Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
So you believe that the Logos is both one in being and nature with God, but it is then inaccurrate to say that the Logos is "in some undefined, ambigious way God"?
I don't quite understand how if "the Logos is the revelatory extension of the Father's being" as you wrote, that the Logos is not in some way God.
So he is both the extension of God's being, and hence a revelation of God, and also a revealer of God?
...it feels as though you are saying things and then not pursuing them to their logical conclusion.
I don't quite understand how if "the Logos is the revelatory extension of the Father's being" as you wrote, that the Logos is not in some way God.
So he is both the extension of God's being, and hence a revelation of God, and also a revealer of God?
...it feels as though you are saying things and then not pursuing them to their logical conclusion.
The argument is certainly sequiter, if you pay attention.
You're confusing identity with ontology and parroting normal trinitarian belief. The Father is the identity 'God' and Jesus is ontologically 'God' (in other words: divine like God). That's what John i.1 is saying.
The Father is objectively God (John xiv.6; xvii.3), Jesus is qualitatively God (divine; John i.1).
Hebrews i.3 gets my point across. In other words we can say Jesus is a 'copy/imprint' and manifestation of God. He is not objectively God. He represents God the Father and not the other way around.
You're confusing identity with ontology and parroting normal trinitarian belief. The Father is the identity 'God' and Jesus is ontologically 'God' (in other words: divine like God). That's what John i.1 is saying.
The Father is objectively God (John xiv.6; xvii.3), Jesus is qualitatively God (divine; John i.1).
Hebrews i.3 gets my point across. In other words we can say Jesus is a 'copy/imprint' and manifestation of God. He is not objectively God. He represents God the Father and not the other way around.
Wavy, what does it mean to be "divine like God" ?
I do not disagree that what your saying is true, in the sense that it probably accurately represents how the authors of scripture conceived it at the time.
IMHO, this reveals the poverty of sola-scriptura. The Trinity is never explicit in scripture, but is the most logical end of the New Testament experience. In otherwords, the longer we consider what the Scriptures are saying, the more we are finally directed to the Trinitarian formulation. The New Testament authors did not have the luxury of contmeplating the Trinitarian mystery, simply because it was the result of generations of thinking.
I do not disagree that what your saying is true, in the sense that it probably accurately represents how the authors of scripture conceived it at the time.
IMHO, this reveals the poverty of sola-scriptura. The Trinity is never explicit in scripture, but is the most logical end of the New Testament experience. In otherwords, the longer we consider what the Scriptures are saying, the more we are finally directed to the Trinitarian formulation. The New Testament authors did not have the luxury of contmeplating the Trinitarian mystery, simply because it was the result of generations of thinking.
To be what God is.
You're Catholic? Interesting...
I agree that if the doctrine of the trinity is true, it would have to be true in light of tradition outside the bible (with biblical support in some respects, of course). I'm not a member of any Christian establishment or denomination (I consider myself an amateur biblical liberal critic), but if I had to choose, I would be Catholic.
D
darcy
Guest
unred typo said:
Well, I don't know what my dad like that, but that doesn't mean that you have to know everything about him. That is why you look up to him so much is because you want to be like him. Put it this way if you new eveything that you father went through would you think he was that great ? :wink:
U
unred typo
Guest
darcy said:
Well, my Dad was much better than that, actually. I just put up a typical example to show that not knowing Jesus the same way some else does, doesn’t necessarily mean they have a different Jesus and that just knowing certain facts about him doesn‘t necessarily mean you know him personally. If I knew more about my Dad in reality, I may find out some things that make him less great because he was human after all, that may be true, but knowing more about Jesus would only make us love him more I believe.
This begs the question: Can anyone (or anything) be qualitatively God and yet not be objectively God? I believe the answer is "no".wavy said:
It is always so easy to debate merely what John 1:1 states. But taken in the context of the entire first chapter and in particular verses 2-3 and 14, it is pretty clear what John 1:1 is saying. John 1:2-3 is supported by Col. 1:16. These passages show that Jesus also has the attributes of the Father which can only make sense if Jesus is also God.
