Is Jesus considered to be God?

[TheCatholic]

your entire argument about the term "word" is based on your theory that "word" can be specifically translated as Christ.....

God is a perfect being in his simplicity. He is pure spirit. Spirit has no seperate parts.

God's word is God, for it is of God and God does have parts. Therefore Jesus is God.

Also, since God is a perfect being in his simplicity, since He is pure spirit and since Spirit has no serprate parts, this means that anyone who shares his nature is God. Christ is God because His Father is God. He shares God's nature, therefore he is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 

[Yahoshea]

your entire argument about the term "word" is based on your theory that "word" can be specifically translated as Christ.....

God is a perfect being in his simplicity. He is pure spirit. Spirit has no seperate parts.

God's word is God, for it is of God and God does have parts. Therefore Jesus is God.

Also, since God is a perfect being in his simplicity, since He is pure spirit and since Spirit has no serprate parts, this means that anyone who shares his nature is God. Christ is God because His Father is God. He shares God's nature, therefore he is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Gobledegook philosophy.
The more you post the more your post are filled with mysticism and philosophical arguments. Just like the myth of the Trinity you have no substance in your approach. You doctrine has no function and does nothing. It is simple metaphysical philosophy.

 

[Yahoshea]

And then you start the old dodge of them being of the same nature. This is no different then what Constantine the sun worshiper when he forced the concept of them being of the same substance. You are still duped by the roman emperor.

If you want to say that they are both divine because they share the same nature then we too are divine because we are supposed to partake of the divine nature

 

[TheCatholic]

your entire argument about the term "word" is based on your theory that "word" can be specifically translated as Christ.....

God is a perfect being in his simplicity. He is pure spirit. Spirit has no seperate parts.

God's word is God, for it is of God and God does have parts. Therefore Jesus is God.

Also, since God is a perfect being in his simplicity, since He is pure spirit and since Spirit has no serprate parts, this means that anyone who shares his nature is God. Christ is God because His Father is God. He shares God's nature, therefore he is God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Gobledegook philosophy...........

Fortunately, Christianity disagrees with you and agrees with me

 

[Yahoshea]

Fortunately, Christianity disagrees with you and agrees with me[/quote]

I can hear death squads saying that the entire German NAZI party agrees with their torturing the Jews. Does that make it right?
And scripture agrees with me. I wonder which is best, Christianity that has been weakened by the paganism of the catholic church or the real meaning of scripture as derived through proper principles of study, language and cultural studies and common sense.

 

[TheCatholic]

Fortunately, Christianity disagrees with you and agrees with me

I can hear death squads saying that the entire German NAZI party agrees with their torturing the Jews. Does that make it right?
And scripture agrees with me. I wonder which is best, Christianity that has been weakened by the paganism of the catholic church or the real meaning of scripture as derived through proper principles of study, language and cultural studies and common sense.

Ahhhh, yes, the final refuge of the ignorant: Bringing Nazism into the equation

 

[Yahoshea]

Fortunately, Christianity disagrees with you and agrees with me

I can hear death squads saying that the entire German NAZI party agrees with their torturing the Jews. Does that make it right?
And scripture agrees with me. I wonder which is best, Christianity that has been weakened by the paganism of the catholic church or the real meaning of scripture as derived through proper principles of study, language and cultural studies and common sense.

Ahhhh, yes, the final refuge of the ignorant: Bringing Nazism into the equation

Ahhh the last resort of a weak argument saying that the majority agrees with me......... I was simply stating that having a lot of people agreeing with something is no proof of it's validity. the fact that the Catholic Church forced the beliefs throughout the dark ages and the reformation is still going on as people continue to come out of the death doctrines of that system.

 

[Yahoshea]

.[/quote]
Ahhhh, yes, the final refuge of the ignorant: Bringing Nazism into the equation[/quote]

BTW I do not remember making a personal attack on you. I have ridiculed your church's doctrine but that is not personal. I am curious, is your personal attack a fruit of your doctrine? I can see no other fruit in it.

