An Article I Found Validating Christ's Deity

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Der Alter

There is one Satan who is called/referred to as god in scripture:

2 Cor 4:4; In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Help me out here, show me where the name Satan appears in this verse? Little grammar lesson here, in your proof text the word Theos/God has a predicate, "of this world" which immediately distinguishes it from God without a predicate. An example of Theos/God without a predicate is John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Thomas did not say "god of something."

'god' not being capitalized in this verse means little more than the translators were almost assuredly trinitarian, considering the fact the Greek the original authors wrote the scripture(s) in was entirely uppercase.

A similar example of this is when Sarah is described as calling Abraham 'lord' in 1 Peter 3:6

Actually you are wrong Greek was not always all capitals there are many manuscripts written in lower case, they are called minuscules.
 
Upvote 0

Kutte

Regular Member
Dec 30, 2007
1,197
66
USA
✟24,166.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Green
"Pasted" implies something less than honest. What I posted is entirely my own work. No, we can't agree, had you bothered to actually read my post you would have read this thesis statement.

"There is one God! The Son is called/referred to as God, in scripture, but the Son is not the Father or the Spirit. Thirty six (36) scripture which address or refer to Jesus as God, Matt 1:23, Isa 9:6, Luke 7:16, John 1:1, 3, 4, 10, 14, 18, 10:33, 5:18,8: 58, 12;24, 14:9, 17:5, 10, 20:28, Act 20:28, Rom 9:5, 2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:14-16, 2:9, Eph 3:9, Heb 1:1:2-3, 8-12, 3:3, Phi 2:6, 1 Tim 1:1, 3:16, 6:15, Tit 2;13, 2 Pet 1:1, 1 John 5:20, Rev 17:14, 19;16, 22:12-13"

Hi Der Alter,

I can't refuse to compliment you on having worked on everything you posted. Must have been quiet a job. However, as I mentioned before, I am, and I think most of the participants in this forum too, are not here to study long posts but to discuss certain issues. Matter of fact, much can be said with as few words as possible. Whereas some issues, such as the trinity, have required mountains of books and essays by their promoters while attempting to justify it and thereby adding only more and more confusion. Which reminds me that God, the All-Wise, is not the Author of confusion, man is instead.

Now, let me just grab and comment on the first 3 scripture references you gave above: Matthew 1:23, Luke 7:16 and John 1:1-.
When in Matthew 1:23 the writer says in the end "...and they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us" does not reflect that the new born child is actually God but has been send by God for guidance. Thus the comment "God with us."

Luke in 7:16 simply pointed out that God had visited his people by means of a great Prophet. No relation to Jesus being God whatsoever.

I know many people love the verse in John 1:1 and interpret the "Word" as being Jesus. This is not acceptable to a free thinking Christian Theist like myself. For starters, a word can never be a person by itself. a word is simply a tool for communication coming from a self-conscious being. What John is conveying to us is that the word was indeed with and coming from God whereby His words served as an order for bringing things into existence.

Kutte
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Der Alter,

I can't refuse to compliment you on having worked on everything you posted. Must have been quiet a job. However, as I mentioned before, I am, and I think most of the participants in this forum too, are not here to study long posts but to discuss certain issues. Matter of fact, much can be said with as few words as possible. Whereas some issues, such as the trinity, have required mountains of books and essays by their promoters while attempting to justify it and thereby adding only more and more confusion. Which reminds me that God, the All-Wise, is not the Author of confusion, man is instead.

Well I apologize if me quoting 40+ scripture to support the current issues offends you. I am not offended by God's word. I have a few books on the Trinity, I don't find them confusing at all. "God Crucified, by Richard Bauckmann, The Forgotten Trinity by James White and The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. Morey cites 479 scripture. Between them they counter virtually every anti-Trinity argument there is. If people are confused the confusion is their own doing.

Now, let me just grab and comment on the first 3 scripture references you gave above: Matthew 1:23, Luke 7:16 and John 1:1-.
When in Matthew 1:23 the writer says in the end "...and they shall call his name Emmanuel which being interpreted is God with us" does not reflect that the new born child is actually God but has been send by God for guidance. Thus the comment "God with us."

Isaiah 7:14, I happen to think when God names someone, He means what He says. For example when God named Abram, Abraham he became the father of many nations, the meaning of His name.