Again, "to be what God is" is "to be God". Either you are proposing polytheism or trinitarianism - those are the only two logical choices.wavy said:
While that is true, it is also true that Jesus either is God or he is not. If one believes that Jesus is not as Scripture actually reveals him, then they do have a different Jesus. Jesus' nature is essential to salvation.wavy said:
D
darcy
Guest
Wavy that can be true but what ditermans that Jesus is God and what prooves that he is God and not just a prophet?Free said:
I do not believe you know what 'begging the question' is (given your imputation of it here to me), but anyway...
You do not understand what I'm saying. Take an ocean for example. If I gather some of the ocean in a cup, the water inside the cup is indeed like the ocean. It has all the properties of ocean water...but it is not the ocean.
The same with Jesus. Jesus is a representation (Hebrews i.3) of God. He leads us to God (John xiv.6; 1 Timothy ii.5). He's not God objectively in himself. He comes out/forth from God (John viii.42; xiii.3; xvi.28,30). One church father made the analogy of a flame from a fire. It's not the fire itself, but certainly identical to it in terms of what it's made of.
These passages have roots and commonalities with both Hellenistic and Jewish concepts (like the Logos of the Stoics and the Wisdom in Jewish sapiental poetry (e.g. Proverbs ch. viii) as pre-existent and active in creating the world, etc.; the authors of these passages interpret this theology in light of and fulfilled in Jesus). Jesus is certainly viewed as 'divine' like God, but never confused with the objective, one God who is the Father (1 Corinthians viii.6). He's not viewed as one of the static persons in an impersonal trinitarian 'godhead'.
Or you are offering false alternatives and parroting trinitarian understanding. Jews understood 'God' as, not referring to a 'substance' or 'essence', and defintely not three persons, but as a personal being (who is called 'Father').
For example, one of the many alleged 'prooftexts' for the trinity is 2 Corinthians xiii.14. However, who is 'God' here in this verse? Again, it's the difference between objective God and being divine like him. John i.1 itself may be cited as proof of what I'm saying: 'the Logos was with the God'. Who is 'the God' here? Definitely the Father (1 John i.2).
We see this throughout the NT. Jesus is never just simply 'God'. His divinity is always interpreted in the context of the Father's divinity, and not in his own self. The Father clearly is unqualified and objective deity. Jesus is deity because of the Father. That is why the Johannine gospel emphasizes that the Word was with the God, because he is not to be confused with him. The terms are not interchangeable.
You have determine what that means. What does 'God' mean when you say this?
Does 'God' = trinity? (that can't be it).
Does 'God' = Father (that certainly isn't what you mean when you say 'Jesus is God').
So what can it mean? That he is divine. Why is he divine? Because he is a 'copy/imprint' of the Father (Heb. i.3). That's how I see it anyways...at least in the Johannine gospel.
D
darcy
Guest
wavy said:
These passages have roots and commonalities with both Hellenistic and Jewish concepts (like the Logos of the Stoics and the Wisdom in Jewish sapiental poetry (e.g. Proverbs ch. viii) as pre-existent and active in creating the world, etc.; the authors of these passages interpret this theology in light of and fulfilled in Jesus). Jesus is certainly viewed as 'divine' like God, but never confused with the objective, one God who is the Father (1 Corinthians viii.6). He's not viewed as one of the static persons in an impersonal trinitarian 'godhead'.
Or you are offering false alternatives and parroting trinitarian understanding. Jews understood 'God' as, not referring to a 'substance' or 'essence', and defintely not three persons, but as a personal being (who is called 'Father').
For example, one of the many alleged 'prooftexts' for the trinity is 2 Corinthians xiii.14. However, who is 'God' here in this verse? Again, it's the difference between objective God and being divine like him. John i.1 itself may be cited as proof of what I'm saying: 'the Logos was with the God'. Who is 'the God' here? Definitely the Father (1 John i.2).
