• 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.

If Jesus is the TRUE God, who is his SON Jesus?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by edpobre, Sep 27, 2002.

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

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +85
    Christian
    Married

    GEORGE M. LAMSA: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer? Cont'd


    by John P. Juedes






    Wide Use of Greek in Israel

    Languages gain wide use through conquest and contact, which accounts for the prevalence of Spanish and English in the world today. Greek was used throughout the Mediterranean area and Persia from 335 B.C. to A.D. 200 because of Alexander the Great's conquests. The Seleucid dynasty imposed Greek rule and ways over the Mideast from 280-63 B.C. and, with Herod, founded over 30 Greek cities in Israel. Some Greek rulers, especially Antiochus Epiphanes, aggressively attempted to Hellenize the Jews (i.e., force acceptance of Greek speech and ways on them), killing thousands who tried to maintain their Hebrew culture and religion. Greeks occupied Palestine for 270 years, not seven years as Lamsa ignorantly maintained. Thus Greek was used almost universally in the New Testament world, dominating government, commerce, and instruction.37 Even slaves and farmers of less-Hellenized areas knew Greek as a second language.

    Archaeology attests to the widespread use of Greek. Virtually every coin issued by the Greek rulers (363-35 B.C.), Jewish Herodian Kings (37 B.C.-A.D. 70), and Romans was struck in Greek.38 One study of inscriptions in Palestine listed 168, of which 114 are in Greek only. Greek appeared in Jewish ossuaries (stone chests which held the bones of the dead) and on the Ophel synagogue, indicating that ordinary Jews used Greek.39 Moreover, key trade routes passed through Israel, requiring knowledge of Greek to service them. Letters that Jewish rebel leader Bar Cochba wrote to his lieutenants (A.D. 132-135) show that these insurgents used Greek as easily as Aramaic and Hebrew.40

    The oldest biblical manuscript known today is not the (as Lamsa holds), but a Hebrew copy of Isaiah written about 100 B.C. We now have scores of Greek portions of the New Testament written before Lamsa's. (More will be said about this later.) The Estrangeli alphabet Lamsa used was not even created until at least the second century A.D.

    Jews outside of Israel could not read Hebrew, so they translated it into a Greek version called the Septuagint (referred to as the "LXX" today) which became the "Authorized Version" of the Bible for Greek-speaking Jews and Christians. More than half of the Old Testament passages found in the New Testament are quoted from the Greek LXX, not from an Aramaic Targum or Hebrew text. Even Matthew, written by a Jew for Jews, quotes primarily from the LXX and uses 76 words found nowhere but the LXX.41 The vocabulary and style of the LXX dominates the NT, even though it was archaic at the time. Common "Jewish" words, including "Synagogue," "Sanhedrin," and "hypocrite" (meaning "actor," for which Hebrew has no equivalent due to a Talmudic prohibition against theater) are actually Greek words. The Babylonian Talmud mentions the rabbis' use of Greek proverbs and their families who learned Greek (Sota 49b). The 1,500 Greek loan words in Talmudic literature indicate that rabbis knew Greek.42

    Gospel history also suggests common use of Greek. Jesus and 11 of His disciples came from "Galilee of the Gentiles" and Jesus used the Greek city Capernaum as His headquarters. The tax collector, Matthew, and fishermen like Peter and John needed Greek to do business. On Pentecost, Persians, Mesopotamians, and Medes were surprised to hear the disciples speak in their own tongues (by the Spirit's power), indicating that their languages were very different from Galilean Aramaic. Yet, Peter was able to address them about this phenomenon in a common language: most certainly Greek. A special name, the "Hellenists" (NIV: "Grecian Jews," Acts 6:1) was used for Jews who spoke Greek, and each of the seven deacons who served them had Greek names.

    The evidence against the Lamsa position is overwhelming. Greek was commonly used by all types of people in Israel and the Mediterranean world in Jesus' day. The apostles knew Greek and wanted all nations to believe. They had no reason to write in a politically and racially-colored dialect (Aramaic) when the universally known Greek existed. They wrote as bilingual men, intimately acquainted with the Greek version of the Scriptures; they thought in Aramaic (and/or Hebrew) and wrote in the Greek style of the LXX.