Luke in 7:16 simply pointed out that God had visited his people by means of a great Prophet. No relation to Jesus being God whatsoever.

The people said "God hath visited his people" not "God had visited his people by means of a great Prophet." If that is what they meant that is what they would have said. Notice how you have to change the scripture to make it mean what you want it to?

I know many people love the verse in John 1:1 and interpret the "Word" as being Jesus. This is not acceptable to a free thinking Christian Theist like myself. For starters, a word can never be a person by itself. a word is simply a tool for communication coming from a self-conscious being. What John is conveying to us is that the word was indeed with and coming from God whereby His words served as an order for bringing things into existence.
Kutte

If one ignores the verse and substitutes their own assumptions/presuppositions.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same [Word] was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him;[Word] and without him [Word] was not any thing made that was made.

Here is some more research for you to ignore.

John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Logos i.e. Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on
Memra.מאמר/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.

In the below list, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least eighty examples where the name
יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.

Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars documenting the historical faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some interesting quotes from the below article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T..

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.”

[1] “Deut 4:7 The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
[2] “Isa 48:13 His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[3] “Isa 64;13 So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14;18, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you..
[4] “Zech 12:5 In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. 1 Cor 1:30, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
[5] “Lev 22:12 My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. 1 Cor 1;30, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself,against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

Jewish Encylopædia online
 
Upvote 0

PattyOfurniture

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,010
73
Florida
✟16,524.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Help me out here, show me where the name Satan appears in this verse? Little grammar lesson here, in your proof text the word Theos/God has a predicate, "of this world" which immediately distinguishes it from God without a predicate. An example of Theos/God without a predicate is John 20:28 "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." Thomas did not say "god of something."



Actually you are wrong Greek was not always all capitals there are many manuscripts written in lower case, they are called minuscules.
I'm simply showing that the term theos is used for other than the Father, and that verse is obviously referring to Satan. As far as your Thomas argument, my example of Sarah calling Abraham "lord" has no 'predicate'.
Of course the earliest manuscripts were all uppercase, there was no capitalization at all even when lowercase was first introduced. I'm certain you know the later translators added the capitalization.
To say Thomas had worked out a triune or even bi-une deity in his head at that early stage is pretty incredible.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm simply showing that the term theos is used for other than the Father, and that verse is obviously referring to Satan.

Many people assume that the verse is talking about Satan, but it is not specifically stated.

As far as your Thomas argument, my example of Sarah calling Abraham "lord" has no 'predicate'.

Lord and God are not equivalent. Lord in many instances is the equivalent of the English "Sir."

Of course the earliest manuscripts were all uppercase, there was no capitalization at all even when lowercase was first introduced. I'm certain you know the later translators added the capitalization.
To say Thomas had worked out a triune or even bi-une deity in his head at that early stage is pretty incredible.

I don't rely on capitalization, the context determines if Logos/God should be capitalized. I didn't say or imply that Thomas had worked out anything. I am saying that Thomas clearly addressed Jesus as My Lord and My God. The early church, native Greek speakers, understood Thomas to be addressing Jesus as God.

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [210-280 AD]

Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God.

And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God."276 And, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us."277 And, "My Lord and my God."278 And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore."279

The Treatises of Cyprian – TESTIMONIES [200-258 AD]


Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!

To verify writings of the ECF, click (Here).
 
Upvote 0

Kutte

Regular Member
Dec 30, 2007
1,197
66
USA
✟24,166.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Green

Dear Alter
Well I apologize if me quoting 40+ scripture to support the current issues offends you. I am not offended by God's word. I have a few books on the Trinity, I don't find them confusing at all. "God Crucified, by Richard Bauckmann, The Forgotten Trinity by James White and The Trinity: Evidence and Issues by Robert Morey. Morey cites 479 scripture. Between them they counter virtually every anti-Trinity argument there is. If people are confused the confusion is their own doing.



Isaiah 7:14, I happen to think when God names someone, He means what He says. For example when God named Abram, Abraham he became the father of many nations, the meaning of His name.



The people said "God hath visited his people" not "God had visited his people by means of a great Prophet." If that is what they meant that is what they would have said. Notice how you have to change the scripture to make it mean what you want it to?



If one ignores the verse and substitutes their own assumptions/presuppositions.

John 1:1-3
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same [Word] was in the beginning with God.
(3) All things were made by him;[Word] and without him [Word] was not any thing made that was made.

