Divinity of Christ

[ReinnieR]

Only God can forgive sins.


[quote]
If you look at Mark 2:1–12



1 When Jesus returned to Capernaum after some days, it became known that he was at home.

2 Many gathered together so that there was no longer room for them, not even around the door, and he preached the word to them.

3 They came bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men.

4 Unable to get near Jesus because of the crowd, they opened up the roof above him. After they had broken through, they let down the mat on which the paralytic was lying.

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Child, your sins are forgiven."

6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves,

7 "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?"

8 Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, "Why are you thinking such things in your hearts?

9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, pick up your mat and walk'?

10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth"--

11 he said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home."

12 He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. They were all astounded and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this."



When Jesus saw the paralytic, he said to him, "Your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5). The scribes gave the objection that only God can forgive sins. They asked, "Who can forgive sins except God alone?" And they were right. But notice how Jesus changes this later in the story. He performs the miracle of healing precisely to show that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mark 2:10). So what was once only in heaven is now on earth because Jesus has the authority to forgive.

[/quote]

i used that.

then this was the response i got.

[quote]
Just because Christ forgives our sins, and God forgives our sins, does not make Christ God. Who gave Christ the authority to forgive sins? Matthew 28:18 NIV:

"Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

God gave Christ all authority in heaven and on earth. This is why Christ is able to forgive sins, and not because Christ is God.[/quote]

Edited June 3, 2006 by ReinnieR

[missionseeker]

[url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm"]http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm[/url]

This might help

[ReinnieR]

hey thanks

i'm checking it out right now

[cappie]

[url="http://www.carmeliway.com/divinity_of_christ.htm"]http://www.carmeliway.com/divinity_of_christ.htm[/url]

[ReinnieR]

this is from the link you gave me

[quote]He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)[/quote]

this would be one of his responses

[quote]Why is it that Christ should be worshipped, if God is the only one to be worshipped? does that mean that Christ is God? no. Why should Christ be worshipped? Here in Pilippians 2:9-11

9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.


It is the commandment of God that we worship Christ. We do not worship Christ because He is God, rather we worship Christ because God commanded us to .

[/quote]



[quote name='cappie' post='995867' date='Jun 2 2006, 11:10 PM']
[url="http://www.carmeliway.com/divinity_of_christ.htm"]http://www.carmeliway.com/divinity_of_christ.htm[/url]
[/quote]
thanks father checking it out too


i sent you this e-mail right when i received it. i'm still working on it. his e-mail was 22 pages long. hehe

[cappie]

The New Testament, being the fulfilment of the Old, is the fuller revelation, since Biblical revelation is progressive up to the first coming of Christ. The Father is God: Matthew 6:8, 7:21, Galatians 1:1. The Son is God: John 1:1 - Greek scholars all reject the Jehovah's Witnesses's New World translation perversion. The Word was God. The syntax of John 1:1 is instructive in this regard, by virtue of placing the definite predicate before the verb but without the definite article ('Colwell's rule'):

'En arxh 'hn 'o logos, kai logos 'hn pros ton qeon, kai qeos 'hn 'o logos. (sorry the computer doesn't type Greek )

Not only does it affirm that Jesus (the Word) is God, it also demonstrates that the Godhead is not exhausted in Jesus, that is, that Jesus is not alone God, but rather there are more persons than the Son in the Godhead.

Romans 9:5 presents Jesus as 'God over all' - the context of sorrow over Israel's fall precludes a doxology, and such does not usually appear in the middle of a passage. Doxologies usually refer to someone mentioned in the preceding sentence - Romans 1:25; 11:26; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:18. Whenever euloghtos ('blessed') is used in an independent doxology, it always stands at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3. As it stands, 'God over all' balances 'concerning the flesh'. Christ is God over all.

Romans 14:10 refers to the Judgment Seat of God, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 ascribes it to Christ. John 1:18 speaks of Jesus as the unique (monogenes) God. Acts 20:28 speaks of the Church of God purchased with His blood - thus Jesus is God. Jesus, in John 5:22-23, states that all men may give Him equal honour as to the Father, and since the honour we give to God is worship, Jesus must be God. It is is clear from John 5:18-19 that the Jews recognized Jesus as claiming deity. John 8:58 presents Him as claiming the personal name of God, 'I am' (YHWH). Cf. also Colossians 1:15; 2:9; Philppians 2:6-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 John 5:20. Titus 2:13 speaks of the 'great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as does 2 Peter 1:1. If God and Jesus were distinguished, there would normally need to be a definite article before 'Saviour', but it is absent, so the exts affirm Christ's deity. Revelation 1:17, 18; 2:8; 22:12, 13, 16 all refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End - used of God in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.

