U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you believe in a 3-in-1 God?
Yes 45 57.69%
No 33 42.31%
Voters: 78. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 06-08-2010, 11:50 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,395,647 times
Reputation: 1690

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Out of curiosity, can anyone here who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ provide a link to references from a single church father who did not believe that Jesus was in fact God?

Just one?
I found this interesting:


YouTube - Real Truth about John 1:1

And here are some links: Search For Bible Truths: John 1:1 Link List

Not Church fathers but nonetheless good info.

Will review your last post shortly.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2010, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,395,647 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Yes, the word there "multiply" means to increase, not necessarily to become more than one, and Christ did increase in the hearts of them who witnessed the miracle.

If what you are saying is true, then God is not a person either, because the word was God.
True, God is not a person, he is spirit. Are you saying that Christ is spirit? The word increased... I take that at face value. The message that Christ brought spread... increased.... multiplied.

Quote:
And if the word became flesh but is not a person, then what does it mean that the word became flesh and dwelt among us? Did the word become a cat or a dog or a rabbit? Or maybe a strip of bacon?
Flesh is not a person. I believe it is the flesh that delivered the word. I am disagreeing with you that the word is a person in and of itself. If that is so then Jesus isn't God... the word is.

I believe the word is God and Jesus existed as flesh before the word became the flesh. The Message of God is what Jesus portrayed to us. The Message of God is what was spread and multiplied.
After Jesus died, the word became flesh again when Paul was converted, spreading that same message to the Gentiles. When you talk about the message to others, then you are the word become flesh. Anyone doing the will of God is the word become flesh.

Wouldn't you agree?

Quote:
I believe anyone reading 1 john and believing that he is not referring to Christ is being disingenuous, either that or misunderstand the context what they are reading.

No offense to you ... I realize the scriptures are cryptic and not everyone is gifted with the gift of knowledge or the gift of teaching. The bible is one of the hardest pieces of literature ever written to comprehend.
No offense taken. I read it differently... I don't think it is being literal. A paragraph before the word becomes flesh, we see that he is the light of truth. The message is the truth. That makes sense to me. I am not sure why they translate the word as he but either way it doesn't read the same to me as it does to you.

Quote:
Perhaps you could refer me to a link that better explain what you believe this passage of scripture is referring to if not Christ?
I believe it does refer to Christ. I just don't see that the word becoming flesh means that God became flesh. The word was God and was with God... therefore the word comes from God and became flesh. Rather than the flesh directing the actions, the word directed the actions.

Christ carried the message that is good news. He was a god. He was not God in flesh, #2 persona of God. That just doesn't make any sense given the rest of John. This is a very poetic book. John was a gifted writer much like Shakespeare. IMO. And I believe he also wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. However, I see no evidence that Jesus didn't have his own will and was entirely flesh.

Quote:
I disagree entirely ... Jesus is the message, he is the way, he is the truth, he is the life, he is the word of God.
Yet Jesus himself points to God. He is the image of God how can he BE God? He is given the authority of God, as Moses was given the power of God. The difference between the two (Jesus and Moses) is that Moses was against the idea from the beginning while Jesus embraced his mission for God. Moses brought Law.. Jesus brought Grace! The Message is about God's grace not Jesus.

Answer me this: Did Jesus take credit for any of this? and did Jesus expect that his disciples would be equally one with God (his father) as he was?

Quote:
Of course not, the use of the word logos in this verse is literal. Jesus is not literally a word, in the sense that Jesus is the word of God the word logos is symbolic, or figurative.
The life is given by Christ not words of men. The words only speak of the life given by Christ who himself is the word of God.

If the word was God and became flesh, are you saying that god is only an idea and an idea became flesh?
Yes. God's idea (love God and love one another) was screwed up by the last guy (Moses) because he (Moses) didn't WANT to, was not willing. The new guy (Jesus) was the embodiment of God's idea and was completely willing to do God's will.

The word is what gives life. And how were people able to understand the word of God? Jesus taught them about it. Did Jesus teach himself about himself? Or did Jesus teach them about his father, Yahweh?