Here is some more research for you to ignore.

John was a simple Jewish fisherman, not a Greek philosopher, therefore his understanding of God and the Logos i.e. Word, would be Jewish, not Greek.

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on
Memra.מאמר/memra which in Aramaic means “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.

In the below list, which is only representative not comprehensive, there are at least eighty examples where the name
יהוה/YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with” מאמר/memra.” When John, the Jew, said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God.,” he was not saying anything strange or new.

Remember this is not a Trinitarian source, it is the Jewish Encyclopedia prepared by Jewish scholars documenting the historical faith, beliefs, and practices of the ancient Jews. Some interesting quotes from the below article, all from the Targums, before the Christian era, note the parallels with the N.T..

Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra.”

[1] “Deut 4:7 The Word brings Israel nigh unto God and [The Word] sits on [God’s] throne receiving the prayers of Israel.” cf. Re 3:21 Re 22:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
[2] “Isa 48:13 His Word has laid the foundation of the earth.” cf. John 1:3, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[3] “Isa 64;13 So, in the future, shall The Word be the comforter.” cf. John 14;18, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

Joh 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you..
[4] “Zech 12:5 In The Word redemption will be found.” cf. 1 Cor 1:30, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
[5] “Lev 22:12 My Word shall be unto you for a redeeming deity.” cf. 1 Cor 1;30, Heb 9:12, Heb 9:15, N.T. ca. 70 AD.

1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:

In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," [The Word] instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra [The Word]," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). " I will cover thee with My Memra, [My Word] " instead of "My hand " (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra [My Word] shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra, [The Word] " instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes "a sign between My Memra [My Word] and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra [His Word] has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, [The Word] not God Himself,against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra [The Word] brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" " (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). . . So, in the future, shall the Memra [The Word] be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra [My Word] shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12).

The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra [The Word] the redemption will be found " (Targ. Zech. xii. 5).

Jewish Encylopædia online

Dear Alter,

Your post got a bit long again, does it not? (smile)
I'll be a brief, at least I'll try to.

Regarding the famous John 1:1: What we have here is a, or let's say, are words, nothing else. If people try to see a person in a word, it is clearly made up. Words are tools for communication coming from a being. It's quiet simple to understand by anyone not blinded by some belief.

The issue of Jesus having been God, aside from what one thinks he or she reads or want to read in scriptures, can be clarified easily from the standpoint of realizing that God is immortal and did not die on a cross, a man named Jesus did. Once we reach this conclusions things can be seen more clearly. In short: Since God is immortal Jesus could not have been God himself. To be truly man, Jesus must have had some shortcomings which are part of man's nature. This means making mistakes, having sinned once in a while, giving in to temptation every so often, even lying or cheating. If Jesus did not have any of these attributes he never was fully man. Then he must have been God? Well, this brings me to my above statement again that God does not die and the entire episode relating
to the crucifixion becomes unreal.

Kutte
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Dear Alter,

Your post got a bit long again, does it not? (smile)
I'll be a brief, at least I'll try to.

Regarding the famous John 1:1: What we have here is a, or let's say, are words, nothing else. If people try to see a person in a word, it is clearly made up. Words are tools for communication coming from a being. It's quiet simple to understand by anyone not blinded by some belief.

The issue of Jesus having been God, aside from what one thinks he or she reads or want to read in scriptures, can be clarified easily from the standpoint of realizing that God is immortal and did not die on a cross, a man named Jesus did. Once we reach this conclusions things can be seen more clearly.

Glad you cleared that up for me, you have found something that is impossible for God to do.

In short: Since God is immortal Jesus could not have been God himself. [Mar 1:1] To be truly man, Jesus must have had some shortcomings which are part of man's nature. This means making mistakes, having sinned once in a while, [Heb 4:15] giving in to temptation every so often, even lying or cheating. If Jesus did not have any of these attributes he never was fully man. [Matt 16:13] Then he must have been God? Well, this brings me to my above statement again that God does not die and the entire episode relating
to the crucifixion becomes unreal.Kutte

Heb_4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Mat_16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mar_1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
 
Upvote 0

PattyOfurniture

Senior Member
Aug 15, 2007
1,010
73
Florida
✟16,524.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Many people assume that the verse is talking about Satan, but it is not specifically stated.



