1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI guess you're just going to ignore the fact that the Hebrew doesn't say what you assert it says,
======================================
BUT NEVER IN A MILLION ZILLION SQUILLION TRILLION YEARS HAS HE EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER BEEN CALLED ALMIGHTY GOD, NEVER!!!!!
you cannot prove it, the game is over, you and the other trinitarians have been checkmated, and the sadness of this is, that from now on, your other assertions will also be treat ow both Jehovah and Jesus could be the First and the Last unless Jesus is Jehovah God incarnate.
right?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillRepeating an assertion does not equate with defending the assertion logically. And only in
Satan, Listen to me.
Jesus Christ is the Almighty God.
cartoons does it work in compelling someone to a certain point of view.
Bugs: Duck season.
Daffy: Rabbit season.
Bugs: Duck season.
Daffy: Rabbit season.
Bugs: Duck season.
Daffy: Rabbit season.
Bugs: Rabbit season.
Daffy: Duck season.
Bugs: Rabbit season.
Daffy: Duck season.
Bugs: Rabbit season.
Daffy: Duck season, and that's final.
Bugs: Fine. Duck season it is.
Nemesio
4 edits
Originally posted by NemesioIf you are talking to me it is not necessary to go into the original language to show that Christ is God incarnate.
I guess you're just going to ignore the fact that the Hebrew doesn't say what you assert it says,
right?
Nemesio
Appeals to the original language to evade Isaiah 9:6 are smoke screens. It is not necessary because the Mighty God is the same God as the Almighty God (Gen. 17:1; 35:11; 48:3; Exo. 6:2 and Jer. 32:17,18, Psalm 50:1; Duet 10:17; )
Jesus is Jehovah God come in the flesh. He is not the archangel Michael. He is not a lesser God who was created and is not from everlasting as the Eternal Father Whom the Son given shall be called.
The heresy of the incomplete divinity of Jesus Christ was rejected at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Not that I hold any council above the Bible. But it proves that the old heresy was seen through and rejected long ago, rightly.
Whatever else one may criticize about the Council of Nicea they were correct according to Scripture to defend the Trinity and reject the heresy of the incomplete divinity of Christ.
A simple brother by the name of Potamon of Heraklea who was maimed and blinded on one eye in persecution reminded the participants:
"Christ and the Apostles left us not a system of logic, nor a vain deceit, but the naked truth, to be guarded by faith and good works."
Between the Tri-Theism of Arius and the orthodox testimony of the Triune God by Athanasius, Arius was rejected rightly. And Athansius was more true to the Bible's revelation.
Believe what you want. Anyone, Christian or otherwise, who denies that the Bible teaches of One God - Father - Son - Holy Spirit is 1800 hundreds years too late to pass this over as sound teaching to the Christian church.
1 edit
I did not read all the comments of two participants after a certain point.
If there were things which someone wanted to privately apologize for that is accepted and forgiven.
I received a private note from someone. And I said I likewise made sure any apology owed by me was forthcoming.
However, I don't apologize to any participant for Isaiah 9:6 saying that the Son is the Eternal Father.
When I was younger and read some of the Bible, I got the impression that when Jesus called himself a son of God, he meant it in the sense that we are all sons of God. I also notice that a number of other people claim that God is in them and God speaks through them etc.
To what extent would it weaken the argument that Jesus was God if we consider the possibility that when Jesus says certain things he is referring to the God in him that many Christians speak of?
Jesus is clearly not alien to such concepts as he also says that he is in all down trodden poor people etc.
Also, concerning prophesies, when a prophesy says God will return in the form of a prophet or savior, it does not necessarily mean that the prophet or savior is God himself.
3 edits
======================================
When I was younger and read some of the Bible, I got the impression that when Jesus called himself a son of God, he meant it in the sense that we are all sons of God.
=========================================
Jesus said that some people were children of the devil in John 8.
In verse 41 Jesus taught "You do the works of your father. They then said to Him, We were not born of fornication, we have one Father, God. (v.41)
" Jesus said to them, If God were your Father you would love Me; for I came forth out from God and have come [from Him]; for I have no come of Myself, but He sent Me. (v.42)
Why do you not understand My speaking? It is because you cannot hear My word. (v.43)
You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own [possessions]; for he is a liar and the father of it." (v. 44)
The Bible says that all men are made in the image of God. And in Acts Paul quotes some pagan poet that we all are offspring of God, in order to underline man's closeness to God.
