Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?There are two different words being translated as God/gods. one refers to God the supreme being (The Father Son and Spirit.) The other with the lower case "g" (gods) refers to a lord or master. This word can even refer to a person's authority given to them by God. Like a chief priest or rabbi.
In John 30:36 Christ is actually quoting Psalms 82:
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:
2 “How long will you[a] defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.” 8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
He speaks of the authority given to them by God, but at the same time grounds them be saying even though you have been given the authority of God to govern his people, you yourselves will be Judged by me/God the Son when you die.
So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?
And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.
You seem to be missing the distinction between God and gods. God with a capitol G is translated from the word that means Maker of the universe. Christ calling his accusers "gods," places them under His authority. (As the creator of the Universe) The statement you highlighted is not a defense, but a warning that point to prophecy. This for the OT Jews would be a cold hard slap in the face, not a defense or a plea for his life. Christ used scripture and prophecy to get the Pharisees to back down.So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?
Not if you understand the difference between the words being translated as God and "gods." This is also why your bible puts "gods" in parentheses to make that distinction clear. If you read the scripture as the texts support it. there is no other possible explanation as to the meaning of Christ.And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.
Modalism is a heresy that arose in the Third Century; it's also called Sabellianism. It's an idea that is completely contrary to authentic Christian thought, as is the idea that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not God....So my question is, can you be Christian if you don't believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit are God?
In some ways I understand the Trinity if I think of it in a certain way: That the Father, Jesus the Son and Holy Spirit are different expressions or modes or relations to one God. I am unsure whether that counts as the Trinity though....
I'm not sure when we spoke before.No, the context doesn't support that. Being "just as good as God" (and you're allowed to capitalize proper nouns, by the way) would not give Him the authority or the ability to create the Universe, to raise Himself from the dead, to judge the quick and the dead, to command angels, or to condemn sinners to Hell.
So why does he use that defense then? Why would he call himself god, then correct himself and call everyone in the room gods?
And it's still open to the possibility that he simply considers himself on the same level. If he was the same person, wouldn't he say "I am god". He could have intended to mean that he is just as good as god.
I'm not sure when we spoke before.
Also, why not? If they're just as good, they'd be able to do the same thing.
So... This is all too confusing.These are reasonable questions. It's called being "cagey." He had an appointed time to die, and He couldn't pre-empt what He needed to accomplish beforehand. Sort of like slipping through an angry mob that was trying to kill Him.
This simply doesn't flush with the whole of Scripture. He clearly indicated He would Judge mankind, returning on "clouds of Glory," a very significant Jewish phrase. Also He rebuked people for calling Him "good," pointing out this was only possible if He was in fact G-d. And then He doesn't correct them
Finally, you have His humility that essentially forbids Him from coming out and simply saying "I Am G-d." It's the job of the Holy Spirit to testify of Him.
No we're not going to talk in circles all night.No, they wouldn't. They still would not be God. Now, are we going to go around talking in circles all night?
So... This is all too confusing.
First he says he is "one with god"
Then he's tries to conceal the fact to make sure he dies properly.
But the bible says he's going to judge mankind and return on clouds,
Then he told people he wasn't "good" because that would mean he was god...
And he's got to look out for his humility.
So you have him claiming to be god, but rebuking people who suggest it.
I guess I can see it. He said he was god, that annoyed the Jews into stoning him. Then he get's "cagey". However, he then calls himself the son of god, and they start to stone him again. The plot abruptly stops there, but the Jews he annoyed would eventually have a hand in his death.Only because His thoughts are higher than ours, and His ways are higher than ours, as much as heaven is higher than the earth.
It's called "rightly dividing the Word." What you're missing is context. Who did He say what to? And when? Under what circumstances? You don't live in a vacuum, and neither did He. Answer these questions before you draw any conclusions, and things will start to come together, bit by bit.
The whole point being that god is or isn't also Jesus. So if Jesus said that to get a rise out of them and provoke them into killing him, then why assume it's true?
I guess I'm just going to have to agree. That's explicit. It verifies the other statement.Interesting perspective but again, you need to look at the whole of Scripture. That means reserving judgment on any particular thing until you have done so.
First off, Jesus never said something false. That would've made His entire crucifixion worthless. So nix the "said that just to get a rise out of them." He said plenty for that to happen anyway!
