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.
I believe this is another one of those delicate doctrinal topics that tends to be a bit difficult to settle. I thank the Lord for these opportunities to share and learn from one another, and ultimately from God.
It seems that no matter how hard I might try to get past Colossians 2:9, I find that I cannot. Once again it reads:
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
I've never seen the Greek explained, or even manipulated, to have it say something different. How can such a statement exist in Scripture without it attesting to the deity of Christ.
I understand that there are places within the Scriptures that clearly show Christ as subservient to the Father. But this is only insofar as Christ's coming to earth (God, in fact, coming to earth in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ) to become man... in order to pay for the sins of man. Could He have accomplished such a thing if He weren't God? He had to carry out the Father's will in accomplishing this task. Atonement for sin was neccesary, and it could only be carried out by the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Son of Man, Christ was, indeed, man. He experienced a full human nature (though without sin). So, yes... we do read a good bit in the Bible about Jesus being subordinate to God.
But how could Jesus say such a thing as:
"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
I know that the John 10 passage (vv.26-30) does not settle the question by itself. But how could Jesus say in one verse that no one could luck His people out of His hand, and in the next verse that no on could pluck them out of His Father's hand? It appears here that Christ is assuming the same role as His Father with regard to the salvation of His people. It reminds me of where God says
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11). See also Jude, v.25:
"To God our Savior,
Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen."
There are numerous references to Christ as our Savior, as well as to God being our Savior. This tends to give a bit more credibility to a verse like Titus 2:13, about which it does appear that the deity of Christ is being taught. Kindly note:
"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
In 1 Peter 1:7 we simply read about "the appearing of Jesus Christ".
It is for reasons such as this that I cannot dismiss a verse like 1 Timothy 6:13 (below) as negating the deity of Christ:
1 Tim 6:13 13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
I believe the rest of the passage (through verse 16) does attribute deity to Christ.
Can Jesus actually say the following?
Rev 22:13 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last....when Yahweh refers to Himself as "the First and the Last"?
There is so much more that can be shared here. But I must now leave (Church barbecue), and may not get back to the computer for about ten days, as I am leaving early tomorrow to go on vacation). I pray that God will continue to bless us and open our eyes to His Truth.
It's just that from what I have studied I cannot escape the convition that Christ is, indeed, God. It's just a matter of understanding how God accomplished salvation for His people, a topic that runs through the entirety of Scripture.
May He be pleased to show me where my understanding is lacking, that He may receive all the honor and all the glory.
I believe this is another one of those delicate doctrinal topics that tends to be a bit difficult to settle. I thank the Lord for these opportunities to share and learn from one another, and ultimately from God.
It seems that no matter how hard I might try to get past Colossians 2:9, I find that I cannot. Once again it reads:
"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."
I've never seen the Greek explained, or even manipulated, to have it say something different. How can such a statement exist in Scripture without it attesting to the deity of Christ.
I understand that there are places within the Scriptures that clearly show Christ as subservient to the Father. But this is only insofar as Christ's coming to earth (God, in fact, coming to earth in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ) to become man... in order to pay for the sins of man. Could He have accomplished such a thing if He weren't God? He had to carry out the Father's will in accomplishing this task. Atonement for sin was neccesary, and it could only be carried out by the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Son of Man, Christ was, indeed, man. He experienced a full human nature (though without sin). So, yes... we do read a good bit in the Bible about Jesus being subordinate to God.
But how could Jesus say such a thing as:
"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
I know that the John 10 passage (vv.26-30) does not settle the question by itself. But how could Jesus say in one verse that no one could luck His people out of His hand, and in the next verse that no on could pluck them out of His Father's hand? It appears here that Christ is assuming the same role as His Father with regard to the salvation of His people. It reminds me of where God says
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11). See also Jude, v.25:
"To God our Savior,
Who alone is wise,
Be glory and majesty,
Dominion and power,
Both now and forever.
Amen."
