The Divinity of Christ

[God Conquers]

Gotta love the trilemma. Is anyone here in dispute of this?

Jesus claimed to be God.

Either He was RIGHT or He was WRONG.

If He was WRONG then we are presented with two options: Jesus either knew He wasn't God which would make Him a LIAR, or He didn't know He wasn't God which would make Him a LUNATIC.

LIARS are self-serving, uncharitable, self-preserving, and what they say doesn't come true. These qualities don't fit the historical Jesus... so He wasn't a liar.

LUNATICS who claim to be God (Divinity complex) are cold, inflexible, unable to relate with others, and solitary. These are also qualities not displayed by Jesus. (And even contradicted by some things He did)

This means Jesus must have been RIGHT that He is God. God is loving, speaks with authority, able to perform miracles and prophesy. God calls us to radical faith. This is displayed in the person of Jesus.

So we are left with a choice.

Jesus IS LORD: we can accept Him or reject Him.

[Melchisedec]

[quote]LIARS are self-serving, uncharitable, self-preserving, and what they say doesn't come true. These qualities don't fit the historical Jesus... so He wasn't a liar.[/quote]

[i]
Matthew 24:34.

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
[/i]

His generation passed. I consider that a lie.

Edited March 30, 2005 by Melchisedec

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 30 2005, 10:50 AM'] LUNATICS who claim to be God (Divinity complex) are cold, inflexible, unable to relate with others, and solitary. These are also qualities not displayed by Jesus. (And even contradicted by some things He did) [/quote]
Not true either. There are alot of people who claim(ed) to be god. Having lots of followers and typically being pretty social spreading their message. David Koresh, Yahway ben Yahway, Jim Jones to name a few. THere are many people who claim to be god or be sent by god. In fact, I hear on this forum all the time 'God told me' this and that. Are they crazy?

[God Conquers]

Well, He did come again in the ressurection. And it was the apostles who accomplished the rest, gathering the nations, facing the persecutions.

[God Conquers]

And that was in their generation.

[Melchisedec]

You forgot to include his final return, which encompasses that promise.

[Gal. 5:22,23]

Mel -

Many commentators believe the fig tree mentioned in vs. 32 refers to the nation of Israel. So when Jesus says to learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out... He's saying watch the nation of Israel. In 1948, it "became a nation in one day" - an OT prophecy I can't put my finger on right now. So, many believe that THIS generation - defined as up to 120 years by some, will witness Jesus' Second Coming. Also, in my Bible footnotes, "generation" is also translated as "race." That puts a whole different spin on the verse!

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Gal. 5:22' date='23,Mar 30 2005, 11:40 AM'] Mel -

Many commentators believe the fig tree mentioned in vs. 32 refers to the nation of Israel. So when Jesus says to learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out... He's saying watch the nation of Israel. In 1948, it "became a nation in one day" - an OT prophecy I can't put my finger on right now. So, many believe that THIS generation - defined as up to 120 years by some, will witness Jesus' Second Coming. Also, in my Bible footnotes, "generation" is also translated as "race." That puts a whole different spin on the verse! [/quote]
The greek word is [b]genea[/b] which means 'generation' . Not race or anything like that. [b]genos[/b] is the word often confused , and I believe that does mean race.

γενεά η = offspring generation
genea i

Five Greek Lexicons: genea.

(1) The interval of time between father & son... from thirty to forty years those living in any one period; this present generation.

(2) A generation of mankind, a step in genealogy.

(3) A generation, an interval in time.

(4) The whole multitude of men living at the same time--Mt xxiv.34... used esp. of the Jewish race living at one and the same period.

(5) The sum total of those born at the same time... all those living at the same time... contemporaries


When I say, the music of my generation it does not account for the whole generations of man. If you and I were born in the 70s and grew up in the 80s. We could say that the music of our generation is 80s music.

Edited March 30, 2005 by Melchisedec

[jasJis]

GC,
You seem to have painted yourself into a corner.

One shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Look at the other context and intent of the surrounding passages. It is clear that it was understood that the time would be long enough for false prophets to arrive and that it is impossible for humans to know when. It makes more sense that 'generations' cannot mean a literal generation in light of the surrounding passages by Matthew.

"20 [34] The difficulty raised by this verse cannot be satisfactorily removed by the supposition that this generation means the Jewish people throughout the course of their history, much less the entire human race. Perhaps for Matthew it means the generation to which he and his community belonged.

21 [36-44] The statement of Matthew 24:34 is now counterbalanced by one that declares that the exact time of the parousia is known only to the Father (Matthew 24:36), and the disciples are warned to be always ready for it. This section is drawn from Mark and Q (cf Luke 17:26-27, 34-35; 12:39-40).