Quote:
How could god make something through Christ at the beginning of Time if Christ was not God and was not even born yet? If God made all things through Christ he must have been there before anything else was made including time and space or the angels.
God doesn't have the problem of waiting for time. If God sees all at the same time then obviously the word or his message to people was alive and well when God talked to Moses, Abraham... etc. Jesus' message to the people as mediator between God and men was before all things. God has not changed. The message of Jesus was and is the message of God. The message is Love. God is Love. The Word is Love. Not a person. What is the Word? What is God? Love.

Quote:


Quote:
If you said a message became flesh and dwelt among us, i would have no idea what the heck you were talking about, and would think you were a little out there.
LOL I thought about that after I wrote it! It is a funny thing to say nowadays.

Ok what if I said that the message was carried in a vessel and that vessel is Jesus. Jesus is not the message but carried the message because he was a vessel. The word or message of God is in the vessel and for all intensive purposes IS the message because the message is written in his heart and mind.

So IMO Jesus is the vessel on which the message is written, not in ink (or stone ) but in his heart and mind. So much so that God's will has become his will, and God's purpose has become his purpose. This is like a marriage where both husband and wife are conformed (over years ) to the image of each other ( and sometimes their pets ) and are called "one."

Does that make sense?

Quote:
What message? Christ is the message, his is the salvation of the world, he is the savior, he is the message, not merely someone who came to speak the message.
I noted before that I believe the same John wrote both the gospel and the revelation. In Rev. 1:2 and 1:9 John says, of himself, "who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So it is like the word of God and the testimony of Jesus are the same yet separate, IMO.

Quote:
I used quoted the YLT, though i do not necessarily like the translation there of tabernacled. It is a verb, and mean that he lived among men.

Jesus is god in our midst, or God among us, Immanu'el ...
Yes, the message which is Christ, who is the word of God and was with God in the beginning and was God, through whom all things were made who himself pre-existed all things, became flesh and dwelt among us, so he is Immanu'el(God with us) ...

It sounds plausible, I must admit... but there IS something fairy tale -ish about it. Why is that necessary? Why must Jesus be God in order to increase the message of God?

In your mind, who is responsible for the message? Whose was it to give?

And the other question is... Did John believe that way?

I think that with Rev. and the last paragraph of the gospel of John, one must conclude that John did NOT believe Jesus to be God.

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 12:44 AM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,205,043 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
I found this interesting:


YouTube - Real Truth about John 1:1

And here are some links: Search For Bible Truths: John 1:1 Link List

Not Church fathers but nonetheless good info.

Will review your last post shortly.

Ill check out the links ... Thanks.

Here are some quotes from some of the earliest fathers Church fathers. Note, regardless of difference of opinion on belief in UR or ET or Annihilation, all these men agreed on the deity of Christ.

Quote:
Selected Ante-Nicene Patristic witnesses to Christ's Divinity

A. Ignatius of Antioch, on the Divinity of Christ, calls Jesus God 16x in 7 letters (ca. 110 AD)

1. “Jesus Christ our God” Eph inscr, Eph 15:3, Eph 18:2, Tral 7, Ro inscr 2x, Ro 3:3, Smyr 10:1.

2. He speaks of Christ’s blood as “God's blood” Eph 1:1

3. He calls Jesus “God incarnate” Eph 7:2

4. In Jesus “God was revealing himself as a man” Eph 19:3



B. Epistle to Diognetus (ca. 125 AD) speaking of God the Father, he says:

1. Diognetus 7:2 "he sent the Designer and Maker of the universe himself, by whom he created the heavens and confined the sea within its own bounds" (ca. 125 AD)

2. Diognetus 7:4 “He sent him as God; he sent him as man to men."



C. Melito of Sardis on Christ's Divnity (d. ca. 190) On the Pasch (Peri Pascha).

1. Translation in Lucien Deiss, ed., Springtime of the Liturgy (College*ville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979), 97-110.

2. Peri Pascha was only discovered in 1940 and published in 1960.

3. he says Christ "rises from the dead as God, being by nature both God and man" (p. 100 in Deiss, physei Theos n kai anthropos).