There are numerous references to Christ as our Savior, as well as to God being our Savior. This tends to give a bit more credibility to a verse like Titus 2:13, about which it does appear that the deity of Christ is being taught. Kindly note:
"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,"
In 1 Peter 1:7 we simply read about "the appearing of Jesus Christ".
It is for reasons such as this that I cannot dismiss a verse like 1 Timothy 6:13 (below) as negating the deity of Christ:
1 Tim 6:13 13 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession;
I believe the rest of the passage (through verse 16) does attribute deity to Christ.
Can Jesus actually say the following?
Rev 22:13 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last....when Yahweh refers to Himself as "the First and the Last"?
There is so much more that can be shared here. But I must now leave (Church barbecue), and may not get back to the computer for about ten days, as I am leaving early tomorrow to go on vacation). I pray that God will continue to bless us and open our eyes to His Truth.
It's just that from what I have studied I cannot escape the convition that Christ is, indeed, God. It's just a matter of understanding how God accomplished salvation for His people, a topic that runs through the entirety of Scripture.
May He be pleased to show me where my understanding is lacking, that He may receive all the honor and all the glory.
May the Lord richly bless you all.
A very good example of someone who has ALL scriptures in mind. That is the point exactly, that the totality of scripture shows who Jesus was/is. 2 Tim 3:16-17
After reading through this thread, what I'm getting is that all this high powered superfluous interpretive explanation seems to imply that the answer to the OP's question is simply "no." If Paul thought Jesus was God, that would be a pretty big deal and one would think Paul might at some point come out and say it rather than just vaguely implying it (maybe) in various places.
After reading through this thread, what I'm getting is that all this high powered superfluous interpretive explanation seems to imply that the answer to the OP's question is simply "no." If Paul thought Jesus was God, that would be a pretty big deal and one would think Paul might at some point come out and say it rather than just vaguely implying it (maybe) in various places.
I'm pretty sure the verses that have been quoted by Paul confirm the deity of Christ, but Paul wasn't the only one to confirm this. Thomas and Peter also did.
I'm pretty sure the verses that have been quoted by Paul confirm the deity of Christ, but Paul wasn't the only one to confirm this. Thomas and Peter also did.
Jesus was NOT the real thing? Of course He was and in His image was the EXACT REPRESENTATION of GOD. I notice you have ignored all the other verses I quoted. This is typical of your ilk, fight the truth on ONE front only and equivocate about words. Clearly the entire message of scripture shows the whole nature of God, AND the hypostatic union in Jesus.
I do not fight on one front only...I look at both sides of an issue...When I was born again I was taught that Jesus was God, however as I grew I questioned this and parts of Scripture that argued against my belief...So in the last four years I had to take a step back and revisit what I was led to believe and what is actually there in the Scriptures...I research that that teaches Jesus as God and the other side of the coin that teaches that they are two seperate individuals...If one wants to know Truth then one will have an open mind and look at both sides of the issue...If Jesus is God in the flesh, then He is...If not then He is not...I will not let anothers interpretation form my beliefs...One can be led to see things from anothers perspective and believe it to be Truth when in reality it is not...I have heard and read many opinions and arguements and have come to question who is correct...While many have a silver tongue, when one starts picking at the Irish penants their declarations begin to unravel...Many people are fully satisfied with allowing others to give them the answers or in choosing a doctrine that gives them that warm and fuzzy and do not desire to venture out on their own to ascertain the validity of what they are being taught...The only way to successfully argue a position is to know their opponents position as well as they know their own position...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
[/color]
That is NOT what John says. It says; And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we gazed on his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
This happened in Matthew 1:18 & 20....before they had come together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. ...for that which has been conceived in her is by the Holy Spirit.
So, why did the Holy Spirit have to fall on Jesus at His baptism if He was already of the Holy Spirit?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
[/color]
My apologies, I was reading Strong's reference ONLY, NOT the exhaustive explanation of the compositional use. In any event in this context it is NOT in the connotation of being figuratively superior, simply BEFORE. Not really sure what you are trying to assert here as it does not have much to do with the issue at hand.