Lord and God are not equivalent. Lord in many instances is the equivalent of the English "Sir."



I don't rely on capitalization, the context determines if Logos/God should be capitalized. I didn't say or imply that Thomas had worked out anything. I am saying that Thomas clearly addressed Jesus as My Lord and My God. The early church, native Greek speakers, understood Thomas to be addressing Jesus as God.

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity [210-280 AD]

Moreover, if, whereas it is the property of none but God to know the secrets of the heart, Christ beholds the secrets of the heart; and if, whereas it belongs to none but God to remit sins, the same Christ remits sins; and if, whereas it is the portion of no man to come from heaven, He descended by coming from heaven; and if, whereas this word can be true of no man, "I and the Father are one,"91 Christ alone declared this word out of the consciousness of His divinity; and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ's divinity, says in reply to Christ, "My Lord and my God; "92 and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,"93 writing in his epistles; and if the same apostle declares that he was ordained "an apostle not by men, nor of man, but by Jesus Christ; "94 and if the same contends that he learned the Gospel not from men or by man, but received it from Jesus Christ, reasonably Christ is God.

And let us therefore believe this, since it is most faithful that Jesus Christ the Son of God is our Lord and God; because "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God."276 And, "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us."277 And, "My Lord and my God."278 And, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore."279

The Treatises of Cyprian – TESTIMONIES [200-258 AD]


Also in the sixty-seventh Psalm: “Sing unto God, sing praises unto His name: make a way for Him who goeth up into the west: God is His name.” Also in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Also in the same: “The Lord said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands: and be not faithless, but believing. Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” Also Paul to the Romans: “I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren and my kindred according to the flesh: who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.” Also in the Apocalypse: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: I will give to him that is athirst, of the fountain of living water freely. He that overcometh shall possess these things, and their inheritance; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.” Also in the eighty-first Psalm: “God stood in the congregation of gods, and judging gods in the midst.” And again in the same place: “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all the children of the Highest: but ye shall die like men.” But if they who have been righteous, and have obeyed the divine precepts, may be called gods, how much more is Christ, the Son of God, God!

To verify writings of the ECF, click (Here).
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Der Alter,
Who do you believe 'The god of this World' is referring to if not Satan?

1 Co_8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

and I never said 'lord' had anything to do with the word 'god', I was showing your lack of predication argument holds no water.

If "'lord' has nothing to do with the word 'God'" how can it possibly show anything about my predication argument?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kutte

Regular Member
Dec 30, 2007
1,197
66
USA
✟24,166.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Green
Glad you cleared that up for me, you have found something that is impossible for God to do.



Heb_4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Mat_16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mar_1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;

Hi Der Alter,

Son of God? Of course! Doesn't it make sense? Of course it does. Are we not all sons and daughters of God having been created in the image of God? Of course we have.

Kutte
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Der Alter,
Son of God? Of course! Doesn't it make sense? Of course it does. Are we not all sons and daughters of God having been created in the image of God? Of course we have.
Kutte

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,[צלם] after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
.
צלם tselem tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.
.
Rom_8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
.
Rom_8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Gal_4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Eph_1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
 
Upvote 0

Kutte

Regular Member
Dec 30, 2007
1,197
66
USA
✟24,166.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Green
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,[צלם] after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
.
צלם tselem tseh'-lem
From an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew.
.
Rom_8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
.
Rom_8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

Gal_4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Eph_1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Hi Über Alter,

You seem to have drawers filled with scripture reference for every topic. Correct me if I am wrong. How about this one:
John 8:32 "...and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Join, me by feeling free from man made doctrines.

Kutte
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi Über Alter,

You seem to have drawers filled with scripture reference for every topic. Correct me if I am wrong. How about this one:
John 8:32 "...and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Join, me by feeling free from man made doctrines.
Kutte
.
I have several Bibles, in more than one language, graduate education, 49 years as a Christian, 38 years as a pastor/teacher and many Greek, Hebrew and historical sources. I posted several scripture which you did not address and seemed to imply that I don't have the truth. Please show me where any post of mine reflects "man made doctrines?"
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Dear Alter


Dear Alter,

Your post got a bit long again, does it not? (smile)
I'll be a brief, at least I'll try to.

