General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 94148 times

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1547 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #825 on: August 14, 2013, 07:00:43 pm »
Such a reading would create conflict with passages in Exodus and Numbers which uniquely identify Jehovah as the protagonist of these actions.

Would you not have a problem if the Bible contradicted itself?

And what is the reason why such a reading would conflict with Exodus and Numbers?
Exodus and Numbers say Jehovah God did it.
You want Jude to say Jesus did it.

Who's lying and who's telling the truth? Exodus? Numbers? Your version of Jude?
May the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him." -Ephesians 1:17

1

veka

  • ***
  • 1123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #826 on: August 15, 2013, 03:22:40 am »
Fine, no problem. What have you christened your pet definition of Trinitarianism? You know, so I can keep from confusing it with all the other ones its competing with.

I know only one definition of the trinity: the one God exists in three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and one substance.
"Denial of knowledge of God is only as cogent as the conception of knowledge on which it is based." - William P. Alston

2

veka

  • ***
  • 1123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #827 on: August 15, 2013, 03:34:52 am »
Exodus and Numbers say Jehovah God did it.
You want Jude to say Jesus did it.

Who's lying and who's telling the truth? Exodus? Numbers? Your version of Jude?

You beg the question since you presuppose that Jesus is not fully God. However, if Jude 5 originally read "Jesus", then Jesus is Jehovah God and no conflict arise.

Again, will you show, without begging the question, why "Jesus" is not more (or the most) preferable reading?
"Denial of knowledge of God is only as cogent as the conception of knowledge on which it is based." - William P. Alston

3

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #828 on: August 15, 2013, 04:41:28 am »
Next, your subsequent question is very curious. If I may, do you know what "satan" and "devil" actually mean?
Yes, of course.

If this were a formal debate through a moderator, I might write things such as:
Quote
Moderator!  My esteemed Opponent maintains that the uncorrupted texts of the New Testament books have been preserved.  I challenge him to reveal where these texts can be found.
There I would capitalise 'Opponent' to indicate that, though we have a difference of opinion, that does not diminish my esteem of you as a person.

But to do that for the devil..?
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

4

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #829 on: August 15, 2013, 04:46:02 am »
Jehovah God has preserved the text of his Inspired Word.
Which presumably formed the basis of the "fine translations".  Is that correct?

So the devil did not succeed in corrupting it all.  It seems we agree again.
Remains the question: where can these uncorrupted copies be found?  Not the translations made from them, but the originals from which the translations were made.

Where are they?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 08:01:54 am by Biep »
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

5

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #830 on: August 15, 2013, 04:54:49 am »
First, Jehovah's holy spirit is not an individual but his active force. As such, "holy spirit" is not a proper name.

I disagree (as you can read in this post, which Jem asked me to write but never bothered to reply to), but that would rather be the subject of another thread.

But knowing you believed this I did allow for the lack of capitalisation here "in a context of little capitalisation at all", as I wrote.
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

6

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #831 on: August 15, 2013, 05:14:01 am »
One could easily argue that Satan influences the founder of cults such as the JWs.
You've levied an extremely grievous imputation!

No, he did not.  This is another good example of what "strawman" means.  He merely said that one could argue.

And though you are not Jem, I understand JWs fully agree on doctrine, so even if he had said that satan does influence, how would that be more grievous than Jem saying the same thing about churches?

Such things are all part of civilised debate - better get used to it, I am afraid.
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

7

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #832 on: August 15, 2013, 06:07:49 am »
And what is the reason why such a reading would conflict with Exodus and Numbers?
Exodus and Numbers say Jehovah God did it.
You want Jude to say Jesus did it.

  • We dont want the Bible to say something; we want to respect the Bible when it actually does say it, and not reject it because it doesn't fit our preconceptions.
  • "Jehovah God did it" and "Jesus did it" don't conflict with each other.  I agree that taken together, they do conflict with the non-Biblical "Jesus is not Jehovah God".  When Biblical passages conflict with non-Biblical statements, we prefer to reject the non-Biblical ones rather than the Biblical ones.
  • John 1:18 tells us that no one ever has seen the Father.  Not in the sense of car ads:
    Quote
    No one has ever seen* the Father.
    * except in dreams, visions, or personal appearances.  Not valid in Bethel, Horeb and the state of Texas.  Confirmed for normal eyesight only.  Your mileage may vary.
    But in the plain sense of the text.
    That means that those who saw God did not see the Father - instead, it was the Son who presented God for them.  All OT manifestations of God are not of the Father, but of the Son.  It's really simple.  It is the Son who appears in Genesis 17:1 and declares Himself almighty.  It is the Son who declares Himself the God of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 28:13.
  • Rather than introducing conflicts, this plain truth removes them.  Genesis 32:30; Exodus 24:10-11 and many other verses don't conflict with Exodus 33:20, because they don't talk about the same person.
  • Philosophically, the all-good God could not remain in contact with His fallen creation (and we wouldn't be able to support seeing Him).  The Son, by virtue of His Self-sacrifice, was the only channel, so necessarily all appearances of God are of the Son.  Because of this messenger role, He is sometimes called "the Angel of Jehovah", in an appositional sense, as in Judges 6:22-23; 13:21-23.  "Angel" merely means 'messenger', after all.
  • In some cases the NT explicitly confirms that it was Jesus who appeared.  John 12:40-41 explains that Jehovah as seen by Isaiah and uttering Isaiah 6:9-10 was Jesus.  And that verse also explains why many won't see this simple truth.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2018, 08:59:37 pm by Biep »
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