We see this throughout the NT. Jesus is never just simply 'God'. His divinity is always interpreted in the context of the Father's divinity, and not in his own self. The Father clearly is unqualified and objective deity. Jesus is deity because of the Father. That is why the Johannine gospel emphasizes that the Word was with the God, because he is not to be confused with him. The terms are not interchangeable.
You have determine what that means. What does 'God' mean when you say this?
Does 'God' = trinity? (that can't be it).
Does 'God' = Father (that certainly isn't what you mean when you say 'Jesus is God').
So what can it mean? That he is divine. Why is he divine? Because he is a 'copy/imprint' of the Father (Heb. i.3). That's how I see it anyways...at least in the Johannine gospel.[/quote:2070e]
Inform me on what Johannine gospel is! I think Jesus and God are the same person. It is the 3in one God. God, the Son and the holyspirit. Also a nother question is why Jesus love on person but the cast others in to the lake of fir? That sure makes him seem that he has know idea what he is saying?
D
darcy
Guest
Free said:
Really? what makes you want to believe in something that you have to rely on a book that was written a long long time ago? why do people including my sel want to shar with others about the trynity when we don't even understand God and why he does the thinkgs that he does!
petitio principii - I do know what it is and yes, I am correct.wavy said:
You stated: "The Father is objectively God (John xiv.6; xvii.3), Jesus is qualitatively God (divine; John i.1)."
Your argument that Jesus isn't God presumes that something can be qualitatively God without being objectively God. And I really don't think, if one thinks enough about it, that anything or anyone can be qualitatively God without actually being God.
So you are a polytheist. I do understand what you are saying and while I realize that analogies are very limiting when speaking of God, this most certainly misses the mark of what John and the rest of Scripture states about Jesus.wavy said:
But Jesus is objectively God and this is precisely what John 1:1-3 makes clear:wavy said:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
From verse two we know that Jesus preexisted time - the Greek implies that Jesus was already in the beginning with God from eternity past. This is supported further by verse 3 which expounds on that idea. Logic tells us:
1) all things were made through Jesus, and
2) without Jesus was not any thing made that was made
C) Therefore Jesus could not have been made and is eternal.
The whole point of John 1:1 is to state not who God is but who the Word is, that is, that the Word is God. This is further supported by Phil. 2:5-8 and Col. 1:16.
An object or person cannot be divine and not be God without moving into polytheism.wavy said:
I find it really odd that you would state this as it is actually the opposite way around.wavy said:
Again, polytheism. Interesting how you focus so much on "the Word was with the God" but leave out "and the Word was God". Do you know why the article is likely left out in the second instance?wavy said:
Your whole argument is precisely why we have the doctrine of the Trinity. Trinitarianism acknowledges that "the Word was with the God", but it also acknowledges "the Word was God". It acknowledges that Jesus is not the Father but that he is equal with the Father.
What "God" means is that Jesus is, in every way, fully God, having all the attributes of the Father, but not being the Father.wavy said:
Free said:
Apparently you do not, as I will demonstrate immediately below:
Begging the question is assuming one's conclusion in order to prove one's premise. In other words, if I had said something like 'Jesus cannot be God because Jesus is not God'...or something similar, that would be, by strict definition, 'begging the question'.
But I made no such argument. My argument rests upon distinguishing two different ways of understanding what being 'God/divine' means (especially ho theos and just theos in John i.1). If you would like to prove otherwise, please outline my argument with the inclusion of the question that needs to be begged.
On the contrary, what you are trying to impute to me is the fallacy of equivocation. But I have avoided such a fallacy by clarifying the difference between being divine (qualitatively God) and objectively God.
No, I am not a polytheist. This misguided assertion goes unsubstantiated.
I have read John i.1-3 and have attempted to explain its contents with examples. Quoting it doesn't do much to prove 'Jesus is objectively God'...especially when you've demonstrated a blatant failure to understand what I mean when I say that.
A question which is not under discussion at this juncture and which I do not deny. Mentioning this is therefore irrelevant.
This is, in actuality, borderline begging the question. Please provide your proof, without which you have certainly begged the question.
Again, a misguided, unsubstantiated assertion.
I have endeavored to explain the differences by directly dealing with these facts. If you have not read them, that isn't my problem.