    LAMSA'S TRANSLATION: ACCURATE OR FAULTY?

    Lamsa's distrust of anything Greek and his personal presuppositions also produced bias and error in his translation.

    On the surface Lamsa appeared to regard all of the Bible highly. However, he distinguishes between the authoritative teachings of Jesus and what he considered to be the inferior doctrine of His disciples. The apostles, he claims, were unduly influenced by Jewish religion, traditions, laws, and practices, and so reveal human weaknesses in what they wrote.

    Lamsa says some Scriptures were lost and others were destroyed (e.g., burned) or rejected because they were "contrary to the new doctrines and dogmas" adopted at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.43 He says certain passages were "deliberately forged" and added to the books of the Bible.44 The Greek texts as well as subsequent Bible versions, he adds, are corrupted by mistranslations and contradictions due to ignorant translators and the texts' transition from Aramaic to Greek, Greek to Latin, and Latin to English.45 Lamsa also asserts that the two oldest biblical manuscripts known today are Pe[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ta Aramaic texts from the fifth and seventh centuries, making Greek texts appear to be later and corrupt.46 Thus, despite Lamsa's superficial respect for the Bible, he distrusts, condemns, and changes portions of it.

    Scholars universally agree that the New Testament was written in Greek and that we now possess scores of manuscripts which were written before this. Most pastors have copies of the Greek New Testament (the UBS or Nestle-Aland text) which compiles readings of several hundred old manuscripts in Greek, Aramaic, and other languages. The reader can refer to this to find the names, content, dates of production, and current location of these texts. Their dates are determined by many factors, so a claim made by Lamsa47 that deceitful translators cut the dates out of texts to make them appear older is false. Most contemporary versions (NIV, NAS, etc.) translate the UBS text directly into English (or another language), so Lamsa's assertion that the Bible was corrupted by being translated from Greek to Latin to English is inaccurate.

    This Nestle-Aland Greek text does cite Syriac manuscripts where the readings are valuable for reference. Lamsa, on the other hand, follows only the Pe[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ta, ignoring the many earlier Greek and Old Syriac texts. However, since it does not include the books of 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, Lamsa had to use later Syriac texts, risking corruption due to age. Even if the it had all the books, it would still be flawed because it is not an original or even a new translation of the Greek into Aramaic, but is a late fourth century revision of superior Old Syriac versions.48 Therefore, one of several weaknesses in Lamsa's translation is blemished on which it is based.




    Mistranslations

    At the time Lamsa began to translate, popular contemporary versions such as the New International Version and Today's English Version (Good News Bible) had not yet been published. Hence, part of the popularity of Lamsa's version was due to its clear style and clarification of some of the obscurities in the King James Version.

    Lamsa's version does offer some insight into Aramaic words and idioms in the Bible. However, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin idioms are also common in the Bible, so the reader benefits most by acquaintance with all four of these cultures and languages. Lamsa's understanding of Scripture is warped by his insistence on using Aramaic alone and his assumption that his twentieth century Iranian Syriac exactly matches fifth century Aramaic.

    The most disturbing feature of the Lamsa Bible is that he often allows his theology and opinions to dictate his renderings. For example, he does not believe that people personally live after death, so he inserts the word "death" in places the writer used "sleep" (1 Cor. 15:6,18,20). Most passages which refer to the Trinity and Christ's deity are left intact, but Lamsa changes the wording of John 1:18, Acts 20:28, Micah 5:2, and Hebrews 7:3 because they contradict his Nestorian presuppositions. His anti-Greek bias shows as he repeatedly replaces references to "Greeks" with "Arameans."

    Cont'd
     
  2. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +85
    Christian
    Married


    GEORGE M. LAMSA: Christian Scholar or Cultic Torchbearer? Cont'd


    by John P. Juedes






    LAMSA: EVANGELICAL SCHOLAR OR CULTIC FIGURE?

