S0uljah -
Wierd, same thing as Luther.
No, not like Luther at all.
Hmmmm, Satan is a tricky fellow indeed.
He must be pretty tricky if he still manages to convince people that he exists, despite the fact that he does absolutely nothing to prove it!
Just look at these crazy ideas that Evangelion follows:
Just look at these tiny little half-sentences which have obviously been wrenched out of context.
1. Christ had a sinful nature. (What They Believe, p. 74)
*snip*
A classic example of (a) ignorance, and (b) misrepresentation. Without making
any attempt to understand what Christadelphians mean by this expression, the author of this ridiculous little list of objections has mere superimposed his
own ideas onto it, and pretended that this is "what Christadelphians believe."
When mainstream Christians say sinful, fallen nature, they do not mean what Christadelphians mean when we refer to sinful nature. Mainstream Christians believe in the dogma of Original Sin, which states that all men are sinners by virtue of their fallen nature, regardless of whether or not they have sinned. Christadelphians do not believe this. By contrast, Christadelphians believe that men are only counted as sinners
when they have sinned. For this reason, we see Jesus as a man who possessed sinful nature (a nature that is both capable of sin, and prone to performing it), but one who
never actually sinned.
This is shown to us by Scripture:
Hebrews 2:18.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted.
Christ was subject to that same bondage of death for he (like us) was mortal. And yet,
he was utterly sinless.
Hence article #9 of the Christadelphian Statement of Faith:
9. That it was this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother, enabling him to bear our condemnation, and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof, and, therefore, one who could rise after suffering the death required by the righteousness of God.
References
9. MAT 1:18-25, LUK 1:26-35, ISA 7:14, ROM 1:3-4, ROM 8:3, ROM 8:3, GAL 4:4, 2CO 5:21, HEB 2:14-17, HEB 4:15
A little more reasearch on the part of the polemicist, and this foolish objection would never have been raised in the first place.
2. God is only one, that Christ is not considered part of Him and Him. (Isaiah 43-45)
Biblical Proof of Falsehood: John 1:1-4
I see no mention of Christ in
John 1:1-4.
A reference to Christ and one of his eschatological titles. No mention of the alleged "fact" that he is God or a part of God.
See above. Christ was indeed the
logos ginomai sarx. But this does not say that he is God, nor does it say that he is a part of God.
A reference to
Isaiah 7:14, of which Trinitarian theologian Albert Barnes writes in his
Notes on the Bible:
Immanuel - Hebrew God with us -
עמנואל immanu'el - from אל 'el, God, and עמנוּ ‛ımmanu, with us. The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for nothing was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of the name, of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children.
Thus, Isaiah denotes the salvation of Yahweh; Jeremiah, the exaltation or grandeur of Yahweh, each compounded of two words, in which the name Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in Elijah, the two names of God are combined, and it means literally, God the Yahweh. Thus, also Eliab, God my father; Eliada, knowledge of God; Eliakim, the resurrection of God; Elihu, he is my God; Elisha, salvation of God. In none of these instances is the fact, that the name of God is incorporated with the proper name of the individual, any argument in respect to his rank or character.
It is true, that Matthew Matthew 1:23 uses this name as properly expressing the rank of the Messiah; but all that can be demonstrated from the use of the name by Matthew is, that it properly designated the nature and rank of the Lord Jesus. It was a pledge, then, that God was with his people, and the name designated by the prophet had a complete fulfilment in its use as applied to the Messiah. Whether the Messiah be regarded as himself a pledge and demonstration of the presence and protection of God, or whether the name be regarded as descriptive of his nature and dignity, yet there was an appropriateness in applying it to him. It was fully expressive of the event of the incarnation.
Jerome supposes that the name, Immanuel, denotes nothing more than divine aid and protection. Others have supposed, however, that the name must denote the assumption of our nature by God in the person of the Messiah, that is, that God became man. So Theodoret, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Chrysostom. Calvin, Rosenmuller, and others. The true interpretation is, that no argument to prove that can be derived from the use of the name; but when the fact of the incarnation has been demonstrated from other sources, the name is appropriately expressive of that event. So it seems to be used by Matthew.
It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel; yet that name, in its connection here, may certainly be regarded as a designed prediction of the incarnation of Christ. Such a design our author allows in the prophecy generally.
Common sense tells us that there is no need to read anything more into this name, than that which is already apparent to the naked eye.
This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him.
Indeed, Jesus himself refutes any such notion in
John 17:3.
This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him.
Isaiah 45:22-23 and Romans 14:11
Neither of these passages say that Jesus is God, nor do they say that he is a part of Him.
This passage (a reference to the "new creation") does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him. Indeed, it is wholly unsuited to the purpose.
This does not say that Jesus is God, nor does it say that he is a part of Him. Indeed, it is diametrically opposed to the idea:
John 17:11.
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
"That they may be one,
even as we are."
...of which the footnotes in the New English Translation have this to say:
El Gibbor is probably an attributive adjective (mighty God), though one might translate God is a warrior or God is mighty. Since this title is apparently used later (10:21, but cf. Hos. 3:5) for God, some have understood it as pointing to the kings deity. Others argue that the title portrays the king as Gods representative on the battlefield, whom God empowers in a supernatural way (see Hayes and Irvine, Isaiah, 181-82). The latter sense seems more likely in the original context of the prophecy. Having read the NT, we might in retrospect interpret this title as indicating the coming kings deity, but it is unlikely that Isaiah or his audience would have understood the title in such a bold way. Ps 45:6 addresses the Davidic king as God because he ruled and fought as Gods representative on earth.
[
]
Everlasting Father. This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the Son is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the Father.) Rather, in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of father see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of father is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: To some I was a father, to others I was a mother. In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him a father and a mother to his people. (See J. Pritchard, ANET, 499-500.)
The use of everlasting might suggest the deity of the king, but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the kings long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title Mighty God) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.
See also
Exodus 7, Psalm 45, & Psalm 82.