The father calls Jesus "God" ... (sin, Holy Spirit, worship)
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.
This is difficult to understand unless one realises that Jesus was referring to himself, and praying to himself, when he mentioned 'the Father'. He was tested in every way as we are. That means that he had none of the knowledge that he had as the supernal deity, except what he got from the Scripture and the world. Remember that, though he realised that he was God in the flesh, he did not want others to know unless they worked it out from prophecy, his miracles and, pre-eminently, his words. So his words relating to his relationship with himself are a disguise.
Do you want to try again, because you totally lost me. I'm not even sure from this post which side of the issue you're on.
Flaminghedge, could you explain this, please? I know of no definition of the word "divine" that doesn't in some way pertain to God or godhood. I'm not actually arguing the point; I'm really just trying to understand your statement.
Quote:
I've believed in the trinity for a long time and defended it vehemently. However, I then began taking several things Jesus said about himself at face value and my whole belief changed. This was about the time I began to believe in UR. There was simply too much inserting into the text what I wanted it to say. It was much easy to reconcile a couple of scriptures by going to the greek than to twist the entire book of John and loads of other scriptures.
Flaminghedge, could you explain this, please? I know of no definition of the word "divine" that doesn't in some way pertain to God or godhood. I'm not actually arguing the point; I'm really just trying to understand your statement.
Sure. I use the word divine, because it doesn't confuse what I am trying to say. Let me try to explain this the best I can.
When you ask 'who is Jesus?' I would say NOT God.
When you ask 'what is Jesus?' I would say god.
Similarly:
When you ask 'who is Eve?' I would say NOT Adam.
When you ask 'what is Eve?' I would say adam.
In Greek you know the difference depending on if a definite article is used in front of the word (adam versus the Adam).
In English we use capital letters generally.
For instance if I were to say God is god. Then everyone should pretty much understand that I am saying God is divine.
With that being said, these verses in the Greek literally say this:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with THE God and the word was god.
Since the second god does not have a definite article, it is understood to answer the question 'what' and not the question 'who.' This is confused in virtually every English translation, though there are a few that realize this and use the word "divine" to avoid such confusion.
In actually, my position is probably very similar to yours, and perhaps if Ironmaw defined all of his terms, then maybe we'd realize that we actually believe the same thing as well. Ironmaw has stated that we all become God when we obtain his nature, or something to that effect (correct me if I'm wrong) which is technically my position, but it is worded in the most confusing way possible if it is.
Do you want to try again, because you totally lost me. I'm not even sure from this post which side of the issue you're on.
I think this is the doctrine of kenosis:
"ke-no'-sis: The word "kenosis" (kenosis) has entered theological language from Philippians 2:7, where in the sentence he "emptied himself" the Greek verb is ekenosen. "Kenosis," then, the corresponding noun, has become a technical term for the humiliation of the Son in the incarnation, but in recent years has acquired a still more technical sense, i.e. of the Son's emptying Himself of certain attributes, especially of omniscience."
and more about the doctrine itself can be found here: Bible Encyclopedia: Kenosis
Anyway I guess the thought is that Jesus is God but that God did not use his "God" abilities while stuck in the human body. For example, he had a hypostatic union in that he was 100% God and 100% human but while he was on earth he gave up the 100% God part (yet was never NOT God) and took on a fully human persona so that he could experience everything we experience (so as not to conflict with those verses that say Jesus was fully human). Thus he was fully human and fully God but CHOSE not to use his God powers.... I don't think this takes into consideration that he receives the Holy Spirit (God III) and then performs many God-like miracles thus proving that God I's spirit is beneficial to human beings and resides in Jesus (God II). So God I is God II and receives God III in order to do what God I does..
Did that NOT make sense or what? It seems kinda complicated and I'm not sure I fully explained it or if that is what shibata believes. That is just what I surmise from the post.
Sure. I use the word divine, because it doesn't confuse what I am trying to say. Let me try to explain this the best I can.
When you ask 'who is Jesus?' I would say NOT God.
When you ask 'what is Jesus?' I would say god.
Similarly:
When you ask 'who is Eve?' I would say NOT Adam.
When you ask 'what is Eve?' I would say adam.
In Greek you know the difference depending on if a definite article is used in front of the word (adam versus the Adam).
In English we use capital letters generally.
For instance if I were to say God is god. Then everyone should pretty much understand that I am saying God is divine.
With that being said, these verses in the Greek literally say this:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with THE God and the word was god.
Since the second god does not have a definite article, it is understood to answer the question 'what' and not the question 'who.' This is confused in virtually every English translation, though there are a few that realize this and use the word "divine" to avoid such confusion.
That helped, thanks!
Quote:
In actually, my position is probably very similar to yours, and perhaps if Ironmaw defined all of his terms, then maybe we'd realize that we actually believe the same thing as well.
I'm pretty sure your position and mine are actually pretty similar. Right now, I really don't see Ironmaw's as being very much the same at all. Then again, I could be wrong. Sometimes it's pretty difficult to explain one's beliefs so that they make sense to other people.
Quote:
Ironmaw has stated that we all become God when we obtain his nature, or something to that effect (correct me if I'm wrong) which is technically my position, but it is worded in the most confusing way possible if it is.
I don't believe we will ever become "God," but I do believe we have been given the potential to become "godlike."
Did that NOT make sense or what? It seems kinda complicated and I'm not sure I fully explained it or if that is what shibata believes. That is just what I surmise from the post.
Yeah, it totally did NOT make sense. But then I just never have been into those metaphysical explanations.
Wow! You went to a lot of work there, Firstborn. I'm not going to respond by commenting on each of the scriptures you posted, but I am going to try to clarify my position. I hope I don't leave you even more confused.
That's not possible! I'm already all the way confused!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
The OP was based on a verse in which the Father, speaking to His Son, calls Him "God.".......
Yes - saw that and I think I understand the explanation you gave. I realize I answered your question as if it was being asked by a trinitarian. I kind of get on one track and go straight down it and then it becomes sort of like a train (complete with the momentum thing).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
........That said, I definitely do not believe that the Father and the Son are one and the same.
I've been around this debate since I learned English (which is my main language). I had to eventually come to my own conclusions and it excludes three 'persons' as one God. I believe the agency thing is the reality of it and that not understanding it is what brings all the confusion. Has anyone looked at my friends thread? http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ad.php?t=47287
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.
). 
