ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bacon

New member
Who is Jesus?

Who is Jesus?

* the import of John 1

John 1 speaks of the utterance of the god that participated in the making of the sky and land in Gen 1. The word was with the god, and god-utterance was the word.

The word also generated a life - the life of Jesus. Jesus is the life that became the light of men. He was the flesh generated by the word of the god and by which the god communicated his special message.

* Diaglot

I looked on the OnlineBible.net website but did not see more information about the Diaglot that they supply. But believe me, it is not cultish. It is a gloss. It just spits out what the Greek says in a raw, unpolished format.

* who is Jesus?

Jesus was a man made by the god. He was a sinner, like all men, but became perfect after he died to sin and was resurrected by the god as both emperor and anointed Davidic king.
 

Bacon

New member
Lingo

Lingo

VanhoozerRocks said:
Are you a Jehovah's witness. Because that would explain your "lingo", and why you don't sound like an agnostic. Also, how much and where did you get your Greek education? Just curious, b/c the NWT is almost universally considered the worst translation. Not, attempting to be mean here. Just trying to see where you are coming from. Have a great day!
Soli Deo Gloria

I am not a Jehovah's Witness if that is what you meant to ask.

I've worked long and hard to learn Koine and have not asked you to trust me on anything. If you have a question about what I say, go ask your favorite Greek expert. I've tried to avoid appealing too much to the Greek, though it is profound in its superior information about the original intent of the authors.

You sound like a democrat saying "everyone knows Republicans are bad." You get your info from your party!

The NWT is just another translation. It has some great features, like differentiating "you" singular from "you" plural that I really like. But like I said, it is a translation. It is too colored by the KJV. I don't waste my time with it, not because it is a particularly bad translation but because it is a translation.

Now I guess you are convinced that the KJV or NIV are GOOD and UNBIASED translations? Well good luck. But you are speaking from IGNORANCE and MARKETING not from any real knowledge of translation.

All English translations suck, if for no other reason than that they are built on the Masoretic text, which is the wrong text!

Please, PLEASE don't try to "poison the well" by trying to stereotype me as your favorite "heretic cult." I've done my own homework, thank you.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Bacon's ideas are unique and lack credibility. If he has something to hide based on what or who influences his thinking, then he lacks integrity to avoid the issue. Cults are not wrong about everything, so it would not poison the well to understand where you are coming from.

Your understanding of John 1 is nonsensical.

Jesus is sinless (explicit in Scripture) and more than a man. He is the eternal God (see my thread on the Deity of Christ that starts to look at the 40 verses that show He is the God-Man).
 

Bacon

New member
Please make a point

Please make a point

godrulz said:
Bacon's ideas are unique and lack credibility. If he has something to hide based on what or who influences his thinking, then he lacks integrity to avoid the issue. Cults are not wrong about everything, so it would not poison the well to understand where you are coming from.

Your understanding of John 1 is nonsensical.

Jesus is sinless (explicit in Scripture) and more than a man. He is the eternal God (see my thread on the Deity of Christ that starts to look at the 40 verses that show He is the God-Man).

Yes, my ideas are my own, or rather, based on my own research rather than from a sect. So why are you trying to peg me with a sect? Or blame me for not identifying some alleged sect? If my ideas are unique then they are not those of any sect. You are attempting to cast me in a bad light both for being unique and for not identifying with a sect!

I told you exactly where I am coming from. I have done my own digging.

Please show WHY my reading of John 1 is incorrect. You are not a Pope.

Jesus is indeed sinless. But he was not always so. He died to sin:

Ro 6:10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

The prooftext of impecability is misread:

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Note that it is pointing to the fact that Jesus was NOT impeccable - but shared our moral weakness and could thus be "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" and goes into detail about this:

Hebrews 5:
1 ¶ For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Note also that the text does not say "without sinning." The point is that he is NOW separate from sin ["apart from sin" is actually a preposition - "away from sin" or "apart from sin."] When he appears the second time, it will be without sin:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

So the scriptures explicitly say that Jesus shared our moral weakness, died to sin and will, when he appears the second time, be without sin.

