity doctrine has problems.
    One of which that I have seen is that some people react to its flaws and then deny that Jesus is our Lord and our God. It leaves such an impression that they just can't get "Trinity" out of their heads to evaluate the text clearly... and I even say this of a friend who debated with me for a whole month before he finally recognized that I was not arguing a "Trinity."

    I do not deny that there are passages in the Bible that can support a Binity doctrine (Jesus and the Father are both the same God).
    I do say we have to be suspicious of those passages because they appear to contradict the vast majority of scripture.
    I don't argue a Binity (Trinity Lite) model... but there are certain facts and certain statements that are made that are clear and definitive. Our understanding must first accommodate those items and only afterwards do we have the luxury of constructing a model for the benefit of analogy and comprehension. We should never filter the facts to match our understanding (that would be backwards.)

    Jesus was declaring that he was a man (Son of man) and that as a man He is a master of the Sabbath and can eat grain off the stalk without violating the commandments. Jesus was not declaring Himself to be God and that by being God He was not subject to the Law that God gave to Moses.

    Do you really believe that Jesus would allow His disciples to break the Sabbath commandments?
    Jesus had the authority to interpret the Sabbath commandment, by right of being the Creator of the Sabbath commandment. Man is not the master of the Sabbath, and that claim would have had you rightfully stoned under Mosaic law. But did Jesus argue that his disciples were not breaking the Sabbath under their interpretation or the interpretation of Moses or the prophets... as would a man? No... he didn't both with such trivialities and and said that He has the right to interpret the meaning by virtue of being its Lord....

    .... and used the analogy that the priests of the temple profaned the sabbath and were held blameless, because it was in service to the temple. And did he not also say that a greater than the temple is here? His servants are also held blameless in his service. That's a tall statement.

  11. #101
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Jesus was not a Levitical priest, so there was no way He would have lied by claiming that He was a priest.
    Hebrews 5:8-10 KJV
    (8) Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
    (9) And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
    (10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.


    Looks to me like he had the right and authority to call himself a priest.

    Were the priests of the temple men or gods?
    If the priests were men, then the example Jesus is giving is of how men can still be blameless when they do certain things that can be considered to be profaning the Sabbath.
    Men can be blameless when fulfilling their ordained roles in service of God (or God by extension, in the example of the temple. David was held blameless for eating the shewbread as it was given to him by the priests, and he was in the service of God as the then-ordained and future-to-be-established King of Israel.

    Jesus continued to antagonize the self-proclaimed experts of the Law by revealing their errors relating to the Law.
    I can provide dozens of examples of Jesus doing that very thing, if you want.
    So why would he antagonize them by making Himself God? For divorce, covetousness, and the like these reasons are obvious and I am sure very easy for you to explain. What would not fit this picture is continuing is for a mere man to give the signs and answers that make himself God.

  12. #102
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    If Jesus will be sitting on the throne of David, He is worthy of worship as a king without needing to be worthy of worship as a god.
    What? The angels of God will worship a human king? Besides, none of those examples had him being worshiped as a king, and we are told not to worship men or angels!

    Luke 4:8 KJV
    (8) And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

  13. #103
    Over 4000 post club Rosenritter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    The land of ice and snow.
    Posts
    4,804
    Thanks
    854
    Thanked 1,586 Times in 1,250 Posts

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

    Rep Power
    188840
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    Here are both uses in the same Psalm.

    Psalm 82:6,8
    6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
    אֲֽנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיֹון כֻּלְּכֶֽם׃
    8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
    קוּמָה אֱלֹהִים שָׁפְטָה הָאָרֶץ כִּֽי־אַתָּה תִנְחַל בְּכָל־הַגֹּויִֽם׃


    I highlighted God and gods in both verses.
    Please note that the Hebrew word is EXACTLY the same in both verses.

    You do realize that the capital G in God was added by the translators, right?
    Would you prefer the scriptures were all lowercase or WRITTEN WITH CAPS LOCK?

    Tell me, what possible sense does it say for a "god" that shall "die like men" to judge among the gods and judge the earth? Your unwillingness to honor the Son as the Father is interfering with your ability to read with sensible interpretation.

  14. #104
    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 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    No, I think you are arguing by reflex here. I'll use the same explanation a second time and maybe you'll see it.