Next, assumption is not necessary, and is never solid ground. Try this instead:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:14 ¶ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"
This is where I always recommend people start reading the Bible. Notice it plainly says that Jesus is G-d by virtue of being the Maker of all things. Kind of trippy, eh? Try wrapping your head around that ...
I've had this discussion before and none of this came up.
It is hard to wrap your head round. I even looked it up in another version: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Jesus himself told us that the Father is a spirit. He also warned us in stern language that we were to show utmost respect when speaking of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul wrote that Jesus' reign will end. But he will not be demoted; he will be enfolded. And the Person who will enfold him is the same Person whom Jesus identified as a spirit rather than as a corporeal being. So instead of God the Father's having a seperate entity that we call 'The Holy Spirit', it is in actuality the Holy Spirit that is using the title of 'father' so that we can better comprehend what he is saying and doing.
God is a title, and not a Name as in God the Father God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All Three aspects of God are indeed equally God.
Every object in creation attests to how a trinity makes one object or in this case one God. In that every object has length, width, and Height. All three dimensions need to be present in order for an object to exist. The same can be said to how 3 distinct aspects or personalities of God equal one, not three gods.
Who is God. If one is God in a human body in your estimation how does he cease being God?
Omnipotent, Omnipresent, nor Omniscient are not terms found in scripture. which means no matter how well intentioned, they are simply "religious" terms we have come up with to describe the infinite nature of God.
but here in lies the problem. these words are finite, with finite definitions and parameters that are used to describe an infinite being. Your question well intentioned or not challenges the definition of these words, but in no way addresses the infinite nature of God.
If you noticed when i gave my first response I did not use any of the omni words you are trying to force into my account or definition. My answer may be simple, but it is complete in that what makes God, God is the control He excises over creation. If you put this control in a rock then effectively you have God in rock form. likewise if God places Himself in a man you have God in Man form. You are not worshiping man you are worshiping God.
The Athanasian Creed says it this way
As to whether or not one can have a relationship with Christ while having false ideas about him, I'll just point out that gnosticism is a heresy as well. We're obligated to make sure that our intellect and conscience is well formed, but ultimately the question isn't what knowledge did you have about Christ so much as it is how did you respond to the knowledge God gave you? If our intellect and conscience are malformed because we wanted them to be, that's a problem because it involves a rejection of God.
I don't think that formulating it as different aspects works, because that's essentially the same as modalism. The Church has gone to a lot of effort to make it clear that there are three distinct persons in the one godhead. But don't think for a minute that I (or anyone else) can really wrap his head around this, because remember that God's nature is so other than ours that we could much more easily wrap our heads around the idea of seven dimensions of space and point our fingers in the up direction of dimension six. Just because we can't really get it doesn't mean that it ain't so... that's why it's called a mystery.I was going to criticize this because it sounds like they are trying to make 3=1, but after reading it again I think it can be understood in a way which makes sense. Do you think saying the Father, Son and Spirit are different aspects of one God is correct? Its the word person which confuses it for me because persons are very separate things, but you can have 3 aspects of one.
Catholic theology has a concept called "invincible ignorance", what it means is that we're not to reject the teachings of God but there can be circumstances under which we are not required to make a motion to positively accept them. For example, if you never heard of them. Or if the only person to teach them to you raped all of your women and children and burned down your viliage, that would place serious impediments in your ability to accept the truth and so your culpability would be reduced.This makes alot of sense though
chilehed said:Catholic theology has a concept called "invincible ignorance", what it means is that we're not to reject the teachings of God but there can be circumstances under which we are not required to make a motion to positively accept them. For example, if you never heard of them. Or if the only person to teach them to you raped all of your women and children and burned down your viliage, that would place serious impediments in your ability to accept the truth and so your culpability would be reduced.
But as might be expected, invincible ignorance doesn't apply if you're ignorant out of obstinance. It's a very subjective thing, which is why we're to leave utimate judgement up to God: He's the only one who can judge the subjective state of our souls. Heck, I've completely proven to myself that I'm often not a competant judge of my own internal state, much less that of anyone else.
Consider carefully what I've already said, and tell me what you expect my answer to be based on that. I'll tell you if you guessed correctly.What about those of us who are aware of Catholic doctrines, understand them, and yet, reject them as being Unbiblical? Can we be saved?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?