    Lamsa considered himself to be the man God set aside and inspired for our times, and his followers still view him as such. One even senses in Lamsa's writings an implicit claim that he stands in the line of apostles with Moses, Jesus, Paul, and Mohammed. Lamsa explains his unique calling through editor Tom Alyea: "God had revealed to Lamsa his purpose and how it was to be done. It was a one-man job. In the Bible testimony is given that God spoke to man; however, it is not recorded where he spoke to a committee...Yes, only one man could translate the Bible from Aramaic. God knew it, and Lamsa knew it, and so it was."49

    Lamsa also attempts to establish scholarly credentials as a means of gaining acceptance. He claims to have been born about 1892, and to have acquired an A.B. degree equivalent in 1907 and a Ph.D. equivalent in theology in 1908 from Archbishop of Canterbury's College, Turkey.50 He also claims to have graduated from Episcopal Theology Seminary in Virginia51 and to have studied at the University of Pennsylvania and Dropsie College.

    Lamsa, however, appears to have exaggerated his academic credentials. First, he claims to have attained a Ph.D. at age 16, only one year after his A.B.52 Second, there are no records of his graduation from a seminary, and his own writings suggest that he was never at any school long enough to attain any valid degree.

    Lamsa's writing style reflects his exalted view of his own mission and character. He usually writes embellished narratives or discourses, not documenting either blanket assertions or detailed comments. For example, he dismisses his lack of supporting evidence for his theory that the New Testament was originally authored in Aramaic by saying, "What is a fact needs no defense."53 He assumes that his peculiar habits, culture, superstitions, idioms, and musings all match and illuminate Scripture, resulting in often incorrect or simplistic interpretations. By contrast, scholars in the fields of New Testament studies and Aramaic offer detailed evidence, accept criticisms, and yield much more cautious and informed conclusions.




    Lamsa's Supporters

    Lamsa's strongest supporters and colleagues have (apparently) always been cultists and aberrant Christian religions, not evangelicals. He never forgot that one of his first friends in the Americas was a Christian Science lady, Mrs. Mitchell.54 The A.R.E. (Association for Research and Enlightenment) engaged him as a speaker, quoted him, and offered his books for sale. The Unity School of Christianity, a non-Christian mind science group, published three of Lamsa's books in 1966 and 1968 and offered other books for sale. Lamsa was such a popular speaker for Unity groups and worked so closely with them that he kept his office on the Unity campus in Lee's Summit, Missouri, late in his life. One of Lamsa's closest coworkers and students was Rocco Errico, who heads the metaphysical Noohra Foundation and has written books for Science of Mind publications — books which illuminate the true (heretical) nature of his teacher's theology. Moreover, The Way International, a pseudo-Christian group, received Lamsa as a teacher, promotes his books, and published Aramaic texts and a concordance modeled after Lamsa's work. (In recent years, however, The Way has rejected several of Lamsa's assertions about Aramaic after comparing them to valid research.)

    The widespread support Lamsa enjoyed from non-Christian groups is a strong indication that he promoted metaphysical, heretical, and unscholarly teachings — not evangelical and scholarly.

    Lamsa developed his own cultlike following over the years. He founded the Aramaic Bible Society in 1943 to propagate his work. Four years later he founded the Calvary Missionary Church and gained a larger following through print and radio. Today the Aramaic Bible Distribution Society desires to carry on the "Lamsa work" and place a Lamsa Bible "on every pulpit and in every home." It considers Lamsa's life miraculous and singularly qualified to bring "Truth" to the world. Society brochures state, "We believe that long ago, God formulated a Plan — and when the time was right, He brought Lamsa into the world to begin the fulfillment of that Plan."

    While Christian scholarship has disregarded or criticized Lamsa's work, cults and new religions often quote him in print and debate when it serves their purposes. In addition to the five groups mentioned above, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Holy Order of MANS, Christadelphianism, Iglesia ni Cristo, and Astara have all tapped Lamsa's material. These groups have consistently quoted Lamsa in opposition to evangelical Christian beliefs, further suggesting Lamsa's distance from the biblical faith.




    The Evangelical Christian Response to Lamsa

    On the surface, Lamsa appears to be a revealer of biblical truth and culture and a friend of evangelical Christianity. Closer study, however, has revealed that Lamsa promotes metaphysical, not evangelical teachings which have led him to inaccurate interpretations and translations of portions of the Bible. As an ambassador of Nestorian, not biblical culture, Lamsa became a cultic figure in his own right.

