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.
If we understand God, then even without scripture stating God cannot be tempted, we know there is no way God can be tempted. God is self sufficient, and is in need of nothing, in fact all things come from Him, so what can God be tempted with.
James 1:13 “not able to be tempted” - G551. Apeirastos - untried, inexperienced, untempted, incapable of being tempted. - 551 apeírastos (from 1 /A "not" and 3985 /peirázō, "susceptible to enticement, allurement") – properly, unable to be tempted, lacking the very capacity to be enticed by evil or influenced by sin.
I do not accept your understanding of God. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham along with two angels. It says that they were "mortals". Though our English bibles say that it was "three men" that appeared to Abraham the Hebrew actually says "three mortals." As a mortal God could indeed be tempted.If we understand God, then even without scripture stating God cannot be tempted, we know there is no way God can be tempted. God is self sufficient, and is in need of nothing, in fact all things come from Him, so what can God be tempted with.
No! The verb literally is, "is not tempted." I have already shown the literal reading from the YLT. The prefix 'a' does NOT imply inability. It would be grossly incorrect to say that an atheist cannot become a theist. Likewise, the prefix 'a' does NOT imply that God cannot become tempted.James 1:13 “not able to be tempted” - G551. Apeirastos - untried, inexperienced, untempted, incapable of being tempted. - 551 apeírastos (from 1 /A "not" and 3985 /peirázō, "susceptible to enticement, allurement") – properly, unable to be tempted, lacking the very capacity to be enticed by evil or influenced by sin.
Hi Wgw,
Wgw:
Your methodology and logic is flawed. By your own admission, on five occasions, Scripture clearly identifies our Lord as God.
By my own admission, Jesus Christ is referred to as theos. There is a difference. For example, in John 1, Christ is called theos, but the definite article (ho) is absent and in Greek this may carry the meaning, "not that thing, but qualitatively like that thing" and so interpreting theos as "divine" may be more accurate.
John 10:34
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?
In this passage, You are identified as theos. I would not therefore assert that Scripture clearly identifies then as God.
Wgw:
On the other hand, in the 1,061 verses, never is it explicitly said our Lord is not God.
Never is it explicitly said our Lord is not Daffy Duck, either. That is very poor methodology, in my opinion.
Furthermore:
John 17:3
3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
Jesus says the Father is the only true God and refers to Himself as someone other. I think that is strong. Paul does the same in Corinthians.
Wgw:
Thus, you have no real point; your use of statistics to attempt to prove Arianism is frankly disingenious. Particularly your misleading labelling of them.
I don't think I am Arian and so I do not see how I can be attempting to prove it.
I thought I was attempting to derive truth from the scriptures and it is my experience that for many subjects, some text appear to support one view and others, another view - at least without further digging and perhaps with a lack of discernment. John 1 is a case in point.
So what you refer to as "statistics," I intended it to be a comprehensive study where I brought every theos text to the table in the effort to see what the bulk of them seem to say.
I just looked up the word disengenuous - not candid or sincere.
On this matter (your identifying my study as not candid or sincere), I don't think you can possibly know my heart on the matter and you therefore partake of province that is God's alone.
Finally, I am unaware of misleading labeling.
Hi Tony...Hi,
A few months ago, I referenced every single NT occurrence of the Greek word theos and entered them into an excel spreadsheet. I included the following columns.
Verse
Who is theos in the passage?
Is Jesus mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?
Is the Holy Spirit mentioned in the passage, but as someone other than who theos is in the passage?
I am sure my numbers may be ever so slightly off, but here is some summary information.
1130 times theos is the Father
5 times theos is the Son
0 times theos is the Holy Spirit
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is referred to in the passage 1061 times and as someone other than theos.
Out of the 1130 times theos is the Father (only), Jesus is not referred to in the passage 69 times.
So with a population size of 1130, 94% of the time Jesus is mentioned, but as someone other than theos.
One of the things I get out of the above is that for the trinity to be the truth, the Bible must "speak" in a manner completely contrary to how human beings normally communicate.
It would be like suppose 1130 times Joe the fireman is mentioned and out of those 1130 times, Jack the police officer is also mentioned. Now, this piece of literature does have other (related) passages, but to say
"Joe the fireman and Jack the fireman" would be considered an extraordinary level of departure from how humankind normally communicates.
I believe Jesus was begotten a divine Son due to His lineage, His Father being God.
I believe the Bible almost entirely likes to refer to Father only as theos.
I believe the Bible prefers to refer to Jesus not as theos but as Son of theos and part of its delineating Father and Son is to refer to Father as theos and the Son as His Son.
I am happy doing the same.
Blessings,
Tony
No one claimed you were misrepresenting me. That statement was about me and my limited abilities to present the Trinity Doctrine correctly.When I said “Your misrepresenting me.” I was not referring to doctrine, but “Begrudgingly.”
You are saying God the Son, I say Son of God.
All I'm saying is if God made a perfect image of Himself, there is a certain range of “perfect” that could be achieved. You are saying a perfect image of God, IS God. That is no longer an image of God, but IS God. If you say God is three persons, yet one God, then the perfect image of this God is three persons, yet one God. All three would need to become human, yet in one body. This is one of the problems with this doctrine, is that God the Son became flesh, 100% human, yet remained 100% God, then really he remained like the Father and Holy Spirit that did not become human. Not unless God Himself actually became human, and stopped being God Himself, which is not possible.
What we need to see is this is a test of God Deuteronomy 13:1-3. God called Israel, Israel is the called, but out of Israel God chose some, and whatever was written before, was written for us.
Jesus was the perfect “human” image of God. It does not say Jesus is the perfect God image of God. ...not sure if that came out sounding right.
We will also partake of that divine nature 2 Peter 1:4. It's not a impossible concept in my mind, having two natures, but if we think one is the God, then problems arise.
