After all, that's what is wrong with the whole thing. With bits and pieces, like a Leggo set, you can build whatever you want, and if you ignore the context, historical and other factors, never mnind the language, that are involved in these different writings then you are on a verge of fraud that looks deceptively true.
Jesus is quoted as saying that he is "I am"; he also claims to be the "other" lord in Psalm 100:1, which to a Greek unfamiliar with Judaism may seem perfectly believable, especially given that the LXX addressed both Lords with the same word (kyrios), unlike Hebrew which leaves no doubt the first Lord is the Lord God (Yahveh) and the second one is not divine (because that word is never used as a divine title).
And, given the intended purpose of the Psalms, which would be unknown to an average Greek listener, or for that matter any non-Jewish person being "saved" by the wondeirng apostles and missionaries, the "official truth" would be easily established.
There are many instances in the NT where Jesus is not making himself equal to God the Father, but lesser to him, but I didn't expect you to balance your examples with those or to explain why John would be more likely to say so then the others.
Man is an icon of God, according to the Bible, and with the Holy Spirit supposedly indwelling the believer, all the fullness of deity is in him bodily too! So what's the difference, except that Jesus, according to Paul, was the first to be transformed that way, hence the "firstborn of all creatures"!
Your examples of 2 Cor 3:18 (I imagine inadvertently) confirms this.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father"
How can that be? When, on another occasion, whoever wrote it the same Jesus says "the Father is greater than I"
If he and the Father are one (and the same, save for his Sonship) then how can he not know some things that only the Father knows?
If I hadn't mentioned the "in him" that would have been conveniently ignored and the "by him" would suggest otherwise. All these verbal acrobatics are an English necessity to attempt to express without going into deceptive language the meaning of the original languages.
In short, there is nothing here in any of these comparative and superlative terms to support the heretical notion that Christ is a created being, In fact, the whole context proves just the opposite
It doesn't prove anything. The Bible is believed on faith. That is its "proof." This book has been 'cooked' numerous times for the past 2,000 years and subjected to innumerable rationalizations, alterations, redactions, additions and deletions, to make it appear "harmonized" and without contradiction. Apparently, the "harmonization" continues to mimick the prevailing doctirne of the editors.
For a Book that is supposedly perspicuous, that even a 5-yearold can understand [sic], it sure is laborious and requires endless hyperbolic exegetical explanations by multiglot PhD intellectuals who can selectively stitch together any "official truth" to their liking.
Well, I think is just a natural response, at least for me, to provide various examples proving the contrary when it is asserted that Christ is a created being. I acknowledge this approach could appear to some as an imbalance in presentation. I assure you that any apparent imbalance is due more to my inability to state exhaustive truth in a post than it is to any denial of the truth of any part of Scripture, the voluntary subordination of Christ included.
Jesus is quoted as saying that he is "I am"; he also claims to be the "other" lord in Psalm 100:1, which to a Greek unfamiliar with Judaism may seem perfectly believable, especially given that the LXX addressed both Lords with the same word (kyrios), unlike Hebrew which leaves no doubt the first Lord is the Lord God (Yahveh) and the second one is not divine (because that word is never used as a divine title).
I have to say something about this one. The fact that the Hebrew word YHWH does not appear in the Greek Scriptures is not dispositive of the issue because the equivalent titles, passages and attributes of YHWH are quoted and directly applied to Christ by the Apostles.
Man is an icon of God, according to the Bible, and with the Holy Spirit supposedly indwelling the believer, all the fullness of deity is in him bodily too! So what's the difference, except that Jesus, according to Paul, was the first to be transformed that way, hence the "firstborn of all creatures"!
I feel I should say something in response to this, too. One major difference, as far as I can tell, is that no believer is ever said to have pre-existed in essence (huparcho) in the form (morphi-not schema) of God prior to emptying himself and taking the form of a bond-servant.
All these verbal acrobatics are an English necessity to attempt to express without going into deceptive language the meaning of the original languages.
I agree.
The Bible is believed on faith. That is its "proof." This book has been 'cooked' numerous times for the past 2,000 years and subjected to innumerable rationalizations, alterations, redactions, additions and deletions, to make it appear "harmonized" and without contradiction. Apparently, the "harmonization" continues to mimick the prevailing doctirne of the editors.
That's a rather bleak picture you're painting, my FRiend. In my view, without the remarkable plethora of N.T. manuscript evidence unparalleled in classic literature, we wouldn't even think of having a discussion about alterations, redactions, additions and deletions. If the Gospel were engraved on a dime, as the saying goes, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
For a Book that is supposedly perspicuous, that even a 5-yearold can understand [sic], it sure is laborious and requires endless hyperbolic exegetical explanations by multiglot PhD intellectuals who can selectively stitch together any "official truth" to their liking.
Amazing then, isn't it, the number of major doctrines of Christianity universally agreed upon by Christians of every stripe, not the least of which, the Deity of Christ?
Thank you for the discussion.
Cordially,