 |
Txgreasemonkey and galveston,
I agree that Jesus IS God.
And I agree with the very many highly recognized theologians who say the same thing based on their years of study of the Holy Scripture, the culture and politics of the time, plus the history of Jesus time on earth and the archeological evidence of the time and area.
Really good theologians go not confine there studies just of Holy Scripture.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Jesus never said that he was God. He was careful to say that he was not God the Father,and that he had a subordinate role to the Father which was to do the will of him thet sent me. When the Rich Young Man spoke to him saying Good master ... Jesus corrected him, saying, Why callest thou me good? There is none good save one who is God! Speaking of the time of the seocnd coming he told his apostles that he did not know the time of his return, and neither did the angels of gheaven, but only the Father knew that. On another occasion he said plainly, My Father is greater than I [am].
He separates himself from the Father in substance and person when he says: And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.—John 17:3
That the three members of the Godhead are separate individuals, physically distinct from one another, is proven by the sacred records of God's dealings with man. One example was when the Savior was baptized. John recognized the Holy Ghost in the sign of a dove while Christ stood before him in the tabernacle of flesh, and they heard the voice of the Father acknowledging the son:.. . This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.—Matthew 3:17Surely this was not ventriloquism where Christ was speaking to and of himself. It was the Father introducing His Son. In this case, the members of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves, each in a different way, and each was distinct from the others. A similar event occurred on the Mount of Transfiguration when members of the Godhead were distinguished in the presence of Moses and Elias, and Peter, James, and John.
Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (John 14:28.)
Jesus 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. (John 20:17.)
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. (John 17:11.)
These and scores of other passages show the separate personages of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Hebrews 1:1-3
[I] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;[/I]
Acts 7:54-56
¶ When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on [Stephen] with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
John 5:20 ff.
For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
John 10:27 ff.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.30 I and my Father are one.
John 17:5 ff.
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
Etc.
M:)RGANITE
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Those who hold a different view have also studied the Bible for many years, the social environment of Jesus's time and location and don't reject archeology as a science as you imply.
BTW
Recognition can't be used as a litmus test for truth. Those doing the recognizing might be in error themselves.
Actually, Arcura and Morganite are both right. Elohim, found in the first of Genesis is plural, (God said, "let us make man in OUR image".) But notice that the Apostle John tells us plainly that the Son is the actual Creator, and Jesus identifies Himself as the "I AM" who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. I see no conflict.
When Jesus was talking to his disciples on the Mount of Olives, and they asked him when the end times would come,he said that he did not know but only his Father which was in heaven knew of that time and day. To me,that separates both God and Jesus into 2 separate beings. Wouldn't he have told them if he was also God?
God created through Jesus. Proverbs chapter 8Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
BTW
Actually more important than all this is living a Christian life and letting God clarify the issue for all mankind in his own due time.
I just thought of something relating to the question about whether Jesus Christ is God or not. Notice that all through the Bible, neither righteous angels, nor righteous men, will accept worship. Jesus accepted worship, which is due to God only. Does this help any?
The Greek word translated as worship is simply a reverence or a behavior of great respect shown high officials, kings, and other persons of high status and does not necessarily carry the meaning that the word worship implies in English.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 4352 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
proskunevw from (4314) and a probable derivative of (2965) (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Proskuneo 6:758,948
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pros-koo-neh'-o Verb
Definition
to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication
used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank
to the Jewish high priests
to God
to Christ
to heavenly beings
to demons
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/
Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
Such as who?
There is usually not the distinctions you would make between the terms. Most thelogians are scholars who are theorists as well, even with several degrees, one of which is likely to be in theology but is not boubnd to be in that subject.
It is not the degree that makes the theologian but the mind, the intellect, the ability to weigh evidence, formulate proposiions asnd test the, and the ability to contrast, and compare, and all other scholarly skills that determrines whether an author acholar or theologian is a theologian.
You will look invain for complete agreement between them. Some will be Wellhausenists, others Kirkegaardist, Bartists, Tillichists, etc. some conservative, others liberal, some bibliolatrists, others transcendentalists, each having modes of thought and puposes that contend with, support, or outstrip that of others in their field. Every theologian is also a published author.