 

[Yahoshea]

All through scripture God and Christ speak of judging by the fruit produced. I have spoken many times about the functionality of doctrine. A functional doctrine will produce positive fruit. Unfortunately many are not wiling to examine the fruit of their doctrines. They want to grind out supposed scriptural proofs that others can then counter with their own supposed scriptural proofs. The cycle goes on and on and nothing is accomplished. When ask for an example of the good fruit produced by various doctrines the question is widely ignored. This unfortunately is rampant among Christians. They have become doctrinal rather then functional. They spend countless hours attempting to prove that their particular doctrine is correct scripturally and never ask if their doctrine actually produces anything in their lives.
For example ---
I believe that Christ overcame temptation and that he was tempted just like other men even unto death. Because I also believe that Christ was fully human with no advantage over us stemming from a preexistence, I can look at his example and have hope. I have hope that I too can overcome temptation and resist sin as he did. This is a functional doctrine. It produces the positive fruit of hope in my heart.
If I were to believe that Christ had any advantage over us by way of a preexistence or divinity then I could not believe that he was tempted in the same manner that other men are tempted. He would be tempted as a God and I am tempted as a man. I would not be able to use his overcoming as a viable example and no hope could be produced. In fact the fruits that are produced from this doctrine are clearly bad. It produces doubt in my ability to follow his example. It shows no human as I am overcoming temptation. This is a dysfunctional doctrine. It does not work to help me become like Christ.

If a doctrine produces no fruit, or worse, produces bad fruit it needs cutting down and thrown in the fire like the bad fig tree.

 

[Drew]

All through scripture God and Christ speak of judging by the fruit produced. I have spoken many times about the functionality of doctrine. A functional doctrine will produce positive fruit.

I have no idea how you justify the "funtionality" criterion. You seem to be arguing that since it is easier for us to identify with a non-divine Jesus, then this is main or only criteria we use to come to a conclusion about the divinity of Jesus.

Whether this is what you are saying not, that line of reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say that I need a very tricky operation to save my life. There are two candidates available - one a human doctor and one an alien doctor. Now, it is clear that I can "identify" better with the human doctor. But if the alien has far superior technology, it is better for me to choose the alien doctor.

I suppose that it is indeed true that a non-divine Jesus is easier for us to see as an example. But Jesus did not come and die to set an example, he came to die to solve the problem of sin and death.

You seem to have pulled this "functional" criteria out of mid-air. I see no evidence for it in the scriptures as the main or governing critieria in respect to making a judgment about the divinity of Jesus.

 

[Drew]

There is no linguistic reason to interpret Logos in John 1 as Jesus.

Are you serious? How can this statement be read as not suggesting that Jesus is being equated with the "word":

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

The "word" here is clearly a way to denote Jesus. Do you deny this? I suspect that no other person will agree that here "word" is not a reference to Jesus. You seem to go on to argue that here "the word" refers to "speech" or an "idea":

No literature of the time uses logos in that way or to denote a personage of any kind. In over 350 times Logos is used in scripture it is only defined (by some) Jesus 6 or 8 times. The overwhelming evidence in both Greek literature of the time and the overwhelming evidence in scripture itself points to a definition as statement speech or idea.

Did an "idea" walk around in fleshly form? Did John say that an "idea" has higher rank than he? Would John refer to an idea as "He"? Obviously not.

The reference to "the word" in this passage is clearly a reference to Jesus. To suggest otherwise stretches credulity to the breaking point.

As I have posted many many times the Hebrews did not see God as “He is …………..†the saw God as “He functions as ……..â€

I agree, but this very line of argument works to support the divinity of Jesus. We know that God promised that He would personally return to Zion. As per an argument I have already provided, we know that Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling the promise. Jesus, therefore "functions as" YHWH returning to Zion.

 

[Drew]

Again, from 1 Corinthians 8:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

If Jesus is only human, and in no way divine, how, exactly, is a mere man the agency by which all things exist? That is one powerful man.

