Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lapwing

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 195
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« on: July 31, 2013, 06:02:48 PM »
So Maxximilian,

The Father is God - agreed
Jesus was fully man while on earth - agreed

"my God"
Since you don't seem to have read the OP I'll quote it for you to make it easier for you

Quote from: AAQ
Thus, the fact that He says “my God” only shows that He was a devout Jewish man, which was necessary for Him to be the sacrifice for our sins.  It then follows that the fact that Jesus says “my God” in reference to the Father in no way shows that Jesus is not God the Son.
  Further, the fact that Jesus had returned to heaven at this point does not matter either.  When He returned to heaven He did not all of the sudden lose His human nature.  Thus, this part of the verse is perfectly consistent with Trinitarian thought too.  The analysis of this verse also covers times when Paul says things like “the God and Father of Jesus.”
So I hope that will put an end to this endless and tedious stuck gramophone repetition of the same verses over and over again. Try interacting with AAQ's argument above instead.

Oh, and as AAQ says, mainstream Christians don't believe that Jesus is the Father so maybe you can take that particular cracked record off the turntable as well and we can progress this discussion constructively.

John 1:18 "the only begotten God" Who is meant there?

"You must love Jehovah your God" Mt 22;37 by the same token e.g.: "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Jehovah Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another" 1 Cor 1:10  (both use kyrios)

You also seem to have redefined "strawman" (another tedious stuck record) as someone saying something with which you disagree. It actually means "misrepresentation of an opponent's position", so if someone states their own belief (e.g. Jesus is God and man) that is not a "strawman".


There might be a different opinion as to whether or not or which of your "scripture" (#28) or "scriptures" (#31) have been addressed or not. As I'm not a mind reader it would cut this short if you specify what you mean. I won't be responding to this point again until you do.

How can you say Isaiah is OT and jews are different than christians? What has that to do with ANYTHING I have been talking about?

Quote from: Yhwh4President
Partnered also by the prophecy of the end times in Isaiah 66 where the ones who eat the flesh of swine and rats are destroyed you can honestly sit there and say I and the author of the Eliyah website are "twisting" scripture?

It looks like you don't read all your own posts either!

By the way are we not supposed to be imitators of Yeshua? Did he not observe the Mosaic law?
Now what changed when Jesus died on the cross and rose again. What does the letter of Hebrews say? What was meant by the curtain being torn from top to bottom? Don't you think that changed anything then with regard to obeying the Law of Moses? Do you go to the Temple to sacrifice? If not aren't you in trouble?

you would use his actual name
Is that Yeshua or Yehushua (Eliyah)?

Eliyah on Col 2
In "ordinances of men" (v14) the "of men" is an addition to the Bible that is not there. Paul's use of the word "circumcision" in v11 shows that the Colossian church at least knew about Judaism even if there were only few converted Jews. It is likely that the danger of Acts 15:5 is in view here - Gentiles who may mistakenly think they need to keep all the old law.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« on: July 31, 2013, 09:01:29 AM »
Yes it would be neat if the different Greek words rendered as "worship" in English were consistently directed at different beings but it doesn't work that way. Rather, as Biep says, they bring out different aspects of the concept. So proskuneo has the idea of a physical bowing or obeisance, latreuo has the idea of temple service, sebomai has the idea of awe - a mental attitude and eusebeo has the idea of to act piously.

The most common is proskuneo which is used for worship of the Father (e.g. Jn 4:21) and Jesus (e.g. Mt chap 2; Jn 9:38)

latreuo is used for worship of "God and the Lamb" in Rev 22:3.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« on: July 31, 2013, 08:38:06 AM »
The "co equality" comes from the Greek word that is translated as "just as". You are using human judgment and prejudice to label the different roles of the Father and the Son as meaning the Son is inferior to the Father. The Greek here does not support you. New Jerusalem has the same length, width and height - there is no differentiation between these three dimensions.

