OldShepherd
Zaqunraah
Irrelevant!Today at 01:12 PM Future Man said this in Post #137 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650040#post650040)
Upvote
0
Irrelevant!Today at 01:12 PM Future Man said this in Post #137 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650040#post650040)
No, please tell me. Feel free to use the same kind of language for which you were banned from TheologyOnline.
Yep!
Exodus 23:20-23.
Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.
But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.
For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off.
The angel is clearly distinct from God Himself. The angel is referred to by God as another being entirely. The angel is said to be God's, but not God. Ergo, the angel is clearly not God Himself.
Now there were certain basic rules or assumptions connected with agency in the ancient world. The most basic of all was that, in the words of later Jewish rabbis: The one sent is like the one who sent him (cf. Mek.Ex. 12:3,6; m. Ber. 5:5).
Yet the LORD hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot.
Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink: that ye might know that I am the LORD your God.
[....]
Here, Moses makes reference to Yahweh in the third person. But he also speaks - without qualification - as if he is Yahweh himself.
John 5:16-18.
And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Ev says in concerning this:
[...]
How is Jesus portrayed as responding to this charge? He adamantly denies it. Listen to the words which are used:
The Son can do nothing of himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing...By myself I can do nothing...I seek not to please myself but him who sent me (John 5:19,30).
He "adamantly denies it?" Ev cites ONE passage in the context of John5 and then asserts that Christ "denies" it? If anything, Christ is *defending it* as a quick glance at the surrounding context will tell you. This old Dinosaur was dug up from my TOL archive with a few quick additions made:
Jn5:18 and 'the equality with God':
>>>So let's say that the Jews believed that Jesus was claiming to be equal with God. Why then did Jesus need to continue his discussion with the Jews and clarify certain matters? You should read John 5:18-46 carefully, for we then find the following facts that Jesus clarified for his listeners: <<<
Reply: John5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, My father is always at his work to this very day, and I, TOO, am working. For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
***It is noted that Jesus was claiming the same rights as the Father. The Father worked on the Sabbath, so did the Son.*** It is also important to note that the words equal with the Father are written by the Apostle John in narrative form, not a quote from the Jews. Jesus gives proof of this in that he broke the Sabbath, yet without sin. For proof he gives examples of men who broke the Sabbath or had the right, in order to justify himself. It is the mercy over sacrifice clause of Gods word See Hos6:6.
Note how instead of saying My work does not break the Sabbath he says specifically My Father is at work to this very day The Jews, therefore, were forced to either accept Jesus claim of equality of right, or accuse the Son and Father of breaking the Sabbath.
>>>1) The Son can do nothing of himself (v 19) <<<
Reply: Jesus gave them this answer: I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, even to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.
And what would we say if the Son had said; "I do NOTHING that the Father does?"
Read:
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.
Will you use this as a "proof-text" against the Holy Spirit as being God? No.
This particular verse (John5:19) echoes the verse of John10:37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." ..Also note how Jesus states that the Father shows him ALL he does which is justified by the fact that he is the Son ..defense.
Evidently by these Jesus is basing his argument on the fact that he wholly does the will of the Father and is therefore OF Him, in that He fulfills the entirety of his will. Jesus was oft accused of demon possession on numerous occasions. With the above statements etc Jesus indicates that he could be no other than the Messiah sent from God and not a counterfeit i.e. false prophet. Deut18:22 he is certainly not denying his right as heir or equal to God
>>>1) The Father has given the Son the power to judge (v 22) <<<
Reply: Exactly. Consider the context .Moreover the Father [in your view YHWH only] judges no one, but has entrusted all judgement to the Son, that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. Let us keep in mind Rev5:13..It is important to note that the articles appear before the honor, glory, and praise. There are no variety of honor etc .here they are being given equal glory. Now come back to Jn5; the word timaw here holds the meaning of value we are to value the Son JUST AS we do the Father .equality. Also note as concerning judging. Lets read: Joel3:12 for there I [YHWH] will sit to judge all the nations on every side. Swing the sickle for the harvest is ripe Cf..Rev14:15..etc
Note how it is YHWH who will judge all the nations .Yet judgement to all nations was yet to come because the gospel had yet to be preached; yet it is Jesus who is the judge of all nations .equality. Let us once again look at this from the Jewish audiences point of view. They knew the Father as the only judge (See Ps50:6; Ps96:3; Ecc12:14; Is40:10; Joel3:12-13; Zeph1:14-15) yet here is man who states that HE is the judge of all nations Jesus is saying that it is NOT the Father that one must suck up to .but the Son .And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of man . Note how he was given BECAUSE he is the Son of man i.e. of the order of man This fits with Phil2:6, which in accordance with Jn1:1; Jn17:5; etc., tells us of the Sons emptying of himself in order to become man .it is because he is the Son of man and seemingly to be primarily on this basis that he was given..