What a thinking person has to do is to decide whether of these cholars is 'credible,' and which are not, and understand why they make their preferences. Accepting everyhthing a person says because ehe or she has a degree in theology is a certain recipe for theological disaster, and so is spurning scholars and authors whose academic credentials are unknown to you. Neither course makes good sense.
M:)RGANITE
What specific examples can you provide that show angels and men habitually reject worshipful attention?Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
M
Morganite:
I responded further to Mrs. Pennell earlier in this thread. She was referring to "the Jesus Seminar". While she said the group was comprised of scholars with degrees in theology & religion, I commented further that the scholars fall short of answering about Jesus because none of them are ministers in addition to theorists.
I don't think a Christian viewpoint is represented in that "seminar" as there is more attention on disproving Jesus in that seminar.
Yes, I agree that whoever we listen to or consider our religious leaders, should be credible.
My sources were for Mrs. Pennell to consider. All in addition to being theologians are also ministers.
The answer for me still stands. Jesus never SAID he was God. But He was given ALL authority in heaven and on earth. Jesus is Lord in the Trinity. But right now, I believe Jesus is seated at the right of God in heaven and in our hearts and minds.
Your statement is what the trinity is according to several extrabiblical Christian Creeds, but you will not find those Creeds in the Bible. There is no statement in the Bible defining a triune God. The nearest thing to a triune credal statement in the 'Johannine Comma' that is a known unauthorised interpolation added to scripture by a later hand to make up for total lack of scriptural support for the Trinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJizzle
M:)RGANITE
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrs.pennell
Schweitzer forgot dogs, small children, friends, and bears of all kinds.
M
Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
I disagree with your generalisation. It simply is not so. The Bible is in parts anything but reasonable and that is why Bible scholars can seldom agree, theologians hardly, ministers never, and lay persons can't undertand any of them!
The Bible is a difficult book to know and understand, especially when a modern mindset tries ot make sense of a three thousand year old monograph.
M
The fragnment to which your post refers is called P52. This small fragment of St. John's Gospel, less than nine centimetres high and containing on the one side part of verses 31-33, on the other of verses 37-38 of chapter xviii is one of the collection of Greek papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. It was originally discovered in Egypt, and may come from the famous site of Oxyrhynchus (Behnesa), the ruined city in Upper Egypt where Grenfel and Hunt carried out some of the most startling and successful excavations in the history of archaeology; it may be remembered that among their finds of new fragments of Classical and Christian literature were the now familiar "Sayings of Jesus".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonegy
The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D. and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.It provides us with invaluable evidence of the spread of Christianity in areas distant from the land of its origin; it is particularly interesting to know that among the books read by the early Christians in Upper Egypt was St. John's Gospel, commonly regarded as one of the latest of the books of the New Testament. Like other early Christian works which have been found in Egypt, this Gospel was written in the form of a codex, i.e. book, not of a roll, the common vehicle for pagan literature of that time.
M
Matthew 3:15-17 - three separate person in three separate placesQuote:
Originally Posted by galveston
The transfiguration...
The Garden of Gethsemane (Jn 17)
The cry from the cross - eloi, eloi, lama sabacthani? (My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?)
These and others - "My Father is greater than I am" "Don't call me 'good,' here is none good except One" militate against any conclusion that Jesus and God the father are identical. Jesus did not say "I and the Father is one," but, " I and the father are one." He never said I AM the Father!" etc.
M:)RGANITE
But he is not the Father.Quote:
Originally Posted by txgreasemonkey
M
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickj
I'd like that transcript read back with the understanding that Thomas questioned whether Jesus had actually been resurrected - 'except I see for myself I will not believe - and when he was convinced - 'he thrust his hands into his wounds' - uttered his high Christological statement, but Jesus confirms only his belief in him as resurrected. Taking that to cover anything else than the fact of the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead is wayward and unreliable.
Let us at least see what was written in the text and what it actually addresses.
M
Jesus=God
Jesus is the creative element of the Infinite God Head. Very glad the question was asked.
