Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
But what if we are merely here to defend our Founding Fathers' religious ideas, and those of millions today, against false and often insane accusations: i.e., "God Damned Heretics"?
And all the time, you studiously ignore John Calvin's point:
There is nothing ambiguous about Calvin's words.
Calvin is saying of John 10:30, where Jesus says: "I and the Father are one," means they are in agreement, not that Jesus is God.
Col 1:19 and 2:9 clearly and emphatically state the FULLNESS of the Godhead dwells in Christ in bodily form.
If the FULLNESS of the Godhead dwells in Jesus Christ, then how much more of the Godhead needs to dwell in Him for Him to be considered God?
Oh I understand “called out ones” but they were always in unity as members of the Body of Christ.
I do disagree. You would need to show me most of those men lived secret lives. Their church affiliation (as I posted) and public quotes say different.
Yes in post #2197, you did speak to John 20:28. However not a valid answer. Thomas said “My Lord and My God” he did not say “My Lord and My Master.” In the Greek that would be redundant. The clear use of “theos” here is God. The only other possibilities in the lexicon are: a god; goddess or godly. Since you don’t think it is “God” which remaining choices do you see?
However, you have to change the meaning and lexicon in John 1 to fit your view.
I will ask another question that remains unanswered. If the Son of God is not truly God and truly man, then what is His Nature? Is the Son of God a created Being or did He exist eternally with The Father? If a created Being then what type? A god, angel?
Oh I understand “called out ones” but they were always in unity as members of the Body of Christ.
The Body of Christ is a metaphor looking at the Bride of Christ metaphor in a different way.. (same concept)
Jesus loved metaphor laced dialog....
Metaphor’s are like cartoons that transcend culture and language..
Pretty smart communication gambit.... IMO....
Not really. I haven't weighted in one way or the other because I don't think it's politically relevant. If one of us didn't, then all three of us couldn't have.
FRiend, that same "fullness" is found in Ephesians 3:19, where it refers not to Jesus but to all Christians.
Surely you would not suggest this means that all Christians are also God Himself?
FRiend, the key to understanding here is realizing that, first and foremost, New Testament writers were all Jews, and while they certainly believed in Christ's divinity, they would, as Jews, in no possible way compromise the Oneness of God.
If that creates certain theological problems, I would suggest those can well remain unanswered, since obviously nobody knows enough to more concretely define God.
“Only Begotten Son.” This occurs five times. It is evident that the statement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in a very different sense than other men are sons of God. The Greek for only-begotten is monogenes (one of a kind, unique).
#2197 your post said Thomas was saying Lord or Master or some kind of honorific title. But Thomas used “theos” which is not Lord or Master but “God” or a “god.”
#2255 your post refers Thomas saying “god” instead of “God.” That would imply the Son of God is a created Being and not the Creator.
Please choose one. Is Thomas calling Jesus “theos” a god or do you have a different lexicon showing theos as Master/Lord?
Sorry, I've addressed your question more than once already.
It's more fully answered in my post #2,255.
Please check it out, and then let's see what other questions you have...
I have not addressed John 1 here because, first, the discussion is somewhat lengthy, and second I wouldn't expect anyone committed to full-blown trinitarianism to buy it anyway.
So it would be a futile exercise.
But the important point to make is that historically, from the very beginning, many followers of Christ understood those words to refer to Christ's divinity without calling Jesus: God Himself.
Do you disagree?
But God is just, and His love is not promiscuous.
I know what you are saying. My point is believers are to fellowship in the Name of Jesus Christ. Seeking personal visions that are for you only were not the type of gifts given in the NT. They were for the benefit of all believers.
I read #2255. Is Jesus Christ “a god?” By the lexicon that is the only solution to your reasoning. And if the above is your conclusion then was the Son of God created or always existing with the Father?
FRiend, the explanation is there, in post #2,255, if you care to study & understand.
You start at John 10:34 which refers specifically to Psalms 82:6 and can be applied also to Psalm 45:6.
That is the context for John 20:28.
Here's my conclusion: in John 20:28 Thomas refers to Jesus in the same sense as Jesus refers to himself in John 10:34, using the sense of "gods" from Psalms 82:6.
How could it possibly be otherwise?
To me that makes perfectly good sense, especially since it reconfirms what the gospel writer John himself says in John 20:31.
And it takes 2 John 1:9 as cautionary.
Of course, I don't expect you to agree, am only asking you to treat this view with more respect than we've seen elsewhere: it's called, "God Damned Heresy".
My ideas here reflect religious views of our Founding Fathers, plus around 50 million believers today who fall under the category of "restoration Christians".
I don't think they deserve the disrespect.
Absolutely not. Why should I?
I do disagree. In the Gospels people worshipped Jesus Christ. Any Jew of the time would tell us only God receives worship; forgives sins.
The opposite argument is this...If Jesus Christ was a divine being other than Deity, thus God, then the Jews of His time would not worship Him thus setting up a violation of Exodus 20.
So I think your overall premise and entry argument are flawed.
Thus the need to look for obscure definitions in the lexicon, use paraphrase and dynamic equivalent Bibles; and in some cases replace an entire word (like theos) with another with absolutely no valid reason.
John 1 is clear. Unless theos is being used three different ways in the same passage. If that is the case then the Psalm 82 argument falls apart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.