Jesus is not the god. The scriptures never say so. They say he is the man anointed of the god.

Jesus is a man.
 

Bacon

New member
You have the floor...

You have the floor...

godrulz said:
Sloppy exegesis...mixing unrelated contexts to support a preconceived theology...

This is a forum. If my exegesis is in any way faulty, perhaps you can do better?

How do you suggest we exegete Romans 6:10?

How do you properly exegete Hebrews 5:1-9?

If Jesus was impeccable, what can Hebrews 5:1-9 possibly mean??

No, it must say what it says.

Just saying "Oh yeah?!" is only funny on the Smothers Brothers Show.
 

patman

Active member
Bacon said:
Ge 18:21 I will therefore go down and see, if they completely correspond with the cry which comes to me, and if not, that I may know.

....

What does it mean to you? From whence does the god come down? Where is the god? When he comes down, what does he look like? Why did he come down?

.......

John 1:1 says nothing about Jesus. Jesus does not appear in John chapter one until verse 4, which I translate as:

Joh 1:4 it [the god's word] generated a life and the life was people's light

Now, isn't that more sensible than re-inventing the one true god as being three people???

These are verses I would use to back up the claim that God does not possess 100% future knowledge nor 100% present knowledge. Such a sinful, heart-breaking city would be just the thing God doesn't want to think about day and night, so he put out of his sight, but he still heard how bad it was enough to take action.

When God put it out of his sight, he sent his messengers to investigate in his place. God did not reveal a divine power to foresee the circumstances as we find out from reading more of the story.

I believe we can take the story as it reads and get what it intends to tell us, that God is in a place to judge and condemn humans. That he judges based on investigation.

As for John. I see you describe yourself as agnostic. And you also have a good bank of knowledge about the word, even to go to the original text. In my mind, your agnosticism is in part due to your studies.

You view God in a different way than you did when you first started, and he may seem lesser to you? I don't know you well enough to really know, but you seem to point things out that make God seem smaller from his own book.

Figurative verses like John 1 require more than themselves to make the claim you do. We can know from other verses that Jesus was around for longer than time can record.

We want to give him and God the credit they deserve, and knowing that God may not want total 100% knowledge of everything is not a bad reflection on God in any way; because we see from his example that he gathers the knowledge he needs to make wise/fair decisions. And that makes him worthy of honor.

Jesus is God too, from other passages we know God reveals himself to us through him, and that answers your other question.
 

Philetus

New member
Bacon,

Bacon: How do you properly exegete Hebrews 5:1-9?

Hebrews 5:
1 ¶ For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Well, first stop sounding like a pirate from the movies and get a decent translation. Even the worst one will do as long as it is an honest translation that included a lot of learned people from more than one point of view. Then sit down and read it. Oh, yea, don’t forget to pray and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth. Then get with some level headed believers and stop making the Word a matter of private interpretation. Even with all the hoopla around here, it’s pretty easy to distinguish the believers from the rest.

I’m not trying to put you down, but rather invite you in and you are out there. Your avatar is at least honest” you don’t know, and you can’t know until you accept Christ and are a part of His body. Believe me, there is still room for disagreement about a lot of things, but who Jesus is isn’t one of them. Keep digging as we all are, but maybe you need to dig in a new hole. I’m just one pirate telling another pirate where he found gold.

In love,
Philetus
 

Philetus

New member
Patman: These are verses I would use to back up the claim that God does not possess 100% future knowledge nor 100% present knowledge. Such a sinful, heart-breaking city would be just the thing God doesn't want to think about day and night, so he put out of his sight, but he still heard how bad it was enough to take action.

That is so good Patman!
It immediately me think of God turning away from the cross causing Jesus to cry out, why have you forsaken me. How hard it must be for God to look upon our sin. What grace and love! Makes you want to pray for the lost.
Philetus
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Most Open Theists say that God knows the past and present exhaustively. It would be strange if the devil or sinning men know present facts that the omnipresent/omniscient God does not know. The idea of God chosing to not know something He could or should know is kinda unique to some TOL Open theists (the way God does not know some of the future is by chosing to create a partially open/unsettled future, not turning off His 'brain').
 

