Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect. Colossians 1:17 is clear. You MUST wrestle with Colossians 1:15-20
Please do so. -Lon
Incorrect. Colossians 1:17 is clear. You MUST wrestle with Colossians 1:15-20
Incorrect. Colossians 1:17 is clear. You MUST wrestle with Colossians 1:15-20
Please do so. -Lon
Tam, I believe Jesus Christ is God, but do you think those that don't are not saved or not Christians. Is it possible to believe that Jesus Christ IS Divine but not God?
Yes, but so would be the existence of anyone that we personally haven't seen with our own eyes. Jesus' existence is accepted by even those that couldn't stand him.
Is there extra-biblical evidence that Jesus existed? How about TACITUS (Gaius Publius Cornelius Tacitus)? He was alive c.55/56 A.D. to 118 A.D., a Roman senator, orator and ethnographer---considered "the best of Roman historians." He first mentioned Christians when he wrote about the 64 A.D. fire in Rome, of which Nero was suspected of setting. Tacitus despised the Christians. He wrote to exonerate Nero:
"Neither human effort nor the emperor's generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered [by Nero]. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts...whom the crowd called 'Christians.' The founder of this name, Christ [Christusin Latin], had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate." (Annals)
The leading historian of Rome in the first century accepted the fact that this Christus existed, after which the group of Christians was formed.
I started the previous post with the same name to encourage people to explain how 2 particular verses could possibly be referring to just one individual. The scriptures are:
Psalm 110
Isaiah 61:1,2
No one has attempted to explain these verses yet. What is the problem? I would like the people who believe that Jesus is YHWH to share their thoughts as to why these verses do NOT refer to two different Persons.
Why does Jesus need to be 'God'? According to whom? Even the gospel Paul preached does NOT require such a belief, as it focuses on a cosmic Christ figure dying for sins and being resurrected, not exclusively Jesus assumed divinity, and even still no matter how much divinity you ascribe him, he is still the SON of a greater Deity-Father.
Different views on Jesus were assumed and developed during the formative years of Christianity until some became the more traditional orthodox assumption, yet such a consensus does not guarentee truth. As I've shared elsewhere, you cannot prove a Trinitarian Christology is any better or more true than a traditional Unitarian one beyond your own personal opinion that such is the case.
You're in an even more sketchy predicament in assuming Jesus is the same YHWH in the OT who commands wholesale genocide, physical mutilation (circumcision), animal sacrifice, slavery, and other harmful decrees while demanding exclusive worship and veneration. This is why some earlier 'christians' (Marcionites, some Gnostics) tended to reject yhwh of the OT as a 'lesser' god or demiurge, seeing Jesus as a divinely sent and anointed prophet, yes....but sent by the true and living God,....the ineffable Father (the unknown God). In this view Jesus and yhwh are quite different, much less related.
I wondered that myself.
If a perfect man, the son of God, was sufficient payment for our sins, isn't God wise enough not to pay more?
Jesus Christ, the man, was perfect payment on our behalf.
God, who is the eternal spirit, cannot die, because as scripture makes clear, He is eternal.
If God died, then who raised Him from the dead? If He was still alive, then He did not die for our sins.
I wonder which way is right for them?
Or will they submit that God can to anything, which is erroneous, because God cannot lie for one thing.
Why does Jesus need to be 'God'?
According to whom?
Even the gospel Paul preached does NOT require such a belief, as it focuses on a cosmic Christ figure dying for sins and being resurrected, not exclusively Jesus assumed divinity, and even still no matter how much divinity you ascribe him, he is still the SON of a greater Deity-Father.
Different views on Jesus were assumed and developed during the formative years of Christianity until some became the more traditional orthodox assumption, yet such a consensus does not guarentee truth.
As I've shared elsewhere, you cannot prove a Trinitarian Christology is any better or more true than a traditional Unitarian one beyond your own personal opinion that such is the case.
You're in an even more sketchy predicament in assuming Jesus is the same YHWH in the OT who commands wholesale genocide, physical mutilation (circumcision), animal sacrifice, slavery, and other harmful decrees while demanding exclusive worship and veneration.
This is why some earlier 'christians' (Marcionites, some Gnostics) tended to rejectyhwhYHWH
of the OT as a 'lesser' god or demiurge, seeing Jesus as a divinely sent and anointed prophet, yes....but sent by the true and living God,....the ineffable Father (the unknown God). In this view Jesus and yhwh are quite different, much less related.
I wondered that myself.
If a perfect man, the son of God, was sufficient payment for our sins, isn't God wise enough not to pay more?
Jesus Christ, the man, was perfect payment on our behalf.
God, who is the eternal spirit, cannot die, because as scripture makes clear, He is eternal.
If God died, then who raised Him from the dead? If He was still alive, then He did not die for our sins.
I wonder which way is right for them?
Or will they submit that God can to anything, which is erroneous, because God cannot lie for one thing.
Who is the only One who has infinite worth?
It's certainly not any man.
What kind of price must be paid for sin? Not one that any man can pay, and that's just for his own sin.
So if there's a need for payment, and the payment required is more than any one man can pay, and there is more than one person that sins, then there is no way that one man can pay for all sin. Not even a perfect man.