[missionseeker]

I thought the site I gave you was about how Christ could only be

1. a raving lunatic
2. egoist/ terrible liar
3 God

He couldn't have been just a "good man"

[quote]The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God. He wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)

Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane.


A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly.

Josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack:

His practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies;
His deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all
His ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.
No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage.

The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight; there is simply no way out.

What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!)

Sometimes, they go away, like many of Jesus' contemporaries, wondering and shaking their heads and thinking. That is perhaps the very best result you can hope for. The ground has been softened up and plowed. The seed has been sown. God will give the increase.

But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes. Theology has an escape; common sense does not. Common sense is easily convertible. It is the theologians, now as then, who are the hardest to convert.

The first escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"—it sounds nicer).

In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.

Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Chrisitanity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers.

The second escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do.




Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation. [/quote]

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='995894' date='Jun 2 2006, 11:27 PM']
I thought the site I gave you was about how Christ could only be

1. a raving lunatic
2. egoist/ terrible liar
3 God

He couldn't have been just a "good man"


[quote]The argument, like all effective arguments, is extremely simple: Christ was either God or a bad man.

Unbelievers almost always say he was a good man, not a bad man; that he was a great moral teacher, a sage, a philosopher, a moralist, and a prophet, not a criminal, not a man who deserved to be crucified. But a good man is the one thing he could not possibly have been according to simple common sense and logic. For he claimed to be God. He said, "Before Abraham was, I Am", thus speaking the word no Jew dares to speak because it is God's own private name, spoken by God himself to Moses at the burning bush. Jesus wanted everyone to believe that he was God.[b] [i]H[size=3]e wanted people to worship him. He claimed to forgive everyone's sins against everyone. (Who can do that but God, the One offended in every sin?)[/size][/i]
[/b]
Now what would we think of a person who went around making these claims today? Certainly not that he was a good man or a sage. There are only two possibilities: he either speaks the truth or not. If he speaks the truth, he is God and the case is closed. We must believe him and worship him. If he does not speak the truth, then he is not God but a mere man. But a mere man who wants you to worship him as God is not a good man. He is a very bad man indeed, either morally or intellectually. If he knows that he is not God, then he is morally bad, a liar trying deliberately to deceive you into blasphemy. If he does not know that he is not God, if he sincerely thinks he is God, then he is intellectually bad—in fact, insane.


A measure of your insanity is the size of the gap between what you think you are and what you really are. If I think I am the greatest philosopher in America, I am only an arrogant fool; if I think I am Napoleon, I am probably over the edge; if I think I am a butterfly, I am fully embarked from the sunny shores of sanity. But if I think I am God, I am even more insane because the gap between anything finite and the infinite God is even greater than the gap between any two finite things, even a man and a butterfly.

Josh McDowell summarized the argument simply and memorably in the trilemma "Lord, liar, or lunatic?" Those are the only options. Well, then, why not liar or lunatic? But almost no one who has read the Gospels can honestly and seriously consider that option. The savviness, the canniness, the human wisdom, the attractiveness of Jesus emerge from the Gospels with unavoidable force to any but the most hardened and prejudiced reader. Compare Jesus with liars like the Reverend Sun Myung Moon or lunatics like the dying Nietzsche. Jesus has in abundance precisely those three qualities that liars and lunatics most conspicuously lack:

His practical wisdom, his ability to read human hearts, to understand people and the real, unspoken question behind their words, his ability to heal people's spirits as well as their bodies;
His deep and winning love, his passionate compassion, his ability to attract people and make them feel at home and forgiven, his authority, "not as the scribes"; and above all
His ability to astonish, his unpredictability, his creativity. Liars and lunatics are all so dull and predictable! No one who knows both the Gospels and human beings can seriously entertain the possibility that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, a bad man.
No, the unbeliever almost always believes that Jesus was a good man, a prophet, a sage. Well then, if he was a sage, you can trust him and believe the essential things he says. And the essential thing he says is that he is the divine Savior of the world and that you must come to him for salvation. If he is a sage, you must accept his essential teaching as true. If his teaching is false, then he is not a sage.