Bacon

New member
Figurative?? Pretended ignorance??

Figurative?? Pretended ignorance??

Ok, we have established that I am a heretic, ignorant, use a Satanic Bible, must be part of evil cults, and have sloppy exegesis, etc. Fine.

So the Honorable and Correct Read - the "Orthodontist's" Reading - is either:

godrulz --- the text is figurative - a figure of what? A figure of what the text would look like if Stupid Heretics wrote it?

Patman -- the god, unable to bear the dreadful site of people having anal sex, has shut the city out of his Infinite Mind: Umm, then why does he go down from his city in the sky to investigate the reports that they are really dreadful? Why not just turn his Infinite Mind back on?

But this is not an isolated text but rather a representative one. So I am asking you to tell me which of the following passages of scripture are figurative, and which accurately describe the interactions of the god with men:

* the god shapes a statue of himself from clay and animates it with his breath
* the god takes six days to fashion the sky ceiling and the dry land, then rests to refresh himseslf
* the god walks with his dirtling friend in the garden, but one afternoon he can't find him
* the god's sons come down from the sky to get laid and have families - they are DNA compatible so they produce fertile offspring - just kinda tall
* the god regrets making people
* the god is threatened by a tower that almost reaches up to his kingdom in the sky
* the god comes down to investigate reports that a city is really acting badly
* first he and three of his sons [all basically men] stop to visit his friend Abraham and confer with him
* he tests Abraham to find out if he is a true and faithful friend and discovers that he is

Are these figurative stories because we would be confused by the facts?

No, this is consistent in scripture from Genesis to...

Re 4:4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

In Revelation, as in Genesis, the god is a man, a king who rules in the sky. He sits on a chair. People wear clothes. Earth's materials are there: gold, linen. His sons are there. A couple of dirtlings like Elijah and Jesus are there.

How did Jesus get to the god? Did he zip through dimensions? No, he flew like a rocket up to the sky where just behind the clouds, just on top of the sky ceiling was a *city* - and in the city a temple, a throne, his many sons...

Genesis to Revelation, this is how the god is portrayed.

Or is it all figurative?

Please desist calling me names and deal with the text in an intelligent manner. Answer these questions:

* according to the scriptures, where is the god?
* according to the scriptures, where is the Jesus?
* according to the scriptures, what does Jesus look like right now? What is he made of?
* according to the scriptures, what does the god look like? Is he naked?
* according to the scriptures, what do the god's sons look like? Are they naked?

You have the floor. Grab your bibles and show me the Truth as you see it.
 

patman

Active member
Bacon said:
Ok, we have established that I am a heretic, ignorant, use a Satanic Bible, must be part of evil cults, and have sloppy exegesis, etc. Fine.

....

Patman -- the god, unable to bear the dreadful site of people having anal sex, has shut the city out of his Infinite Mind: Umm, then why does he go down from his city in the sky to investigate the reports that they are really dreadful? Why not just turn his Infinite Mind back on?

So I am asking you to tell me which of the following passages of scripture are figurative, and which accurately describe the interactions of the god with men:

* the god shapes a statue of himself from clay and animates it with his breath
* the god takes six days to fashion the sky ceiling and the dry land, then rests to refresh himseslf
* the god walks with his dirtling friend in the garden, but one afternoon he can't find him
* the god's sons come down from the sky to get laid and have families - they are DNA compatible so they produce fertile offspring - just kinda tall
* the god regrets making people
* the god is threatened by a tower that almost reaches up to his kingdom in the sky
* the god comes down to investigate reports that a city is really acting badly
* first he and three of his sons [all basically men] stop to visit his friend Abraham and confer with him
* he tests Abraham to find out if he is a true and faithful friend and discovers that he is

.....

In Revelation, as in Genesis, the god is a man, a king who rules in the sky. He sits on a chair. People wear clothes. Earth's materials are there: gold, linen. His sons are there. A couple of dirtlings like Elijah and Jesus are there.

bacon, let me first off say I have in no way insulted you nor intended to do so. I simply think you have let your studies get the best of you in turning you agnostic.