4. he also has an anti-Gnostic insistence on Christ's true humanity.



Saint Justin Martyr on the Divinity of ChristD. Justin Martyr on the Divinity of Christ (c. 155 AD)

1. says that Christians adore and worship the Son as well as the Father. 1st Apology 6.

2. says Christ, the Word incarnate, is divine 1 Apol 10 & 63



E. Irenaeus on Christ's Divinity (ca. 185) in his work Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies)

1. Of Jesus he says "He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; --all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him." AH III.19.2 (Ante Nicene Fathers 1: 449).

2. "He, therefore who was known, was not a different being from Him who declared, 'No man knoweth the Father,' but one and the same, the Father making all things subject to Him; while He received testimony from all that He was very [true] man, and that He was very [true] God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons, from the enemy, and last of all, from death itself." AH, IV, 6,7 (ANF, 469).



Tertullian on the Divinity of ChristF. Tertullian on the Divinity of Christ (ca. 200)

1. the first use of the Latin word trinitas with reference to God is in Adversus Praxean and De pudicitia. The first to use the term persona in a Trinitarian & christological context asserting in Adv. Praxean 12 that the Logos is distinct from the Father as person and that the HS is the "third person" in the Trinity."

2. Adv. Praxean 27 states that there are two natures, one human and one divine, which are joined in the one person Jesus Christ.

3. In his Apology 21, speaking of the Word, he says, “we have been taught that he proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. . . . Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. . . . That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is make a second in manner of existence--in position, not in nature. . . .in His birth God and man united.”

4. In On the Flesh of Christ 5, he asks, “Was not God really crucified?”



G. Clement of Alexandria on Christ's Divinity (ca. 210 AD)

1. Exhortation to the Heathen, 1: “This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) ad of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man--that Author of all blessings to us. . . . This is the New Song, the manifestation of the Word that was in the beginning, and before the beginning.”



II. Early Church Fathers, The Fathers of the Early Church on Trinity and divinity of ChristA few selected Trinitarian Texts from Ante-Nicene Fathers

A. Didache (ca. 125 AD) "then baptize in running water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Early Christian Fathers, p. 7)

B. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 115 AD) exhorts the Christians at Magnesia to stand firm "in faith and love, in Son, Father, and Spirit." (Mag 13)

C. Pope Dionysius to Dionysius of Alexandria, 262 AD. Uses the term Trinity and describes the unity of the three persons to prove that they are not three gods. Neunier-Dupuis, The Christian Faith, #301-303.

D. Origen (ca 230 AD), On First Principles 1.6.2 “For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself.”



From http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/...of_Christ.html
Also in Origens "dialogue with hiraclides" he plainly states that "Christ is God".


The simple fact is that not one single church father specifically taught that Christ was not divine. Though many differed on their opinion of the relationship between the father, son, and the holy spirit.

Throughout my research on the matter(which is not entirely exhaustive at this time), only Clement of Rome never specifically made reference to the divinity of Christ, though he never specifically claimed that Christ was not divine either.




God bless ...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 01:19 AM
 
7,374 posts, read 7,205,043 times
Reputation: 892
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
True, God is not a person, he is spirit. Are you saying that Christ is spirit? The word increased... I take that at face value. The message that Christ brought spread... increased.... multiplied.
I don't believe you have to be a corporeal being to have a personal existence. I believe God to be a personal God, that is to say he has a personality and relates to each and everyone of us in a personal way, even if we may not be conscious of it.

Quote:
Flesh is not a person. I believe it is the flesh that delivered the word. I am disagreeing with you that the word is a person in and of itself. If that is so then Jesus isn't God... the word is.

I believe the word is God and Jesus existed as flesh before the word became the flesh. The Message of God is what Jesus portrayed to us. The Message of God is what was spread and multiplied.
After Jesus died, the word became flesh again when Paul was converted, spreading that same message to the Gentiles. When you talk about the message to others, then you are the word become flesh. Anyone doing the will of God is the word become flesh.

Wouldn't you agree?
No, i believe that the scriptures certainly teach that Christ is the word of God. But that should be clear by now ...