The strength of this argument is that it is not merely a logical argument about concepts; it is about Jesus. It invites people to read the Gospels and get to know this man. The premise of the argument is the character of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. The argument has its feet on the earth. But it takes you to heaven, like Jacob's ladder (which Jesus said meant him: Gen 28:12; Jn 1:51). Each rung follows and holds together. The argument is logically airtight; there is simply no way out.

What, then, do people say when confronted with this argument? Often, they simply confess their prejudices: "Oh, I just can't believe that!" (But if it has been proved to be true, you must believe it if you really seek the truth!)

Sometimes, they go away, like many of Jesus' contemporaries, wondering and shaking their heads and thinking. That is perhaps the very best result you can hope for. The ground has been softened up and plowed. The seed has been sown. God will give the increase.

But if they know some modern theology, they have one of two escapes. Theology has an escape; common sense does not. Common sense is easily convertible. It is the theologians, now as then, who are the hardest to convert.

The first escape is the attack of the Scripture "scholars" on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Perhaps Jesus never claimed to be divine. Perhaps all the embarrassing passages were inventions of the early Church (say "Christian community"—it sounds nicer).

In that case, who invented traditional Christianity if not Christ? A lie, like a truth, must originate somewhere. Peter? The twelve? The next generation? What was the motive of whoever first invented the myth (euphemism for lie)? What did they get out of this elaborate, blasphemous hoax? For it must have been a deliberate lie, not a sincere confusion. No Jew confuses Creator with creature, God with man. And no man confuses a dead body with a resurrected, living one.

Here is what they got out of their hoax. Their friends and families scorned them. Their social standing, possessions, and political privileges were stolen from them by both Jews and Romans. They were persecuted, imprisoned, whipped, tortured, exiled, crucified, eaten by lions, and cut to pieces by gladiators. So some silly Jews invented the whole elaborate, incredible lie of Chrisitanity for absolutely no reason, and millions of Gentiles believed it, devoted their lives to it, and died for it—for no reason. It was only a fantastic practical joke, a hoax. Yes, there is a hoax indeed, but the perpetrators of it are the twentieth-century theologians, not the Gospel writers.

The second escape (notice how eager we are to squirm out of the arms of God like a greased pig) is to Orientalize Jesus, to interpret him not as the unique God-man but as one of many mystics or "adepts" who realized his own inner divinity just as a typical Hindu mystic does. This theory takes the teeth out of his claim to divinity, for he only realized that everyone is divine. The problem with that theory is simply that Jesus was not a Hindu but a Jew! When he said "God", neither he nor his hearers meant Brahman, the impersonal, pantheistic, immanent all; he meant Yahweh, the personal, theistic, transcendent Creator. It is utterly unhistorical to see Jesus as a mystic, a Jewish guru. He taught prayer, not meditation. His God is a person, not a pudding. He said he was God but not that everyone was. He taught sin and forgiveness, as no guru does. He said nothing about the "illusion" of individuality, as the mystics do.




Attack each of these evasions—Jesus as the good man. Jesus as the lunatic, Jesus as the liar, Jesus as the man who never claimed divinity, Jesus as the mystic—take away these flight squares, and there is only one square left for the unbeliever's king to move to. And on that square waits checkmate. And a joyous mating it is. The whole argument is really a wedding invitation.[/quote]


[/quote]

Edited June 3, 2006 by ReinnieR

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='cappie' post='995885' date='Jun 2 2006, 11:18 PM']
The New Testament, being the fulfilment of the Old, is the fuller revelation, since Biblical revelation is progressive up to the first coming of Christ. The Father is God: Matthew 6:8, 7:21, Galatians 1:1. The Son is God: John 1:1 - Greek scholars all reject the Jehovah's Witnesses's New World translation perversion. The Word was God. The syntax of John 1:1 is instructive in this regard, by virtue of placing the definite predicate before the verb but without the definite article ('Colwell's rule'):

'En arxh 'hn 'o logos, kai logos 'hn pros ton qeon, kai qeos 'hn 'o logos. (sorry the computer doesn't type Greek )

Not only does it affirm that Jesus (the Word) is God, it also demonstrates that the Godhead is not exhausted in Jesus, that is, that Jesus is not alone God, but rather there are more persons than the Son in the Godhead.