[Note how even our familiar 3 dimensional world points to the Trinity  ;) ]

At least I didn't quote a single verse in #362 implying that was all Jesus said unlike you. Rather I quoted a fuller version starting with your verse, and not omitting any verses. If you want to quote more than feel free to do so but better if it were contiguous. I am fully confident that the Bible tells us that Jesus is fully God.

Where is the phrase "complete subjection" with regard to the Father and the Son apart from in your own head?

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« on: July 31, 2013, 07:27:16 AM »
He said much more in that discourse:
Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

24“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
Notice how the Father and the Son are repeatedly equated yet have different roles, Other examples of the use of "just as" are the Pharisee and the tax collector (the Pharisee thanking  God that he wasn't like the tax collector) and the tares of Mt 13 compared to final judgment. So there is a strong idea of equivalence in that word. Jesus is not backtracking but he is explaining his co-equal relationship with the Father.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« on: July 31, 2013, 06:26:27 AM »
Quote from: JohnBee
However... if by deity, we mean to say that Jesus is/was God, then I'd point-out that he most certainly denied such a thing. ie. when he was accused of blasphemy(making yourself out to be like God), and the religious leaders threatened to stone him, Jesus flatly denied the charge by pointing out that he only ever claimed to be God's son(no more no less).

You have redefined "flatly denied" here. It is clear that for Jesus "son of God" means far more than being in covenant relationship with God as with OT Israel. Elsewhere he is described as the unique/only begotten Son of God as has been stated many times in this forum.

So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jn 5:16-18 NIV

This is obviously more than what Jews would claim for themselves. The word here for "equal" can mean equal by amount or measure such as the dimensions of New Jerusalem and the same amounts received by the workers in the parable of the vineyard. There is no flat denial here but Jesus is pointing out (from Psalm 82) that beings lesser than Him (whether human judges or heavenly beings) are called "gods" (elohim) by the Psalmist. It is their accusation of blasphemy that is misplaced: Jesus is not denying his deity here.

Col 2:9 and "deity"
Rather than quote different versions look at the Greek: θεότητος or theotetos

theótēs (a feminine noun derived from 2316 /theós, "God") ... /theótēs ("fullness of deity") expresses God's "essential (personal) deity ... θεότης, θεότητος, ἡ (deitas, Tertullian, Augustine (de civ. Dei 7, 1)), deity i. e. the state of being God, Godhead: Colossians 2:9. (Lucian, Icar. 9; Plutarch, de defect. orac. 10, p. 415 c.) [SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης: θεότης deity differs from θειότης divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Trench, § ii.; Lightfoot or Meyer on Colossians, the passage cited; Fritzsche on Romans 1:20.]

deity (n.)  "divine nature;" late 14c., "a god," from Old French deité, from Late Latin deitatem (nominative deitas) "divine nature," coined by Augustine from Latin deus "god," from PIE *deiwos (see Zeus).

Theos, deus, zeus etc. They're such similar words you'd be tempted to think that they refer to the same idea.

Quote from: Yhwh4President
you can interpret that word decree to be the Law of Moses simply because you say so and you want to interpret the scripture that way
(NB: "Moses" at least should be capitalised)
The view that Col 2:14 refers to the Law of Moses is also put forward by the New Bible Commentary, Matthew Henry and N T Wright. You are bound to deprecate those commentators but I point out to you that your inference in "simply because you say so" is false.

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility Eph 2:14-16 NIV

Notice that Paul emphasises the doing away of that which separates Jew and Gentile - so in the Law of Moses that would include food regulations.

none of you have even addressed the scripture I have given you
Which? You've quoted more than one.