    Although Lamsa appears to offer truth to his readers, he preaches many and severe errors instead. The biblical author Jude warned against false teachers like Lamsa who are like "clouds without water" and "autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead" which deliver the opposite of what they promise. Therefore, Christians should not receive, promote, or refer to Lamsa's work, nor stock his books in their libraries (unless it is for the purpose of discernment ministry) or bookstores. When questions about the biblical text, culture, or Jesus' teachings arise, one should instead refer to scholarly and evangelical books on these subjects. When cults and new religions cite Lamsa in opposition to evangelical teaching, one must "contend earnestly for the faith" (Jude 3), exposing the lifelessness of Lamsa's teaching and leading them to the fruit of the faith once for all delivered to the saints.




    NOTES

    1 George M. Lamsa, Old Testament Light (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1964), 12 (hereafter, Old); and New Testament Commentary (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1945), xii (hereafter, New).
    2 New, 8-9.
    3 George M. Lamsa, The Kingdom on Earth (Lee's Summit, MO: Unity School of Christianity, 1966), 106-107 (hereafter, Kingdom). Lamsa credits Islam with achieving this goal. (The Secret of the Near East [New York: Orientalia, 1923], 101 [hereafter, Secret]).
    4 Old, 39; also George M. Lamsa, ed., The Short Koran (New York: Ziff-Davis, 1949), 15 (hereafter, Koran).
    5 For more on the influence of Nestorianism on Lamsa, see Douglas V. Morton, "The Lamsa Connection: The Origin of Wierwille's False Christ," Quarterly Journal, Jan.-Mar. 1989, 1,7,9.
    6 George M. Lamsa, Gospel Light (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1936, 1939), 367-68, 372-73 (hereafter, Gospel).
    7 New, 150; see also 177.
    8 Gospel, 353, 369.
    9 George M. Lamsa, My Neighbor Jesus: In the Light of His Own Language, People, and Time (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1932), 139 (hereafter, Neighbor).
    10 New, 7.
    11 George M. Lamsa, More Light on the Gospel (New York: Doubleday, 1968), 151 (hereafter, More).
    12 Kingdom, 173.
    13 More, 117-20.
    14 Kingdom, 181.
    15 Koran, 90.
    16 Neighbor, 24.
    17 Ibid., 26-27.
    18 Ibid., 224.
    19 Kingdom, 171-72.
    20 Robert W. Krajenke, Stand Like Stars (Virginia Beach, VA: A.R.E., 1970).
    21 More, xxix.
    22 George M. Lamsa, Idioms in the Bible Explained (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1971), 73.
    23 Ibid., 82.
    24 Ibid., 62.
    25 Ibid., 72.
    26 Ibid., 75.
    27 Ibid., viii.
    28 George M. Lamsa with Tom Alyea, The Life of George M. Lamsa Translator (St. Petersburg, FL: Aramaic Bible Society, n.d.), 3 (hereafter, Life).
    29 William Emhardt and George Lamsa, The Oldest Christian People (New York: Macmillan, 1926), 77.
    30 Ibid., 78.
    31 Ibid., 91.
    32 Life, 17; see also 19.
    33 New, 110,123.
    34 Holy Bible: From the Ancient Eastern Text, George M. Lamsa, trans. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1957), ix (hereafter Bible).
    35 George M. Lamsa (from the Foreword), New Testament Origin (St. Petersburg, FL: Aramaic Bible Society, 1947), 22 (hereafter, Origin).
    36 Ibid., 57.
    37 Bo Reicke and David Green, trans., The New Testament Era (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 40.
    38 "Money," Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 3 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 427-35.
    39 See Morton Smith, "Aramaic Studies and the Study of the New Testament," Journal of Bible and Religion 26 (1958), 308-12.
    40 For a thorough study, see J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968).
    41 The same is true of Mark. See Robert M. Grant, Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 127.
    42 John Weldon, "New Thought/The Aramaic Connection" (unpublished paper), 54.
    43 New, xiii-xv.
    44 Origin, 97.
    45 Ibid., 97-98.
    46 Bible, v.
    47 Origin, 89.
    48 See Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University, 1968), 68-70.
    49 Life, 23.
    50 "Lamsa, G. M.," Contemporary Authors, Vols. 23-24 (Detroit: Gale, 1970), 246.
    51 Life, 16.
    52 Gospel, ix.
    53 Ibid.
    54 Life, 15.