Regarding the famous John 1:1: What we have here is a, or let's say, are words, nothing else. If people try to see a person in a word, it is clearly made up. Words are tools for communication coming from a being. It's quiet simple to understand by anyone not blinded by some belief.
Reflect on what it means to be a Perfect, Good, Eternal, and Infinite Being with Perfect Knowledge. Then ask oneself what it might mean (in our limited understanding) for such a Being to know Himself and express Himself (with Perfect Knowledge). If we can form an imperfect image of ourselves in our limited minds, what must be the Image of Himself, in His Perfect Mind except Perfect. Now tell us again how the Word of God is not a Perfect Being. Then explain such a Perfect Image, that created all there is, would somehow be incapable of becoming a Man that is both fully God Himself and also fully human.
The issue of Jesus having been God, aside from what one thinks he or she reads or want to read in scriptures, can be clarified easily from the standpoint of realizing that God is immortal and did not die on a cross, a man named Jesus did. Once we reach this conclusions things can be seen more clearly. In short: Since God is immortal Jesus could not have been God himself. To be truly man, Jesus must have had some shortcomings which are part of man's nature. This means making mistakes, having sinned once in a while, giving in to temptation every so often, even lying or cheating. If Jesus did not have any of these attributes he never was fully man. Then he must have been God? Well, this brings me to my above statement again that God does not die and the entire episode relating
to the crucifixion becomes unreal.

Kutte
These conclusions are based on a jump(presumption) that says because Jesus died, He must not be God. Since the belief is that He is both fully God and fully Man, to be consistent this same belief would have to hold that this man with two natures had one nature - human - that could die. If His human nature could not die, then He would not have been fully Man. The same orthodox belief holds that the two natures are joined but do not impose the characteristics/limits/boundaries one to the other - IOW He is still fully God (Spirit) when His human body dies (His human soul is immortal like all human souls/spirits). So upon death, He remains fully God and fully human (though before resurrection this means His Human means His nature consists of only a departed soul ("I commend my spirit"). Upon resurrection that same Man is still fully God (Spirit) and fully human (a body (glorified)and a human spirit).

And no, Jesus is a perfect Man -meaning without sin from conception to death. Also sort of necessary that He be so to represent a perfect Sacrifice (without blemish). He was therefore Holy, as He said we should be (and we can be), but He was Holy in entire walk here. BTW the belief also means He has two wills, and essentially two minds with one of each being Divine, which is why we can see Him speak of the Father as He does, as Real Man and also as His Son(Divine).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kutte

Regular Member
Dec 30, 2007
1,197
66
USA
✟24,166.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Green
Reflect on what it means to be a Perfect, Good, Eternal, and Infinite Being with Perfect Knowledge. Then ask oneself what it might mean (in our limited understanding) for such a Being to know Himself and express Himself (with Perfect Knowledge). If we can form an imperfect image of ourselves in our limited minds, what must be the Image of Himself, in His Perfect Mind except Perfect. Now tell us again how the Word of God is not a Perfect Being. Then explain such a Perfect Image, that created all there is, would somehow be incapable of becoming a Man that is both fully God Himself and also fully human.
These conclusions are based on a jump(presumption) that says because Jesus died, He must not be God. Since the belief is that He is both fully God and fully Man, to be consistent this same belief would have to hold that this man with two natures had one nature - human - that could die. If His human nature could not die, then He would not have been fully Man. The same orthodox belief holds that the two natures are joined but do not impose the characteristics/limits/boundaries one to the other - IOW He is still fully God (Spirit) when His human body dies (His human soul is immortal like all human souls/spirits). So upon death, He remains fully God and fully human (though before resurrection this means His Human means His nature consists of only a departed soul ("I commend my spirit"). Upon resurrection that same Man is still fully God (Spirit) and fully human (a body (glorified)and a human spirit).

And no, Jesus is a perfect Man -meaning without sin from conception to death. Also sort of necessary that He be so to represent a perfect Sacrifice (without blemish). He was therefore Holy, as He said we should be (and we can be), but He was Holy in entire walk here. BTW the belief also means He has two wills, and essentially two minds with one of each being Divine, which is why we can see Him speak of the Father as He does, as Real Man and also as His Son(Divine).

Hi DrBubbelLove,

What happened lately, I missed you friend.

Haven't we been at this topic before? Jesus could not have been fully man if he did not have had some shortcomings which are common to a fully man. To be fully man means having tendencies to sin, making mistakes, to cheat and other negative characteristics. If Jesus was fully God then we must accept that God died on the cross, which is unacceptable because God is immortal. Only a fully man with all his shortcomings can be accepted as having died on the cross.