Quote:
No offense taken. I read it differently... I don't think it is being literal. A paragraph before the word becomes flesh, we see that he is the light of truth. The message is the truth. That makes sense to me. I am not sure why they translate the word as he but either way it doesn't read the same to me as it does to you.

I believe it does refer to Christ. I just don't see that the word becoming flesh means that God became flesh. The word was God and was with God... therefore the word comes from God and became flesh. Rather than the flesh directing the actions, the word directed the actions.

Christ carried the message that is good news. He was a god. He was not God in flesh, #2 persona of God. That just doesn't make any sense given the rest of John. This is a very poetic book. John was a gifted writer much like Shakespeare. IMO. And I believe he also wrote the Revelation of Jesus Christ. However, I see no evidence that Jesus didn't have his own will and was entirely flesh.

Yet Jesus himself points to God. He is the image of God how can he BE God? He is given the authority of God, as Moses was given the power of God. The difference between the two (Jesus and Moses) is that Moses was against the idea from the beginning while Jesus embraced his mission for God. Moses brought Law.. Jesus brought Grace! The Message is about God's grace not Jesus.

Answer me this: Did Jesus take credit for any of this? and did Jesus expect that his disciples would be equally one with God (his father) as he was?
He is the first born of many brethren ... We are to sit in his throne even as he is sitting in the throne of the father, we are co-heirs along with Christ of all things. We will all be made one together in Christ who is the head of the body, and all things will be made subject to him so that God will be all in all.

That is what i believe it means when it is said that God will be "all in all". God will be all, and he will be in all. Just like my leg is me, though i am not only my leg. We are a part of the body of Christ, though Christ is not me. In as much as Christ is one with the father, and we are one with Christ, so are we to be made one with the father.

Quote:
Yes. God's idea (love God and love one another) was screwed up by the last guy (Moses) because he (Moses) didn't WANT to, was not willing. The new guy (Jesus) was the embodiment of God's idea and was completely willing to do God's will.

The word is what gives life. And how were people able to understand the word of God? Jesus taught them about it. Did Jesus teach himself about himself? Or did Jesus teach them about his father, Yahweh?
Christ taught that he was the only way the truth and the life, not that he was only showing us the way the truth and the life. He specifically made it clear that "no one come to the father but by me(Christ)"

Quote:
God doesn't have the problem of waiting for time. If God sees all at the same time then obviously the word or his message to people was alive and well when God talked to Moses, Abraham... etc. Jesus' message to the people as mediator between God and men was before all things. God has not changed. The message of Jesus was and is the message of God. The message is Love. God is Love. The Word is Love. Not a person. What is the Word? What is God? Love.
Again, i believe god is a personal reality, and became a man.

Quote:


LOL I thought about that after I wrote it! It is a funny thing to say nowadays.

Ok what if I said that the message was carried in a vessel and that vessel is Jesus. Jesus is not the message but carried the message because he was a vessel. The word or message of God is in the vessel and for all intensive purposes IS the message because the message is written in his heart and mind.

So IMO Jesus is the vessel on which the message is written, not in ink (or stone ) but in his heart and mind. So much so that God's will has become his will, and God's purpose has become his purpose. This is like a marriage where both husband and wife are conformed (over years ) to the image of each other ( and sometimes their pets ) and are called "one."

Does that make sense?
It make sense what you are saying, but i do not agree ... The message is Christ sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice that God in Christ made for all mankind. Without Christ death and resurrection the message is nothing. The message is him dying and coming back from the dead for all humanity. The whole of the scriptures points to him and his life and his death and his resurrection and his ascension.

Quote:
I noted before that I believe the same John wrote both the gospel and the revelation. In Rev. 1:2 and 1:9 John says, of himself, "who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So it is like the word of God and the testimony of Jesus are the same yet separate, IMO.

It sounds plausible, I must admit... but there IS something fairy tale -ish about it. Why is that necessary? Why must Jesus be God in order to increase the message of God?

In your mind, who is responsible for the message? Whose was it to give?

And the other question is... Did John believe that way?

