4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie====================
excuse me? this doing my own thinking for me is too much Jaywill, it is not permitted, for i have my own mind and my own thoughts, that is sacrosanct.
it is not the sign of a good teacher either, for the Christ was want to let individuals draw their own conclusions, therefore if you cast your mind to the word of truth and the account of the so ps you know something that i do not or you are gravely ignorant of my theology, who can tell?
it is not the sign of a good teacher either, for the Christ was want to let individuals draw their own conclusions, therefore if you cast your mind to the word of truth and the account of the so called 'good Samaritan', what was it that the Christ said to the man, 'so who to you appeared to be the mans neighbour? in other words he let the man come to the conclusion himself, so you will be pleased to adopt the same manner that was good enough for the Christ.
================================
That is all well and good. But I am seeking for your reply to the question of how Christ would teach this co-honoring of the Son as the Father.
==========================
the question that i was asked i have already answered, or at least i think i have, which was proposed by epiphenomena, why are we to honour a creature, and i stated that there are many instances in scripture where we are to give honour to a creature, did I not!
============================
Yes you did. And epiphenihas quite correctly showed that this answer was a dodge of the issue.
The key phrase not being simply to "honor" but to "honor... even as they honor the Father".
So your reply was a slick but totally inadaquate slipping away from the issue. But let's see if you go on to tackle it.
===========================
now you will be pleased to answer my question, how does giving honour to the Christ make him the same as God?
==============================
Here Robbie, you slipped away to escape trying to address the question and pose one of your own. I am not big on the classification of logical fallacies. But I think they may call this bait and switch.
======================================
I know that you cannot answer this
==============================
But I can answer it. Honoring the Son as we honor the Father does not make Christ God. Christ is already God whether we honor Him that way or not.
It is not because we thus honor Christ as the Father than that honor somehow makes Him God. It is a reaction to the fact that He is God incarnate that we are to honor Him. Our honoring does not make the fact. It is in response TO the fact.
Now you have unsuccessfully tried to shift the burden to me. Why would an inferior created god even have the audacity to teach us to honor Him as the Father if such co-honoring was forbidden?
I will respect an answer of "I don't know."
But please no more sneaking away from the issue with distractions to another.
==============================
for if you do it will be self incriminatory for in each and every instance the Christ is subject to God,
====================================
This is not a problem to me, that Christ is obedient, subserviant, submissive, and subject to the Father.
Even God Almighty Himself on an occasion said that He would take commands from His people:
"Thus says Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel ... Ask Me about the things to come concerning My sons,
And concerning the works of My hands, command Me." (Isaiah 45:11)
Here you have Jehovah God being obedient and responsive to the commands of His faithful people - "command Me".
So just as God can express Himself as perfect authority, I already told you that God can express Himself as perfect obedience TO authority as well. The great submission of the Son to His Father does not argue that the Word Who was God and with God, [did not] become flesh.
Of course you do not believe John 1:1,14. You believe instead your pre-Christian polytheism of multiple gods. So you have a second inferior God there, the Logos.
Shame on you for trying to accomodate the glorious gospel of Christ to your pre-Christian polytheistic pantheon.
==============================
both in word and in deed, before and after his manifestation as a man and his resurrection and ascension to heaven, nor do i know of any reason in scripture why giving honour to the Christ would not be permitted, perhaps you know something that i do not or you are gravely ignorant of my theology, who can tell?
=======================================
The question is again not that of giving honor to Christ. The quetion refers to Christ teaching that all should honor the Son EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER.
You're weaving and dodging. You are not taking the question head on.
Did the Son of God teach contrary to the will of God that men should honor Him even as they honor His Father ? Afterall Jehovah says:
"I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)
And also " I am Jehovah, that is My name, And I will not give My glory to another, nor my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8)
How then did Jesus not offend His Father by teaching that men should honor the Son EVEN ... EVEN ... EVEN ... as they would honor the Father ?
He did not say "EVEN as you should honor your neighber". He did not say "even as the child should honor the parent". He did not say "EVEN as the citizens should honor their king."
I see that you will evade this matter endlessly. Your are trying to nullify the word "EVEN".
2 edits
what is it about honouring the father as well as the son that you do not understand Jaywill? its is really quite simple and i am amazed that you are labouring this point, who knows why?
That Christians are obligated to honour the Christ (the son) can be seen from his words at John 5:22, 23: “For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He that does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent him.”
is this simple enough Jaywill?