What do you mean by 'God' here? If the rest of your sentence after the comma is appositional and defines what you mean by 'God', then it is nothing different that what I have already claimed in this thread.
If you cannot grasp my point, that is something beyond my capacity to remedy.
I
Imagican
Guest
Free, Free Free,
Still the beligerent skeptic as before. For MOST, 'time' IN Christ brings 'humility'. But NOT Free.
The question was NOT for ME. The question was/is for those that MAY NOT understand that there IS a difference in Jesus'. MOST, I believe, are confused into thinking and believing that there is ONLY ONE, and THIS couldn't be FURTHER from the TRUTH.
And your answer, "The TRUE Christ can ONLY BE the one described in scripture' is simply ANOTHER way that Satan would attempt to bring OTHERS to him in the guise of a 'false Christ'. For the scriptures cannot even be agreed upon HERE on a 'Christian Forum'. So, with this being the case, much like what Satan told Eve in the garden: (99 % of what he stated was PURLELY TRUTH), so TOO would Satan attempt to immitate Christ. That means that 99% of what scripture states; Satan WOULD attempt to mimic, BUT, in SOME WAY it would be needed that the ONE percent LIE MUST be important enough to HIDE those that follow him from the TRUE Christ.
So, I offer NO accusations to ANYONE. What I DO offer is 'food for thought' for those that ARE WILLING to 'THINK'. MOST will simply 'follow' where they are led without much thought of ANYTHING other than how to 'pretend' to be a 'good Christian'. For others their walk is much deeper and the NEED for TRUTH is paramount to 'acting like' a good Christian.
MEC
Still the beligerent skeptic as before. For MOST, 'time' IN Christ brings 'humility'. But NOT Free.
The question was NOT for ME. The question was/is for those that MAY NOT understand that there IS a difference in Jesus'. MOST, I believe, are confused into thinking and believing that there is ONLY ONE, and THIS couldn't be FURTHER from the TRUTH.
And your answer, "The TRUE Christ can ONLY BE the one described in scripture' is simply ANOTHER way that Satan would attempt to bring OTHERS to him in the guise of a 'false Christ'. For the scriptures cannot even be agreed upon HERE on a 'Christian Forum'. So, with this being the case, much like what Satan told Eve in the garden: (99 % of what he stated was PURLELY TRUTH), so TOO would Satan attempt to immitate Christ. That means that 99% of what scripture states; Satan WOULD attempt to mimic, BUT, in SOME WAY it would be needed that the ONE percent LIE MUST be important enough to HIDE those that follow him from the TRUE Christ.
So, I offer NO accusations to ANYONE. What I DO offer is 'food for thought' for those that ARE WILLING to 'THINK'. MOST will simply 'follow' where they are led without much thought of ANYTHING other than how to 'pretend' to be a 'good Christian'. For others their walk is much deeper and the NEED for TRUTH is paramount to 'acting like' a good Christian.
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
wavy said:
I don't believe that this is what I have attempted to indicate as far as 'guessing' what Jesus 'believed'. Our 'understanding' of the TRUE Christ can ONLY come through a 'personal relationship' WITH the True Christ. But, that CAN be mimic by Satan if one DOESN'T know the difference.
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
nadab,
"I" am WELL aware of what you speak of. "You" have discovered a 'TRUTH' that MANY are/will be 'blinded' to NO MATTER WHAT The Word SAYS. I'll stop here to make an effort to 'catch up' to what I have missed the past couple of weeks.
MEC
"I" am WELL aware of what you speak of. "You" have discovered a 'TRUTH' that MANY are/will be 'blinded' to NO MATTER WHAT The Word SAYS. I'll stop here to make an effort to 'catch up' to what I have missed the past couple of weeks.
MEC
I
Imagican
Guest
NICE ONE Wavy. He CERTAINLY DID state that He 'was SENT BY THE FATHER'. And The Father IS GOD.
MEC
MEC
wavy said:
D
darcy
Guest
Have you read the psto 10 reasons that Jesus is not God?[/b]