I think that with Rev. and the last paragraph of the gospel of John, one must conclude that John did NOT believe Jesus to be God.

Rev 1:8
'I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming -- the Almighty(pantokratōr).'


"pantokratōr"

1) he who holds sway over all things
2) the ruler of all
3) almighty: God


Rev 4:8
And the four living creatures, each by itself severally, had six wings, around and within are full of eyes, and rest they have not day and night, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty(pantokratōr), who was, and who is, and who is coming;'



It is the man Christ who is sitting on the throne amidst the 7 lamp stand which are the seven spirits of God which are the angels of the seven churches. It is Christ whom the four living creatures are worshiping and calling the almighty God, who was, who is, and who is coming, even as Christ spoke of himself, calling himself the almighty, the one who was, who is, and who is coming. They are one and the same. It is Christ who is the ancient of days ...



Dan 7:9
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.


The verse above is in reference to the divine throne chariot vision of Ezekiel ...

And again ...


Dan 7:22
Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.










Peace ...

Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 06-09-2010 at 01:46 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,395,647 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
I don't believe you have to be a corporeal being to have a personal existence. I believe God to be a personal God, that is to say he has a personality and relates to each and everyone of us in a personal way, even if we may not be conscious of it.
I have no problem with that. Let's define person though...
Person (807 Occurrences)
1. (n.) A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation of individual character, whether in real life, or in literary or dramatic representation; an assumed character.
2. (n.) The bodily form of a human being; body; outward appearance; as, of comely person.
3. (n.) A living, self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child.

Now applying that to God would mean that God has individual character, and is a living, self-conscious being. I can agree to that.

But here is the thing... Jesus was also a person. He had individual character, and was a living, self-conscious being.

So if God (a distinct self-conscious being) inhabited flesh (called Jesus) then how is one distinct from the other? IOW if God was Jesus then Jesus or God has lost their person-hood... right? Because otherwise Jesus would have been a split personality. What happened to Jesus' person? Did God control his personality?

To me that would mean that one of them lost their person-hood or character because the other one took over. So did Jesus have his own likes and dislikes...etc. that distinguished him from God or was Jesus' body simply the costume that God used to come to earth?


Quote:
No, i believe that the scriptures certainly teach that Christ is the word of God. But that should be clear by now ...
Yes.. it is clear .

Quote:
He is the first born of many brethren ... We are to sit in his throne even as he is sitting in the throne of the father, we are co-heirs along with Christ of all things. We will all be made one together in Christ who is the head of the body, and all things will be made subject to him so that God will be all in all.
Yet if there is a firstborn there must be other borns... secondborns... well you know what I mean, right? So are there other Godmen? If Jesus was the firstborn of many then are there many Godmen running around? I see what you are saying but it seems that Jesus can't truly be firstborn unless there are the same births for others. I am a firstborn and my sister (the second born) was conceived and birthed in the same way as I was. Does that make sense?

So if Jesus was immaculately conceived as firstborn, who is second born?

Quote:
That is what i believe it means when it is said that God will be "all in all". God will be all, and he will be in all. Just like my leg is me, though i am not only my leg. We are a part of the body of Christ, though Christ is not me. In as much as Christ is one with the father, and we are one with Christ, so are we to be made one with the father.
I just don't see how that makes sense given that Jesus said he wanted us to be one with the father just as he is one with the father. To me that means that we are able to have the same relationship with God that Jesus had... so are we also Godman?

Quote:
Christ taught that he was the only way the truth and the life, not that he was only showing us the way the truth and the life. He specifically made it clear that "no one come to the father but by me(Christ)"
After Christ died how did one come to the father? Through the disciples, through Christ? I see how that is applicable while Christ was on earth but after that how is Christ the only way? Did the church fathers talk with Christ directly? or was it through someone else's teachings that they came to the knowledge of the truth and life?

Quote:
Again, i believe god is a personal reality, and became a man.