Also since Christ’s resurrection, Jehovah (the father) has honoured the Christ to an even greater degree, ‘crowning him with glory and honour for having suffered death.’ (Hebrews 2:9; 1 Peter 3:22)
Basically, we have reasons to honour Jesus both because of who he is and because of what he has done.
now the question arises, how do we show honour to the son, remember that term Jaywill , the son, its quite important, for you still seem quite unclear on how to make a distinction between the father and the son.
and it seems quite clear to me that we do so by showing an appreciation for what he has done for us in providing his life blood so that we can receive forgiveness of sins on the basis of this, as well as an approved relationship with the father and the prospects of eternal life. Also we honour him in addressing our prayers, to the Father, in the name of the son, as Jesus taught and directed others and we honour him by imitating his example of self sacrifice for the benefit of others.
it is not I who have dishonoured the Christ and the Father by presumptuously assuming that they are co equal and the same, and I am sure if the Christ were to come back in the flesh, he would have none of it either.
therefore Jaywill, is this plain enough and simple enough. i really do want to state it again nor offend you, but this is not a biblical teaching, this triune God of yours, and you know perfectly well what i think of the council of Nicene, Constantine the pagan Emperor and the man who managed to slip this into church doctrine, for political reasons!
Originally posted by robbie carrobie====================
what is it about honouring the father as well as the son that you do not understand Jaywill? its is really quite simple and i am amazed that you are labouring this point, who knows why?
That Christians are obligated to honour the Christ (the son) can be seen from his words at John 5:22, 23: “For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committ ...[text shortened]... pagan Emperor and the man who managed to slip this into church doctrine, for political reasons!
and it seems quite clear to me that we do so by showing an appreciation for what he has done for us in providing his life blood so that we can receive forgiveness of sins on the basis of this, as well as an approved relationship with the father and the prospects of eternal life.
==============================
So have you received the forgiveness of your sins?
Do you have eternal life ?
Originally posted by jaywillwhat is this the Spanish Inquisition? i have put faith in the sin atoning value of Christ shed blood, note the word jayjay, put faith, and also you will note the phrase, 'prospects for eternal life', not actually having achieved it as yet, for at present i seem to be getting older.
[b]====================
and it seems quite clear to me that we do so by showing an appreciation for what he has done for us in providing his life blood so that we can receive forgiveness of sins on the basis of this, as well as an approved relationship with the father and the prospects of eternal life.
==============================
So have you received the forgiveness of your sins?
Do you have eternal life ?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobie========================
what is this the Spanish Inquisition? i have put faith in the sin atoning value of Christ shed blood, note the word jayjay, put faith, and also you will note the phrase, 'prospects for eternal life', not actually having achieved it as yet, for at present i seem to be getting older.
what is this the Spanish Inquisition?
============================
No. I will not torture or kill you if you are uncertain how to answer.
========================================
i have put faith in the sin atoning value of Christ shed blood,
================================
So has the sin atoning value of Christ's blood thoroughly washed away your every sin ?
If you do not have the assurance that this has taken place, just maybe there is a problem with the way you are honoring the Son of God. Maybe you are not.
==============
note the word jayjay,
================
I would have it no other way. Did jayjay die for you? No. it was Jesus Christ.
But are you sure that His work has been effectual in your case? It seems that you are just hoping that things will turn out right.
=========================
put faith, and also you will note the phrase, 'prospects for eternal life', not actually having achieved it as yet, for at present i seem to be getting older.
=================================
The thing about getting older is that you realize more and more how really sinful you can be.
Are you sure that you have eternal life? Or are you just hoping that the prospect of having it will somehow turn out right ?
The Apostle John said "And we KNOW that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might KNOW Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)
This is the real practical application of the experience of the Triune God. I can say that I know that I am part of this "we" that John speaks of.
"We KNOW" that we are in the true God and eternal life.
You seem only left with a religion.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is clear from your various responses that you have as yet no satisfactory answer for the question* I have posed: "If nobody but God is worthy of the honor due to God, how then do we explain Christ's assertion that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored?" Your answers have included the following:
what is it about honouring the father as well as the son that you do not understand Jaywill? its is really quite simple and i am amazed that you are labouring this point, who knows why?
That Christians are obligated to honour the Christ (the son) can be seen from his words at John 5:22, 23: “For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committ ...[text shortened]... pagan Emperor and the man who managed to slip this into church doctrine, for political reasons!
(1) "There are many instances in scripture where honour is given to a created being." This is true, but, as I pointed out, you still haven't answered the question. The appropriate level of honor is due to all creatures, of course, yet what creature can be appropriately given the level of honor due to God?
(2) "We have reasons to honour Jesus both because of who he is and because of what he has done." Again, this is true, yet it is a statement which we could apply to anyone. Jaywill and I might have reason to honor you, Robbie, for instance, both because of who you are and what you have done. But Christ said, specifically, that the Son was to be honored just as the Father is honored. If Christ is not God, is there any level of achievement, no matter how great, that might merit the same level of honor that God enjoys? Think about it. God, being infinite, by definition is as high above an angel as He is above a worm in the ground. If Christ is not God, then we must conclude that he is a finite creature; in which case, God, being infinite, would be as high above Jesus as He is above a worm in the ground. Nevertheless, you are proposing that the infinite God has given the honor due to Him alone, as the Most High God, to a finite being! I hope you'll allow yourself to see how preposterous that truly is.