But John 8 clearly demonstrates that Christ exposed those who sought to fight against Him and destroy Him as children of the devil.
They too were in need of salvation that they might be born of God like all the others (John 3) to have the Spirit of God and the Person of God to be their inner life.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillYou clearly place more emphasis on the teachings of MAN than the teachings of Christ or Paul. You are like the Pharisees whom Christ condemned in the strongest language.
If you are talking to me it is not necessary to go into the original language to show that Christ is God incarnate.
Appeals to the original language to evade [b]Isaiah 9:6 are smoke screens. It is not necessary because the Mighty God is the same God as the Almighty God (Gen. 17:1; 35:11; 48:3; Exo. 6:2 and Jer. 32:17,18, Psalm 50:1; Duet 10:17; )[ ...[text shortened]... is 1800 hundreds years too late to pass this over as sound teaching to the Christian church.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillRabbit season.
If you are talking to me it is not necessary to go into the original language to show that Christ is God incarnate.
Appeals to the original language to evade [b]Isaiah 9:6 are smoke screens.[/b]
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! The original language is just confusing! The Jews
don't know what they're talking about! When we Christians who have the TRUTH translate
these texts, we know what the Hebrew really says!
It's so sad to see you flounder around with your head in the sand. If you want to ignore the actual
words of God and worship the idol of a Bible, that's fine. But don't accuse me of evading. I'm the
one actually tackling the text; you're using the smoke screen that obscures translating the meaning.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillThat same council ratified the seven so-called apocrypha as Scripture.
The heresy of the incomplete divinity of Jesus Christ was rejected at the Council of Nicea in [b]325 AD. Not that I hold any council above the Bible. But it proves that the old heresy was seen through and rejected long ago, rightly.
Whatever else one may criticize about the Council of Nicea they were correct according to Scripture to defend the Trinity and reject the heresy of the incomplete divinity of Christ.[/b]
You accept one of their findings and reject the other. Shocking.
Your use of the Council is a disingenuous attempt to give credence to your position. But you don't
accept the Council as binding, so what is it then? It's merely a reflection of the ebb and flow in
the tide of Christian belief. You flow with that tide, regardless of the complete absence of the
Doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus' Divinity in the Bible. You are not 'sola Scriptura,' as you'd like to
claim; you embrace a significant portion of tradition as well.
Your allusion to a Council is merely a disingenuous attempt to bolster your argument -- Look,
see, even they saw that Jesus was Divine and that the Trinity existed. But so what? They
could be just as wrong. You're not Roman Catholic. You don't believe that the statements of
faith from this Council is binding. You even reject other aspects of this same Council.
What you're doing is taking a pre-accepted dogma and looking backwards at all the people who
agreed with you as a way to justify it. But you still can't find a Biblical justification for it, so even
if you found a billion post-Biblical sources from the fourth century to the present day, that doesn't
change the fact that it's a Creedal belief, not a Biblical one.
Which is fine, by the way. I just insist that you be honest about the kind of belief.
Nemesio
6 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio=================================
That same council ratified the seven so-called apocrypha as Scripture.
You accept one of their findings and reject the other. Shocking.
Your use of the Council is a disingenuous attempt to give credence to your position. But you don't
accept the Council as binding, so what is it then? It's merely a reflection of the ebb and flow in
the tide of Chr , by the way. I just insist that you be honest about the kind of belief.
Nemesio
That same council ratified the seven so-called apocrypha as Scripture.
=================================
You saw what I wrote. I said on this point of the complete divinity of Christ they were right.
And it is not as if they officially defined a truth. They simply RECOGNIZED a truth. That is all.
They pronounced in essense "We recognize that this is the real true teaching of all the relevant passages on the Person of Christ."
======================================
You accept one of their findings and reject the other. Shocking.
=======================================
I do not accept the errors that they had. I accept the truth that they regcognized. They mentioned nothing about the Seven Spirits of God in Revelation. But the Seven Spirit of God in Revelation is very important because that is the Holy Spirit.
So I affirm with them that the divinity of Jesus Christ in the Bible is complete and not partial as Arius wanted to teach. This does not mean that I endorse everything that came out of the council.
If you recall I wrote that I do not hold the councils and creeds to be above the Bible.
========================================
Your use of the Council is a disingenuous attempt to give credence to your position. But you don't
accept the Council as binding,
======================================
The Nicea Council is useful to me to point out that Robert's ideas were roundly rejected in the fourth century. It is an old error.
