• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Christ's Deity

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by fieldsofwind, Dec 3, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    posted by evangelion: "He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom_8:11)."

    based on what?

    And... Christ always said that His authority came from the Father, because the Father is He who remained in glory... the Son is He who took on flesh out of love. God, after becoming flesh, had to recieve all power from Himself who remained in glory. You say, "obsurd... that is crazy... it doesn't make any sense". Welp... that's how the word of God portrays it chief. And, since Christ was still, even after becoming flesh, in very nature God... He could definitely say that He was indeed going to raise it up. Because they are one.

    If you don't think so... then explain away why the very man you quote from demands that Scripture teaches Christ's Deity.

    take care

    FOW
     
  2. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    There is definitely something very wrong with you. I don't know what it is, but it's clearly... severe. And permanent. :rolleyes:

    Based on his use use of the Greek words in question! Just read it, for crying out loud!

    Well yes, but what's your point?

    *snip*

    Spare me the Trinitarian propaganda, please.

    Because, like you, he suffered from intellectual dishonesty.

    I suggest you read my refutation of Robertsons' argument from Philippians 2. :cool:
     
  3. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    FOW -

    No, I don't do "the exact same thing." I use academic sources to reinforce an argument that I myself have written. You used them as a substitute for any work or logical thought on your own part. Viva la difference.

    Easy to claim, but not quite so easy to prove. Since my sources thus far have consisted largely of Trinitarian academics, you are left with the uncomfortable conclusion that your copy/pasted sources (written by amateur theologians) are contradicted and refuted by my citations from professional Trinitarian exegetes. Sorry.

    How about your lengthy digression into JW interpretations? Or your pointless references to the use of ho theos, which have nothing to do with the debate? How about them, eh? :cool:
     
  4. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    I'm off to work.

    You may spam to your heart's content. :cool:
     
  5. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Evangelion,

    You stated:

    "The "Hebrew experts", eh? Well, whatever."

    I gave you the name of the man overseeing the project. I am sure his doctorate will stand up to your 'dictionary'

    You also stated:

    "What's your point?"

    To get my question answered if Jesus ever said the name 'Yahweh'?

    Furthermore:

    " And why can't you spell properly?"

    Once again .Ad Hominem attacks are not a substitute for a sound presentation....[debate 101 ]
     
  6. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    evangelion... you seem to think that by referring to a work explaining the error of JW thinking... is somehow "off-topic". I don't understand why, since you seem to agree with each other on this subject.

    However, the points were made and you never even responded to the post:

    Here, I'll give you another chancePosted by evangelion: "No, what I did was present an explanation of the passage which has yet to be refuted. To date, nobody has taken the time to go back and show me why am wrong."

    So, you're saying that John 1 does not dictate that the Word was God? Do you believe that it does not claim that Christ is the Word? Do you think that the Word came into Christ and that Christ is not the Word?

    Now... you say you have "evidence" for this... and yet... so many (a great majority) of the "scholars" demand that it indeed must say that Christ is the Word... which was God and became flesh. To not agree was considered ... what was it... bad grammar. Now... I believe God... and He says that His word will not pass away. It was as clear in the greek as it is now in the english. I can post the stuff for you again if you would like.

    Posted by evangelion: "Go back and read what I wrote. I said that they do refer to him as theos, and that the reference is titular, not ontological."

    So "ontological" meaning "in nature, etc" is something that you cannot see with all of the referrences to Christ being in the same form as they are to the Father? The "titular" claim is given to the Father just as it is to God who became flesh... and why should it not... for even though Christ had become flesh, he remained in very nature God (Phil 2)

    Here, perhaps this will help: The Gospel writers all used the TITLE, " ho theos " to refer to the One, True God, as did the writers of the Epistles. There are places in the New Testament, where the word ho is followed by the word theos and they are not being used as a title. The context of where the words appear determines if it is meant to be a title, or not. This is a clearly evident fact to all, but those who attempt to deny that Jesus is God, Jehovah, and also those who attempt to deny the Triune Nature of the Godhead, Trinity. They like to point to 2Co 4:4, as proof that ho theos does not signify Almighty God.
    "-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) should not dawn on them. "
    Completely ignoring the structure of the verse, they point out that in this verse ho and theos do not mean Almighty God, which is correct. However it is undeniably clear from the grammatical and sentence structure, that they are not being used as a title. The title in this case is "god of this world"; not, "The God." Much the same as Mat 22:32,
    "I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."
    where the titles are, "God of Abraham", "God of Isaac", & "God of Jacob."
    That the TITLE " Ho Theos ", refers only to Jehovah God is proved by New Testament. There are a large number of verses, which evidence this fact, A few of them follow.
    "And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God (ho theos)! "
    John 20:28
    Clearly, ho theos, is being used as a title. The verse would make no sense translated as, "My Lord and My the God!" For an in-depth look at this verse and its true meaning visit John 20:28.
    Here are a few more of the many verses, which show ho theos used as the title for Almighty God. I won't belabor the point by addressing each verse for I am sure that you can grasp that translating ho theos in these verses as the God would make no sense.
    "-You shall worship the Lord your God (ho theos), and Him only you shall serve." "
    Mat 4:10
    "Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God (ho theos) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. "
    Mat 22:37
    "-and you shall love the Lord your God (ho theos) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. "
    Mark 12:30
    "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (which being translated is, My God, My God (ho theos), why did You forsake Me?)"
    Mark 15:34
    "And he shall turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God (ho theos)."
    Luke 1:16 "
    But my God (ho theos) shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus."
    Phi 4:19
    "-for also, 'Our God (ho theos)is a consuming fire. "
    (Hebrews 12:29)
    As I said at the beginning, the application of the title, " ho theos " forms only a very small part of the biblical evidence that Jesus is Jehovah God and that the Godhead is Triune in Nature. The word " the " followed immediately by the word " God(god) " appears only 40 times in Literal Translations of the New Testament. 39 of which refer to the One True God. The only exception is 2Co 4:4. The Greek word " ho " followed immediately by the word " theos " appears upwards of 950 times in the original manuscripts, with the exception of 2Co 4:4, they are used to indicate Jehovah God. The intent & teachings of the God-inspired authors is quite clear. Those who cite 2Co 4:4 as proof that the title does not mean Almighty God are grasping at straws and ignoring the message of Holy Scripture." From http://acharlie.tripod.com/bible_study/ho_theos.html