Note my qualifing word "righteous". Satan, fallen angels, and unrighteous men will certainly accept worship. I hope no one out there would attempt to put Jesus Christ in that company. As to examples, I give three off the top of my head. In Acts 28:3 the Apostle Paul rejects worship. In Rev. 19:10 and 22:9 two beings identified as angels refuse to accept worship. The only way that Jesus Christ would accept worship is if He is God. Either that, or He is a liar, and I don't believe that for an instant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
THERE IS A SCRIPTURE VERSE THAT COMES TO MIND WHERE JESUS STATES, "IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME THEN YOU HAVE SEEN MY FATHER..."
John 14:7
If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."
John 14:6-8
I THINK THIS IS THE VERSE... STONY
Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
You can say you, personally, do not trust them but you cannot say they fall short. They have often - and still do - led the way for ministers to follow in understanding difficulties in the Bible. Many ministers are hopeless when it comes to exegesis and rely heavily on erudite scholars.
M:)
Either that or you are infusing more meaning onto the original Greek word than the word warrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
Morganite:
These scholars noted in the "Jesus Seminar" cannot be trusted. AND also they fall short of convincing me, as a Christian, of any difference between the historical Jesus & the Christian Jesus.
Note how the main author of this seminar is a FORMER professor at the univ. of Montana. And now writing books on their so-called theories. Oh, how very convenient! I'll bet he didn't TEACH this when he was a professor!
Then take a look at the commentator/author writing about this "Seminar".
MINISTER. From Probe Ministries. I don't think this minister who care to use these New Testament scholars opinions at all. AND this minister may even be a scholar himself, right?
Well, the Jesus Seminar wasn't accepted well, according to the author/commentator. But just the thought of a secular person reading something like that & believing it bothers me. What a good excuse to further their disbelief in Jesus, by none other than New Testament scholars to boot!
These scholars are giving a philosophical naturalistic view of the world & deny the supernatural. Well, they might as well throw in how they don't believe that Moses parted the Red Sea too, since they don't believe in miracles!
And Mrs. Pennell's timeline for the N. Testament being written... see page 1, well I don't think she's any where near accurate.
I'm pasting an excerpt from the allabouttruth.org website -
-----------------
"It is generally agreed that the Book of Matthew was the first Gospel written and that it was written between A.D. 50 and 75. Of the four Gospel's, John's is considered to have been the last one written, around A.D. 85. The Book of Acts, a historical account of the establishment of the early Christian church, is believed to have been written by one of the Apostle Paul's associates, around A.D. 62 (near the end of Paul's imprisonment in Rome).
The Pauline Epistles (the Apostle Paul's letters to the early church) were authored between A.D. 50 - 67. The author of Hebrews is unknown, but the book is commonly thought to have been written around A.D. 70. The epistles of the other Apostles were written between A.D. 48 - 90.
The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is believed to have been penned by the Apostle John between A.D. 70 - 95."
I agree. They are not "scholars" at all, but a group with an agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
The full quote is:
Neurotics build castles in the air; psychotics live in them; and psychiatrists collect the rent!
M:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 31pumpkin
1) If you say they cannot be trusted you need to show show evidence of why you say that. If it is merely an unsupported opinion, then it is worthless. Why should anyone believe you rather than the professor without you taking the time and trouble to show where he is wrong and why you are right?
2) What is wrong with being a FORMER anything? Why is being a FORMERN professor at MU 'convenient' an dionstea dof betting he didn't tecah such things when he was a PRESENT professor at MU, why not prove that he did? Innuendo and vagrant ooinion is useless. It tells how you feel, and what your prejudices are, but offers no support at all to your position.
3) Your thinking is very muddled here. You are saying you don't like what they teach but you don't know why, except it makes you uncomfortable. That is unhelpful.
4) There you go again, knocking Bible scholars without posting the reasons for your disagreement. If you want anyone to take notice of your objections you need to set them out carefully so that others can follow your lines of reasoning and test your arguments and theories. It is too easy to come out and say "I'm agin it!" but as you have engaged in debate we are entitled to expect a better standard of contribution than a mere airing of your prejudices.
5) They might well offer a naturalistic explanation, but Moses didn't part the Red Sea. As a Bible reader you will know that "Red Sea" is a mistranslation, and the "Reed Sea" is where the Children of Israel crossed from Egypt to Palestine.
