Is Jesus considered to be God?

[Yahoshea]

I ask you -- what was God's original plan before the fall? Did he scrap that plan or did he augment it to include a savior to redeem us back to the original plan?

This was His plan "Before" the Fall, as the Scriptures tell us. Even before the world was created, God had known, since God sees all time as one moment. There is no "chronology" for eternity.


But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. 1 Peter 1:19-20

so there was no choice on Adam's part. He was foreordained to fall?

OR

Was the free will of Adam intact and had he not fallen would history and scripture been written differently?

Do you believe that God"s foreknowledge controls the actions of men and overwhelms man's free will or do you believe that man has no free will?

 

[Yahoshea]

Free and/or Drew
There may be some misunderstanding on my part as to what you really believe. With that in mind would you answer a few questions so I can get a more clear picture. I do not want to make false assumptions.
1. Do you believe that all of creation is cursed because of the fall?
2. Do you believe that if Christ were fully human he would necessarily be cursed as well?
3. Do you believe that Christ would need to come from the spiritual realm to avoid this curse?
4. Do you believe that the spiritual realm is perfect?

I await your answers and thank you.

 

[francisdesales]

The LXX was strongly influenced by the trinitarians and was therefor assumed to be the same words.

You are absolutely right. It was late and I was thinking about something else. sorry for the mistake.

No problem.

 

[francisdesales]

This was His plan "Before" the Fall, as the Scriptures tell us. Even before the world was created, God had known, since God sees all time as one moment. There is no "chronology" for eternity.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. 1 Peter 1:19-20

so there was no choice on Adam's part. He was foreordained to fall?

No, Adam had a choice, but God foresaw Adam's choice and had foreordained the response (Jesus), just as God foresees the end of time.

Was the free will of Adam intact and had he not fallen would history and scripture been written differently?

I think we are deviating from the topic... Suffice to say that man has free will, but that doesn't mean that God does not foresee the choices. Eternity is a state of existence where all of time is subject to God's knowledge simultaneously in one moment of NOW.

 

[Yahoshea]

This was His plan "Before" the Fall, as the Scriptures tell us. Even before the world was created, God had known, since God sees all time as one moment. There is no "chronology" for eternity.

But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. 1 Peter 1:19-20

so there was no choice on Adam's part. He was foreordained to fall?

No, Adam had a choice, but God foresaw Adam's choice and had foreordained the response (Jesus), just as God foresees the end of time.

Was the free will of Adam intact and had he not fallen would history and scripture been written differently?

I think we are deviating from the topic... Suffice to say that man has free will, but that doesn't mean that God does not foresee the choices. Eternity is a state of existence where all of time is subject to God's knowledge simultaneously in one moment of NOW.

If ADam had free will then he could have chosen to not fall. God had to have a plan for that option.
That plan would be the original plan of God. did the fall change that plan or cause God to add to it to complete his plan.

 

[gene]

To All.......... edited by Staff ..........gene


Note from Staff. by signing up to this site, you agreed to our TOS, whether you chose to read it or not.

The first rule states:

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act.

 

[Free]

If ADam had free will then he could have chosen to not fall. God had to have a plan for that option.
That plan would be the original plan of God. did the fall change that plan or cause God to add to it to complete his plan.

He already addressed it: "Suffice to say that man has free will, but that doesn't mean that God does not foresee the choices."

God already knew what was going to happen.

But this is needlessly going off topic.

 

[Yahoshea]

If ADam had free will then he could have chosen to not fall. God had to have a plan for that option.
That plan would be the original plan of God. did the fall change that plan or cause God to add to it to complete his plan.

He already addressed it: "Suffice to say that man has free will, but that doesn't mean that God does not foresee the choices."

God already knew what was going to happen.

But this is needlessly going off topic.

I believe it to on point. Your contention is that the majority of God's plan centers around the redemptive work of Christ.
I believe that the redemptive work of Christ is part of a much bigger plan that plan to perfect His children. With that plan in place the example of Christ as a complete human becomes much more important then you credit it for.