    Posted by evangelion: "No, that is another straw man. I have made no such claim. I have presented the words of Trinitarian scholars, and you have failed to refute them."

    Another laugh... come on evangelion?

    You presented words of scholars... and I presented words of scholars...

    You know what... I belive that God had his hand on those old guys that translated the word for us. Perhaps with the differences in languages... different meanings can come out of a text. However, to doubt that God could not keep His truth prevalent by guiding those translators is to doubt God.

    And anyways... even if you only go by a "scholars" word... you must still adhere to the fact that so many more scholars agree that the Deity of Christ is very apparent in scripture... hebrew/greek/whatever... its there.

    take care

    FOW
     
  7. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    HT -

    I didn't use a dictionary, I used the Jewish Encyclopaedia, and I'll trust their scholarship over that of an unknown academic any day. :cool:
     
  8. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    FOW -

    *snip*

    Yes, it is. And why? Because I am not a JW, and I don't subscribe to their Christology.

    Why don't you have the courtesy to find out what I believe? :cool:
     
  9. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    [noflame]Mod hat off.[/noflame]
    Where is this refutation? I would be quite interested in this.
     
  10. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Quote:

    "I didn't use a dictionary, I used the Jewish Encyclopaedia, and I'll trust their scholarship over that of an unknown academic any day. "

    Oh....ok....I'll inform him that his doctorate, and working on one of the most important historical and linguistic explorations of our age is meaningless....I stand corrected. [what was I thinking?]
     
  11. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    posted by evangelion: "Why don't you have the courtesy to find out what I believe?"

    evangelion... Christ is God. You do not think so, nor do they.

    Take care... and you can respond to the questions anytime you wish.

    FOW
     
  12. Jedi

    Jedi Knight

    +137
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Funny how every time someone posts who doesn't agree with you, their post all of a sudden becomes "spam." I used to be an administrator at a site very much like this one, though completely different in theme (X-Sages.com), which received just about the same amount of traffic. Nothing here has been spam, and you only seem to be saying that in order to demean the replies of others who disagree with you (and have shown excellent proofs against your presupposition). Surely if reason won't win your case, hurling insults will.
     
  13. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Gives me hope for the youth of the world.
     
  14. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Wonder why I didn't see this thread before...:idea:

    LOL! :D This cracks me up! Especially after someone *reads* the actual thread. :)

    I don't have *the time* to participate in multiple threads, but I sure do hate to see misrepresentations and poor theology i.e. 'anti-trintarianism' spread around. ;)

    God bless--FM


    Edited for posting your personal e-mail addy; breaking Rule 3 (no spamming). Members may contact you through e-mail or private message option in your profile page.
     
  15. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Couldn't resist:
    ..and in the very next breath..

    ..:D Really. An Honest question..

    >

    BTW, Ev is guilty himself of '(b)' in that he shamelessly copy/pasted [word for word] an argument against Jn1:18 from a :)D) KJV-onlyism site. I may still be able to provide the link if the thread has not been deleted. :)

    :cool:

    God bless--FM
     
  16. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    Evangelion, you do know in your heart who our Lord is. Believe Him, believe that the word of God is only holy if one really believes that God has kept it so. It is very clear about who my God is. He came to die for you, and His name is Jesus.

    take care

    FOW
     
  17. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    FOW -

    Irrelevant. They believe that Christ pre-existed before his birth. I categorically reject this false teaching.

    Incidentally, you believe that Christ is God. But so too do Oneness Pentecostals.

    It makes as little sense for you to attempt a fallacious equivocation of my Christology and that of the JWs, as it would for me to attempt the same of your Christology and that of Oneness Pentecostals.

    Clearly, you do not know what I believe. :cool:
     
  18. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    FOW -

    Yes, I do. I know that he is the Messiah; the Son of God; the King of the Jews; the Annointed, and "the man, Jesus Christ."

    I believe all of this. What's your point?

    Yes, it is. Unfortunately, it is also very clear that your god is not the God of Israel.

    No, your god is not Jesus. Your god is the Father + the Son + the Holy Spirit. Anything less than this, and we don't actually have your god at all.

    It's the Oneness Pentecostals who have Jesus as their god. :cool:
     
  19. Higher Truth

    Higher Truth Active Member

    962
    +8
    Messianic
    Evangelion,

    It's been nice chatting with you. You are an intelligent guy, and it took a lot of guts to take on the whole forum. Check out the study that I mentioned of the Name of God, and remember...you heard it here first.
     
  20. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    If it's a "false teaching" then perhaps Evangelion can find a passage where this is stated. :rolleyes:

    Unfortunately, it is clear that you do not follow the example of the bible in that you are to serve ['latreuo'] Christ. Do you do this? No. :) Should we listen to your opinion on "who the God of Israel is" then? No. :rolleyes::D

    God bless--FM
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...