Also, I didn't say God turns off his brain or posses knowledge he can simply turn back on. Your misunderstanding of me caused you to question something I didn't even say, so let me try again to put it better this time.

God has the power to know want he does and does not want to know. Simply put. He seems to investigate the things he has put out of his mind by actual investigation that he may make a wise decision.

All the stories you refer to should not be taken figuratively. They are accounts of events that happened.

However, sometimes figurative language is used in explaining them.

"I the beginning was the word" is figurative speech. You cant just say "oh Jesus was a word at one time." It is trying to say that the Jesus' purpose on earth was planned from the beginning! The word, the good news Jesus spoke to us was always with God, and creation was made through him.

The "Word" describes a person, Jesus, and his actual words, i.e. the good news of salvation. The two cannot be separated because they are apart of each other. Jesus' message is about him, and the message isn't complete until he is there. The plan for salvation and the man involving with the plan was always there, with God. Everything was created because of this plan(made possible by Jesus), otherwise God wouldn't have created us, because there would be a chance that we would have died without hope of salvation if we needed it.

This really is exciting to understand. It says so much in such a beautiful way with so few words. But it is figuratively written. We know because of it's poetic nature.

You see these stories and read scripture and have concluded we should take them as fact. I agree.

However, I believe you are trying to make them to technical. Example, let's say someone wrote a story about me.

In the first chapter I am making money playing piano. In the center I am again playing piano. The in the very end I am playing piano. You would conclude I am a piano player by occupation because there it is in black and white. But it may be true that at times I play, but I am truly more of an artist. I just happen to play piano from time to time.

Technically speaking I indeed have been a piano player, but in actuality I am not really a piano player, I draw. The same can be said of God, the father. At times he appears as a man. That does not mean he really is a man. In fact many times he claim not to be a man and separates himself from us. However, God, the son, has put on flesh and become a man.

We do not read in the bible as you put it, that the son was created at conception and became the son, instead we see he was always there that he humbled himself to become a man, put on flesh, and remains like that today. Always God, but changed into a man.

This act again demonstrates God's ability to put things away for him, such as knowledge. Jesus elected to give up what he knew as God in order to become man too save us. Doesn't mean he can't ever know it again, it just means he can do it. And it doesn't go to say that knowledge is a light switch that God turns on and off, he turns it off, he then goes out to regain it if he needs it.

So the future, not knowing one present event would be impossible to also have absolute future knowledge.
 

Bacon

New member
Figurative language and optional knowledge

Figurative language and optional knowledge

Patman, I was not offended by your posts except that you said that my interpretations are based on an agenda to make the god seem smaller than he actually is. In reality I am making every effort to paint an accurate picture inductively, rather than say that though the text portrays the god as a man like deity who lives in the sky we know that he is actually an infinite cosmic intelligence with no form who is in all places and all times simultaneously, etc...

The scriptures speak of the god as living in a particular place: the sky. "Heaven" is just archaic for "sky." It is not another dimension. It is always presumed to be "up" and "above" because the bible writers did not realize that they were on a planet spinning endlessly in an apparently infinite space. What is up today is down tonight, then up again the next day. The god would have to have been up during the day, "our father below" that night. This is because they were ignorant of the cosmology that we now know with great clarity. We know there is no city above the clouds, no king on a throne, no army of his sons, no golden street, no temple, no wars, no reservoir of water, no windows to open to send down rain. We know the stars are not small lights embeded into the ceiling like a planetarium.

And it is incorrect that the historic view of the deity is that of a cosmic formless "spirit." If you look at christian art throughout the centuries then it will become crystal clear that they understood the god and his sons to be men, or essentially men. For example:

http://www.artofeurope.com/michelangelo/mic4.jpg

I am sure you are familiar with the Sistine Chapel. There the god is a muscular old man touching the finger of Adam, who has clearly been made in his image and likeness.