    A GLOSSARY OF TERMS




    Estrangelo (-a). One of many writing scripts which were applied to the Aramaic (Syriac) language. It was developed by Christian missionaries and was in almost exclusive use until the fifth century.


    Nestorianism. The teaching that there are two persons in Jesus Christ, one of which is the divine Christ and the other the man Jesus. (This is in contrast to the orthodox belief in a union of Jesus' human and divine natures in one person.) This unorthodox theory was taught by Nestorius and condemned by the third Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431. His followers — the Nestorians — formed a church, developed their own rituals and doctrine, and still exist today in small numbers in Persia and India.


    Pe[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ta. A fourth century Syriac (late eastern Aramaic) version of the Old and New Testaments. "Pe........ta" means literally "the simple (version)," as opposed to the older Syriac texts which had alternate readings noted in the margins. The Pe........ta distilled these older Syriac texts into one uniform version and was adopted by the Jacobite and Nestorian branches of the Syrian church. Since the Syrian church did not accept as canonical 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation, the Pe.....ta did not include these books.


    Septuagint (LXX). "Septuagint" means "the seventy," and so is commonly called the "LXX." This Greek translation of the Old Testament (including the Apocrypha) was composed in Egypt from the third to the second centuries B.C. This provided the many Greek-speaking Jews (and later, Christians) a Bible they could understand, and gives modern Christians a better understanding of the vocabulary used in the New Testament.


    Talmud. A large, authoritative compilation of Jewish laws, bylaws, ritual, liturgy, ethics, counsel, and interpretation of Scripture, covering almost one thousand years through the sixth century A.D.


    Targum. An Aramaic translation or paraphrase of a portion of the Old Testament composed during the time of the second temple (late sixth century to late first century B.C.).

    CRI Journal
     
  3. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    Do you not see who the Word of God is ed???

    IN Rev 19 the Word is revealed... He is the Word of God... to man! John starting at 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him NOTHING was made that has been MADE. In him was life, and that life was the light of MEN.... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth...No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

    ed you continue to see the Christ who made HIMSELF nothing to become our sacrifice... do you think that it was impossible for God to do this??? Do you put those limitations on the One who weighed the universe in His hands??? Do you believe Him when He says that He is the

    KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

    Do you believe Him when He says that He is the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last???

    when two things finish in first place together at the end of a race... are they not of equal speed???

    What does LORD mean ed???

    Isaiah 42:8....... I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

    Isaiah 43:10....... You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chasen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, amd the LORD and apart from me there is no savior.

    Isaiah 43:3....... For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior....


    I believe
     
  4. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by wblastyn
    Can't you SEE that you are CONTRADICTING yourself? You say that "God is  three "PERSONS" not three GODS. Yet in the next sentence you say, "God" the Father, "God" the Son and "God" the Holy Spirit. And now you say "THREE separate BEINGS."

    Which is it wblastyn? Is it "persons" or "beings" or "Gods?" Is it THREE "persons" in one God or THREE "beings" in one God, or THREE "Gods" in one God?

    BTW, WHAT is a "person" or "being?"

    From whom did you learn this wblastyn? To even think that God would DIE for sins committed AGAINST Him is ABSURD  and WITHOUT any semblance of reason. Why would God sacrifice Himself to REDEEM those who COMMIT sins  by TRANSGRESSING His laws?

    So then, what you are saying is God the Son is PRAYING to God the Father - TWO separate and distrinct Gods!

    BTW, why would an all-knowing, righteous, and wise God be praying to another God?

    Jesus was NEVER called God by anyone. Whose conclusion was it that Jesus MADE himself EQUAL to God by claiming to be the Son of God? Certainly, it was NOT Jesus who SAID he was EQUAL to God. 

    In John 10:33, apostle John records the Jews accusing Jesus of making himself God. And in John 10:36, Jesus CLARIFIES the reason why the Jews were ACCUSING him of making himself God: he said "I am the Son of God."

    You profess to be a Christian wblastyn. Now tell me HONESTLY, do you really believe that Jesus made himself equal to God by saying "God was his Father" (John 5:18)? Do you really believe that Jesus made himself  God by saying "I am the Son of God" (John 10:33, 36)?