6) You express your thinking that Mrs Pennell is inaccurate but you do not take the time and trouble to show where and how. If she is, expose her inaccuracies so that we can see them and either disagree or agree with you. Expressing disbelief is neither scholarly, ministerial, nor Christian unless you cans show good cause for your judgement. Saying 'Pooh pooh' is not discussion.
A) A Marcan priority is generally agreed, although there are a FEW who believe in a Matthean priority, but there compelling reasons for rejecting that view.
B) The Fourth Gospel is the last , but its date is closer to 95 to 100 AD. Revelations was written after the Fourth Gospel, around 104 AD. No one knows for sure who wrote "John's" Gospel. The book itself claims no author.
C) The Book of Acts is an incomplete record of some of the labours of Peter and Paul. Details of the other ten apostles are not cincluded. It was written by Lucas a Greek physician, who also wrote the third Gospel..
D) Basically the accepted dates, with First Thessalonians being the first extant letter. Dating has to be guessed from internal evidence.
E) The author of Hebrews is unknown. It is almost certain that it was not written by Paul because the Greek is different, the vocabulary is unique, and the whole structure of the book is unPauline.
F) Revelations is the last of the present NT books to have been written, and is dated about 105 AD.
The Bible is much too important to be left in the hands and at the mercy of unskilled and uninspired interpreters as many of the 'ministers' who tout their own versions and interpretations of it are. Bible shcolars work with an honesty that some ministers would do well to imitate. The broadening of understanding of the Bible is thanks almost entirely to Bible scholars, many of them who are also ministers, but little progress has been made towards understanding by ministers who are not scholars, and whose bigotry and prejudices permeate all they say, write, and do. From such turn away!
As for the Jesus Seminar, it is a demythologising movement that aims to peel back what Bultmann et all call 'myths' imposed by the faith community to bolster their faith in the supernatural abilites of one who had become accepted as the Son of God, the divine redeemer and saviour. While such an approach seems strange to believers of a different order, it is not entirely an empty or futile exercise, but part of the search for the person behind the stories. Provided that you are sufficiently secure in your own faith position, you might benefit from some of their discoveries and theories without starting a war against them. At the very least, if you disagree, you ought to set out your stall with care and attention to detail so that others can follow your reasoned and sensible arguments against their positions. However, you must not assume that everything they say is wrong, or you could be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As Paul said, "Test everything and hold on to what is true!" His advice is as good today as it was back then
M:)RGANITE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonegy
You think? In your worm's eye view of mankind's rekigious experience, why did you leave out Akhenaton's monotheism??
M:)
Had a quick look on Wikipedia - yes it "appears" he did initiate proto-monotheism - not being an egyptologist or theologist this fact hadn't come across my path although I had remembered his wife was Nefertiti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morganite
Re "my worm's eye view" -
I bow to the "expert" - and we all know the definition of an "expert"
Morganite,
I understand your answer when you assert that Jesus never SAID that He is God. Aren't we missing something in this discussion? The concept that the Eternal Son laid aside His attributes of Diety(omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience) when He came to earth as a human baby? He read the Scripture "The spirit of the LORD is upon me - - -" announcing that it had just been fulfilled. Jesus operated in the power of the Holy Spirit, independent of His deity powers. Otherwise, we could never hope to emulate Him, which thing He consistently taught we should do after we are filled with that same Holy Spirit, as in Acts 2:4 and later recorded occurrences. Just because He never claimed to be the Father, or the Holy Spirit does not mean that He is not Deity. He has been given all power and judgment, and when the last rebel has been put away and proper order restored to the universe, He will turn everything back over to the Father. (I'm sure you can find all the relevant verses.) I like some of your points!
I believe that Jesus is God
Jesus is God manifested in the Flesh . 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Jesus DID say I and my father are one. John 10:30
Quote:
Originally Posted by STONY
A slight but significant correction. Immanuel means: "God with us" or "with us is God." "God be with us" is a prayer for the Presence, not a statement of Presence.
M:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hashyash
'Are' is plural. He did not say "I and my father IS one."
He did not say "I AMthe father."
He said "My father is greater than me" "Why do you call me good? There is only one good and that is God!"
Etc.
M:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonegy
I assure you that I am not under pressure!
:)
M:)
Galveston,Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
You are quite correct, and your reference to kenotic Christology supplies what once was an essential element in our quest for understanding of the differences between God the Father and God the Son, and militates cogently against any view that they are or could be the same Person.
Kenotic Christology, which you appear to understand well, is a doctrine of the person of Christ that seeks to understand him in terms of a kenosis or self-emptying of the Logos, whereby it was able to manifest itself in the finite life of a human being. Advocates of kenotic christology are uneasy about theological developments except as they refer to the humanity of Christ, an idea for which they try to give place in their thinking.
Kenoticism is a kind of mediating theology incorporating the traditional incarnational understanding of Christ, but modifying it in such a way as to safeguard against those docetic tendencies that seem to have dislodged the classical christology of past centuries.
One of the earliest and most ardent promoters of kenoticism was Soren Kierkergaard whose parable of the incarnation contains not merely a krypsis (hiding) but a genuine renunciation or emptying (kenosis). The word kenosis is an allusion to Paul's (some scholars think it is pre-Pauline) famous hymn in praise of Christ:
"Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not count on equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself (heauton ekenose), taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every other name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth, and under the earth, and evefry tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the Glory of God the Father."
[Philemon 2.4-8]
Proponents of kenoticism rely heavily on this passage and, to a lesser extent, on 2 Corinthians 8.9:
"For you know the grace of our Lord jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich"
Probably the most persuasive argument for kenoticism came from the pen of Gottfried Thomasius in his "Christi Person und Werk." He subtitles it 'The Exposition of Evangelical-Lutheran Dogmatics from the Centre-point of Christology.' It might be available in translation.
Thomasius explicitly separates himself from Schleiermacher's position that the person of Christ is to be understood as the completion of the creation of humanity, and even more strongly from Strauss's view that it expresses the general truth of the unity between the divine and the human. Both these views are unsatisfactory because they fail to make adequate distinciton between creaturely being and the being of God, although Thomasius does not go as far as Kierkegaard in thinking that there is an infinite qualitive difference between the divine and the human. He holds that man has the capacity for receiving God and being penetrated by God, and he claims that such affinity is a necessary presupposition for a doctrine of the incarnation.
Thomasius also sood firmly behind the position of Lutheran christology, the dominant tradition of which maintained that akhtough the Logos infinitely surpasses in knowledge, life, and action the bounds of a merely human existence, yet in the mystery of the incarnation, the Logos was wholly present in Christ and nothing of the Logos remained outside of him.
This is in direct opposition to Calivinist christology that during the incarnation the Logos also existed outside of Christ (illud extra Calvinisticum). Thomasius believed that if one admitted such an existence of the Logos outside of Christ, then one would get into the difficulties of a dual personlaity. For only if one holds - as othodoxy is supposed to require - that though there are two natures in the incarnate Christ, there is a unitary person, and this is the divine person of the Logos, is dualism avoided. If you can perform the mental gymnastic required to understand what the argument is about, then it is difficult not to give Thomasius the point!
For if the person of the Logos is the person of Christ, then we not are forced to postulate a double personality? But how can the infinite Logos be reduced or compressed (speaking metaphorically, but earnestly) into the finite compass of the human Jesus? At this point we recognise Thomasius' problem as being the problem of all christologies, and the language must almost certainly always be metaphorical. How can the infinite be revealed in the finite? If we are to think of the infinite making itself known in and through the finite, whether in an incarnation or in some other way, therem mustn be some reductions, some dimming down, some filtering, some contraction of scale, some kenosis.
Then we are left to ask. If such a dimming down, reduction, or emptying actually took place, must this not have resulted in the failure to reveal all? If the divinity of the Logos has was so diminished how could the infinity of God be revealed?
In the incarnation it is claimed that God - the Logos - divested hmself of some of his divine attributes, particularly omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence in order that the unchangeable and invisible Almighty God could relate to the world as a human being, indistinguishable from other all human beings. This is an insurmountable difficulty unless Jesus Christ is who he revealed himself as being, which is not God the father ("My Father is greater than I"), but the Son of God: the Son who had emptied himself of the glory and power he had shared with his Father at Creation and who prayed in Gethsemane that they might be restored to him.