This whole issue of Jesus having been both, fully man and fully God, is part of the Trinity doctrine which is not only confusing, but man made 325 years after Jesus left us. God is not the author of confusion, man is. (1.Cor. 14:33)

The same applies to 1. John 1:1. How anyone can read into a word being a person escapes my sensible thinking. A word is simply an expression coming from an entity such as a person or God himself. In John 1:1 we recognize that it was the word of God who ordered the universe to come into existence.

Kutte
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Kutte,
HI, busy vacation times.

Did we cover this before?
Man has shortcomings from the womb because we are a fallen race, and the guilt of the entire race we pass to our offspring - so it is with us in the womb. Jesus is preserved from this because of Mary's Immaculate conception - as evident in the peculiar greeting of the angel to her BEFORE she said yes to the offer. Her condition/state with God because of His Grace is the only reason He can be formed a perfect Man (as Adam was at first) in Her womb. So He does get our fallen nature and remains as scripture said, without sin.

As to His being sinless is the Bible is very clear on that point and it was foretold as well.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin
John 8:29 "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
Isaiah 53:9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1 John 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."
Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God
 
Upvote 0

Kutte

Regular Member
Dec 30, 2007
1,197
66
USA
✟24,166.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Green
Kutte,
HI, busy vacation times.

Did we cover this before?
Man has shortcomings from the womb because we are a fallen race, and the guilt of the entire race we pass to our offspring - so it is with us in the womb. Jesus is preserved from this because of Mary's Immaculate conception - as evident in the peculiar greeting of the angel to her BEFORE she said yes to the offer. Her condition/state with God because of His Grace is the only reason He can be formed a perfect Man (as Adam was at first) in Her womb. So He does get our fallen nature and remains as scripture said, without sin.

As to His being sinless is the Bible is very clear on that point and it was foretold as well.
Hebrews 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin
John 8:29 "And He who sent Me is with Me; He has not left Me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to Him."
Isaiah 53:9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
1 Peter 1:18-19 knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
1 John 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin.
Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."
Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God

Hi DrBubbaLove,

Good post, makes sense if one believes that man is a fallen creature. But it doesn't change the essence of a truly man. If Jesus was the only "perfect" man among all the other "imperfect men" he cannot be considered a truly man. Like I mentioned before, to be truly man implies having all the same imperfect characteristics which Jesus didn't have according to your posts.

Being a perfect man and allegedly God himself too makes Jesus far removed from being truly man.

Kutte
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi DrBubbelLove,

What happened lately, I missed you friend.

Haven't we been at this topic before? Jesus could not have been fully man if he did not have had some shortcomings which are common to a fully man. To be fully man means having tendencies to sin, making mistakes, to cheat and other negative characteristics. If Jesus was fully God then we must accept that God died on the cross, which is unacceptable because God is immortal. Only a fully man with all his shortcomings can be accepted as having died on the cross.

I happen to believe that God could provide a perfect, sinless man who otherwise is exactly like every other man. If Jesus was only a man He could not have saved mankind.

Psa 49:6-9
(6) They that trust in their wealth, And boast themselves in the multitude of their riches;
(7) None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him
(8) (For the redemption of their life is costly, And it faileth for ever),
(9) That he should still live alway, That he should not see corruption.

This whole issue of Jesus having been both, fully man and fully God, is part of the Trinity doctrine which is not only confusing, but man made 325 years after Jesus left us. God is not the author of confusion, man is. (1.Cor. 14:33)

The Trinity was not made in 325 AD. The Nicaean council was held in 325 AD, the Trinity was never mentioned at that council. The Trinity is not confusing, There is one God. The Father is God but he is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Son is God but he is not the Father or the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit is God but he is not the Son or the Father. There is one God.

The same applies to 1. John 1:1. How anyone can read into a word being a person escapes my sensible thinking. A word is simply an expression coming from an entity such as a person or God himself. In John 1:1 we recognize that it was the word of God who ordered the universe to come into existence.
Kutte

I think you meant John 1:1. How do you explain the rest of John 1:1? And the rest of the passage?
.

Joh 1:1-4
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [toward] God, and the Word was God.
(2) The same [the Word] was in the beginning with [toward] God.
(3) All things were made through him[the Word] ; and without him [the Word] was not anything made that hath been made.
(4) In him [the Word] was life; and the life was the light of men.