22 [36] Many textual witnesses omit nor the Son, which follows Mark 13:32. Since its omission can be explained by reluctance to attribute this ignorance to the Son, the reading that includes it is probably original.

23 [37-39] Cf Luke 17:26-27. In the days of Noah: the Old Testament account of the flood lays no emphasis upon what is central for Matthew, i.e., the unexpected coming of the flood upon those who were unprepared for it.

24 [40-41] Cf Luke 17:34-35. Taken . . . left: the former probably means taken into the kingdom; the latter, left for destruction. People in the same situation will be dealt with in opposite ways. In this context, the discrimination between them will be based on their readiness for the coming of the Son of Man.

25 [42-44] Cf Luke 12:39-40. The theme of vigilance and readiness is continued with the bold comparison of the Son of Man to a thief who comes to break into a house."

[Paphnutius]

Good thing to know that Mel knows greek. I will have to keep that in mind for the future.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Mar 30 2005, 12:03 PM'] GC,
You seem to have painted yourself into a corner.

One shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket. Look at the other context and intent of the surrounding passages. It is clear that it was understood that the time would be long enough for false prophets to arrive and that it is impossible for humans to know when. It makes more sense that 'generations' cannot mean a literal generation in light of the surrounding passages by Matthew.

"20 [34] The difficulty raised by this verse cannot be satisfactorily removed by the supposition that this generation means the Jewish people throughout the course of their history, much less the entire human race. Perhaps for Matthew it means the generation to which he and his community belonged.

21 [36-44] The statement of Matthew 24:34 is now counterbalanced by one that declares that the exact time of the parousia is known only to the Father (Matthew 24:36), and the disciples are warned to be always ready for it. This section is drawn from Mark and Q (cf Luke 17:26-27, 34-35; 12:39-40).

22 [36] Many textual witnesses omit nor the Son, which follows Mark 13:32. Since its omission can be explained by reluctance to attribute this ignorance to the Son, the reading that includes it is probably original.

23 [37-39] Cf Luke 17:26-27. In the days of Noah: the Old Testament account of the flood lays no emphasis upon what is central for Matthew, i.e., the unexpected coming of the flood upon those who were unprepared for it.

24 [40-41] Cf Luke 17:34-35. Taken . . . left: the former probably means taken into the kingdom; the latter, left for destruction. People in the same situation will be dealt with in opposite ways. In this context, the discrimination between them will be based on their readiness for the coming of the Son of Man.

25 [42-44] Cf Luke 12:39-40. The theme of vigilance and readiness is continued with the bold comparison of the Son of Man to a thief who comes to break into a house." [/quote]
Not true. It just says that no one knows the time but god. It still does not contradict that the time can come anytime within their generation. If he meant jewish race, than why use the term generation? Considering it has been used correctly throughout the bible. It is clear that jesus was talking about his contemporaries and that he would return within their lifetime.

[jasJis]

I'm not a literalist like God Conquers. I consider the Bible as being 'inspired' by God, not written by God, so I also consider the accepted understanding as provided by the Church in light of Tradition, tradition, and the general concept of Scripture. I have little argument to protest the "literal accuracy" proponents and strive for a broader comprehension. I personally agree with footnote 20 that the literal difficulty is not satisfied. In broad comprehnsion, one statement that it will happen within a generation does not overrule the other statements and inference that the time cannot be known and the [u]principle[/u] message to be always prepared.

[God Conquers]

huh? I ain't no literalist.

I was just offering one explanation.... that He DID come back.

Context is vital in scripture.

One thing we can't understand doesn't overule 100 promises kept.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Mar 30 2005, 02:27 PM'] I'm not a literalist like God Conquers. I consider the Bible as being 'inspired' by God, not written by God, so I also consider the accepted understanding as provided by the Church in light of Tradition, tradition, and the general concept of Scripture. I have little argument to protest the "literal accuracy" proponents and strive for a broader comprehension. I personally agree with footnote 20 that the literal difficulty is not satisfied. In broad comprehnsion, one statement that it will happen within a generation does not overrule the other statements and inference that the time cannot be known and the [u]principle[/u] message to be always prepared. [/quote]
It seems more that you are bending it to meet your own personal beleif. Because surely you cannot deny that the prophecy was not fullfilled. Like I said about the time not being known. It does not suppose that the time is far beyond the generation of jesus's contemporaries.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 30 2005, 02:46 PM'] It seems more that you are bending it to meet your own personal beleif. Because surely you cannot deny that the prophecy was not fullfilled. Like I said about the time not being known. It does not suppose that the time is far beyond the generation of jesus's contemporaries. [/quote]
Is the chapter meant as a prophecy or was the message something else?