- Apr 2, 2003
It just might, in the end.Sticks and stones may break my bones - but the truth will never hurt me.
I agree, that would be nonsense. But that is not at all what I said. Presuming that Richard is a human, being the son of Richard would make you human in nature, not Richard. Similarly, Son of God means that Jesus is God in nature, not the Father.Free, 'Son of God' means 'Son of God'. It does not mean 'God'! I am the son of Richard. Does that mean I am Richard? What utter nonsense!
He is God in nature, which is shown by the use of Son of God.Absolutely right, for once. But the Richard argument still holds. He is the Son of God, not God.Free said:As I have asked time and time again, and have yet to have anyone do it, look up every instance of the use of Son of God when it refers to Jesus, and take note of the circumstances and context. But even then, your argument is made null by John 1:14 and John 3:16, to give only two. Jesus is the unique, the one and only, Son of God. This is made abundantly clear in Scripture.
So, how about looking up every use of "Son of God" in the gospels? Look at the context and report back what you find. I've asked you several times in the past and you have never done so. How about doing it this time? Maybe you'll prove me wrong.
Umm...there is no begging the question there or refusal to face the truth. The passage shows his humanity, something which I nor any other Trinitarian here denies. The fact that it says he "took part of the same," implies that he existed prior to his "[taking] part of the same." We cannot make it say anything more.As fine an example of question begging and refusal to face the truth as I've heard recently.Free said:That does nothing to show that anything I've said is incorrect and I'm not sure why you think it does. The most we can say about that is that he existed prior to his incarnation.Asyncritus said:He took part of the nature of man - Hebrews says so very clearly and extremely emphatically, but doubtless you've missed or ignored that too:
2.14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; [Notice the mounting, cumulative, powerful emphasis which cannot be denied? Where is this 'God in nature' business in that passage? Nowhere to be seen]
And you should do more study before being so presumptive and arrogant. It can mean 'world' and is in fact translated as such eight times:You really should be more careful, and pay some attention to what the text actually says. You think 'worlds' = the planets etc.Free said:But you, on the other hand, continue to ignore Heb 1:2, "but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." According to your theology, that is a false statement, just like John 1:1-3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16-17. If Jesus was created, then all those passages are false. That is an argument I have made more times in this thread than I can count, yet you have not addressed it.
'Worlds' = aiom = ages. Sorry.
Even then, if it were to mean 'ages,' it makes no difference. You once again sidestep an argument by focusing on something unimportant. This is getting more than tiresome.
This really says it all, doesn't it? When I make arguments that Jesus is God, you get all up in arms and argue that he isn't. Yet when presented with a verses which clearly calls Jesus God, you say it is just a title, as though that title means very little. You have an excuse for everything.Quite right. It doesn't stop there. Haven't you noticed that is says ever so clearly. 'As He hath BY INHERITANCE obtained a more excellent name than they'? By INHERITANCE - from His Father, who is 'greater than I'. Remember that?Free said:But it doesn't stop there in Heb 1. We have verse 8, where the Father says of the Son:
'But of the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.' (ESV)
The title 'God' is a TITLE, Free, not a name. Don't you know that yet?
A title can be applied to anybody: Jesus said 'Have I not said Ye are gods'? Remember?
The title is being applied to Him, by INHERITANCE.
Jesus is very clearly called God, by the Father. If 'God' here doesn't mean anything, then it means nothing in the rest of Scripture and we may as well burn our Bibles and go home. Congrats on undermining all of Scripture.
Of course it should be mentioned that the name which he inherited is "Son." Look at the context.
The context is fine. It means what it means. We have an OT passage which speaks of YHWH being applied to the Son by the Father. The context is clear: Jesus is YHWH in the flesh but not the Father.This is possibly the strongest support for your POV.Free said:This supports what was said in verse 2. Also supporting verses 2 and 8 are verses 10-13:
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
But it only stands if you totally ignore (as you often do) that most vital piece of information on the planet for the understanding of scripture: the context.
This will take a bit of time, so let me put it in a few shorter posts.