And this from Colossians 1:

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him

A mere man is the agency that created galaxies and mountains? Stars and lions? Planets and trees? I really am mystified at how someone would accept that Paul is writing inspired scripture here and yet believes that Jesus is "only a man". How can mere man create all things in the universe? Again, that is one powerful man.

And this, from Phillipians:

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Clearly Paul sees Jesus as divine but not willing to "exploit" that status by refusing to come to us a servant. The point of Paul's argument is pretty clear - Jesus shares God's status as divine, but did not use that status, as He might have done, to avoid the cross.

 

[Yahoshea]

There is no linguistic reason to interpret Logos in John 1 as Jesus.

Are you serious? How can this statement be read as not suggesting that Jesus is being equated with the "word":

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'

The "word" here is clearly a way to denote Jesus. Do you deny this? I suspect that no other person will agree that here "word" is not a reference to Jesus. You seem to go on to argue that here "the word" refers to "speech" or an "idea":

No literature of the time uses logos in that way or to denote a personage of any kind. In over 350 times Logos is used in scripture it is only defined (by some) Jesus 6 or 8 times. The overwhelming evidence in both Greek literature of the time and the overwhelming evidence in scripture itself points to a definition as statement speech or idea.

Did an "idea" walk around in fleshly form? Did John say that an "idea" has higher rank than he? Would John refer to an idea as "He"? Obviously not.

The reference to "the word" in this passage is clearly a reference to Jesus. To suggest otherwise stretches credulity to the breaking point.

As I have posted many many times the Hebrews did not see God as “He is …………..†the saw God as “He functions as ……..â€

I agree, but this very line of argument works to support the divinity of Jesus. We know that God promised that He would personally return to Zion. As per an argument I have already provided, we know that Jesus saw Himself as fulfilling the promise. Jesus, therefore "functions as" YHWH returning to Zion.

Are you serious. You ignore any form of proper interpretation processes to support your doctrine. 350 times LOGOs is accepted as statement speech or idea and yet you want to change that meaning to support your doctrine. Do you even have a Bible dictionary?

John is easily explained ----
“In the beginning was the Logosâ€
In the beginning was a concept/idea.
“And the Logos was with Godâ€
and the idea reflected as in a mirror God
“And the logos was Godâ€
This idea expressed who God was and how He wanted to relate to and function toward His children. (Again Hebrew parallelism saying the same thing in two or more ways.)
“This was in beginning toward God†(actual Greek)
From the beginning this idea/expression was a mirror toward God reflecting who God was.
“All things come into being through him and apart from him nothings came into being that has come into being.†(actual Greek).
God created all things and nothing has existence outside of God.
“In Him was life and the life was the light of menâ€.
God is the source of Light and life.
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

All the previous verse are talking about God and not about Jesus. The next verses begin to speak of Jesus.

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
God’s idea came to fruition. 1 Peter 1:20?For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you
15John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'"
The Greek does not use the word “existed†it says Jesus is before John, but in preeminence. Jesus being the forerunner and firstborn. Verse 16 and 17 explain why Jesus is preeminent over John.
16For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
17For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

If John was equating Jesus with Word then why does he so clearly diferentiate between them in Revelation
He clearly says that he was witness to the word of God (the idea) and the testimony of Jesus Christ (the fulfillment of that idea)

 

[TheCatholic]

Are you serious. You ignore any form of proper interpretation processes to support your doctrine.........

"Proper" in who's opinion. Yours?

 

[Drew]

Are you serious. You ignore any form of proper interpretation processes to support your doctrine. 350 times LOGOs is accepted as statement speech or idea and yet you want to change that meaning to support your doctrine. Do you even have a Bible dictionary?

This is incorrect thinking. The fact that the word "logos" generally means "a word" or "a statement" does not mean that it cannot be deployed metaphorically to denote a person. You are arguing as if people are bound by rules of language to always use words and terms in only one way. That is simply not how language works.

If we applied your reasoning the statement "she is the apple of my eye" should be read as a statement that a certain woman is a sweet, red, seed-bearing fruit that happens to be located on my eye.