>>>3) The Father gave unto Jesus the power to bestow life (v 26) <<<
Reply: Note the context.
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Note how Jesus claims that as the Son, he as the same right to raise the dead just as the Father does. Note also how it is to whom JESUS chooses to bestow it, not the Father. Step back for a moment and look at this from the viewpoint of the Jews. Jesus has just stated that people must come to HIM to have life, not the Father .(See John 5:38 nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[1] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to ME to have life ..he is defending his rights to equality .
>>>2) "I can of mine own self do nothing" (v 30) <<<
Reply: Could the Father have saved all of mankind without the Son? Salvation without the Son could not possibly be achieved by the Father. What do we see here: Let me cite John Gills exposition of the Bible:
*** can of mine own self do nothing
This is the conclusion of the matter, the winding up of several arguments concerning the Son's equality to the Father, and the application of the whole to Christ. He had before been chiefly speaking of the Son, in relation to the Father, as if he was a third person; but now he applies what he had said of the Son to himself: and it is as if he had said, I am the Son that can do nothing separate from the Father, and contrary to his will, but do all things in conjunction with him; who sees all that he does, by being in him, and co-operating with him, and do the selfsame. I am the Son to whom the Father shows, and by whom he does, all he does; and to whom he will show, and by whom he will do, as a co-efficient with him, greater works than what, as yet, he has done: I am the Son that quickens whom he pleases, and to whom all judgment is committed, and have the same honour the Father has [Rev5:13]: I am he that quickens dead sinners now, and will raise ALL the dead at the last day; and have authority to execute judgment on ALL mankind***
This is likened unto how Jesus is the intermediate creator cf..1Cor8:6, Col1:16, Heb1:2, Jn1:1-3 .etc co-operation ..equality.
>>>3) "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true" (v 31) <<<
Reply: In all fairness to the Jewish audience, Jesus is abiding by the Mosaic law of the OT in order to demonstrate the truth of the matter. Lets read: Jn8:17 ..I your own law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. In this way they are forced, by their very law (note that it is not Jesus law), to believe that he is who he is
Curiously enough, Trinitarians will agree that Jesus is not equal to the Father in one sense (for they are forced to accept the "Functional Subordinationism" of Christian "orthodoxy"), whilst simultaneoulsy contradicting themselves with an argument from these "Jesus making himself equal with God" passages!
When pressed for an explanation, they respond with either:
An admission of inconsistency (but an overall "I don't really care what you think!" attitude.)
A desperate attempt to claim that the "equality" here referred to, is that of nature, not function (thereby arguing that Jesus is functionally subordinate, but ontologically equal to the Father.)
Neither response is adequate, and both of them present more problems than they actually solve. The latter is actually more problematic than the former, for it leaves Trinitarians with the unenviable task of defending ontological equality from a series of passages which consistently employs the language of functional subordination! These blatant attempts to pervert the clear meaning of Scripture can only be pitied...
Once again, if I wanted to type out pages and pages of what Bauckham notes, I wouldn't have to put up with such ignorance. For the meantime I direct your attentions to our Phil2:6 thread.
__________________
Because you need to prove the antiquity of the verse in question - and you can only do that by proving that it was both known and used by early Christians.
Again - if the verse was legitimate, why was it never used by the Athanasians during the Arian controversy?
No, because the texts of the Targumim change nothing. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?
The word memra is simply being used (a) in the same way that Adonai would later be used, and (b) in the same way that the word HaShem would later be used. In neither case is it possible to twist the text into anything which comes close to supporting your claims. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?
Yes, I know. You're ignoring the fact that I agree with you here. The subject is still God. I have never denied this. You're attacking straw men, as usual. Again - if they were intended to reflect a belief in the memra as a literal, divine person (distinct from the Father), why is there no evidence of this in pre-Christian Jewish theology? Where is the proof that they believed any such thing?
Yes, I know. But they didn't mean "a literal, divine person, distinct from the Father." Even John qualifies his use of the word logos in reference to Christ, by the careful use of the phrase "logos ginomai sarx." He does not refer to Christ as the logos, simpliciter. Christ is not the logos per se, but only the logos ginomai sarx. Prior to verse 14, Christ does not even exist yet (except in the mind of God.)
Later, in Revelation, John will give Christ the title "The Logos of God." But again, the context shows that this is a title, just like "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords." It is certainly not an ontological statement about Jesus of Nazareth.
Here's a hint - if someone has to lie in order to support their argument, that argument obviously wasn't a very good one in the first place.
