zionwarrior
Member
No worries ...
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/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
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
-
No worries ...
zionwarrior
Member
It all comes down to translation once again. Have a look at this article which explains it quite well.
Jesus Received Worship
zionwarrior
Member
Sorry Asyncritus, With people like 'FREE' and 'DREW' it has to come down to a long winded debate on Theology. I would rather discuss at a level that people can understand. When Jesus taught, he taught in simple tearms.
There is a one-on-one debate forum where two people can discuss. I don't think it will even work two-on-two since there is just too much that can be said with many different ways of going about it.
Firstly, you're not Jesus. Secondly, we aren't in first century Jerusalem, which brings up the difficulties of language and context. Thirdly, anyone can understand any argument that has been put forward so far. Fourthly, most theological topics, particularly more difficult ones such as this, require "long winded" debates. If you think that it is all a matter of posting the top three arguments for each side to see who, somehow, comes out the winner, than you really don't know what theology is about or what this topic is really about.zionwarrior said:
Volumes have been written on Christology by numerous scholars, and by extension the Trinity, so if you think we can just have a nice, simple little chat and solve everything, you are greatly mistaken.
zionwarrior
Member
Ah yes, and what did Jesus say about the 'so called' wise ...
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.â€
S
savedbygrace57
Guest
Now that we have seen the Things ascribed to the Lamb in rev 5 :12 its seven items :
1.Power
2.Riches
3. Wisdom
4.Strength
5.Honour
6. Glory
7. Blessing
Lets now look at the seven Items ascribed to God in rev 7:
11And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,
12Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.
1. Blessing
2.Glory
3.Wisdom
4.Thanksgiving
5. Honour
6. Power
7.Might
I see no significant difference, If Jesus be not God, He receives the same Praise and Adoration as God...
No other Being could receive this High Praise and it not be Idolatry..
Pizzaguy
Member
Jesus' only agenda was love. He was not burdened with an ego or the desire to sound intellectual or superior, therefore He could speak in simple terms.
Pizzaguy
Member
How could there be a better, and more simple answer, to the question: "Is Jesus really God?"?
This might be the best post I've read by you, savedbygrace.
I will try to remember it the next time we disagree.
Pizzaguy
(Did I use the two question marks together, in the proper way?)
Drew
Member
Indeed - it is beyond dispute that ZW simply ignores certain arguments that challenge his/her position. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. And in a proper debate, at least as I understand it, a participant is simply not allowed to refuse to engage the arguments that a counterpart puts forward.
However, and I am very sympathetic to the moderators here, there are any of a number of reasons why such "rules" probably cannot be enforced. First, this would be simply too much work for the moderators, who are already taxed dealing with all the name-calling and demonization going on here. Second, it would be difficult for a moderator, who almost certainly has an opinion on this issue, to be seen as being objective.
However I do indeed wish that all parties in this debate would commit to the simple responsibility of actually addressing the arguments that opponents put forward. I am about to post another detailed argument for the divinity of Jesus, and I absolutely guarantee that ZW will not engage it. However, other people may find it helpful.
Drew
Member
Code for: I cannot critique Drew's argument, so I will spin it as "abstract, irrelevant theology".
Listen - my arguments are somewhat long. But I politely suggest that they are clear enough to be understood by all. And when someone simply refuses to deal with them, well that silence speaks loudly indeed.
I am not sure why people expect Christian "theology" to be simple. I think that life in general teaches us that the greatest rewards are those requiring struggle and effort to achieve.
Drew
Member
I suggest that this statement is one that follows a familiar pattern - when a person is confronted with an argument they cannot actually counter, the person in question will play the "human wisdom" card - dismissing the trouble-some argument and thereby conveniently justify not dealing with it.
What most readers will probably realize, though, is that every argument, whether from ZW or Drew, are necessarily and unavoidably articulated using human wisdom.
What wisdom is ZW using? Is he not human? ZW, are you using Martian wisdom, rather than human wisdom? The point is this - every position is someone's interpretation. No one escapes this. ZW, you are as much engaged in acts of interpretatoin, logical reasoning, and synthesis as anyone else. In short, you too use the very tools of human wisdom that you want to dismiss when others use them.
zionwarrior
Member
Jesus never made any claims to be Yahweh. He claimed Yahweh as his God and Father, the one who sent him, anointed him, and gave him his authority. The holy spirit reveals through the scriptures that Yahweh (Jehovah) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Yahweh (Jehovah) is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has one who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience.
2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.
2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.
Last edited by a moderator:
Drew
Member
Another argument for Jesus' divinity for ZW to ignore. It may be helpful to the rest of you.
Some assert that the principle of “monotheism†rules out the possibility of a divine Messiah, presumably because then one would have at least two gods. While I would agree that the Old Testament concept of Messiahship does not clearly entail divinity, I would suggest that the Old Testament does indeed allow for the possibility of a divine Messiah.
Consider this from Daniel 7:
As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
Note the plurality - more than one throne is set in place and "God the Father" (using the Christian terminology) takes one place. Then not what happens next:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
I suggest that the rather obvious implication is that "the son of man" takes the other throne - effectively establishing his divinity by establishing His equality with "God the Father".
Now I am not saying that this is a slam-dunk argument for the possibililty of a divine Messiah. But it shows that the Old Testament is at least open to this possibility.
Some assert that the principle of “monotheism†rules out the possibility of a divine Messiah, presumably because then one would have at least two gods. While I would agree that the Old Testament concept of Messiahship does not clearly entail divinity, I would suggest that the Old Testament does indeed allow for the possibility of a divine Messiah.
Consider this from Daniel 7:
As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
Note the plurality - more than one throne is set in place and "God the Father" (using the Christian terminology) takes one place. Then not what happens next:
In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
I suggest that the rather obvious implication is that "the son of man" takes the other throne - effectively establishing his divinity by establishing His equality with "God the Father".
Now I am not saying that this is a slam-dunk argument for the possibililty of a divine Messiah. But it shows that the Old Testament is at least open to this possibility.
I see two errors, one is that Jesus and the Father are one and the same Person,much like superman and Clark Kent, superman IS Clark Kent just in a different covering, Jesus was not the Father just dressed in human form, They are two distinct Individuals.
The other error is to reject the teaching that Jesus was in fact God, Jesus was indeed God, not God the Father but God the Son...but still God.
The other error is to reject the teaching that Jesus was in fact God, Jesus was indeed God, not God the Father but God the Son...but still God.
zionwarrior
Member
Ok, so how could he be equal if he is 'Given' authority. If he was equal, he would already posess such authority.
Jesus is equal with God in the sense that He is also God,however Jesus clearly stated that His Father was greater than He was. A human father and son can be equal in the sense that the son came from the father and is like him, however the father can still be greater than his son.
Drew
Member
Let me first thank you for actually engaging an argument of mine. You raise a good question, but I do not have time right now. I will get back to you, and if I don't, please feel free to remind me.
zionwarrior
Member
So you are saying Jesus is a lesser god ?
Drew
Member
I suspect you will not like this answer, but I see no problem with notions of three distinct persons who are all a single God in substance. Now I admit that I have not studied the technicalities of the different views on the Trinity.
But, in a sense, it is not that important. What is important is that, in a series of posts, I believe I have shown that there is every reason to understand Jesus as seeing Himself as the embodiment of Israel's God.
And, to be frank, you have entirely ignored most of those arguments. And even though you did engage the last argument, you really ignored the main thrust of the argument.
In Daniel 7, we have a "son of man" character who sits on a throne next to the "Ancient of Days". It seems a little hard to see how someone who "shares thrones" with God the Father should not be understood as being Himself God in "substance".