The context clearly has John viewing Jesus as the word. I will not argue this point - it is simply too obvious.

John is easily explained ----
“In the beginning was the Logosâ€
In the beginning was a concept/idea.
“And the Logos was with Godâ€
and the idea reflected as in a mirror God
“And the logos was Godâ€
This idea expressed who God was and how He wanted to relate to and function toward His children. (Again Hebrew parallelism saying the same thing in two or more ways.)
“This was in beginning toward God†(actual Greek)
From the beginning this idea/expression was a mirror toward God reflecting who God was.
“All things come into being through him and apart from him nothings came into being that has come into being.†(actual Greek).
God created all things and nothing has existence outside of God.
“In Him was life and the life was the light of menâ€.
God is the source of Light and life.
5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7He came as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him.
8He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.
10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

All the previous verse are talking about God and not about Jesus. The next verses begin to speak of Jesus.

I have never heard anyone make this argument. And I think we all know why. Look at verses 7 to 11. The entire ministry of John is about the work of Jesus. It is about Jesus that John testifies. Your suggestion that John is not testifying about Jesus is such a bending of the text that it would be hard to mount a critique of it without going into a treatment of the fundamentals of the English language and how it is to be used.

 

[Yahoshea]

Again, from 1 Corinthians 8:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

If Jesus is only human, and in no way divine, how, exactly, is a mere man the agency by which all things exist? That is one powerful man.

And this from Colossians 1:

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him

A mere man is the agency that created galaxies and mountains? Stars and lions? Planets and trees? I really am mystified at how someone would accept that Paul is writing inspired scripture here and yet believes that Jesus is "only a man". How can mere man create all things in the universe? Again, that is one powerful man.

And this, from Phillipians:

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

Clearly Paul sees Jesus as divine but not willing to "exploit" that status by refusing to come to us a servant. The point of Paul's argument is pretty clear - Jesus shares God's status as divine, but did not use that status, as He might have done, to avoid the cross.

Let me deal with Phil 4 first ---

I have posted several times about Phil. The problem us that many Trinitarians and it appears you too have a wrong understanding of this portion of scripture based on a preconceived idea of doctrine. This verse has nothing to do with the Godhead or about the pre-existent Christ. These verses are direct comparison between the first and the second Adam. Between Jesus and Adam. Between the motives and actions of Adam as compared to the motives and actions of Christ.
Allow me to set the stage for understanding the fall.
Gen 1, God creates man in His image and likeness and gives man dominion and authority to rule over the Earth.
At the end of the sixth day God finishes His creating process and says it is “goodâ€. The literal meaning of “good†is functional. God created a functional world in which everything worked properly including man. There was no dysfunction in this world. Adam knew no dysfunction.
Gen 3
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

A literal Mechanical translation of verse 5 is this –

Given that “Elohiym [Powers] is knowing that in the day you eat from him then your eyes will be opened up and you will exist like Elohiym [Powers] knowing function and dysfunction

God knows what function and dysfunction is. Knowing function (good) and dysfunction (evil) makes you like God. You then begin making choices for yourself as to which of them you will choose. Before the fall man depended completely on God for direction and leadership. He did not equate himself equal with God in the decisions for his own life.
The temptation of Satan was for Adam and eve to equate themselves with God by knowing function AND DYSFUNCTION. This was the fall. Man took God off the thrown and replaced God with themselves. Adam used his free will and position as a son of God to meet his own needs. Adam had dominion over the Earth and everything in it. He used that dominion to serve himself and look out for his own personal interest. The fall resulted in Adam losing that position of dominion.