It make sense what you are saying, but i do not agree ... The message is Christ sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice that God in Christ made for all mankind. Without Christ death and resurrection the message is nothing. The message is him dying and coming back from the dead for all humanity. The whole of the scriptures points to him and his life and his death and his resurrection and his ascension.
Yet I see your focus is on Jesus who was agreeably a man. Why isn't your focus on the God who inhabited the flesh? Why retain the title Christ (anointed one) and name Jesus if it was simply God in human form. Why did Jesus need anointing if he WAS the one doing the anointing in the first place?

Quote:
Rev 1:8
'I am the Alpha and the Omega, beginning and end, saith the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is coming -- the Almighty(pantokratōr).'


"pantokratōr"

1) he who holds sway over all things
2) the ruler of all
3) almighty: God


Rev 4:8
And the four living creatures, each by itself severally, had six wings, around and within are full of eyes, and rest they have not day and night, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty(pantokratōr), who was, and who is, and who is coming;'



It is the man Christ who is sitting on the throne amidst the 7 lamp stand which are the seven spirits of God which are the angels of the seven churches. It is Christ whom the four living creatures are worshiping and calling the almighty God, who was, who is, and who is coming, even as Christ spoke of himself, calling himself the almighty, the one who was, who is, and who is coming. They are one and the same. It is Christ who is the ancient of days ...



Dan 7:9
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.


The verse above is in reference to the divine throne chariot vision of Ezekiel ...

And again ...


Dan 7:22
Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.










Peace ...
I understand where you are coming from... however, I am a representation of the company I work for. When I speak to officials I AM the company. However, I am not the company because the company is not a person, it is an entity that I represent. In that way I retain my person-hood and yet can claim any title that the company has.

It seems to me that Jesus loses his person-hood (especially if he is born God) and just becomes a costume for God. So my question would be... was Jesus an actual person with unique characteristics and personality? and if so what about his being God. If God is also a person with unique characteristics and personality then they are not two persons but one... therefore Jesus or God didn't actually exist in that body... which is it?

And if you have time (the posts are rather lengthy LOL) can you then explain why Jesus cried out to God on the cross? Where was the God part of Godman on the cross?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 01:38 PM
 
37,573 posts, read 25,275,797 times
Reputation: 5860
I truly enjoy the scholarly repartee presented here . . . I am sure it is revealing and helpful to all who are following it. Bless you both Iron and kat. You know my view . . . so I can add nothing to the discussion . . . except to suggest to those who might be struggling with this issue that God will not give you any grief over what you think about it. Church authorities and others may . . . but not God. You can believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same . . . or that they are members of the Green Bay Packers. There will be no consequence whatsoever . . . as long as you "love God and each other" and follow Jesus as the "mind of God" and mediator for Humankind.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 06-09-2010 at 02:06 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,395,647 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I truly enjoy the scholarly repartee presented here . . . I am sure it is revealing and helpful to all who are following it. Bless you both Iron and kat. You know my view . . . so I can add noting to the discussion . . . except to suggest to those who might be struggling with this issue that God will not give you any grief over what you think about it. Church authorities and others may . . . but not God. You can believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same . . . or that they are members of the Green Bay Packers. There will be no consequence whatsoever . . . as long as you "love God and each other" and follow Jesus as the "mind of God" and mediator for Humankind.
The Rivalry of Scholars advances Wisdom!



You are welcome! There are no winners and losers here just a conversation between two people who respect each other. IMHO

Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
3,381 posts, read 3,384,001 times
Reputation: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I truly enjoy the scholarly repartee presented here . . . I am sure it is revealing and helpful to all who are following it. Bless you both Iron and kat. You know my view . . . so I can add noting to the discussion . . . except to suggest to those who might be struggling with this issue that God will not give you any grief over what you think about it. Church authorities and others may . . . but not God. You can believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are one and the same . . . or that they are members of the Green Bay Packers. There will be no consequence whatsoever . . . as long as you "love God and each other" and follow Jesus as the "mind of God" and mediator for Humankind.


Green Bay Packers?

I wouldn't go that far, but I get what you're saying. We don't have to understand all the mysteries, and we don't need to fear being tortured forever for NOT understanding or believing EXACTLY as others do, but we DO have to produce those fruits. Thanks, Mystic.