__________
So, once again: If nobody but God is worthy of the honor due to God, how then do we explain Christ's assertion that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored?
5 edits
ROBBIE, since you've repeatedly failed to answer my question*, even though it is a legitimate question with firm scriptural basis, I will tentatively conclude that you are unable to answer it due to the simple fact that answering it as you ought would seriously weaken your case against Christ's divinity. Therefore, I will continue to build upon my argument by introducing yet more evidence that we are to honor Christ as we honor the Father. Consider the following:
______________________________
(1)
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another" (Isaiah 2:8).
"I will not yield my glory to another" (Isaiah 8:11).
"[Jesus prayed] And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began" (John 17:5).
In Isaiah, God says that He will not give away His glory to another. Yet Jesus, in John 17, is expecting to receive again the divine glory He shared with the Father before the world began. If Jesus were not deity, this would be a contradiction.
______________________________
(2)
Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God" (John 5:17-18).
“I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God" (John 10:30-33).
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped" (Philippians 2:5-6).
Jesus did not hesitate to claim equality with God the Father. The Greek word for equal in John 5:18 is isos, as in an isosceles, or equal-sided, triangle. Jesus was and is “in very nature God,” and therefore was not blaspheming by claiming to be God. The disbelieving Jews had correctly heard Jesus to be making this claim to full deity, even though they rejected His claim.
______________________________
(3)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” ... [17] When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Revelation 1:8, 17-18).
“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.... [16] “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star" (Revelation 22:12-13, 16).
Note the glorious titles of “the Alpha and the Omega,” “the Beginning and the End,” “the First and the Last,” “the Almighty,” “the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come.” Read all these titles of Deity, and note that every one in the context can be applied specifically to Jesus.
______________________________
(4)
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom" (Psalms 45:6).
"But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom" (Hebrews 1:8).
“Your throne, O God” — The Old Testament Hebrew word used here is Elohim, used for “God” well over a thousand times in the Bible. This exact scripture from the Psalm is quoted in Hebrews and is applied to Jesus the Son. The New Testament Greek word for “God” that is specifically applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 is Theos, used for “God” over 1,300 times in the New Testament.
______________________________
(5)
"Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" (Exodus 34:14).
"Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only'" (Matthew 4:10).
"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him"" (Hebrews 1:6).
In Exodus God commands that He alone be worshiped. Jesus reiterated the commandment to worship God only. Yet God the Father’s command in Hebrews 1:6 that His angels worship the Son indicates that the Son too is God. If Jesus were not Deity, this would be idolatry.
______________________________
(6)
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
“...God... His own blood..." The blood of Jesus Christ, shed for our redemption, is called God’s own blood. The blood of Deity, nothing less.
______________________________
(7)
"The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread, and he will be a sanctuary; but for both houses of Israel he [the Lord Almighty] will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall" (Isaiah 8:13-14).
"As you come to him [Jesus], the living Stone — rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him... Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall"" (1 Peter 2:4, 7-8).
It is evident that the “stone that causes men to stumble and [the] rock that makes them fall” of Isaiah and Peter are one and the same. The wording in the Old and New Testaments is identical. Peter knows Him as Jesus Christ; Isaiah calls Him “The Lord Almighty". The name “the Lord Almighty” is used in the Bible, then, to identify both Jesus the Son and God the Father.
______________________________
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...council of Nicene, Constantine the pagan Emperor and the man who managed to slip this into church doctrine, for political reasons!
what is it about honouring the father as well as the son that you do not understand Jaywill? its is really quite simple and i am amazed that you are labouring this point, who knows why?
That Christians are obligated to honour the Christ (the son) can be seen from his words at John 5:22, 23: “For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committ ...[text shortened]... pagan Emperor and the man who managed to slip this into church doctrine, for political reasons!