Romans 9:5 presents Jesus as 'God over all' - the context of sorrow over Israel's fall precludes a doxology, and such does not usually appear in the middle of a passage. Doxologies usually refer to someone mentioned in the preceding sentence - Romans 1:25; 11:26; 2 Corinthians 11:31; Galatians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:18. Whenever euloghtos ('blessed') is used in an independent doxology, it always stands at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. 2 Corinthians 1:3; Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 1:3. As it stands, 'God over all' balances 'concerning the flesh'. Christ is God over all.

Romans 14:10 refers to the Judgment Seat of God, and 2 Corinthians 5:10 ascribes it to Christ. John 1:18 speaks of Jesus as the unique (monogenes) God. Acts 20:28 speaks of the Church of God purchased with His blood - thus Jesus is God. Jesus, in John 5:22-23, states that all men may give Him equal honour as to the Father, and since the honour we give to God is worship, Jesus must be God. It is is clear from John 5:18-19 that the Jews recognized Jesus as claiming deity. John 8:58 presents Him as claiming the personal name of God, 'I am' (YHWH). Cf. also Colossians 1:15; 2:9; Philppians 2:6-11; 2 Thessalonians 1:12; Hebrews 1:8-10; 1 John 5:20. Titus 2:13 speaks of the 'great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as does 2 Peter 1:1. If God and Jesus were distinguished, there would normally need to be a definite article before 'Saviour', but it is absent, so the exts affirm Christ's deity. Revelation 1:17, 18; 2:8; 22:12, 13, 16 all refer to Jesus as Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End - used of God in Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12.
[/quote]


this is his argument on the word incarnate

[quote]John 1:1
Again, because the Bible says that the word was "divine", it does not make the word God. As we have established, when the Apostle John uses "word," it does refer to Christ. but does that mean Christ pre-existed?

According to the Ryrie Study Bible p. 1599, the Greek term used in John 1:1 for "word" is logos, which means: "word, thought, concept, and the expression thereof." in the New Encyclopedia Britanica Micro. p 302, logos means "word, reason, or plan." So, it was not Jesus himself who was with God in the beginning, but it was the idea, the plan for Christ, which was with God.

but when the Bible says, "the word was God," does this litterally mean the word is, in nature, God? As i stated in my last response, the Moffat translation uses "divine." but why did Moffat use "divine" and not 'God"? According to Hermeneia - A Critical and Historical Commentary of the Bible by Ernst Haenchen, it states on p. 109:

'In order to avoid misunderstanding, it may be inserted here that Theos and ho Theos
("god, divine" and "the God") were not the same thing in this period. Philo has therefore
written: The Logos means only Theos ("divine") and not ho Theos ("God") since the logos
is not God in the strict since. Philo was not thinking of giving up Jewish monotheism. In
a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the
logos is "God," but only that the logos is "divine." In fact, for the author of the hymn, as
for the Evangelist, only the Father was "God" (ho Theos; cf. 17:3); "the Son" was
subordinate to him (cf. 14:28)."

Does divine mean that the word is God in nature because it was divine? No, "divine" does not neccessarily mean "God." II Peter 1:4 :

4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

even we, as human beings, have the chance to partake in the "divine nature" and no longer be a part of the corruption in this world. What else does the Bible call divine? Here in 2 Corinthians 10:4:

4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.

what is the weapon that we fight with? Ephesians 6:17 NIV

"Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God"

So, the weapons that we fight with, that have divine power are the words of God. Is it true that the words of God have power? Luke 1:37 ASV

" 37 For no word from God shall be void of power. "

So, In John 1:1, when the Bible calls the word "divine," it refers to the fact that the word, the logos from God, has power. How does it have power? Isaiah 46:11:

11Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

Note the verse says: "I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it." Every word that God speaks has the power of fulfillment. God will make His words, His plans come true. Was the plan concerning Jesus fulfilled? Did God bring it to pass? Yes! John 1:14:

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

How did the word become flesh? Galatians 4:4
4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Christ was "made of a woman," He was born.