Last edited by herefornow; 06-09-2010 at 02:08 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 02:15 PM
 
37,573 posts, read 25,275,797 times
Reputation: 5860
Quote:
Originally Posted by herefornow View Post
Green Bay Packers?

I wouldn't go that far, but I get what you're saying. We don't have to understand all the mysteries, and we don't need to fear being tortured forever for NOT understanding or believing EXACTLY as others do, but we DO have to produce those fruits. Thanks, Mystic.
He, he . . . we can't be completely serious all the time . . . a little humor sweetens the day. You're welcome, HFN.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Canada
6,643 posts, read 3,999,444 times
Reputation: 386
Quote:
We have the English translation of the Hebrew scriptures now ... Who translated the old testament into greek? The scribes ... The same people who rejected Christ as the messiah.


Iron all translators of scripture can be said to be scribes, so this point is moot.

Quote:
That is not to say the Septuagint is always in error, but i would rather take it back to the Hebrew than to a Greek translation of the Hebrew, just like i would rather go back to the Greek of the New testament than to the Latin.

Lets look then at the interlinear ...
Now compare that to this ...

"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."


Notice the word " 'ab 'ad " (perpetual father) and " El Gebur " (mighty God) are not translated in the Septuagint? Why?


The Septuagint was written before the coming of Jesus Christ, all other versions where written after His coming and this includes the interlinear version.

The Septuagint was the bible used in the time of Jesus and Jesus used this version when referring to scripture.

The Septuagint never had a bias towards who Jesus was as He was not yet born, the Septuagint new nothing of Jesus.

All other version of the bible were written after Jesus came, and therefore have a bias towards Him.

Thus to prove the trinity, as most believe in it, scripture was changed in order to support this view.

We see this bias in 1 John 5:7 which says

1 John 5:7
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This scripture is NOT in the early manuscripts but is an addition to the scripture used to support the trinity.

Now you say you like to take things back to the original Hebrew and Greek, and that is ok imo, but you must still be aware that 1 John 5:7 was originally also written in Greek yet is an addition to scripture to support a certain bias, and the same can be said of what is written in Hebrew after the time of Christ.

You asked this question

Quote:
Notice the word " 'ab 'ad " (perpetual father) and " El Gebur " (mighty God) are not translated in the Septuagint? Why?


Could it be because these are added words to the Hebrew? Obviously at the time the Septuagint was written those words were not there.


Quote:
I have a question ...

Jhn 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.


Okay, the word(logos) was with God and the word was God ... So who or what is the word(logos) of God if not Christ? And if Christ is the word of God then here it says the word was God.


Iron I agree with you here, those scriptures are in reference to CHRIST.
Christ is God, He is just NOT God the Father. Jesus ALWAYS made a distinction between Himself and the Father, why do you think He did that if He was also the Father?

Quote:
Out of curiosity, can anyone here who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ provide a link to references from a single church father who did not believe that Jesus was in fact God?
Just one?


Did anyone say Christ was not divine?If so, I must have missed it. Christ is divine as He is God; howbeit, He is NOT God the Father.


Quote:
Here are some quotes from some of the earliest fathers Church fathers. Note, regardless of difference of opinion on belief in UR or ET or Annihilation, all these men agreed on the deity of Christ.


And well they should agree on Christ divinity. But agreeing on Christ divinity and agreeing that Christ is God the Father are two totally separate things.

For instance you quoted Justin Martyr, but did you realise Justin Martyr makes the same distinction I do? That being that Jesus Christ is God, but He is NOT God the Father.

Read Justin Martyrs dialogue with Trypho the Jew and you will see that Justin believed there was only ONE true God, that being God the Father, and makes the distinction I mentioned between the Father and the Son.

Now IMO as Justin was a disciple of the apostle John, I would think He was fully aware of what John believed and whom John was speaking of in Jn.1:1.

Justin makes a distinction between the Father and the Son and as he was fully aware of what John believed, John must have made that same distinction.

Here is the link of Justinís dialogue with Trypho

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm

God bless and enjoy.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top