I was told by one of the TOL members (yes, a Trinitarian member) that you were banned for profanity. Since experience has taught me that your language is somewhat "colourful" (to say the least!) I had every good reason to believe it.
I'm just piling up the evidence. Don't mind me.
No, you've totally misread it (and totally misrepresented it. As usual.) The JE isn't saying that this "proves something about Christianity" - it simply observes that the same concept appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (as Irenaeus himself correctly observed.) Ever since Philo's innovation, the concept has been greatly abused by many different kinds of heretics. Marcus was just one of many.
You're looking for conspiracy theories, in the hope of finding some excuse for avoiding the argument. You did the same thing with Dunn. It seems to be your modus operandi.
Seeing that it appears regularly in an ancient Hebrew source, written by men who did not believe in the Trinity (let alone a plurality of persons within the Godhead), I have every good reason to believe that it is a typical Hebraism. I don't need "authorities" to tell me that!
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the writers of the OT saw this phrase as a reference to another divine person within the Godhead? If so, where is this ever taught in the OT?
I'd like a straight answer, please.
ROTFL! No, you've only shown that later Jews were converted to Trinitarianism. Don't try and wriggle out by pretending to misunderstand me. I am asking you to tell me why the Jews who wrote the OT under divine inspiration, weren't Trinitarians. I want you to tell me why they did not believe the dabar to be a literal divine person, distinct from the Father. I want you to tell me why God never explained this to them.
I have asked this repeatedly. I have been met with evastion, obfuscation and sheer desperation.
Again - I am asking you to tell me why the Jews who wrote the OT under divine inspiration, weren't Trinitarians. I want you to tell me why they did not believe the dabar to be a literal divine person, distinct from the Father. I want you to tell me why God never explained this to them.
Moreover, John does not refer to the logos as a literal person until verse 14, when the logos ginomai sarx. You have proved nothing here, and you are still evading my question.
Meanwhile, let's ask John Gill (your favourite commentator) about another passage where the same phrase is used:
the word of the Lord came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer;
with whom he had used to advise about the will of God on various occasions, though in this he had neglected to consult him; the Targum calls it the word of prophecy from the Lord:
saying; as follows.
(c) åé÷í "et surrexit", Pagninus, Montanus, &c.
Ooops! The Targum calls is "the word of prophecy from the Lord." (Which is precisely how Adam Clarke interpreted this phrase.)
This doesn't prove anything about the Trinity. It makes no reference to a plurality of persons within the Godhead. It only tells me what I already knew - that some of the Jews misunderstood the Messianic prophecies. Not once does Peter say that they also failed to recognise the references to Trintiarianism in the OT. So why doesn't he say this, OS?
Meanwhile, we have a plethora of prophecies about the Messiah. We have a record of clear, divinely inspired revelations on the subject, which were delivered directly to the prophets themselves.
But none of the prophets ever make any mention of the alleged "Tri-unity" of God, much less a plurality of persons. It is simply not taught. The revelation simply isn't there.
ROTFL! Good catch! You get a smiley for that.
Meanwhile, here's a question for any Trinitarian who wishes to answer:
How many disciples did Jesus baptise?
John 1:3 does not mention Jesus. It only mentions the logos of God, through which (as the Greek is more correctly rendered) the creation was performed.
Thus:
Psalm 33:6.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
What "word of God" was it, through which all things were made? We are told that it was the breath of His mouth - IOW, the spoken dabar.
Your interpretation contradicts the OT and is therefore insupportable.
LOL, you're ignoring the necessary qualification of this reference, as demonstrated by alternative texts.
Namely:
II Kings 13:5.
And the LORD gave Israel a saviour, so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.
Nehemiah 9:27.
Therefore thou deliveredst them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto thee, thou heardest them from heaven; and according to thy manifold mercies thou gavest them saviours, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.
Isaiah 19:20.
And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the LORD because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
Obadiah 1:21.
And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's.
Second time the subject of this thread is NOT Philo, you started it so stick to the subject.
Your quote says the "unknowablility of God" NOT "God's essence" or "in one sense", etc. etc., "and "God can be known" If you meant essence or anything else then you need to write those words in there somewhere.
Since you claim to have studied Philo, where does he "concluded that we can know God in one sense, but not in another.
Without properly citing or referencing you source.
And we might just look into John 1:18 also, back about page 1 or so./quote]
*snip*
Another false claim. Future Man has tried to misrepresent me yet again. I didn't use a KJVO Website - as I have already explained to him on another forum, the material came from a New Testament Theology mailing list. My citations from the ECF are listed in chronological order, just as you will find them listed on every other Website which deals with this subject.