It is simply not true that the doctrine of Christ's divinity was decided by the council of Nicene. Christ's divinity was believed by the ante-Nicene church from before the earliest moments of the first century (A. D. 100-325). History is not on your side, Robbie. Consider the following quote from "History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325" --
"The whole theological energy of the ante-Nicene period concentrated itself... upon the doctrine of Christ as the God-man and Redeemer of the world. This doctrine was the kernel of all the baptismal creeds, and was stamped upon the entire life, constitution and worship of the early church. It was not only expressly asserted by the fathers against heretics, but also professed in the daily and weekly worship, in the celebration of baptism, the eucharist and the annual festivals, especially Easter. It was embodied in prayers, doxologies and hymns of praise. From the earliest record Christ was the object not of admiration which is given to finite persons and things, and presupposes equality, but of prayer, praise and adoration which is due only to an infinite, uncreated, divine being (italics mine). This is evident from several passages of the New Testament (Matt. 2:11; 9:18; 17:14, 15; 28:9, 17; Luke 17:15, 16; 23:42; John 20:28; Acts 7:59, 60; 9:14, 21; 1 Cor. 1:2; Phil. 2:10; Hebr. 1:6; 1 John 5:13-15; Rev. 5:6-13, etc.), from the favorite symbol of the early Christians, the Ichthys, from the Tersanctus, the Gloria in Excelsis, the hymn of Clement of Alexandria in praise of the Logos, from the testimony of Origen, who says: "We sing hymns to the Most High alone, and His Only Begotten, who is the Word and God; and we praise God and His Only Begotten;" and from the heathen testimony of the younger Pliny who reports to the Emperor Trajan that the Christians in Asia were in the habit of singing "hymns to Christ as their God." Eusebius, quoting from an earlier writer (probably Hippolytus) against the heresy of Artemon, refers to the testimonies of Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, and "many others" for the divinity of Christ, and asks: "Who knows not the works of Irenaeus and Melito, and the rest, in which Christ is announced as God and man? Whatever psalms and hymns of the brethren were written by the faithful from the beginning, celebrate Christ as the Word of God, by asserting his divinity."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.viii.html
Originally posted by epiphinehaslook i am not going to pretend that i read all your post, discuss your pre Christian platonic pagan doctrine with someone else, im good, im gone.
[b]...council of Nicene, Constantine the pagan Emperor and the man who managed to slip this into church doctrine, for political reasons!
It is simply not true that the doctrine of Christ's divinity was decided by the council of Nicene. Christ's divinity was believed by the ante-Nicene church from before the earliest moments of the first century ( ...[text shortened]... ting his divinity."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.viii.html[/quote][/b]
5 edits
I think Robbie explained his position well enough and tried to do so in several different ways. You guys are something else once you get the blinders on. If someone said, "Honor your mother as your father", I get the impression you'd interpret that as meaning your mother is also your father. Just because honors are accorded the same, doesn't necessitate that they are the SAME entity.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you would have read my preceding post, you would have seen that Christ's divinity is not "pre-Christian", "platonic", or "pagan". The Deity of Christ was taught over two-hundred years before the Nicene council; an accepted belief among the earliest Christians.
look i am not going to pretend that i read all your post, discuss your pre Christian platonic pagan doctrine with someone else, im good, im gone.
EDIT: Robbie, I'm sorry that you could not sufficiently defend your position. You shouldn't take it personally, though, considering mine is inherently the more biblically defensible one. If you are unwilling to change your beliefs, even in the teeth of the evidence, I suppose it would not be worth our time to continue this discussion anyway. Regardless, I'll keep you in my prayers.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNo one is making the argument that the Son is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't even make that claim.
I think Robbie explained his position well enough and tried to do so in several different ways. You guys are something else once you get the blinders on. If someone said, "Honor your mother as your father", I get the impression you'd interpret that as meaning your mother is also your father. Just because honors are accorded the same, doesn't necessitate that they are the SAME entity.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe point is that, so far as I can tell, Robbie did address your question contrary to your continued claims otherwise. Maybe not in the manner that you would like, but if you'd take the time to understand his position, you'd see that it has been addressed.
No one is making the argument that the Son is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't even make that claim.
You know, I can't say as I ever understood exactly what the Doctrine of the Trinity does claim mostly because it's pretty much just double talk. You really should ask yourself why Jesus didn't explain the concept of the trinity Himself. Seems like an important concept to leave out. Not sure why you so consistently insist on relying on the words of others, when the words of Jesus are available to guide you. I suspect that it's because you aren't comfortable with the message that He brought.
1 edit
=============================
Robbie, I'm sorry that you could not sufficiently defend your position.
===============================
For some reason I am not sorry. Because of what he teaches some people may be lost.
ThinkOfOne talks about "blinders'. But it was Robbie who closed his eyes and ran off without listening to Phillip Schaff's church history vindicating the earliest belief in the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Good job Epiphenihas. And I do pray for the man and his family. I think in everyone's case it requires the mercy of God.
1 edit
===================
No one is making the argument that the Son is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity doesn't even make that claim.
==============================
As a caveat for my true brother in Christ I do not mind saying that the biblical revelation of the Triune God holds that the Son is the Father.
At least I would not hesitate to say that the Father lives in the Son and the Son in the Father - inseparable but distinct.
That's me. And my basis is Isaiah 9:6.