    Ed
     
  5. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by fieldsofwind
    Rev. 19 :13 refers to Jesus, the MAN (John 8:40).

    Show me the verse that points to Jesus as the "WORD that WAS God." Rev. 19:13 has NOTHING to do with John 1:1. Answer me fieldsofwind, WHAT was the word that was WITH God in the beginning and that WAS God?

    This refers to the MAN that the WORD of God TURNED into. This refers to Jesus NOT the WORD that was God.

    The WORD turned into flesh or MAN. This MAN made his dwelling among us. This MAN that the WORD turned into is Jesus.

    "God the One and Only" is at the Father's side. The one at the Father's side is "God the One and Only." Therefore, the Father is NOT God, right?

    If Jesus is God who died on the cross, who was the God to whom Jesus cried out, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"  Again, we see TWO separate and distinct Gods. Where does the Trinity's ONE God come in?

    While it is true that NOTHING is impossible with God, show me the verse which tellls us that God DIED for our sins. John 3:16 tells us that God SENT His Son and Galatians 4:4-6 tell us that God SENT His Son, BORN of a woman, to REDEEM those under the law.

    CLEARLY, it was NOT God who DIED on the cross.

    Of course, Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords because God put ALL things under his feet (1 Cot. 15:27).

    Yes. 

    Yes and they are TWO separate "things" or Gods.  

    God was called "Lord" by His nation, Israel. Jesus was MADE Lord and Christ BY God (Acts 2:36). 


    Ed
     
  6. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Badfish,

    You can line up a million witnesses AGAINST Jesus but it won't make what Jesus SAID false. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH and the life (John 14:6). Everything he SAID is a COMMAND from God (John 12:49). Thus, anyone who does NOT believe Jersus is CONDEMNED already (John 3:18).

    Jesus SAID he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the FATHER (alone) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Anyone who SAYS Jesus CLAIMED he is God MAKES Jesus a LIAR!

    Ed
     
  7. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    ed... you're forgeting something... you said King... and Lord... the Bible says KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS

    and you say that there are two separate 'things' or Gods But God says that there were no gods formed before Him nor will there be any gods formed after Him... He says that He will not give His glory to another.

    Isaiah 42:8....... I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

    Isaiah 43:10....... You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chasen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, amd the LORD and apart from me there is no savior.

    Isaiah 43:3....... For I am the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior....

    You're right about God becoming a man... and that is exactly why He prayed to the Father... He glorified the Father... He became NOTHING... to DIE FOR US... God became a man... still being God.

    You are contradicting the Bible by what you say... God does not give His glory to another... and there are not two or three separate Gods... no others were formed... He is God

    And I believe Him... Jesus Christ
     
  8. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "If you are that good Louis, please tell us why Jesus SAID to the FATHER: "...that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God..." (John 17:3,1). "

    Because He is the ONLY true God, Just like water is the only TRUE h20 and so is ice as well as steam.

    "And why did Jesus cry out, "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? What was his "divine nature" doing all the time? "

    The father's watching over him stopped because he became sin.

    Why did Christ say, I and the father are one, or I am the great I am, or why did John say he was the word made flesh implying he is God? Simple, because Jesus is God.
     
  9. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    I quoted the entire verse and emphasized a portion of it so how did I mangle anything? I emphasized the portion of the passage which I discussed in detail at these two links, before, which oh BTW you ignored. In accordance with the rules of Greek grammar the word "outos" translated "this", always refers to the immediately preceding noun in the proper case, person, number, which in this case is Jesus Christ. It would help if you read the threads you are responding to.

    http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-19.html

    http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21028-21.html
     
  10. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by fieldsofwind
    The Bible says that Jesus is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." That's because God has put all things UNDER his feet (1 Cor. 15:27). Heowever, AFTER all things have been put under his feet, the Son himself will be put UNDER God (1 Cor. 15:28).  Then God wil be "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (1 Tim. 6:15).

    That's exactly the reason why your analogy of "two things arriving at the same time are EQUAL" does NOT make any sense. You Trinitarians insist that Jesus and the Father are "two things" which TRANSLATES to TWO "Gods" yet you INSIST that they are ONE which is plain and simple LYING. 


