The REAL number one problem in Christian theology

[francisdesales]

The point was that the same name used for the son who is to be born that will be called "wonderful counselor, mighty God" etc. was used for YWHW Himself. Here it is from Young's Literal Translation:

For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Yes, this happens over and over in the Gospels, to those who listen. Jesus attributes a variety of titles and powers formally reserved for God Himself. The Jews got the message in their accusations before Pilate.

Regards

 

[jasoncran]

sigh. the word rabboni means teacher as well in that context, yet jesus didnt reject that.

we call our fleshly dads father.did you ever think that was in reference to the idea of the word and concept of Lord as the roman emporors wanted to be worshipped?

Rabboni definition by Babylon's free dictionary

jesus did teach ya know.and he who teaches is a teacher.

 

[Asyncritus]

Just because you disagree doesn't mean that it is nonsense nor that Ravi's pen should be taken away. He is currently one of the best Christian apologists and has a fantastic ministry.

If he is a 'christian' apologist then he ought not to be using the title rabbi.

I trust his 'fantastic ministry' is not based on such outright nonsense such as the above - but his use of the title 'rabbi' is a good indication of nothing good.

Right. I wouldn't dispute that both parts are stating that this child, this son, is a gift. However, that doesn't address the point made.

If the child/son is a 'gift' then He cannot also be the Giver of the gift. That is nonsense, and I'm sure you can recognise that much.

The fact that a child/son is given, indicates the Father/child relationship - which is the correct scriptural one, not any kind of equality.

As you may know, the Jews considered that no son was ever equal to or greater than his father as these two passages show:

Mt 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Lu 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

This case is no exception, and you are unnaturally forcing the issue if you attempt to say otherwise.

 

[Free]

If he is a 'christian' apologist then he ought not to be using the title rabbi.

I trust his 'fantastic ministry' is not based on such outright nonsense such as the above - but his use of the title 'rabbi' is a good indication of nothing good.

Please read what I wrote just a little closer. I never called him a rabbi nor does he ever refer to himself as such. His first name is Ravi--Ravi Zacharias.

And yet, once again, instead of addressing the point, you just call it 'outright nonsense' and sweep it away.

If the child/son is a 'gift' then He cannot also be the Giver of the gift. That is nonsense, and I'm sure you can recognise that much.

The fact that a child/son is given, indicates the Father/child relationship - which is the correct scriptural one, not any kind of equality.

As you may know, the Jews considered that no son was ever equal to or greater than his father as these two passages show:

Mt 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Lu 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?

This case is no exception, and you are unnaturally forcing the issue if you attempt to say otherwise.

Firstly, any and all analogies for God break down at some point. Second, that Jesus is the Son does not mean that he is not equal to the Father in nature and cannot be God just as the Father is God. Thirdly, those passages do nothing to prove your point.

 

[Asyncritus]

Please read what I wrote just a little closer. I never called him a rabbi nor does he ever refer to himself as such. His first name is Ravi--Ravi Zacharias.

In which case I owe him an apology, and to yourself as well.

And yet, once again, instead of addressing the point, you just call it 'outright nonsense' and sweep it away.

I've shown the nonsensical nature of the statement and the implications you draw from it. See the previous post.

Firstly, any and all analogies for God break down at some point.

That may be so, but since these are in His own scriptures, I can't see any reasonable objections to using them

Second, that Jesus is the Son does not mean that he is not equal to the Father in nature and cannot be God just as the Father is God.

Now this is where you leave me incoherent with confusion.

Are you sure that the word 'equal' is the correct term to use when describing 'nature'?

I would have said that something like 'identical', 'similar', 'corresponding to' and such like would be more appropriate.

'Equal' implies some sort of measurement, and we can't do that with such a subject. So would you like to rephrase that? Philippians 2 does say 'equality with God' but that is a description of rank, not nature.

Thirdly, those passages do nothing to prove your point.

I'm afraid they do. The point Jesus was making is that since a son can never be equal to or greater than his father, there is an anomaly in Ps 110.1 - and how did the Jews resolve that one?

He resolved it with ease - because His Father was God, greater than David. They didn't accept that point, so they were on the horns of a very serious dilemma.

But you are on those very horns.

Your claim is that Jesus was in some way equal to His Father - which is entirely against every scriptural father/son relationship principle, and that was there in the 10 commandments as I'm sure you recall:

"Honour thy father and thy mother" was the law: and the Jews took that to mean that a son was therefore subservient tohis father, and could never be equal to or greater than his father.

Where does that leave you?

 

[Free]

I've shown the nonsensical nature of the statement and the implications you draw from it. See the previous post.

You said it was nonsensical but you have not shown that to be the case.

That may be so, but since these are in His own scriptures, I can't see any reasonable objections to using them

Then use all of them.

Now this is where you leave me incoherent with confusion.

Are you sure that the word 'equal' is the correct term to use when describing 'nature'?

I would have said that something like 'identical', 'similar', 'corresponding to' and such like would be more appropriate.

'Equal' implies some sort of measurement, and we can't do that with such a subject. So would you like to rephrase that? Philippians 2 does say 'equality with God' but that is a description of rank, not nature.

This highlights another problem we have in these discussions. Too many people think that a word has only one definition and then play semantic games which serve only to distract from the real arguments.