It is evident that the incarnate Lord was no omnipotent man, no omniscient man, no miracle worker, but one who exercised no other lordship than the ethical one of truth and love. If God the Father had emptied himself of the divine attributes that the Son temporarily laid aside, then he would have ceased to be Almighty God. Christ's whole exercise of power was absorbed in his world-redeeming activities.
Kenoticism is not without its cruitics, and rightly so. The major assault to the Thomasian view was best voiced by Sanday of Oxford, who acknowledged the dostrine was not without merit, but objected that it made too much of a relatively small section of biblical material and ignored the major NT teachings about the person of Christ. A more damaging view came from Rischl who pointed out the difficulty of seeking to maintain that the essential or immanent attributes of the divine Logos [absolute power, truth, holiness, and love] are retained in the incarnate Christ, while the relative attributes [omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence] are divested, because, he argues, 'even if omnipotence and the like are only relative attributes of God and of the divine Logos - relative, that is, in relation to the world - is not this very relation the limit within which alone any knowledge of God is possible?Moreover, the conception of the divine Logos has its origin exclusively in the relation of God to the world, so that we cease to conceive the Logos of God in the way which the conception itself requires, if in any particuilar case we think away his whole relation top the world."
Others observed that Thomasius seemed to be laying claim to a detailed 'inside' knowledge of the pre-existent Word, and if one could know so much of the Logos prior to the incarnation, what was then the point of the incarnation or what fresh revelation could it bring?
Kenoticism has had its best days. It flowered briefly in Germany, and later in England, and had a brief appearance under the redoubtable scholar Bishop Charles Gore, onetime Bishop of Oxford. although Gore later abandoned it, since when it is little more than a talking point in which theologians and shcolarly ministers take an historical interest, while non-scholarly ministers and intersted laypersons struggle to get their heads aorund it, and all it entails, suggests, and are all equally disappointed when they eventually come up against its major obstacles and contradictions. Those who still maintian that kenotic christology is the way to go have chosen a poor hill to die on.
Thank you, Galveston, for stirring up in me a remembrance of interesting things past.
M:)RGANITE
The posts on this have been very interesting to me. There has been a lot of thought involved in several of them.
While I do believe that Jesus Christ is both the son of God and God the Son part of the holy trinity, I find other points of view to be thought provoking and very interesting to see how others believe and approach that belief.
I hope such post continue on this subject: Did Jesus say He is God and in what ways did He indicate such?
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
I can't be sure if the disagreement is that it's a bad argument or that Jesus is not God, so I'll add to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by morganite
Since the NT seems to imply it, the earliest Christians discussed it at length and agreed that he IS. It is a staple of Christianity, period.
So no, Christ did not say "I am God and I mean that literaly". Christians and non-Christians alike must agree with this
... so it's fine for one to argue that He is not God, but that's not any different than a Christian saying Ganesha is not a God.
Now, if one who calls himself Christian says "Jesus is not God", then that is material for a thread all by itself...
... and regarding "record coming down", that's an easy one. How far back can we go to see "Christian" teaching that he is NOT God? I know of a group that started in the 1800s that has become quite popular... but up to then the "variety" of Christians are in agreement.
Hello,
That is a very popular belief in our time. But did you know that this is not what was taught by Jesus and his disciples? So, we worship the One that Jesus said to worship.’ ‘When Jesus was teaching, here is the commandment that he said was greatest.. . Mark 12:28-30 28 Now one of the scribes that had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” 29 Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, 30 and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’
.Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. He said.. . John 14:28 “28 YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am”
Matt. 24:36 “36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.” For any who believe Jesus is God, perhaps you can explain it to me.’ ‘If the Son is equal to the Father, how is it that the Father knows things that the Son does not?’
A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God’s Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subject their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as “proof” of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. Consider the following:
Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to Him : Read the Bible!
(Matthew 3:17) Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”
(John 8:42) Jesus said to them: “If God were YOUR Father, YOU would love me, for from God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at all, but that One sent me forth.
(John 14:28) YOU heard that I said to YOU, I am going away and I am coming [back] to YOU. If YOU loved me, YOU would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.