    Don't put words in my mouth. It has NEVER been my position that "God BECAME a MAN." Your statement that "God BECAME a MAN...STILL being God" is ABSURD. How can God REMAIN God AFTER becoming MAN? It's like saying  "a CHICK remains an EGG after the EGG is HATCHED or BECOMES a CHICK!

    I was only repeating what you said about "TWO things" which you REFUSE to refer as TWO Gods. That's why I said, "there are TWO "things" or TWO "Gods."

    Oh yeah! Do you BELIEVE that Jesus is a MAN and the FATHER (alone) is the ONLY true God? This is what Jesus SAID! If you don't, then DON'T be a HYPOCRITE and a LIAR.

    Ed
     
  11. Gunny

    Gunny Remnant Supporter

    +85
    Christian
    Married
     
  12. wblastyn

    wblastyn Jedi Master

    +110
    Agnostic
    Single
    Then why did Jesus never say "I am not God"?

    By saying "I am the Son of God" Jesus was making Himself equal to God, that's what the Bible tells us.

    I do believe Jesus is God, all 3 members of the Godhead are God by their nature. Just because you can't understand how 3 separate distinct beings are One doesn't mean it's not true.

    You are trying to stuff God in your human logic box, when He fit's He will no longer be God.
     
  13. Lost

    Lost Official CF Mater Tosser Supporter

    +1,215
    Baptist
    I like that.

    *blesses wblastyn*

     
     
  14. Kain

    Kain Varpatrol

    175
    +0
    That is incorrect. The New Testament teaches that Jesus was less equal than God. When the Jews thought he made himself equal to God, Jesus corrected them by showing that he is not in fact, equal to God.

    John 5:18 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.

    5:19
    Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

    "The son can do nothing of himself." Very significant words.

    Your making the very same mistake that those Jews made almost 2000 years ago.
     
  15. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    not really kain... you see Christ says in His word that He made Himself, nothing!... to take on the nature of a man... to die for us..

    He is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

    He is the Alpha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last... He is the Word of God who is God

    God says that He is the Alpha and the Omega... so if two things finish a race in first place... are they not of equal speed???

    and God says that He will not give His glory to another.... He has said that before Him no gods were formed, and neither will there be any after Him...
    He alone is God... and He became a man...

    Do you not believe that God can become a man??? To die for you

    I believe Him...
     
  16. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    Posted from the Book of John: No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

    Posted by ed: "God the One and Only" is at the Father's side. The one at the Father's side is "God the One and Only." Therefore, the Father is NOT God, right?

    No ed... they are one thing... the same...



    Posted by FOW: when two things finish in first place together at the end of a race... are they not of equal speed???

    Posted by ed: Yes and they are TWO separate "things" or Gods.

    Isaiah 43:10....... You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chasen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, amd the LORD and apart from me there is no savior.

    Christ is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS!!! This is the title upon Christ in Revelation...

    Isaiah 42:8....... I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

    Posted by ed: The Bible says that Jesus is "King of Kings and Lord of Lords." That's because God has put all things UNDER his feet (1 Cor. 15:27).

    The Bible says: Isaiah 42:8....... I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.



    Posted by ed: "I was only repeating what you said about "TWO things" which you REFUSE to refer as TWO Gods. That's why I said, "there are TWO "things" or TWO 'Gods'."

    The Bible says: (phil 2:5-11) Your attitude should be the sme as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, bein made in human likeness.

    He is God, who made Himself nothing, to die, to become obedient to the penalty of mans sin... to become that sin on the cross.

    verse 10: "that at the name of Jesus every knee shold bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

    Remember... God says that He will not give His glory to another... he did not make any other gods... He and He alone is God. Christ is not a piece of God... He is not another sub-god... He is God, who became a man... becoming subject to the Father... And then Glorified again by the Father. God the Father cannot be in the presence of sin... to sacrifice Himself for us... the ultimate sacrifice... the ultimate love... He had to become a man, and subject Himself to man's death. I simply believe it... I don't have to completely understand it... I believe it because He says to.


    Believe ed
     
  17. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by wblastyn
    Because by saying he is a MAN (John 8:40) and the FATHER is the ONLY, repeat, ONLY true God, people who BELIEVE in him would NOT need for him to say "I am not God."