Newer revisions of the error can be found modern movements, one of which Robert must be enfluenced by.
The Council is not above the Bible, if that is the position you wish to manuevor me into for argument's sake.
It is the same with the recognition of the Canon of the New Testament. I don't think any council could confer authority to any New Testament book. They only recognized authority of that book.
The so called "Church Fathers" did not confir the dogma as authoritative. They simply recognized the authority of the teaching that Christ's divinity is complete.
All the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily. That is not one third of the fullness. Nor is it 33.3333333 % of the fullness. Where the Son was the Father was because each lived in the other.
Arius wanted to teach that the Word was A God. I am not a Greek language scholar. But a Greek language scholar from Harvard Divnity School who wrote "The Language of the New Testament" a certain Dr. Geothcius, taught us that the original language do not allow for that translation.
But John 1:1 is only one of many places which confirm the complete divinity of Christ. He came and was expressed as a Man and an obedient Man. He did stand on that position. But in doing so He did not lay aside His complete Divinity.
=====================================
so what is it then? It's merely a reflection of the ebb and flow in
the tide of Christian belief. You flow with that tide, regardless of the complete absence of the Doctrine of the Trinity or Jesus' Divinity in the Bible.
=====================================
My were first given from Scripture. And I do not think Robert or you or anyone else was able to show errors in them. I did see some moving around of the goal post and some challenges like "Okay, if that is the case then show us where Jesus is specifically called The Almighty."
Whether I can or not is secondary. That it is NOT NECESSARY is my point. I do not concede that not being able to show The Almighty applied directly to Jesus Christ negates the other proofs that God is the Son.
Should I prove his request he would probably move the goal post again and demand that I explain how the Eternal Father died on the cross or something else like that.
Incidently, I see absolutely NO reason why Revelation 1:7.8 should not apply to Jesus who is coming on the clouds:
"Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the land will mourn over HIm. Yes, amen (v.7)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is coming, THE ALMIGHTY." (v.8)
So there you have "The Almighty" a applied to the Christ Who is indeed coming on the clouds to be seen by the tribes in the holy land at the end of the great tribulation.
Checkmate.
However, I believe that you were both checkmated BEFORE a number of times.
=================================
You are not 'sola Scriptura,' as you'd like to
claim; you embrace a significant portion of tradition as well.
=====================================
Shall I repeat again? I do not think the council confered authority upon a doctrine. I think they recognized the truth of the revelation of the complete divinity of Christ.
I hold the Bible higher than the Council. I recognize when they agreed with the true teaching of the Bible.
================================
Your allusion to a Council is merely a disingenuous attempt to bolster your argument -- Look,
see, even they saw that Jesus was Divine and that the Trinity existed. But so what? They
could be just as wrong. You're not Roman Catholic. You don't believe that the statements of
faith from this Council is binding. You even reject other aspects of this same Council.
====================================
So what ?
Had I thought that all that was necessary was to mention the Council I would not have taken great time and labor to point out all the passages which teach the complete divinity of the man Jesus Christ.
=====================================
What you're doing is taking a pre-accepted dogma and looking backwards at all the people who
agreed with you as a way to justify it. But you still can't find a Biblical justification for it, so even
if you found a billion post-Biblical sources from the fourth century to the present day, that doesn't
change the fact that it's a Creedal belief, not a Biblical one.
=====================================
You can't refute the passages I submitted, so you're grasping at some other way to invalidate my interpretation.
Iasiah 9:6 says the Son given is called the Eternal Father. How many Eternal Fathers are there in the Bible ? Is that Eternal Father the Almighty God or not ?
2 edits
The complete divinity of Jesus is vindicated. But just to humor Robert's request here is what I would submit:
Revelation 1:7,8 applies the Almighty God to the One coming on the clouds in the second coming and seen by the tribes of Israel.
There you have Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Son of Man as THE ALMIGHTY.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillRabbit season.
[b]Iasiah 9:6 says the Son given is called the Eternal Father. How many Eternal Fathers are there in the Bible ? Is that Eternal Father the Almighty God or not ?[/b]
As I observed, the Hebrew doesn't in fact say that. You can continue
to assert it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's simply
not there.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillHere's the whole passage:
The complete divinity of Jesus is vindicated. But just to humor Robert's request here is what I would submit:
[b]Revelation 1:7,8 applies the Almighty God to the One coming on the clouds in the second coming and seen by the tribes of Israel.