Now to Phil 4. Notice the context is set from the very beginning. It is not about proof of divinity or pre-existance for Jesus but rather about the attitude Christ had. Here the context is set of comparing the first and second Adam. I am deleting the verse separations since they were not in the originals. I am also replacing the term “form†with the literal meaning of the word “outward appearanceâ€.
3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the external appearance of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the external appearance of a bond-servant, and being made in likeness of men being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Jesus was a son of God. Created in the image (outward appearance) of God. Jesus appeared as a God to the people because He functioned as God to them. The people marveled at Him because He spoke with authority unlike the leaders of Israel. He performed miracles as no other had done.
Because Jesus never sought to meet his own needs, but always trusted God, He never lost His position of dominion over the Earth. He did not use his freedom to supply His own needs or desires. Not even his legitimate needs. Example – In the desert he was starving and had the power to turn the stones into bread. This was a legitimate need yet he would not go beyond God’s will. At other times (when it was God’s will) he did exercise dominion over God’s creation. When He was to enter the temple to preach, Peter pointed out that they had no Temple tax. Jesus told him to catch a fish and in that fishes mouth would be a coin for the tax. Jesus used the authority that God gave him to have dominion. Jesus took on the appearance of a bond servant to the people and did not use His position to exalt himself or meet his own needs.
9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
13for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
14Do all things without grumbling or disputing;
15so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world,
16holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.
17But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all.
18You too, I urge you, rejoice in the same way and share your joy with me.

Adam equated himself equal with God. He sought to be equal with God. Jesus did not.
Mankind lost their position in God’s creation and Jesus never having given up his human position of dominion could have lorded over man, but instead became a servant to them. Jesus is a king and ruler over God’s creation because He never gave up that position.
This entire section of verse is pointing out the attitude of Christ. It is also a lesson to those of us that will become like Him that we keep humble even when we find ourselves wielding great authority in God. That we continue to serve our brethren rather then build our own kingdom.

You say -----
again, from 1 Corinthians 8:

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

If Jesus is only human, and in no way divine, how, exactly, is a mere man the agency by which all things exist? That is one powerful man.

Reply –
First of all this is a poor translation of the Greek.
The literal Greek is as follows.
“One Lord Jesus Christ through whom the all and we through himâ€
No where in the Greek is the word “exist†used. The phrase “whom the all†carries the meaning of “all things continue†and we have our being through him.
Without Christ fulfillment of the mandate of Messiah the creation has no purpose to continue. It is through Christ that it finds it’s meaning. He is the prototype of those that are to follow. THE EXAMPLE

You say ---
And this from Colossians 1:

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him

A mere man is the agency that created galaxies and mountains? Stars and lions? Planets and trees? I really am mystified at how someone would accept that Paul is writing inspired scripture here and yet believes that Jesus is "only a man". How can mere man create all things in the universe? Again, that is one powerful man.

Reply ---
Paul did not write in English. Did you check the Greek? Did you consider Hebrew culture and concepts of create.
Again it dos not follow the Greek. The literal Greek says “in him it was created.
The word created does not carry the same meaning for the Hebrew writers of scripture as it does for us. There is no concept in the Hebrew language or culture for “creating†something from nothing. The word “bara†means to fatten as in to fatten cattle or bring to completion the process.
As in Corinthians this verse is stating that all of creation is given it’s purpose through Christ. Without him it has no meaning and would not have been brought to completion of fulfillment.
Christ fattened the universe. He brought it to completion of it’s purpose.

Is the extent of your scholarship reading an English translation and taking that as the literal inspired word of God. Inspiration of scripture exists only in the original languages and within their culture.

 

[Yahoshea]

Are you serious. You ignore any form of proper interpretation processes to support your doctrine.........

"Proper" in who's opinion. Yours?

Well finally you get the point. I was wondering how long it would take. As I have pointed out numerous times it is my opinion against yours on interpretation. If we cannot agree on a set of rules by which we are both bound for interpretation it is a waste of time.
That is precisely why I choose to test doctrine by virtue of it's functionality and fruit. scriptural proofs are subject to an individuals process of interpretation (good or bad)
If you have an honest curiousity about what rules I use I will list them.