For argument's sake, let us accept that the word was God in nature. If the word was God in nature, and the word was with God, how many gods would that make? that would make two Gods. we both know and believe that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, therefore this cannot be true.

so you see, when the Bible uses "divine" in describing the logos, the word, the plan concerning Jesus, it is referring to its power of fulfillment, and not to the nature of the word.

8.) John 1:18

Was Jesus Christ unique? of course! He is the only man to be conceived from the Holy Spirit. Of course, this makes him unique, one of a kind. But does this mean that Christ was not created? Again, Galatians 4:4

4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Yes, Christ was created, He was "made of a woman." is God born or made of a woman? Here in Numbers 23:19

19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

God is not the son of man, nor is God a man. Yes, Christ is unique, but he was born. He is a man and therefore cannot be God. I understand that you believe that Christ is both God and man, but I tell you that this belief is unscriptural.

[/quote]

and ofcoarse like all of them he believes in sola scriptura

and oh they Love Acts 20:28 to play the name game as Karl Keating puts it. the name of their church is called "Church of Christ" so they love quoting the Lamsa translation where it says
[quote]
Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock overwhich
the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased
with his blood[/quote]

In Greek, the phrase is "the church of God" (tan ekklasian tou Theou) not "the church of Christ" (tan ekklasian tou Christou).

more

Jesus is the Alpha and Omega

this is what he has to say about it.

[quote]Revelation 2:8, 1:8, & 1:11, 17 - God is Alpha and Omega, Christ is Alpha and Omega (First and Last, Beginning and End, etc.)

Just because Christ is referred to as Alpha and Omega as God is, it does not mean that Christ is God. The verses no where say that "Christ is God." This would be another form of categorical syllogism (the butterflies:planes comparison).

The way that God is Alpha and Omega is different than the way that Christ is Alpha and Omega.

Christ is the First and the Last in a different manner than God is the first and the last. Christ is first and the last. God is first and last in this manner, as stated in 1 Timothy 1:17 NLT:

17Glory and honor to God forever and ever. He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen.

here it is in the KJV

17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

God is eternal, with no beginning, no end. He "never dies" God was there even before the beginning, and is the source from which all things began. God will also be there in the end, when all things come to an end on the Day of Judgement.

Christ is the first and the last because he died and came back from the dead as stated in Rev. 2:8 KJV:

8And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;

Christ is Alpha because he is the firstborn among the dead and the firstborn of every creature (Rev. 1:5, 17-18; 1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:15)

Revelation 1:5, 17-18

5And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,


17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

1 Corinthians 15:20:

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Colossians 1:15:

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:



Our Lord Jesus Christ has God, as stated here in Rev. 1:6 NIV


To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.


So, because Christ is Alpha and God is Alpha, this does not mean that Christ is God. Christ himself has God, the Father.


Here is the reason why Christ is the Omega. 1 Corinthians 15:23-28:


23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

In the end, Christ will deliver everything up to God, His Father, which is why Christ is the Omega.

God is the Alpha because all things are from Him and He has no beginning and no end.

Psalms 90:2
2Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

1 Chron. 29:11-12
11Thine, O LORD is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. 12Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all.

Even Christ recognized that all things came from God. Here in Matthew 11:27; and also in 28:18

Mat. 11:27
27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Mat. 28:18
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

God is the Omega because in the end, all things will be delivered to Him (1 Cor. 15:24-28)

so, recap:
- God is called the Alpha and the Omega for different reasons as Christ is called the Alpha and the Omega.

- God is Alpha because all things came from God and because God existed even before the beginning of time. God is the Omega because all things will be delivered to Him by Christ in the end.

- Christ is the Alpha because he is the firstborn of the dead as well as the firstborn of all creation. Christ is the Omega because, in the end, He will deliver all things to God.

Just because they are both the Alpha and the Omega does not make Christ to be God.
[/quote]

Colosians 2:9 Jesus has the fullness of deity

this is his argument

[quote]Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwells the whole fullness of deity bodily,"

Let's read that from another translation of the Bible, The Message, for further clarification of what that statement means. Col. 2:9:

9Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don't need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him.

this verse does not mean that Jesus is God in whole nature or form. It does not mean that Jesus is God in human form. According to The Message, "Everything of God gets expressed in him." Why? The verse says "so you can see and hear him clearly." But wait, doesn't the bible say God cannot be seen? and if so, wouldn't this mean that Jesus is God? What does it mean that he would be seen and heard clearly? Romans 1:19-20

19because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them.