Your piano playing illustration, I believe, was to say that though god appears to be a man, he is not a man. Is that your point? Well, I would agree. I would say that man was made to be like the god, though the gods are taller, had the knowledge of good and evil without eating magic fruit, live in the sky and have mighty powers. But the sons of the god were DNA compatible with humans, so we would have to classify them in the species "Homo Sapien."

Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Ge 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The adversary is also one of the sons of the gods so he is essentially human as well:

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What people need to realize is the degree to which modern theology (popular modern theology) has been influenced by dualism - the idea that there are two kinds of matter: matter and spirit. This is not a biblical idea. The Hebrews were strict materialists. Everything, whether it was the god, the divine kingdom, human motives and intelligence, were based in matter.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Bacon: I did not say nor suspect that you use the Satanic Bible. I gave a list asking for the source of your views that included writings that deny biblical truth about Christ, etc.
 

Bacon

New member
Getting back to the text...

Getting back to the text...

godrulz said:
Bacon: I did not say nor suspect that you use the Satanic Bible. I gave a list asking for the source of your views that included writings that deny biblical truth about Christ, etc.

Here is what you wrote that I was alluding to, tongue firmly planted in my cheek:

godrulz said:
Are you reading the Satanic Bible or Jehovah's Witness Watchtower? Are you reading Deist writings? Your ideas resonate more with them than any Bible translation (I own many and have read several cover to cover over the last 25 years). Your ideas are NOT biblical, historical, Christianity. We could refute your erroneous assumptions one by one with Bible verses in context.

The point I was making was that while I am making my points with the judicious use of scripture, much of the conversation has been diverted to discussing my possible link to Al Queda, the Illuminati, the Syrian Palace Guard, "kooks" and The Council for Bad Translations!

What I am asking for is merely the correct exegesis of say Romans 6:10, Hebrews 5, the passages in Genesis and Revelation that I cited (from the KJV, unless otherwise noted!)

I mean, have I quoted the NWT? Do my views agree with the Watchtower Society? No. Sure, I have much more respect for their views their views and their translation than say the NIV or the Westminster Confession, but that is where it ends. I have never been in a Kingdom Hall or had a study in my home. To my knowledge they would balk at the idea of the god being a man like deity who lives in the sky, Jesus being a non-preexistent sinner, etc.

Let's get to the text. Can you, or anyone on this list, offer sound exegesis of the passages I have cited? It is not convincing to me to say that the scriptures are being figurative during these narratives.

godrulz, how do you exposit Romans 6:10? What does it mean that "in that he died, he died to sin once, and in that he lives, he lives to the god?"

What does "learend obedience" mean in English? What about "being made perfect" mean in this context?

Hebrews 5:
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hebrews 1:3 is also very informative however the English translations are all too corrupt for you to appreciate. But it is actually saying that Jesus was purified from his own sins and thus entered into priestly service.
 

patman

Active member
Bacon said:
Patman, I was not offended by your posts except that you said that my interpretations are based on an agenda to make the god seem smaller than he actually is.
....

What people need to realize is the degree to which modern theology (popular modern theology) has been influenced by dualism - the idea that there are two kinds of matter: matter and spirit. This is not a biblical idea. The Hebrews were strict materialists. Everything, whether it was the god, the divine kingdom, human motives and intelligence, were based in matter.

It is easy to read an old book with modern eyes. That is why we can't be to technical in our readings. DNA compatibility with angelic beings is our modern way of explaining a supernatural event. It is not the only explanation, especially when we consider we know so little about the spirit "world".

Dimensions, these are modern creations, we shouldn't read them into the word, i agree. But DNA and late astronomical discoveries do not prove there is no "city in the sky," I do not think of heaven is being in the sky, per-say, I rather take it to mean that God is Higher in that he has a vantage point that he can see and know more and keep up with more, on an infinite scale, as if he were someone high up in a watch tower..

God's right eye could be the sun, his left the moon, giving him full vantage over the world. I am speaking figuratively of course. God has eyes everywhere. The glassy sea could be his TV set to the entire world. And yes, he can change the channel if he doesn't like watching what he sees.