Before one can study scripture it is necessary to have a basic set of principles from which to honestly interpret what you read.
It is unfortunate that the most common form of interpretation used today is called “Cut and Paste Theologyâ€. In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it. Not understanding the culture or definitions of words. Using ambiguous scriptures that are misinterpreted to contradict very clear scriptures. With this type of “scholarship†a person can prove just about anything from scripture. When one actually looks at these conclusions with proper principles they completely fall apart. This is not to say that there are not scriptures that can stand on their own but always must also stand within the proper interpretive process.

The purpose and inspiration of Scripture -
II Timothy 3/16 and 17 - “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.â€
Notice that God speaks of the works that scripture is to produce. “FRUIT†One must always look for fruit in whatever conclussion is derived from scripture. If you have studdied enough to have a good understanding of the plan of God for man, then seek to find how your conclussion supports that plan. What does it produce?

Scripture is simply a tool provided by God and used by Christians to understand the workings of God, His character, and to understand His plan for mankind. God has always had a plan for man. He created them to have fellowship with them. Paramount in that plan is the story of the Messiah.The mission of the Messiah is two-fold. To redeem mankind through a blood sacrifice and to show by example how to have the character of God in a human being. Simply put – How to walk with God.

The world is full of philosophies that produce nothing. These mental exercises do not support and defend the honor of God or His plan for mankind. They often time depend on mystery and myth to explain their ideologies.


We start from a premiss that the “original scriptures†as written by the prophets and apostles were inspired by God Himself. No particular later translation has inspiration. There are good and bad translations. Those who penned the scriptures wrote exactly what God wanted to say and that God wants us to know the truth. God used the culture, personalities of the authors, situations, natural realm and circumstances for the purpose of teaching us. The purpose of scripture is to win the lost and to teach the saved how to become like Christ and walk with God as He did.
We must also come to grips with the fact that one book cannot contain everything about God. Not even this magnificent testimony in scripture can tell us all the facts about the actions of Jesus on this Earth. HOWEVER – do not use what scripture DOES NOT SAY as proof of your conclussion. This is simple speculation.
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

1. Scripture must interpret scripture. No one has a private interpretation but all proofs must come from the word itself. A good idea and safety is to use scriptural terms to understand the meaning of a verse. Do not import words that carry with them a doctrinal bias.

2. Spend a majority of time in clear understandable scripture. Never base a conclussion on ambiguous scriptures. When one is confronted with dozens of clear scriptures on a subject and a few ambiguous scriptures always fall on the clear ones for truth.

When one reads a scripture we will allways form a hypothesis of what it means. This is fine as long as you do not stop there and you are willing to throw that idea out if further study shows it to be wrong. Never except an interpretation based only on a preconceived idea of doctrine. As example – Do not accept a definition of a word (that is different then hundreds of other times it is used in scripture) based on a doctrine you want to prove.

Once you have reched a theory of what a particular scripture means there are a few simple questions one can ask to determine if it is necessary to continue. By honest evaluation of these few questions, most false doctrines are eliminated.
1. Does your conclussion call into question the character of God? Does your interpretation/conclussion/doctrine require God’s character to change for it to be true? Example – Does it require that God (who cannot be tempted to do evil) be capable of that kind of temptation?
2. Does your conclussion make Chrisrt less of a viable example for us to follow? Does it base Christ’s accomplishments on capabilities that we cannot posses? Example – Did Christ posses some power to overcome temptation that is not available to us?
3. Does the doctrine help to understand Christ as our example or make Him more of an inigma?
4. Does the doctrine deal with the real motives and intentions of man’s heart and character or does it deal with intelectual head knowledge only?
5. Does the doctrine rely on tradition or metaphysical concepts or does it support and defend God’s motives and intentions and the functionality of His plan.

Here ae a few mechanical guidelines to use when researching the scriptures.


Who and Whom?

Who wrote it and to whom is it written. Often times, especialy in the epistles it is important to understand that Paul is writing to specific groups of people in various areas of the world. All of thse areas had different problems and Paul would adress them differently.