    Isaiah 44:6 KJV
    (6) Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

    Identity: the LORD.
    Title / role 1: the LORD the the King of Israel,
    Title / role 2: the redeemer of Israel, the LORD of hosts
    Check the grammar of the verse in KJV.
    It clearly is speaking about two beings: the King of Israel and the redeemer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    God as the redeemer is well established in scripture already: Job 19:25, Psalms 19:14, and many more besides.

    Psalms 78:35 KJV
    (35) And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

    Surely you wouldn't say that is a "Trinitarian" edit to try to make two Gods (please say no?) Because that's an almost identical structure to the passage in Isaiah. That isn't a "Trinitarian edit" but rather a consistent means of translation of the Hebrew.
    Maybe you are not seeing that the KJV added the word "his" to change the translation from "The king of Israel and redeemer" to "The king of Israel and his redeemer"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    One of which that I have seen is that some people react to its flaws and then deny that Jesus is our Lord and our God. It leaves such an impression that they just can't get "Trinity" out of their heads to evaluate the text clearly... and I even say this of a friend who debated with me for a whole month before he finally recognized that I was not arguing a "Trinity."
    You are arguing a "Binity" (two persons in one being).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    I don't argue a Binity (Trinity Lite) model... but there are certain facts and certain statements that are made that are clear and definitive. Our understanding must first accommodate those items and only afterwards do we have the luxury of constructing a model for the benefit of analogy and comprehension. We should never filter the facts to match our understanding (that would be backwards.)
    It sure seems that you are arguing a Binity.

    What makes your argument different from a Binity argument?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    Jesus had the authority to interpret the Sabbath commandment, by right of being the Creator of the Sabbath commandment. Man is not the master of the Sabbath, and that claim would have had you rightfully stoned under Mosaic law. But did Jesus argue that his disciples were not breaking the Sabbath under their interpretation or the interpretation of Moses or the prophets... as would a man? No... he didn't both with such trivialities and and said that He has the right to interpret the meaning by virtue of being its Lord....

    .... and used the analogy that the priests of the temple profaned the sabbath and were held blameless, because it was in service to the temple. And did he not also say that a greater than the temple is here? His servants are also held blameless in his service. That's a tall statement.
    It is a tall statement and it is inaccurate as well.
    There are three versions of this event, and only the one in Matthew includes the account about the priests working in the Temple on the Sabbath and that Jesus is greater than the Sabbath.
    This indicates that the part about Jesus being greater than the Sabbath came from something He said on a different occasion that was added to this event by the writer of Matthew.

    The other two are more accurate because they only speak about David being in need and hungry and eating the showbread.

    Mark 2:24-28
    24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
    25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
    26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
    27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
    28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.



    Luke 6:1-5
    1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
    2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
    3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
    4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
    5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.



    So, what do we have to deal with?
    The disciples are hungry enough to gather grains directly from the plants on the Sabbath, even though harvesting grains is "work" and is forbidden on the Sabbath.
    David was hungry enough to go into the Tabernacle and eat the shewbread that was sitting there, even though only Levitical priests were allowed to enter the Tabernacle and to eat the shewbread.
    Jesus claimed the disciples were innocent of guilt for their actions because the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.

    Conclusion: God sees man's physical needs (hunger) as more important than ritual obedience, therefore man is the master of the Sabbath and the Sabbath is not the master of man.

    (You are missing this most important point because you are seeking to put Jesus as GOD of the Sabbath instead of hearing what He is actually saying.)
    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. #105
    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 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosenritter View Post
    So why would he antagonize them by making Himself God? For divorce, covetousness, and the like these reasons are obvious and I am sure very easy for you to explain. What would not fit this picture is continuing is for a mere man to give the signs and answers that make himself God.
    You are making the same mistake that the Pharisees made.
    The Pharisees claimed that only God could do certain things, so when Jesus did those things with the power and authority God gave Him, they refused to believe that God gave Jesus the power and authority to do those things.
    Jesus did try to correct them by telling them that God gave Him the power and authority, but they rejected His words.

    John 5:19-27
    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.
    24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
    25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
    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.


    Isn't it interesting that Jesus declared His humanity when speaking about the power and authority that God gave to 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

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