    That's what the Jews who killed him THOUGHT he was saying.

    Even if I understood how THREE separate "beings" are ONE as in THREE separate BREEDS of DOGS as one specie of DOGS, I still would NOT believe that THREE separate "beings" or "Gods" are ONE God simply because that's NOT what the Bible teaches.

    Jesus SAID the FATHER (alone) is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). How can there be THREE "beings" or "Gods" in ONE God?

    Standard answer for something as ILLOGICAL as the Trinity.

    Ed
     
  18. edpobre

    edpobre Well-Known Member

    +0
    Originally posted by fieldsofwind
    You are NOT being RATIONAL fow. You quote a version of John 1:18 which says that the "one and only God" is at the Father's side.

    Who are you trying to fool fow? If the "thing" who is at the Father's side is the "one and only God," how can this "thing" be "One and the SAME "thing" as the Father? What do you mean by "thing" BTW?

    Isaiah 43:10....... You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chasen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. I, even I, amd the LORD and apart from me there is no savior.

    [/quote]

    I know and believe that there is ONLY ONE God. Then, who are the "two things" that you said finish first place together at the end of a race and ared of EQUAL speed?  

    God EXALTED Jesus for His glory. God put ALL things UNDER Jesus for His glory. God did NOT give His glory to anotherwhen He EXALTED Jesus. Jesus and God are TWO separate and DISTINCT (different) beings. One is a MAN, the other is God.

    NOTHING in these verses tell us that Jesus is God. While it is true that Jesus was "in very nature God" it does NOT mean he is God. Other versions has verse 6 as "being in the FORM of God" (NKJV) or "he always had the NATURE of God" (TEV)  which is EQUIVALENT to apostle Paul's saying that Jesus is the IMAGE of the INVISIBLE God (Col. 1:15) or EXPRESS IMAGE of His person (HEb. 1:3).

    Open your eyes wide fow. If Jesus were God who BECAME a MAN, and this was done "for the glory OF God the FATHER," your belief that "He and He alone is God" does NOT make any sense at all.

     
    Noiw I understand what you are saying. You believe that it was God the Father who BECAME a MAN. Thus, you  believe that Jesus is the FATHER and the SON at the SAME time, right?

    Please answer HONESTLY so we can have a more productive discussion.

    Ed
     
  19. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +7
    Christian
    Posted by ed: You are NOT being RATIONAL fow. You quote a version of John 1:18 which says that the "one and only God" is at the Father's side.

    Thats what the Bible says ed

    Posted by ed: I know and believe that there is ONLY ONE God. Then, who are the "two things" that you said finish first place together at the end of a race and ared of EQUAL speed?

    well ed.... Christ says that HE is the Alapha and the Omega... the Beginning and the End... the First and the Last..... as does the Father. I ask you ed... are they not claiming the saim thing??? if two things come in first in a race... are they not of equal speed??? simple

    Posted by ed: God EXALTED Jesus for His glory. God put ALL things UNDER Jesus for His glory. God did NOT give His glory to anotherwhen He EXALTED Jesus. Jesus and God are TWO separate and DISTINCT (different) beings. One is a MAN, the other is God

    Well ed... You say that He didn't, but He says that He has... God became nothing and then subjected Himself to death ed... the Father will not be in the presence of sin... so He made Himself nothing... yes...becoming subject to the penalty of men... the Son of God, who is the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS!!!

    ed says they are two separate and DISTINCT (different) things

    Christ says that He and the Father are ONE.

    you simply cannot believe that God would become nothing for you... I care for you ed... I am not against you... I'd even say 'love' if it wasn't for the fact that you might think it weird.

    tell me ed... Can a General rightly order men into a battle and tell them to go forth courageously if he himself knows that he will not go with them??? It is done...but is it honorable??? Is it not those who see the battle and are steadfast that are honored as heros???
     
  20. wblastyn

    wblastyn Jedi Master

    +110
    Agnostic
    Single
    So you claim to fully understand God then? Ok, please explain GOD to us, we want to know everything.

    (again, the only reason you will not accept the trinity is because you won't until you fully understand it, which is impossible).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...