SOURCES
Use a variesty of translations and sources. Not every Christian can be expected to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar. Keep your sources current. Much information has been discovered in the last 60 years. Many sources are simply copies of texts written 100 years ago. This is also true of teachers and churches. Many Christans sit under the same teacher for years without ever taking the time to test what is being said. Many churches have been putting out the same nonsense for hundreds of years without every testing it themselves. Do not disregard a source because it holds less age. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Writings and other archeological finds have had great impact on understanding the culture and languages of biblical times.

CONTEXT

This is the first (and most often missed) mechanical test for an interpretation. Does your hypothesis fit within the immediate context?
Does your hypothesis fit in the general context of scripture? For this one might have to study parallel scriptures that speak about the same subject or use the same terms.

FIGURATIVE OR LITERAL LANGUAGE

This one can be more dificult, but whenever possible ascertain if the laguage is figurtive or literal.

HISTORY, CULTURE AND GEOGRAPHY
I have already touched on culture, but it is of great importance since the Hebrew culture in which all of scripture was written is vastly different then any culture living today.This greatly impacts the language. One must “culturally†get into the mind of the author to really understand what he is writing. Historical and geographical facts surrounding the story might also bring clarity.

CHAPTER AND VERSE

The original text was not separated into chapter and verse. Many times one verse is directly related to, or part of, the verses before or after it. Often they are connected by words such as “for†or “andâ€. The earliest (and therefore most important) Greek texts were all written in capitol letters with no punctuation marks. These were added at a later time and do not necessarily reflect the intention of the author.

BE LED BY THE SPIRIT

None of us are perfect in hearing God’s words to us. For this reason God gave us a “more sure word of prophecyâ€. Seek God’s leading and understanding, but know also that true hearing from God will not contradict His written word. When they do contradict eachother always give preference to the written word for your safety.

This is by no means a detailed list, but I believe if everyone honestly used these principles greater understanding would be achieved.

 

[Free]

In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it. Not understanding the culture or definitions of words. Using ambiguous scriptures that are misinterpreted to contradict very clear scriptures. With this type of “scholarship†a person can prove just about anything from scripture.

And yet, your test for doctrine will do considerably worse by not considering context at all.

Yours is a utilitarian theology, which is not at all a good way to go about theology or understanding Scripture.

 

[Yahoshea]

In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it. Not understanding the culture or definitions of words. Using ambiguous scriptures that are misinterpreted to contradict very clear scriptures. With this type of “scholarship†a person can prove just about anything from scripture.

And yet, your test for doctrine will do considerably worse by not considering context at all.

Yours is a utilitarian theology, which is not at all a good way to go about theology or understanding Scripture.

On the contrary it is all about context. Testing doctrine by virtue of it's fruit is testing it within the entire context of scripture. That context (scripture) being the record of the plan and purpose of God. If a doctrine does not fit within the plan and purposes of God then it does not fit within the record (scripture) of that plan and purpose. If a doctrine contradicts the plan of God then it cannot be true regardless of what a person claims to be able to prove from scripture. God's plan is more important then the questionable personal interpretations of man.
If you are willing to believe and promote a doctrine that contradicts God's plans then beware you do not find yourself working against God.

 

[Free]

On the contrary it is all about context. Testing doctrine by virtue of it's fruit is testing it within the entire context of scripture. That context (scripture) being the record of the plan and purpose of God. If a doctrine does not fit within the plan and purposes of God then it does not fit within the record (scripture) of that plan and purpose. If a doctrine contradicts the plan of God then it cannot be true regardless of what a person claims to be able to prove from scripture. God's plan is more important then the questionable personal interpretations of man.
If you are willing to believe and promote a doctrine that contradicts God's plans then beware you do not find yourself working against God.

You previously argued: "In this method a person can take a scripture out of context put it with several others, disregarding any proper hermeneutical principles and make a doctrine out of it."

Yet, you just argued that "If a doctrine contradicts the plan of God [Scripture] then it cannot be true." Your only method for determining if a doctrine is true is if it bears good fruit. Your whole method utterly ignores the "proper hermeneutical principles" that you claim others are disregarding.