.
The Greek speaking early church understood John 1:1 to be saying Jesus was/is God.
.

Theophilus Of Antioch. [A.D. 115-181]
And hence the holy writings teach us, and all the spirit-bearing [inspired] men, one of whom, John, says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” showing that at first God was alone, and the Word in Him. Then he says, “The Word was God; all things came into existence through Him; and apart from Him not one thing came into existence.” The Word, then, being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen, being sent by Him, and is found in a place.

.
Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] Exhortation To The Heathen
.
But before the foundation of the world were we, who, because destined to be in Him, pre-existed in the eye of God before, — we the rational creatures of the Word of God, on whose account we date from the beginning; for “in the beginning was the Word.” Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man — the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.
.
Fragments Of Clemens Alexandrinus
.
Following the Gospel according to John, and in accordance with it, this Epistle also contains the spiritual principle. What therefore he says, “from the beginning,” the Presbyter explained to this effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the beginning of the Creator. For when he says, “That which was from the beginning,” he touches upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the Father. There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate. That He was always the Word, is signified by saying, “In the beginning was the Word.” But by the expression, “we have seen with our eyes,” he signifies the Lord’s presence in the flesh, “and our hands have handled,” he says, “of the Word of life.”
.
That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” There was One “who was,” and there was another “with whom” He was. But I find in Scripture the name LORD also applied to them Both: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.” And Isaiah says this: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?” Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?
.
Tertullian 6. On The Resurrection Of The Flesh [A.D. 145-220.]
.
“That,” says John, “which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the “Word in the beginning with God” the Father, and not the Father with the Word. For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father
.
Tertullian 8. Scorpiace
.
By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son. The utterance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son’s, “I have stretched out the heavens alone,” because by the Word were the heavens established. Inasmuch, then, as the heaven was prepared when Wisdom was present in the Word, and since all things were made by the Word, it is quite correct to say that even the Son stretched out the heaven alone, because He alone ministered to the Father’s work. It must also be He who says, “I am the First, and to all futurity I AM.” The Word, no doubt, was before all things. “In the beginning was the Word;” and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father.

.
Hippolytus [A.D. 170-236] The Refutation Of All Heresies Book 5
.
This, he says, is the great beginning respecting which Scripture has spoken. Concerning this, he says it has been declared: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God, all things were made by Him, and without Him was not one thing that was made. And what was formed in Him is life.” And in Him, he says, has been formed Eve; (now) Eve is life. This, however, he says, is Eve, mother of all living, — a common nature, that is, of gods, angels, immortals, mortals, irrational creatures, (and) rational ones. For, he says, the expression “all” he uttered of all (existences).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrBubbaLove
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi DrBubbaLove,

Good post, makes sense if one believes that man is a fallen creature. But it doesn't change the essence of a truly man. If Jesus was the only "perfect" man among all the other "imperfect men" he cannot be considered a truly man. Like I mentioned before, to be truly man implies having all the same imperfect characteristics which Jesus didn't have according to your posts.

Being a perfect man and allegedly God himself too makes Jesus far removed from being truly man.

Kutte
In these terms I would think it obvious that Adam would be considered a "truly" man, both as God made him - to love Him with all his heart - both before and after the Fall. The only difference would be because of sin Adam could no longer have the relationship he formerly had with God. Adam could still love God with all his heart, but that could not repair what he had done. The "restoration" of the human race requires a supernatural act to make it possible to repair our relationship with God. And it is a restoration - not a transformation of humans into something else. All humans owe what we are to Adam's creation, including Jesus. So am unclear how to see Jesus as not "truly" man.

If by imperfections one means He could not have scars, feel pain or be weak, bad breath, BO...etc - physical limitations of being human, then you have misunderstood. Being human He had all that while He walked here. A perfect man in the sense I meant it would be like Adam before He sinned. Adam could "walk with God". In the womb, the manner of His creation preclude the "stain" of sin before He entered this world and He remained sinless as Scripture says (and said He would be).That is what is meant by a perfect man.

And BTW we can be "perfected" in this life, just not natural to be born that way or if stay that way because of inclination to sin. Those that the Bible depicts "walking into Heaven" instead of dying had to be in a perfect relationship with God in order for that to be possible.
 
Upvote 0