8

lapwing

  • ****
  • 8665 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Not my website but explains my choice of name and avatar
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #833 on: August 15, 2013, 07:44:39 am »
Hi Biep,

Quote from: Biep
No, he did not.
Thanks for that. I explained this to Maxx in a previous post. Either he doesn't understand basic English grammar or he is doing this to try to annoy me or to avoid answering my questions. I consider the latter the most likely.

Now all these different versions of the Trinity there are supposed to be (but I've never seen defined after this claim). Anyone know what is actually meant by this, if anything? Filioque?

What is the essential difference between these three definitions:

Quote from: 39ArticlesofCofE
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Quote from: WestminsterConfession
In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Quote from: Catholic_Catechism

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91
For by one sacrifice Jesus has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

"Those who are still afraid of men have no fear of God, and those who have fear of God have ceased to be afraid of men"
"If the world refuses justice, the Christian will pursue mercy"
Dietrich Bonhoeffer

9

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1547 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #834 on: August 15, 2013, 03:27:33 pm »
Exodus and Numbers say Jehovah God did it.
You want Jude to say Jesus did it.

Who's lying and who's telling the truth? Exodus? Numbers? Your version of Jude?

Quote
You beg the question since you presuppose that Jesus is not fully God. However, if Jude 5 originally read "Jesus", then Jesus is Jehovah God and no conflict arise.

Again, will you show, without begging the question, why "Jesus" is not more (or the most) preferable reading?
You beg the question since you're presupposing Jesus is fully God.

Now, since the Jude's original manuscript is not extant we need to rely on the evidence we do have available. This evidence leads to the reasonable conclusion that Jude was inspired to write the Tetragrammaton.
May the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him." -Ephesians 1:17

10

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1547 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #835 on: August 15, 2013, 03:31:35 pm »
Fine, no problem. What have you christened your pet definition of Trinitarianism? You know, so I can keep from confusing it with all the other ones its competing with.

I know only one definition of the trinity: the one God exists in three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and one substance.
Since it does not explain the nature of this relationship it is an incomplete and, therefore, invalid definition. Can you complete it?
May the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him." -Ephesians 1:17

11

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1547 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #836 on: August 15, 2013, 03:33:21 pm »
Next, your subsequent question is very curious. If I may, do you know what "satan" and "devil" actually mean?
Yes, of course.
Then your question doesn't make sense. "Satan the Devil" is a derogatory, not an honorific.
May the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him." -Ephesians 1:17

12

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1547 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #837 on: August 15, 2013, 03:34:48 pm »
Jehovah God has preserved the text of his Inspired Word.
Which presumably formed the basis of the "fine translations".  Is that correct?

So the devil did not succeed in corrupting it all.  It seems we agree again.
Remains the question: where can these uncorrupted copies be found?  Not the translations made from them, but the originals from which the translations were made.

Where are they?
Just take a trip in your time machine and go see it for yourself :)
May the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him." -Ephesians 1:17

13

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1547 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #838 on: August 15, 2013, 03:36:59 pm »
First, Jehovah's holy spirit is not an individual but his active force. As such, "holy spirit" is not a proper name.

I disagree (as you can read in this post.
And you are well within your right to express your own opinion.


I'll address the claims you make on that thread.
May the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory . . . give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him." -Ephesians 1:17

14

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: Does the Bible Teach that Jesus is God?
« Reply #839 on: August 15, 2013, 04:22:06 pm »
Just take a trip in your time machine and go see it for yourself :)

Assuming you meant a trip to the past, and the reason would be that there are none at present, that is just a convoluted way of saying that God did not succeed in preserving the correct text, whereas the devil did succeed in uniformly corrupting all texts.
Which means that we only have texts of which the devil is the final redactor, and which are therefore completely unreliable.
Which means that we have no way to know whether God even led people to write any texts in the first place - it may well all have been a work of the devil from the start.

Assuming that you do not mean that, please explain what you do mean.

(The logical conclusion from your statement would be that the translators of the NWT had access to the uncorrupted originals from which they worked, whereas I haven't because they no longer exist.  So either they had a time machine, or those originals have been destroyed after they finished their translation, so that, whereas they had access to them, I would need a time machine to get to them.  If that is indeed what you mean, I challenge you to provide evidence that that time-machine, or these recently-destroyed manuscripts have existed.)
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 09:33:27 am by Biep »
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.