It is my belief this "TV" doesn't tune in the future.

So I agree that we should read the word as it "reads", not with modern eyes or preconceived notions. I do not believe you have an agenda, i just think you have simply though to much about how simple the Bible might make God seem in places, and that has lead you to humanizing him too much.

The analogy of the piano was to say that truth can be more than one thing, God can be man, and God, or he can be whatever he likes, but he is always God, with the supernatural power he possesses.

The natural and the supernatural, aka spiritual and physical, are concepts we can see play out in the word. You too put an earthly/modern spin on old text, reading it with your own understandings.

It is fruitless to explain how Supernatural beings might achieve a natural event by using natural concepts. We really don't know much about this to make a conclusion, all we know is it was an evil thing that happened and God had to take action, that's the point. Not "angel DNA is compatible with human."

If you want to get technical with the story and pull another thing out of it besides what it is trying to say, it is more likely to try to explain it in a supernatural realm than physical.

What probably happened was in the Beginning, God made beings with creative powers, such that they could make a baby from what God already made. Not manifesting, but re-creating. These beings feel listening to Satan and began to misuse their powers, and doing it in a perverted way via sex. OR they could have been human like beings, doing things they shouldn't. God put them away in a place they are still at today, probably in the prison "under the earth" as described in Revelation.

But it doesn't matter, it is all guessing to no point or purpose, the story is trying to tell us why things were so bad, not an academy lesson on angels and humans.

My advise is to stop being technical about how things work in supernatural places, we can never explain them anyway. God is supernatural, but still able to choose what he can and cannot and or will not do. I believe this is all we can gather from the stories you use to show God's "manhood."
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
godrulz, how do you exposit Romans 6:10? What does it mean that "in that he died, he died to sin once, and in that he lives, he lives to the god?"

What does "learend obedience" mean in English? What about "being made perfect" mean in this context?

Hebrews 5:
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Hebrews 1:3 is also very informative however the English translations are all too corrupt for you to appreciate. But it is actually saying that Jesus was purified from his own sins and thus entered into priestly service.

Rom. 6:10, in context, affirms that Christ died as a substitute for the penalty of sin, once for all, in contrast to repeated animal sacrifices. He is the sinless, Holy One of Israel, a Lamb without blemish. The life He lives, He lives to the Father (God). This does not preclude Him from being Deity as part of the triune Godhead. Paul is making an analogy of Christ's sinless life, substitutionary atonement, and resurrection for our identification with Him in death to Self and newness of life in Christ. Other verses refute your idea that Christ had sin.

Heb. 5:8, 9 This relates to Christ's voluntary submission to the Father while the God-man on earth. He obeyed the Father as we are to also obey God. Obedience does not make us sinless nor deal with our sin. Obedience did not mean Christ had sin. 'Perfect' also means mature. Jesus was God, but He grew/matured as a man (Lk. 2:52). He was perfect in one sense as God, but matured as a man dependent on the Spirit of God. This does not preclude sinless perfection.

Hebrews 1:3 This is an affirmation of His Deity and equality with the Father. As the spotless Lamb of God, He takes away sins of the world. He provides purification for our sins, not for His own sins (He is holy/sinless).

He is a substitute for the penalty of sin (death). We are sinners, condemned (Rom. 1-3). He is not a sinner, but the Savior (Hebrews/Romans 4; 5).
 

Bacon

New member
Exegesis? Or "I-see-Je-sus"?

Exegesis? Or "I-see-Je-sus"?

godrulz said:
Rom. 6:10, in context, affirms that Christ died as a substitute for the penalty of sin, once for all, in contrast to repeated animal sacrifices. He is the sinless, Holy One of Israel, a Lamb without blemish. The life He lives, He lives to the Father (God). This does not preclude Him from being Deity as part of the triune Godhead. Paul is making an analogy of Christ's sinless life, substitutionary atonement, and resurrection for our identification with Him in death to Self and newness of life in Christ. Other verses refute your idea that Christ had sin.

godrulz, this is not exegesis. This is looking at words that say that Jesus "died to sin" and then ignoring them and saying "Christ died as a penalty of sin, once for all...etc."