20For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

God is clearly seen by the things "that are made," by the works that God has done. Were the works of God done through Christ? Here's what it says in Acts 2:22

22"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among you by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did through Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know --

Here, the Bible states that God did works through our Lord Jesus Christ. He was approved or, in other translations, attested by God through the "miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did through Him in the midst of you." Can we see God through our Lord Jesus Christ? yes. how? by the works done through Christ by God. What about the rest of the verse, where it says that the universe is empty without Christ? Does it mean that Christ is the one who sustains all life, making him God? not necessarily.

Well, we know that the Earth is reserved for fire on the Day of Judgement. Before that day, God has given man a chance to be saved. All those who believe in Christ and follow his teachings will be saved. But imagine if there was no Christ, no savior, no chance to be saved. God would still be man's enemy because there was no means by which man's sins could be forgiven, no new covenant. After God turned His back on the ancient nation of Israel, that would be it. He would not answer man's prayers, he would not give man His blessings. He might have even destroyed the Earth sooner. If our Creator did not want anything to do with us, don't you think that the universe would seem a little empty? But God gave man the chance to be saved through Christ. Through Christ, God is with us. I hope you understand my point here.
[/quote]

i have also used Hebrews 1:8 on him and this is what he has to say about it

[quote]Hebrews 1:8-10


If we were to follow this kind of interpretation, there would be a contradiction in the Bible, because the Son mentioned in verse 8 has God. God has also annointed Him. (Heb. 1:8-9) If so, then that would make for more than one God. But we both know and believe that Christianity is monotheistic. let's compare spiritual with spiritual and let the Bible interpret itself. Let's start with, what does it mean that God annointed the Son? Acts 10:38

38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.


God gave our Lord Jesus Christ power. God was with Jesus. Does that mean Christ is God? Dose God recognize any other God? Isaiah 44:8 21st Century KJV

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid. Have not I told thee from that time and have declared it? Ye are even My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Yea, there is no God. I know not any."


God himself does not recognize any other God besides himself. But who is being refrenced to in this verse? is it Christ? again, let's search the Scriptures for the answer. Malachi 2:10 in the Amplified Bible:

10Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then do we deal faithlessly and treacherously each against his brother, profaning the covenant of [God with] our fathers?

There is only one God, and that is the Father, not the Son. Why does God not recognize any other God? Isaiah 46:9

9Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,


God states, "I am God, and there is none like me," There is no other God. The Father Himself does not recognize any other God, except Him. No God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, just God, the Father. what about the Son? What about our Lord Jesus Christ, does he recognize a God? John 20:17

17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


Here, Jesus said, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." Jesus Christ himself acknowledges the true God. Did he say, "I ascend to myself?" no, he said to "my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." So how, then, should we understand Hebrews 1:8? A better understanding would be "God is your throne." Here, in the New World Translation:

"But with reference to the Son: "God is your throne forever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."

here in the Goodspeed Version of the Bible:

"But of the Son he says, "God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom!"


in the Moffatt:

"he says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity:"

In the footnotes of the RSV, NEB, and even in the Douay, it says "or God is thy throne."


Note: Why is the throne called God? because it came from God. Here's more proof:
what was written in Hebrews 1:8 was taken from Psalms 45:6 Here is what it says in the Today's English Version:

"The kingdom that God has given you will last forever and ever. You rule over your people with justice;"

Here it is again in the Revised Standard Version:

"Your divine throne endures for ever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity;"

This is a prophecy regarding one who has received his throne from God. In Psalms 45:1-2

"1My heart is inditing a good matter: I speak of the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer."

"2Thou art fairer than the children of men: grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever."

The King who has God and is blessed by God is the one prophesied to receive a throne from God. Who is the fulfillment of this prophecy? Luke 1:31-33:

"31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. "

"32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:"

" 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."



It is our Lord Jesus Christ who is the fulfillment of this prophecy. He would be given the throne of David by God. The throne of David, which also came from God, was given to Christ by God. But does this make Christ God? Since Christ has the throne given by God, does that make Christ to be God? Hebrews 7:24:

"24But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood."