Isaiah is an OT book and should be interpreted as such. Judaism and Christianity are different religions.

why would Yah have given them in the first place,
Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. Gal 3:23-25 NIV

I WAS A Jehovah's Witness for almost the whole of my life and have now been rejected by them, you think this is something I desire?
Have you been born again as described in John chapter 3? Do you know Jesus personally? That's far more important than dietary laws.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: How Many Books Do You Read a Month?
« on: July 30, 2013, 04:49:24 AM »
I try to keep to one a week - with usually 4/5 on the go. So a mixture of fiction, nature, theology, history etc.

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Status of Modern Day Israel
« on: July 29, 2013, 03:06:27 PM »
Hi Biep,
I agree that Paul is definitely talking about physical Israel in:
Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26and in this way all Israel will be saved ... As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

The "everyone" of v32 seems to emphasise this applying to Jews and Gentiles. "hardening" etc. all points to physical Israel. However, we don't have the luxury of this language in Ezekiel for obvious reasons so I'm not convinced Ezekiel applies to Paul's "all Israel will be saved". The Davidic Messiah figure points to Jesus and so the chapter can be read as applying to the church but as I said it can be read as applying to physical Israel sometime in the future.

Lawrence of Arabia - good investment every time I've watched it it's got better.

Good answer Archsage - hard to see how it can be improved +1


I might be wrong but there's a good chance you'll be getting a response from Jem  ;)

Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The Status of Modern Day Israel
« on: July 29, 2013, 01:14:29 PM »
Hi Biep,

Ezekiel was part of the first deportation to Babylon with the penultimate king of Judah: Jehoiachin. He explained the demise of Israel as a result of their rebellion against God and there would be worse to come which was confirmed when Jerusalem finally fell under Zedekiah. The prophecy of restoration included the joining of two sticks prophecy: the two kingdoms would be reunited under a Davidic king "forever". This has not been fulfilled with Israel to this day. Jesus was the fulfilment of this Davidic king Messiah and it can be argued that the language here fits the eschatological hope of all Christian believers,

If this prophecy refers to Israel and not the church (and I admit that it can be read that way) then one needs to answer what will happen to Jews who have died not believing the gospel. They seem to be left out.

Hi Biep,
I think your link answers a different question: How we should think that the God of the OT is justified in his violent actions and explains man's wrong thinking about this (e.g. prioritising this life above the life to come)

My question is why Jesus' behaviour seems to be less violent. Jesus did not pull any punches about the consequences of unforgiven sin though.

Excellent post (+1). I particularly like the point about  ἐξαλείφω (exaleipsas) in Col 2:14

having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross NASB

ἐξαλείψας  τὸ  καθ’  ἡμῶν  χειρόγραφον  τοῖς  δόγμασιν  ὃ  ἦν  ὑπεναντίον  ἡμῖν  καὶ  αὐτὸ  ἦρκεν  ἐκ  τοῦ  μέσου  προσηλώσας  αὐτὸ  τῷ  σταυρῷ·

It is the χειρόγραφον  τοῖς  δόγμασιν   or handwriting in decrees that is blotted out or cancelled. Decree here can be used of the law of Moses - see and whose hand wrote them?!

The same thought is expressed in Eph 2:15

by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, NASB

τὴν  ἔχθραν  ἐν  τῇ  σαρκὶ  αὐτοῦ,  τὸν  νόμον τῶν  ἐντολῶν  ἐν  δόγμασιν  καταργήσας    ἵνα  τοὺς  δύο  κτίσῃ  ἐν  αὐτῷ  εἰς  ἕνα  καινὸν  ἄνθρωπον  ποιῶν  εἰρήνην

So here we have the normal word for law (νόμον  = nomon) and ἐντολῶν  = commandments used by Jesus in Mt 5:19 as well as decree as in Col 2:14. Rather than ἐξαλείφω (exaleipsas) we have καταργήσας = katargesas = "'to make completely inoperative' or 'to put out of use,"
I found the comment "It's not my intent to condemn anyone or promote any man or denomination." betrayed the true intention of this website i.e. exactly what it says is not its intention: to condemn with the old law.

Pages: 1 ... 101 102 [103] 104 105 ... 195