Hear this, all peoples; Give ear, all inhabitants of the world,Both low and high, Rich and poor together.My mouth shall speak wisdom, And the meditation of my heart shall give understanding.I will incline my ear to a proverb; I will disclose my dark saying on the harp.Why should I fear in the days of evil, When the iniquity at my heels surrounds me?Those who trust in their wealth And boast in the multitude of their riches,None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him—For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever—That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit.For he sees wise men die; Likewise the fool and the senseless person perish, And leave their wealth to others.Their inner thought is that their houses will last forever, Their dwelling places to all generations; They call their lands after their own names.Nevertheless man, though in honor, does not remain; He is like the beasts that perish.This is the way of those who are foolish, And of their posterity who approve their sayings. SelahLike sheep they are laid in the grave; Death shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, For He shall receive me. SelahDo not be afraid when one becomes rich, When the glory of his house is increased;For when he dies he shall carry nothing away; His glory shall not descend after him.Though while he lives he blesses himself (For men will praise you when you do well for yourself),He shall go to the generation of his fathers; They shall never see light.A man who is in honor, yet does not understand, Is like the beasts that perish. - Psalm 49:1-20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm49:1-20&version=NKJV
God, who told us through His word, the Bible.
No, but believing the Bible does require such a belief, that Christ is God.
It's not just Paul's teachings, because He was teaching something that was hidden, a mystery. What was it hidden in? Try the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, what we know as the Old Testament.
That's true for anything. Which is why we use the Bible as our foundation, and not the teachings of men.
Go read my posts to Keypurr in the "The Trinity" and "Jesus is God" threads. Or, if you'd like, I could post it here. In it, I showed, using only scripture, and not any church doctrine or teaching, that the Trinity is taught in the Bible.
You think that God was mean in the Old Testament and then went to counseling in the inter-testament period, and is nice in the New Testament? You're in for a surprise.
Tell me, Freelight, How many of the people who died in the Flood were wicked? How many were righteous?
Tell me, Freelight, what is circumcision a symbol of? Do you even know?
Tell me Freelight, what are the animal sacrifices for?
Tell me, Freelight, what happens when people don't pay for their actions? What if they cannot pay for their crimes? Does the Bible ever say that slavery is wrong? Are there different types of slavery?
Tell me Freelight, what harmful decrees can come from a holy, righteous, just, and loving God, when not even the curse placed on Adam and Eve were meant for harm, but for their own benefit?
Fixed that for you.
They rejected Him not because of what the Bible says about Him, but because they couldn't accept what the Bible says of Him.
I started the previous post with the same name to encourage people to explain how 2 particular verses could possibly be referring to just one individual. The scriptures are:
Psalm 110
Isaiah 61:1,2
No one has attempted to explain these verses yet. What is the problem? I would like the people who believe that Jesus is YHWH to share their thoughts as to why these verses do NOT refer to two different Persons.
Freelight, I will compose my response over the next few days. I will post it when ready.
Jesus was crucified for blasphemy
Throughout the Old Testament YHWH is the one who created creation. And the New Testament Jesus is the one who is named as being the creator of creation. (John 1:3, Col 1:6, Heb 1:2 and Gen 1:1; is 42:5, 43:1)
So when we look at NT authors they apply OT texts about YHWH to Jesus we see that the NT authors did consider Jesus to be YHWH.
If the NT authors were wrong, and applied YHWH texts to Jesus in error then the those NT authors would need to be thrown out of what is considered theopneustos (God Breathed).
Well, thats debatable, let alone what powers/authorities were behind the 'killing' of Jesus, whether Roman or Jewish reasons, and noting different gospel accounts.
But the problem of identity continues, since the orthodox Trinity formula always claims distinction of persons (NOT confusing the persons), so that YHWH (the Father) cannot be Christ (the Son), while the Son acts as the 'agent' of creation, the Deity using the 'logos' to create THRU, and this can further be relationally explained in various ways thru traditional greek-logos philosophy, since Philo and other greek/pagan philosophers were already expounding similar themes and concepts during the NT period and earlier.
You can only claim the MAN Jesus is YHWH by metaphysical gymnastics, since the man Jesus could never be Almighty 'God' by definition, even if you entertain some divine incarnation or human assumption, mix and merge humanity and divinity anyway you fancy. You're furthermore complicating Jesus as being the same being that commands genocide, slavery, animal blood sacrafice, human mutilation and other atrocities. Remember Jesus oftimes would say "you have heard it said of old,...BUT I SAY TO YOU....." - Jesus brought a better more correct spiritual truth, teaching or principle to REPLACE the older sayings, laws and assumptions of the previous dispensation. This appears to be a deviation from yhwh of the OT, and certain older Jewish customs and traditions.
And do note equations of Jesus as somehow being YHWH are self serving to those subscribing to a particular Christology. A 'God' cannot be the Son of himself (beyond some kind of pantheistic extension), but a God can produce a Son and/or sons, hence we see 'God' the Universal Father, being the Father of all generated, begotten beings. Only the Father alone is unbegotten.
Any passages using OT passages to apply to Jesus can be variously 'interpreted'. The bible is a compilations of books written by various human authors, some books maybe more inspired than others, but by no means infallible.
How do you determine or even 'prove' what passages are 'inspired' and which ones are more or less non-inspired or even erroneous?
Elsewhere I've contended the doctrine of 'biblical inerrancy' is 'unnecessary', since one can still use religious writings in an edifying way, without believing those writings are perfect. The burden of proof would be upon the 'claimant' of biblical inerrancy to make his case, but such is a matter of personal 'belief', not of absolute certainty. It becomes a matter of faith, but 'faith' can be misplaced or unintelligently applied.
Thanks for your reply.
Ultimately, it looks like you have a different view of the Biblical Text.
Therefore, we will obviously come to different conclusions on what the text says.
If you don’t believe it’s God breathed - then you have no foundation.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Curious, if you can’t trust the text, then how do you decide what is and is not “inspired”?
Sent from my iPhone using TOL