So is the christian to have a like death? Do christians die as a substitute for the sins of others? I thought believers were to, like Jesus, die to sin?

10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 ***Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin***, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Where do the scriptures say that Jesus died as a substitute for the penalty of sin? Where that he was a "substitutionary atonement"?

godrulz, my exegesis is faithful to the text; yours to Catholic/Protestant/Trinitarian dogma.

godrulz said:
Heb. 5:8, 9 This relates to Christ's voluntary submission to the Father while the God-man on earth. He obeyed the Father as we are to also obey God. Obedience does not make us sinless nor deal with our sin. Obedience did not mean Christ had sin. 'Perfect' also means mature. Jesus was God, but He grew/matured as a man (Lk. 2:52). He was perfect in one sense as God, but matured as a man dependent on the Spirit of God. This does not preclude sinless perfection.

So obedience to one's god is optional? Obedience to one's father is optional? The son is equal to the father? It might just as easily been the father that became obedient to the son? In what way is the father greater than the son?

Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

godrulz said:
Hebrews 1:3 This is an affirmation of His Deity and equality with the Father. As the spotless Lamb of God, He takes away sins of the world. He provides purification for our sins, not for His own sins (He is holy/sinless).
He is a substitute for the penalty of sin (death). We are sinners, condemned (Rom. 1-3). He is not a sinner, but the Savior (Hebrews/Romans 4; 5).

"Purification" was done first for the sins of the priest, BEFORE they entered into their intercession. So Jesus;

Heb 7:
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: ***for this he did once, when he offered up himself***.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated [made perferct] for evermore.

Jesus made purification for his own sins, then, having been consecrated and freed from death he was able to enter into his intercessory role:

Heb 9:
7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, ***not without blood, which he offered for himself***, and for the errors of the people:
8 ¶ The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not ***make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience***;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, ***but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption*** for us [the words "for us" are specious additions].
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit [breath - by the virtue of an endless life] offered himself [to serve as priest] without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Jesus died to sin, became free from death, was resurrected, became perfect and presented himself to serve as a priest to the god, and ever lives in order to make intercession.

You try to bend the text to fit your preconceived notions. Not good. It says he died to sin. It explains why this was necessary, per the pattern and the qualifications of the priesthood. I realize that this is not the Catholic/Protestant/Trinitarian dogma but so be it.

So tell me...where is the god? Where is Jesus?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Jn. 14:28 relates to the humanity of Jesus. The Father was greater positionally than Jesus while Jesus was incarnated. Other verses show that they are equal by nature/essence/substance. Hebrews 1 and 2 show that Jesus is better or superior to angels as their Creator, even though He was lower than them while a man. Confusing position and nature confuses you. The President is greater by His office and authority than us, but he is not better than us by our common humanity. He is equal as a man, but greater in his office.

This is a favorite Arian/JW proof text that has an easy resolution that does not contradict the verses affirming His Deity and equality with the Father/Spirit.
 

Bacon

New member
Greater "positionally"

Greater "positionally"

godrulz said:
Jn. 14:28 relates to the humanity of Jesus. The Father was greater positionally than Jesus while Jesus was incarnated. Other verses show that they are equal by nature/essence/substance. Hebrews 1 and 2 show that Jesus is better or superior to angels as their Creator, even though He was lower than them while a man. Confusing position and nature confuses you. The President is greater by His office and authority than us, but he is not better than us by our common humanity. He is equal as a man, but greater in his office.

This is a favorite Arian/JW proof text that has an easy resolution that does not contradict the verses affirming His Deity and equality with the Father/Spirit.

Sort of like the middle 6 in 666. They are all sixes, but the one in the middle is less than the one on the left but greater than the one on the right. Ok, well you are committed to your position and I guess I won't do any good to beat a dead horse.

So what about how you change "died to sin" to "died for sin?" Are words really that plastic for those who "have the anointing?"

Ok, well then can you at least answer the questions I posed?

Where is the god?
Where is Jesus?

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top