(John 20:17) Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’”
(1 Corinthians 11:3) But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God.
(1 Corinthians 15:28) But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
A voice from the heavens that said: ‘This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.’”—MATTHEW 3:17.
Here are some scriptures that those who try to teach that Jesus is God. Each one of these scriptures point to the fact that Jesus Christ is God’s Son and they are two separate beings. Those who try to prove their false teaching use these scripture. If anyone want to go through them one at a time, and discuss why and how they prove that Jesus is Not God, I will be happy to do so. Just let me know. All of these scriptures prove that Jesus is not God.
Genesis 1:1:
Genesis 1:26:
Deuteronomy 6:4:
Isaiah 7:14:
Isaiah 9:6:
Isaiah 43:10:
Isaiah 43:11
Isaiah 44:6:
Micah 5:2:
Matthew 1:23:
Matthew 3:16,
Matthew 28:19
John 1:1:
John 1:18
John 1:23
John 2:19
John 5:18
John 8:58
John 10:30
John 14:9:
Acts 20:28:
Romans 9:5
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
2 Corinthians 13:14
Philippians 2:5, 6
Colossians 2:9
1 Timothy 3:16
Titus 2:13
Hebrews 1:6
Hebrews 1:8
Hebrews 1:10-12
1 John 5:7
1 John 5:20
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:17
Revelation 22:12
Revelation 22:13
Just what I have understood from the Bible.
Take care,
Hope12
That was a lot of work but I still believe in the Trinity - Three persons in ONE GOD.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arucra)
Morganite,
Point #6: The Bible should have said "Reed Sea", not "Red Sea". Does it really make a difference? How deep is the Reed sea? Deep enough to drown an army? I know that conventional wisdom says that Egypt could not have lost its king and army at that time, but when you take into consideration that several of the kings of Egypt certainly could have reigned concurrently rather than consecutively, it becomes easily possible. Egypts history does (I believe) show a time when one king reigned for a long time, followed by a very short reign, then followed by a queen ruling over a much reduced Egypt. I'm not sure you are deyning any miracle at the sea or just correcting a name.
Morganite,
Your enlightenment on kenoticism is good, but something is being overlooked in most, if not all, of this whole discussion. What is being left out is the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed the complete anointing of the Holy Spirit (who proceeds from the Father). Every work that Jesus did and every thing that He taught was by the Holy Spirit. When we understand that, all of the seeming conflicts that have been pointed out about kenoticism disappear. Jesus was the first vessel that the Holy Spirit was poured into in that fashion, but that same Holy Spirit was later poured into the members of the first Church at Jerusalem, enabling them to continue the ministry that Jesus (The Son of Jehovah) began.
Galvaston,
AND the Holy Spirit resides in all who accept him.
Peace and kindness to all.
Fred (arcura)
Ah Yes, Let's Examine The Word Expert Phonetically. First Of All An "ex" Is A Has Been And A "spert" Is A Drip Under Pressure... lol.
Thanks For Bringing That Joke To Mind. Haven't Told It In Years But It Still Brings A Smile To This Old Face.
Arcura,
Yes, absolutely, the Holy Spirit does indeed fill those human vessels who will approach The Father, through the Son, even in this late day.
You know, I re-read the origingal question and realized that there were actually two questions asked, not one. No wonder we have so many divergent views!
galveston.
That was very observant. I wonder how many others noticed that.
Thanks.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
One answer to this question was with Godly Wisdom.
Another answer to this question was with secular confusion.
Since we are talking about eternity, it is important to know the difference...
Yes it is important to know the difference,
But I'm at a loss, to which 2 answers are you referring?
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Thank you for pointing out the three Gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by STONY
M:)
Jesus never said he was GOD n yes he said he was the light n all that but did he not always talk about his father ? He never said he was GOD he said he was the son of GOD... but when his talkn his talkn for one person because it is believed that jesus and the holy spirit are one with god
Morganite, that is three person in one God just like you are a trinity of mind, spirit and body all in one being.
xeurobebex, perhaps you had better re-read the original post again. Jesus did say that he and the father are one being, that is God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
.. jesus never said he was GOD he said he was the son of GOD... and it is said that jesus n the holy spirit r one with god
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 AM. |