 

[Yahoshea]

Drew
You may have missed this post.
I hope you can answer these questions.

1. Do you believe that all of creation is cursed because of the fall?
2. Do you believe that if Christ were fully human he would necessarily be cursed as well?
3. Do you believe that Christ would need to come from the spiritual realm to avoid this curse?
4. Do you believe that the spiritual realm is perfect?

Thanks in advance

 

[wavy]

'ego eimi' is Greek and reading the text of the OT in greek does not mean that they are the same. The LXX was strongly influenced by the trinitarians and was therefor assumed to be the same words. EYEH cannot be fairly equated with the Greek in John.

Unfortunately you have no idea what you're talking about, as francis has shown.

secondly you ignore the use of a remez by Christ. A remez is a common way in which Rabbis talked about scripture. One could quote an OT verse in part and the learned readers would understand it within it's entire context. the quote from psalms 82 is about the leaders of Israel not functioning as Gods toward the people. this is what Jesus was intimating. this was his ebke of the leaders of his time.

No, I'm ignoring your attempt to foist this on the context. It has nothing to do with Jesus addressing the leaders. This has to do with: a) Jesus's claim to be God. b) The Jews accusing him of blasphemy for doing so. c) Jesus rebutting the charge by quoting scripture.

You are right. If all of scripture we posesed was that verse then it would imply Christ is God. Fortunately we have the rest of the Bible to consider. you cannot take a verse out of the general context and put a meaning to it. Jesus is filled with the Holy spirit - that means God is dwelling in him.
Christ says that God is in him. It is said that he is filled with the fullness of God. God in him.

Not how it works. The author wrote it because he expected his readers to understand exactly what it meant, and he didn't add a note that says 'look at "all of scripture we possess" to understand', mostly because such a thing didn't exist. Naturally as an agnostic who approaches the bible from a historical-critical perspective, I don't believe other 'scriptures' are even relevant. But even if they were, I have doubts about your ability to construe them correctly. (cf. erroneous claim about the LXX above, and the complete dismissal of the context of Jn x.30, et al)

You do not consider the way in which the Hebrews of that time viewed their world. Hebrews do not name things by virtue of how they apear but rather by way of the way they function. There is no word "is" in hebrew. the closest one could come is "functions as " or "relates to me as". The hebrew mind would not conceptualize Jesus is God. He would conceptualize that Jesus functions as God or that Jesus relates to me as God. the Hebrew Eastern culture would not allow the concepts to come to mind that you indorse. It was not the way they think.

Again, you unfortunately have no idea what you're talking about. The gospel of John was written in Greek, not 'Hebrew' (which was dead as a spoken language during this period and only written by the literati) in a world influenced by Hellenism. Attempting to enclose every aspect of NT literature into this narrow concept of 'Hebrew Eastern culture' is totally a product of your illusions.


Finis,
Eric

 

[francisdesales]

If ADam had free will then he could have chosen to not fall. God had to have a plan for that option.
That plan would be the original plan of God. did the fall change that plan or cause God to add to it to complete his plan.

You are subjecting God to time, which does injustice to the idea of eternity.

God is not subject to the whims of chronological events. In other words, we are on a "time line", left side of the line, year 1, right side, last year. We follow the time line in chronological order, left to right. Well, God sees the entire line in one sweeping glance. Thus, He SEES Adam sinning and SEES Jesus death on the cross and SEES the end of the world all as one glance. Notice I did not say "SAW" or "WILL SEE".

I liked Cusa's geometric analogy - a point on an infinite line lies equally distant to any other point. Stick that in the brain and chew on it for awhile... We have to think differently when speaking of God, of course.

Thus, there is no "oops, man screwed up my plans, back to the drawing board"...