I am far from HOSTILE to conversation, and I have no idea what invading my box is supposed to mean. IF you are as schooled as you say then you again are being disingenuous by using a connotation that does NOT apply here, KNOWINGLY.
A box is something someone builds around them of a reality of their own making and refuses to come out and see the world as it really is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
[/color]
Yes, DISINGENUOUS... NOT candid or sincere. A good example would be how you highlighted in red what you wanted it to mean. I could also say equivocal.
I highlighted that in red merely as a provocation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
[/color]
The word 'church' comes from the Greek word ἐκκλησία / ekklēsia, and connotes what we call and is translated as 'church' in most modern English translations. Another disingenuous attempt of equivocation.
The word church does not come from the Greek eklessia...Go research the etymology of the word church...Eklessia is the Greek word for 'Assembly'...The Greek word ofr church is Kureton...Which is where the word church comes from...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
[/color]
Well good for you, and I can speak in 26 different languages but that wasn't my point. Being able to speak and KNOWING linguistic rules are two different things.
That is a hefty number...But I am sorry to tell you that I do know the Grammatical rules of language...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
[/color]
Well Daniel B. Wallace has a lot to say about Sharp's rule being ignored by some, and of Winstanley and what Middleton had to say refuting Winstanley's objections. You can read the entire article at the following link:
You have spent 40 of your 47 years studying linguistics? Care to cite your credentials?
Why do you insist on using Jesus' Hebrew name? Are you one of those?
Does one need credentials to tell the truth?...I know many with credentials that lie...Too much weight is placed on paper...
So, why did the Holy Spirit have to fall on Jesus at His baptism if He was already of the Holy Spirit?...
Matthew 3:13-15 shows Jesus' reason for getting baptized by John. Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan river to be baptized by him. But John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
A box is something someone builds around them of a reality of their own making and refuses to come out and see the world as it really is...
Oh I see...so you won't come out of your box to see anything I have to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
I highlighted that in red merely as a provocation...
Well that much IS evident. It definitely wasn't accurate. So you're not only an equivocator but also a provocateur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
The word church does not come from the Greek eklessia...Go research the etymology of the word church...Eklessia is the Greek word for 'Assembly'...The Greek word ofr church is Kureton...Which is where the word church comes from...
None of the online translators I use translate it this way, they ALL translate it as Chruch, just as ALL the modern English versions do so you assertion is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
That is a hefty number...But I am sorry to tell you that I do know the Grammatical rules of language...
That is NOT in evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Does one need credentials to tell the truth?...I know many with credentials that lie...Too much weight is placed on paper...
Of course, how else would you know? You are trying to make us believe YOU know better than qualified scholars of the Greek language. Thanks but I'll accept their translation overs yours ANYTIME, especially given you will not provide any info that you have ANY credentials.
I had a chap tell me he had a Ph.D. in Theology and expected me to accept that his degree qualified him to ACCURATELY translate Biblical or Koine Greek into English.
All you've basically done here is duck everything that would give you any credibility in your posts, and you expect us to just BLINDLY accept what you say as truth? Yeh, thanks but NO thanks.
I'm pretty sure the verses that have been quoted by Paul confirm the deity of Christ, but Paul wasn't the only one to confirm this. Thomas and Peter also did.
John 20:28 and 2 Peter 1:1
Paul and others may have confirmed the deity of Jesus but they never identified Jesus as "God". Having the divine nature (i.e., the nature of deity) of “God” and being identified as "God" are two different things. One refers to the nature; the other refers to identity.
Paul and others may have confirmed the deity of Jesus but they never identified Jesus as "God". Having the divine nature (i.e., the nature of deity) of “God” and being identified as "God" are two different things. One refers to the nature; the other refers to identity.
I suggest you read and study the scriptures already presented here and STUDY them. Then you can comment again. Being FULLY God is being FULLY God.
I suggest you read and study the scriptures already presented here and STUDY them. Then you can comment again.
I've read and study the "bible" verses presented here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan53
Being FULLY God is being FULLY God.
What do you mean by this statement, "Being fully God is being fully God?"
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 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.