When we speak like this: “The examples given in Scripture – His temptation, His human intellect/will struggle in the Garden, His not knowing the hour of His Return – all demonstrate that He is very much a human like us.” it speaks of Jesus having two minds, which is two persons.
This “At the same time, the Authority with which He spoke, His own acclamations (like calling Himself the Lord of the Sabbath), the Miracles He performed – all support His Divinity – that He is also God the Son.” speaks of the rest from our works, this is not referring to the original creation, but the new creation. When we understand the new creation is all through the Son, in the plan of God the Father, then we will understand what the apostles are referring to when saying things like God created through the Son. Notice it never says created heaven and earth, the Father created heaven and earth. And miracles, sure don't prove one is God. In fact in Acts it says God was with him, and we know the Father was working in, and through him.
It is because only LORD knows the Day Zechariah 14:7. "(paraphrasing Saint Thomas)" This to requires understanding.
I guess that would make Peter the God also Acts 5:9-10; Acts 8:20-24, who also had the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Not only does this refer to the Son, but even the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit was another person that is...
Mark 13:32 (KJV) But of that day and that hour knoweth no man (this is the word G3762 - oudeis – no one, nothing, NOT the word G444 – anthrōpos – human being, man), no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
By using this word “G3762 – oudeis (a powerful negating conjunction that leaves no exceptions)” he is excluding all others. No one else! We must understand the N/T in light of the O/T.
Hi Wgw:
Wgw:
t would mean in addition to God, there was another eternal being, who was divine but not the God, but who nonetheless created all things. Unconvincing.
Realizing God is not limited as His creation is, He does not need another in order to beget a child, should that be His prerogative.
To put in human terms, let's pretend only "one" is needed to have a child, an offspring.
God creates that "one." That one is "the man."
That one has a child.
That child is 100% qualitatively like his parent. In other words, is fully human.
What you call unconvincing, I call exclaiming, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" and it is wholly apparent to me that such a One, once begotten, is equal to God and has creative power.
Blessings,
Tony
I do not accept your understanding of God. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham along with two angels. It says that they were "mortals". Though our English bibles say that it was "three men" that appeared to Abraham the Hebrew actually says "three mortals." As a mortal God could indeed be tempted.
No! The verb literally is, "is not tempted." I have already shown the literal reading from the YLT. The prefix 'a' does NOT imply inability. It would be grossly incorrect to say that an atheist cannot become a theist. Likewise, the prefix 'a' does NOT imply that God cannot become tempted.
Yet:
Matthew 4:
7 Jesus said to him, “It is written again, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’”
ekpeirazō: tempt
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1598&t=KJV
- to prove, test, thoroughly
- to put to proof God's character and power
The scriptures you are giving are saying test God, not tempt Him to sin. Clearly we can see this is the meaning, and not the meaning of tempting God to sin...
Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt [obviously test] the Lord thy God.
Hi redleghunter,
redleghunter:
Thanks to Bill Gates we can now determine the Nature of God...Wow.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
I completely, and totally disagree with you assumption. Your God then cannot guarantee His promises, if He can be tempted to sin. And it makes it possible for your God to change. 1 John1:5 says God is light, that is what God is, it is not possible for him to be darkness. God is Love, therefor He can't be tempted to do wrong, to lie, to break a promise, to be mean, for He IS love. This debases God to a man, we have to be careful of this Romans 1.
Numbers 23:19(KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man(did you catch that? God says He is not the son of man, do we believe Him?), that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Yet Moses warned the people to not tempt God as they tempted him at Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16). Paul said that it was Christ that was tempted on that occasion (1 Corinthians 10:9). We know that Christ could be tempted. Therefore, God could be tempted.You cannot tempt God!
This is an artificial distinction. To test God and to tempt him to sin are the same thing.The scriptures you are giving are saying test God, not tempt Him to sin. Clearly we can see this is the meaning, and not the meaning of tempting God to sin...
Again there is no difference between testing God and tempting him to sin. If Jesus had tested God in that instance he would in essence had been tempting God to lie.Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt [obviously test] the Lord thy God.
Have no idea what your going on about there, have a feeling I may not want to know.What's interesting about the Satan exchange is he appeals to the humanity of Christ and His Deity (Colossians 2:9).
Notice the advancing tests as you say, with the Nature of Messiah.
You ever have someone offer you something which already belongs to you? Interesting to ponder a bit. I know a bit off OP but fascinating.
You said obviously "test" and not tempt. Which lexicon did you derive the modification from? Curious.
Your argument makes no sense to me. They were angels as you said, and Hebrews 13:2 says ,“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” The angels appeared as men, but they were angels. And Abraham did not see the LORD, it was an angels, speaking in the name of the LORD. As it was God's name in the angel that went before the Israelites Exodus 23:20-21; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2. Angels are messengers of God.You misapply these scriptures and you totally ignore the Genesis narrative. It is saying that God is not as sinful man. The Genesis narrative says that God appeared to Abraham as a mortal. You proceed from your unproveable assumption that a man could not guarantee promises made. But it was a man that confirmed God promises.
Christ became a servant of the Jewish people to maintain the truth of God by making good his promises to the patriarchs.... Romans 15:7-8 NEB
Your whole argument fails because it was a man that guaranteed God's promises.
Yet Moses warned the people to not tempt God as they tempted him at Massah (Deuteronomy 6:16). Paul said that it was Christ that was tempted on that occasion (1 Corinthians 10:9). We know that Christ could be tempted. Therefore, God could be tempted.
This is an artificial distinction. To test God and to tempt him to sin are the same thing.
Again there is no difference between testing God and tempting him to sin. If Jesus had tested God in that instance he would in essence had been tempting God to lie.
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?