 

[Yahoshea]

Again, you unfortunately have no idea what you're talking about. The gospel of John was written in Greek, not 'Hebrew' (which was dead as a spoken language during this period and only written by the literati) in a world influenced by Hellenism. Attempting to enclose every aspect of NT literature into this narrow concept of 'Hebrew Eastern culture' is totally a product of your illusions.


Finis,
Eric[/quote]


Hebrew in First Century CE Israel
By Jeff A. Benner

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia.
Aramaic displacing Hebrew as a spoken language
By the early half of the 20th century, modern scholars reached a nearly unanimous opinion that Aramaic became a spoken language in the land of Israel by the start of Israel's Hellenistic Period in the 4th century BCE, and thus Hebrew ceased to function as a spoken language around the same time. However, during the latter half of the 20th century, accumulating archeological evidence and especially linguistic analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls has qualified the previous consensus. Alongside Aramaic, Hebrew also flourished as a living spoken language. Hebrew flourished until near the end of the Roman Period, when it continued on as a literary language by the Byzantine Period in the 4th century CE. ??The exact roles of Aramaic and Hebrew remain hotly debated. A trilingual scenario has been proposed for the land of Israel. Hebrew functioned as the local mother tongue, Aramaic functioned as the international language with the rest of the Mideast, and eventually Greek functioned as another international language with the eastern areas of the Roman Empire. Communities of Jews (and non-Jews) are known, who immigrated to Judea from these other lands and continued to speak Aramaic or Greek. ??Although the survival of Hebrew as a spoken language until the Byzantine Period is well-known among Hebrew linguists, there remains a lag in awareness among some historians who do not necessarily keep up-to-speed with linguistic research and rely on outdated scholarship. Nevertheless, the vigor of Hebrew is slowly but surely making its way through the academic literature. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls distinguishes the Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew from the various dialects of Biblical Hebrew it evolved out of, "This book presents the specific features of DSS Hebrew, emphasizing deviations from classical BH."[1] The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church that once said in 1958 in its first edition, Hebrew "ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century BC", now says in 1997 in its third edition, Hebrew "continued to be used as a spoken and written language in the New Testament period".[2] An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew says, "It is generally believed that the Dead Sea Scrolls, specifically the Copper Scroll and also the Bar Kokhba letters, have furnished clear evidence of the popular character of MH [Mishnaic Hebrew]."[3] And so on. Israeli scholars now tend to take it for granted that Hebrew as a spoken language is a feature of Israel's Roman Period.
Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (1986), p. 15.
"Hebrew" in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edit. F.L. Cross, first edition (Oxford, 1958), 3rd edition (Oxford 1997).
Miguel Perez Fernandez, An Introductory Grammar of Rabbinic Hebrew (Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill
1997).

Not sure what else I need to include to avoid plegarism.

Here is the web site I got this from.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/49_firstcenturyce.html

The church fathers also wrote about Matthew being original in Hebrew. Why would Matthew write in a dead language.
Papias (150-170 CE) - Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able.
Ireneus (170 CE) - Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect.
Origen (210 CE) - The first [Gospel] is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an apoltle of Jesus Christ who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew.
Eusebius (315 CE) - Matthew also, having first proclaimed the Gospel in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to the other nations, committed it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the want of his presence to them by his writings.
Epiphanius (370 CE) - They [The Nazarenes] have the Gospel according to Matthew quite complete in Hebrew, for this Gospel is certainly still preserved among them as it was first written, in Hebrew letters.
Jerome ( 382 CE) - Matthew, who is also Levi, and from a tax collectore came to be an Apostle first of all evangelists composed a Gospel of Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters, for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed, who translated it into Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Furthermore, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian cityof Borea to copy it. In which is to be remarked that, wherever the evangelist.... makes use of the testimonies of the Old Scripture, he does not follow the authority of the seventy translators, but that of the Hebrew
Isho'dad (850 CE) - His [Matthew's] book was in existence in Caesarea of Palestine, and everyone acknowledges that he wrote it with his hands in Hebrew.