Hosea 11:9

9I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

In Hebrews 7:24, it refers to Christ as a "man." In Hosea 11:9, it states that God is "God, and not man;" Christ cannot be God because Christ is a man, and God is not a man.
This is why we could read, "Thy throne given of God" in Psalms 45:6-7 (7-8) according to the Masoretic Text (JPSA - Jewish Publication Society of America):

"Thy throne given of God is for ever and ever; A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therfore God, thy God, hath annointed thee."

(notice that when the verse says "Therfore God, thy God," it is not calling the Son God. how do we know? because there are two commas. According to the grammatic rules of english, whatever information is in between two commas, it is describing the noun or phrase that comes before those two commas. In this case, it is describing God as the God of the one who is refrenced in this prophecy, namely Christ.)

Does Christ recognize that the throne was given him by God? Matthew 28:18; 11:27

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
27All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.


also, another one of my "favorite" verses to quote 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 and also, 27-28

24After that comes the end (the completion), when He delivers over the kingdom to God the Father after rendering inoperative and abolishing every [other] rule and every authority and power.

25For [Christ] must be King and reign until He has put all [His] enemies under His feet.

27For He [the Father] has put all things in subjection under His [Christ's] feet. But when it says, All things are put in subjection [under Him], it is evident that He [Himself] is excepted Who does the subjecting of all things to Him. ( A)

28However, when everything is subjected to Him, then the Son Himself will also subject Himself to [the Father] Who put all things under Him, so that God may be all in all [be everything to everyone, supreme, the indwelling and controlling factor of life].




Christ will subject himself to God. How can Christ be God, if He is subject to God? would that not make 2 Gods? Christ is not God , rather, Let us believe that He is the Son of God

Hebrews 4:14, 16

14Inasmuch then as we have a great High Priest Who has [already] ascended and passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession [of faith in Him].

16Let us then fearlessly and confidently and boldly draw near to the throne of grace (the throne of God's unmerited favor to us sinners), that we may receive mercy [for our failures] and find grace to help in good time for every need [appropriate help and well-timed help, coming just when we need it].


[/quote]

and i have also used 1 John 5:20

and this is his

[quote]1 John 5:20

Here it is from the NKJV:

20And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal Life.

When the verse says "This is the true God and eternal Life," it is not referring to Jesus Christ. If we were to interpret that the name Jesus Christ is the true God because his name appears closest to the word, "This" then we would be making a wrong interpretation. It would be like what is written in 2 John 1:7:

7For many deceivers have entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

If we were to use the same format for interpreting this verse, then it would appear that Jesus Christ himself is a deceiver and an antichrist. But we both know that that is an erroneous and foolish thing to say. but Christ's name is the closest to the phrase that says "This is a deceiver..."

Also in Acts 7:18-19:

18Till another king arose, which knew not Joseph. 19The same dealt subtilly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.

If we accepted that verse 19 was speaking about Joseph because his name is the closest to verse 19, that would be wrong as well. Verse 19 is not referring to Joseph, but rather the new king who "arose" in verse 18.

so, let's examine 1 Jn. 5:20. If we were to say that the true one made known by Christ is Christ, then it would appear that Jesus Christ has a Son:

- "We also know that the Son of God" [this is Christ] "has come and has given us discernment to know the one who is true."
- "And we are in the one who is true" [let's accept, for arguement's sake that this is referring to Christ.]

That would appear to mean that Christ, the one who made known, has a Son, the one who was made known. We both know that this would be wrong.

So that means that the one made known by Christ has to be different from Christ. Proof that they are different can be found in John 7:28

28Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

Here, Jesus said that the people know him, but not the one who sent him. The one who sent him is true. So now, according to 1 Jn 5:20, Christ came to reveal or make known to the people to know the one who is true, since in John 7:28, the one who was true was not yet known by the people. Who is the one who is true? John 17:1, 3

1These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

It is God, the Father, who Jesus is making known to the people. Christ himself even acknowledges that it is the Father who is "the only true God"

The apostles were among those who understood what Christ wanted them to know. 1 Corinthians 8:6:

6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

in 1 John 5:20, Christ is the Son of the true one, or the Son of God


we can have life by believing that Jesus is the Son of God, as written in John 20:30-31

30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name..