There you have Jesus Christ the Son of God, the Son of Man as THE ALMIGHTY.[/b]
John, to the seven churches in Asia: grace to you and peace from him
who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits
before the throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn
of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us
and has freed us from our sins by his blood, who has made us into a
kingdom, priests for his God and Father, to him be glory and power
forever. Amen.
Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him, even
those who pierced him. All the peoples of the earth will lament him. Yes.
Amen.
"I am the alpha and the omega," says the Lord God, "the one who is and
who was and who is to come, the almighty."
As you can see, in addition to the author's making explicit that Jesus
made believers priests for his God and Father, the Lord God is the
one who is almighty, not Jesus, in this passage.
Nemesio
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHelloooooo! I do exist by the way! Remmeber this....? Whilst you lot are harping on about what it says in scripture I was wondering whether basic logic and common sense could play a role.............?
Until you can prove with references that Jesus is anywhere termed Almighty God you will remain with Satan until such times as you show a repentant attitude and cleanse yourself of this God dishonoring doctrine! and you were removed not for gross sexual immorality, but for gross spiritual immorality, trying to claim that God is not one, but three in ...[text shortened]... the earth. psalm 83:18
peace to you jaywill, but as far as this doctrine goes, it is history!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am beginning from the premise that there is something being described by Jesus that is hard to understand and that it involves the Holy Spirit and his union with the Father somehow. This much I think is indisputable , do you agree?
My premise is also that whatever he is describing is not explicitly stated and requires us to make sense of it. The Trinity is an attempt to do just that.
As for whether the Trinity exists , well - the Holy Spirit exists , Jesus exists , the Father exists - there is a relationship between the three is there not?
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill''But John 1:1 is only one of many places which confirm the complete divinity of Christ.'', actually Jaywill it does nothing of the sort, not according to the Sahidic Coptic text, and i thank God and the ancient writers for having preserved this parchment, which, are of importance for the following reasons
[b]=================================
That same council ratified the seven so-called apocrypha as Scripture.
=================================
You saw what I wrote. I said on this point of the complete divinity of Christ they were right.
And it is not as if they officially defined a truth. They simply RECOGNIZED a truth. That is all. ? Is that Eternal Father the Almighty God or not ?[/b]
"The Proto-Alexandrian text appears not to have undergone the systematic grammatical and stylistic polishing that was given to other texts, including the later form of the Alexandrian text itself.
"By and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine."
"The Coptic Version is based on Greek manuscripts, which are significantly older that the vast majority of extant witnesses."
Because the Sahidic Coptic editions we have are likely very early, they provide an early glimpse into the texts they are translations of. And because most editions are extremely (almost woodenly) literal, they can provide insight into the underlying text ? helping in the quest to "establish the text" which is one of the first steps in any serious exegete's process
source http://sahidic.warpco.com/
so in essence these texts are more accurate, are of an earlier date and thus reflect the contemporary thought of the time and cover a much much more broader range concerning the books of the biblical cannon than any other.
what do the texts say with regard to John 1:1
****************************************************************************
hn tehoueite nefshoop ngi pshaje
auw pshaje nefshoop nnahrm pnoute
auw neunoute pe pshaje
****************************************************************
***************************************************************************
John 1:1 in the Sahidic Coptic Bible, literal translation:
"In the beginning there existed the Word*
and the Word* existed with** the God***
and a God**** was the Word
* pshaje = Greek, ho logos, "the Word,"
** nnahrm = "in the presence of"
*** pnoute = Greek, ho theos, "the God"
**** (o)unoute = Greek, theos, "a God"
notice the use of the indefinite and definite articles, 'the God' and 'a god', Coptic unlike Syrian, Greek and Latin is similar to English in that it has these two articles, now isn't that interesting because it would seem to determine the contemporary thinking of the time, thinking much closer to the time of Christ himself and the apostles that Christ was simply considered to be a divine being and of course before the council of Nicaea, which was essentially presided over by a pagan emperor.
what are we to say and conclude other than, once again the original languages give clear and unambiguous evidence that God and Christ are two distinct entities, this fact is now rendered incontrovertible and the logic in question now unassailable! dig, ya'll
for a facsimile follow this link
http://members.aol.com/__121b_WYasvgbNIFAF7G6zRA4Ohiz57qoemTjN