It seems you do not know what you are talking about?

 

[francisdesales]

Hebrew in First Century CE Israel
By Jeff A. Benner

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia.

Shudder...

Could you cite a different source that cannot be manipulated by you or I?

 

[Yahoshea]

Hebrew in First Century CE Israel
By Jeff A. Benner

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia.

Shudder...

Could you cite a different source that cannot be manipulated by you or I?

In other words find a source that you agree with? Typical -- reject any source that denies your stand.

 

[francisdesales]

Hebrew in First Century CE Israel
By Jeff A. Benner

The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia.

Shudder...

Could you cite a different source that cannot be manipulated by you or I?

In other words find a source that you agree with? Typical -- reject any source that denies your stand.

Dude, I can go an type what I want in Wikipedia. What's the matter with you??? No one cites Wikipedia in an intelligent conversation expecting to sway anyone's opinion...

As to the second part of your assumption, it is agreed by scholars that "Matthew was written in a Hebrew dialect" refers to Aramaic.

 

[Yahoshea]

Free, I meant you to have these questions too.
I appreciate your answers.
Thanks
1. Do you believe that all of creation is cursed because of the fall?
2. Do you believe that if Christ were fully human he would necessarily be cursed as well?
3. Do you believe that Christ would need to come from the spiritual realm to avoid this curse?
4. Do you believe that the spiritual realm is perfect?

 

[Free]

Free, I meant you to have these questions too.
I appreciate your answers.
Thanks
1. Do you believe that all of creation is cursed because of the fall?
2. Do you believe that if Christ were fully human he would necessarily be cursed as well?
3. Do you believe that Christ would need to come from the spiritual realm to avoid this curse?
4. Do you believe that the spiritual realm is perfect?

1. All Creation is in a state of "falleness."
2. As a mere creature Jesus would have had a fallen nature as well.
3. It would take something more than mere human nature to live a perfect life, not that a perfect life is all that was needed.
4. Not necessarily.

 

[Constitutionalist]

I do not see how this thread can be discussed utilizing apologetics, considering the (TOS) rules will not allow observation of arian, oneness, or even apostolic oneness views of diety. While the opening thread has great merit, there can be no true delving into the study of this belief. It would have been a good one to dig into. JMHO

 

[Constitutionalist]

Free, I meant you to have these questions too.
I appreciate your answers.
Thanks
1. Do you believe that all of creation is cursed because of the fall?
2. Do you believe that if Christ were fully human he would necessarily be cursed as well?
3. Do you believe that Christ would need to come from the spiritual realm to avoid this curse?
4. Do you believe that the spiritual realm is perfect?

1. All Creation is in a state of "falleness."
2. As a mere creature Jesus would have had a fallen nature as well.
3. It would take something more than mere human nature to live a perfect life, not that a perfect life is all that was needed.
4. Not necessarily.

2) Galatians 3:13 The Messiah hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed every one that hangeth on a tree: Rom 8:3, 1Peter 2:24. Deu 21:23

 

[Free]

I do not see how this thread can be discussed utilizing apologetics, considering the (TOS) rules will not allow observation of arian, oneness, or even apostolic oneness views of diety. While the opening thread has great merit, there can be no true delving into the study of this belief. It would have been a good one to dig into. JMHO

Such topics can be discussed, and indeed they are impossible to avoid in a discussion of the Trinity, but they cannot be forcefully proposed as being truth. The majority of this thread has been discussing the problems with arianism and we haven't even really gotten into Scriptures proving the deity of Jesus. It is a fine line but the problem is that we have had many come in who are very hostile to trinitarianism, or any other Christian doctrine, and come in with guns blazing. I think that the point is to focus discussions regarding Christian doctrine on the positives (Scriptural proofs, etc.) rather than allowing for bashing sessions. I know what I'm trying to say but it's not quite coming out. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.