1 John 5:20 does not mean that Christ is God, but rather that the one who Christ made known to be true is God. This is none other than the Father himself.
[/quote]

and titus 2:13

and this is his interpretation of it

[quote]Titus 2:13

In Titus 1:4, the Bible says this:

4To Titus, my own son in the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Notice that "God the Father" and "Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." are two different phrases. Let's read Titus 2:13 in the Moffatt Translation of the Bible

"awaiting the blessed hope of the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Savior Christ Jesus,"

Here, "the Glory of the great God" and "our Savior Christ Jesus" are two seperate prepositional phrases. Why? Here, in John 8:16-18

16And yet if I judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me.

17It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true.


18I am One that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me."



Let's look at it in the New International Version for even more clarity:

16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."


we can see from this passage that Christ and God, are not one, but they are two in number. So the Moffatt translation of the Bible has better harmony with the Scripture by seperating "the Glory of the great God" and "our Savior Christ Jesus" as two prepositional phrases.

[/quote]

i have used 2 Peter 1:1 as well

and he said

[quote]2 Peter 1:1


here is the verse in the American Standard Version:


1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:


Why is it like this in the ASV; that God and Jesus Christ are made to be two seperate prepositional phrases? again, the Bible says this in John 8:16-18


16And yet if I judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent Me.

17It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true.


18I am One that bear witness of Myself, and the Father that sent Me beareth witness of Me."



Let's look at it in the New International Version for even more clarity:

16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

God and Jesus are not one, but 2 in number. God saves through Christ, but that does not make Christ God. that is why the American Standard Version of the Bible is a better translation of 2 Peter 1:1[/quote]

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

A few of the most obvious quotes:
[quote]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and [b]the Word was God[/b]. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
John 1:1-5[/quote]
[quote]So the Jews said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, [b]before Abraham came to be, I AM[/b]."
John 8:57-58[/quote]
[quote]I wish that where I am they also may be with me, that they may see my glory that you gave me, because you loved me [b]before the foundation of the world[/b].
John 17:24[/quote]
[quote]Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and [b]my God[/b]!"
John 20:27-28[/quote]
[quote]He touched me with his right hand and said, "Do not be afraid. [b]I am the first and the last[/b], the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.
Revelation 1:17-18[/quote]

[journeyman]

Is this discussion happening in a Christian context? Does the other participant hold a monotheistic but non-Trinitarian belief (i.e. coming from a Jewish or Islamic viewpoint) or views this as an intellectual exercise in scripture analysis with no underlying belief system at risk? (atheist/agnostic/polytheist) (the way he jumps from translation to translation suggests the latter, using the translation which best fits the point he wants to make)

I think is harder to discern (assign) divinity on the basis of actions

(even with the miraculous, there is the question of causation - is the actor the source of the miracle, or merely a conduit (Elijah at Mt. Carmel?)).

Does he deny the existence of God? Does he deny God's creation of the world? Does he deny the divinity of God? If that is not recognized, then the second person of God will be recognized no better than the first.

Does he deny that Jesus is the Son of God? In the mythologies of Greece and Rome, that ranked as demi-divinity. Has the discussion already been there, and moved on, or is that "off limits" for purposes of the discussion?

No tracts, publications or scriptures to help - just an observation (which probably isn't even worth 2 cents)

[ReinnieR]

He is anti-trinitarian

their church claim to be Christian.

He believes Jesus is the Son of God but not God

[ReinnieR]

bump

[KatS]

I'm not as well versed in the Bible as the rest of y'all are, but what about the Nativity stories, with Mary becoming the mother of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirt? Wouldn't that right there show us that Jesus is God's son? Or, to put it in a better way, that Jesus is also God? If Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit, there is no way he could only be "just a man." And, like the beginning of the Gospel of John, it is shown as occurring before Jesus' life and ministry.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='KatS' post='997319' date='Jun 5 2006, 10:31 AM']
I'm not as well versed in the Bible as the rest of y'all are, but what about the Nativity stories, with Mary becoming the mother of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirt? Wouldn't that right there show us that Jesus is God's son? Or, to put it in a better way, that Jesus is also God? If Jesus was conceived through the Holy Spirit, there is no way he could only be "just a man." And, like the beginning of the Gospel of John, it is shown as occurring before Jesus' life and ministry.
[/quote]
thanks

but he's not gonna believe that.