I can hardly be accused of plagiarism for using alphabetical order, just as I can hardly be accused of plagiarism for mentioning standard, well-documented facts about Philo. Again - to date, you've pointed to a mere four sentences in which the same topic is discussed, using vaguely similar language.
You have also ignored Geisler and www.jewishencyclopaedia.com, which discuss the same topic using near-identical language.
I require you to address these two sources. If I am guilty of plagiarism, then so are they.
If I had taken unique and original material from Raddatz, then yes, you would have a case. But I didn't.
QED.
No it is NOT a straw man, it is an evasion by you. You keep repeating that I should study Philo so I can read your mind and know what Philo sources you may be quoting so you don't have to properly document your posts. IF I had joined a discussion, which I did NOT, on Philo, then I would be expected to have some knowledge about Philo. Once again, the reader should not have to go look up your sources or know the complete history of everyone you refer to. Quote what you quote and properly cite it. Is that too hard for you?Today at 04:30 PM Evangelion said this in Post #152 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=650339#post650339)
Straw man, as previously noted in an earlier post.
Yesterday at 02:49 PM Evangelion said this in Post #132
Are we on speaking terms?
I wasn't even aware that we had anything to say to each other.
Today at 01:04 AM Future Man said this in Post #151
Don't you mean...
"The context is irrelevant , it's Pagan!"
Notice those letters and numbers in parentheses following the names, those are called sources. I'm sure if you had studied Theology you would know what the abbreviations mean. Perhaps you should study the subject you are discussing here. Now, what you have to do is PROVE that the sources above are wrong or misquoted, etc. For example, does Fulgentius quote 1 John 5:7 in MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373?Today at 03:05 AM Evangelion said this in Post #122 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=648843#post648843)
The third Website simply repeats the errors of the first two, but adds to its calumny with the following unsubstantiated claims:
But we are not given any direct citations from these individuals (how strange!), nor are we referred to the texts from which they had taken their gloss (a curious omission!)
1) 200 - Tertullian quotes the verse (Gill, "An exposition of the NT", Vol 2, pp. 907-8)
2) 250 - Cyprian, who writes, "And again concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'and the Three are One'" (Vienna, vol. iii, p. 215)
3) 350 - Priscillian cites the verse (Vienna, vol. xviii, p. 6)
4) 350 - Idacius Clarus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 62, col. 359)
5) 350 - Athanasius cites the verse (Gill)
6) 415 - Council of Carthage appeals to the verse as a basic text proving a fundamental doctrine when contending with the Arians (Ruckman, "History of the NT Church", Vol. I, p. 146)
7) 450-530 - several orthodox African writers quote the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis (MPL, vol. 62, col. 243)
B) Victor Vitensis (Vienna, vol. vii, p. 60)
C) Fulgentius (MPL, vol. 65, col. 500)
8) 500 - Cassiodorus cites the verse (MPL, vol. 70, col. 1373)
Irrelevant and irrelevant. Have you proven the above citations wrong, yet, before blowing out your smoke screen? An argument from silence only proves silence. Can you do REAL research or only ask asinine question?When does Tertullian quote the verse - and in which of his works might it be found? Where does Athanasius quote the verse - and why was this not recorded at the Nicene Council?
Irrelevant who you claim you got it from. The fact that I can prove is you made an accusation against me on this forum, which you cannot back up. An accusation which is a vicious lie.Today at 03:15 AM Evangelion said this in Post #124 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=648860#post648860)
I was told by one of the TOL members (yes, a Trinitarian member) that you were banned for profanity. Since experience has taught me that your language is somewhat "colourful" (to say the least!) I had every good reason to believe it.
No, I cannot "admit that this is a deliberately false accusation", for I have yet to see any evidence that it is. Moreover, I had it from a Trinitarian TOL member.
Get your story straight. Was a it one person or was it people who told you?Oh, really? That's not what the people at TOL told me.
Yesterday at 03:09 PM Evangelion said this in Post #103 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=648116#post648116)
Trinitarian scholar James F. McGrath explains what it is...
*SNIP*
A Lecture by Dr James F. McGrath, presented at the North of England Institute for Christian Education Sixth Form Study Day, University of Durham, 27 March 1998.[/b]
Posted by EV Post #78
which consisted of assertions but no proof. Sorry.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-8.html
Southgate, Peter & Broughton, James (1995), The Trinity - True or False?.
Posted by EV Post #78
which consisted of assertions but no proof. Sorry.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-8.html
Yesterday at 03:10 PM Evangelion said this in Post #104 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=648118#post648118)
Here we have a masterful summary of the principle in question, with which James Dunn obviously concurs:
*SNIP*
Dunn, James D. G. (1977), Unity and Diversity in the New Testament.
Posted by EV Post #78
which consisted of assertions but no proof. Sorry.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/34121-8.html