Equal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
1
a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent

b : like in quality, nature, or status

c : like for each member of a group, class, or society

So, yes, 'equal' was the word I meant to use as it conveys the meaning I am looking for.

I'm afraid they do. The point Jesus was making is that since a son can never be equal to or greater than his father, there is an anomaly in Ps 110.1 - and how did the Jews resolve that one?

Again, no, they do not. You are here begging the question by assuming a son can never be equal to or greater than his father. I would agree with the 'greater than' but that requires some qualification.

Regardless, this does not prove your point as you seem to be lost on what Jesus is actually saying, as I will show below.

He resolved it with ease - because His Father was God, greater than David. They didn't accept that point, so they were on the horns of a very serious dilemma.

But you are on those very horns.

Matt 22:41-46, 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, 44 "'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet'? 45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?" 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. (ESV)

As you can see, these passages, in one sense, say the opposite of what you are making them out to say. This all started with your argument:

"As you may know, the Jews considered that no son was ever equal to or greater than his father as these two passages show:

Mt 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Lu 20:44 David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?"

But really, what they show is that the Jews considered the Messiah to be the son of David, when really, as Jesus shows from Psalm 110:1 and then further clarifies, "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?"

In other words, one could use this passage to say that in this case, the son actually is greater than the father. But it certainly doesn't support any notion that a son cannot be equal to or greater than the father. That may be the case but these two passages do not support that idea.

What Jesus is showing is that their understanding of who the Messiah is was incorrect. The Messiah wasn't the son of David, but rather the Son of God. His point was the he was greater than David.

Your claim is that Jesus was in some way equal to His Father - which is entirely against every scriptural father/son relationship principle, and that was there in the 10 commandments as I'm sure you recall:

"Honour thy father and thy mother" was the law: and the Jews took that to mean that a son was therefore subservient tohis father, and could never be equal to or greater than his father.

Where does that leave you?

It leaves me where I have always been--standing firm on the foundational doctrine of the Trinity. You continue to look at Scripture as though any verse on a given subject settles the matter. This is most incorrect and will almost always lead to error.

Anyway, discussion of the Trinity and deity of Christ is off-topic, so that is all I will say about that in here.

 

[cyberjosh]

that is because you havent seen the myriad of possible words in use for hebrew names of God. all of them..hmm lets see

1) ELOHIM IS plural and that is often not to mean a duality or triune nature of God but to show emphasis.
2) elohim is also means the same as el depending on the bias. i see that as you do but if one doesnt have the revalation of God in him the hebrew being translated can be stated like this

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; ו לם רבה (לְמַרְבֵּה) הַמִּשְׂרָה וּלְשָׁלוֹם אֵין-קֵץ, עַל-כִּסֵּא דָוִד וְעַל-מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, לְהָכִין אֹתָהּ וּלְסַעֲדָהּ, בְּמִשְׁפָּט וּבִצְדָקָה; מֵעַתָּה, וְעַד-עוֹלָם, קִנְאַת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת, תַּעֲשֶׂה-זֹּאת. {פ} 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts doth perform this. {P}

Ah yes. The "plural-intensive" in Hebrew. Elohiym certainly can mean God (singular) with great emphasis as you say. The Scriptures use the forms El, Eloah, and Eloheinu interchangeably with Elohiym. Interestingly, the word Elyown is translated as "Most High" but it is clearly derived from the same root which denotes Might.

For those of you who maintain that the Hebrew suffix -iym automatically equates to plurality, know that the Hebrew word for "life" is chaiym--Another plural intensive word that refers to a singular concept.

This is an interesting side-discussion, although it is a bit off-topic, but I thought I'd chip in also and point any of you who are interested in the Hebrew plural names of God to read this powerpoint that I made (it is a little over 6MB so I advise right-clicking the link and downloading it with "save target as...") for a Bible study small group/class that I am leading for my Church following the book The Names of God written by Andrew Jukes, an English preacher contemporary with Charles Spurgeon, in the late 1800s. You will need to download a Hebrew font if you do not have one to view the Hebrew words that I typed on some of the slides. I deal also with El, Eloah, and Elohim and possible derivations for the different forms. I deal with the quantitative and qualitative (intensive) functions of plurals as well.

I put some very interesting examples that Jukes pointed out of Hebrew plural readings that don't show through at all in the English, and some of which you may not have even heard of before (I hadn't until I read the book). On slide 14 you can actually see a 2-page spread that I scanned of the relevant section from Jukes' book. I confirmed the readings by consulting an actual Hebrew text and in the PowerPoint I used the handy marginal notes from E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible to note where the Hebrew plurals existed.

Sometime soon I am planning on putting all the outlines and notes that I have made for the class (all made from scratch), an outline for each chapter in Jukes' book, up onto my website so that someone could read through the book and follow the outline & supplementary material on their own, for all who are interested.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. If you read it please let me know what you think of it.

God Bless,
~Josh

 

[jasoncran]

one of these days i should just pick up hebrew if pashto which has more letters then arabic was easy to speak once i had to, surely hebrew which has less letters then arabic or pashto should be picked up.

just gotta use it to get fluent.lol.

darn. perhaps that local messaniac temple will do the trick. alas prayer first as other issues are more important.