Jesus has a God?

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by Jose » Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:19 am

dizerner wrote:But also the idea that all humans sin is found both in the OT and NT, how can you say then, that it only came about through church tradition?
I think you should go back and read what I said.

dizerner

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by dizerner » Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:33 am

Jose wrote:
dizerner wrote:But also the idea that all humans sin is found both in the OT and NT, how can you say then, that it only came about through church tradition?
I think you should go back and read what I said.
You should be able to deduce my point easily: a human with sin cannot redeem humans from sin. Jesus did not sin—I think you agree with that crucial doctrine. Obviously I believe Jesus is a real human being and didn't mean to imply he wasn't; rather he was not only a human being (a human being alone), and so of a different unique category.

19 but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1Pe 1:19 NAS)
This is your presupposition that needs to be proven. Again, I would like to see some scripture stating that it was necessary for the lamb to be God.
How then do you explain this verse:

28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Act 20:28 NAS)

Seems like it could hardly be more clear or plainly stated. (Btw, a "work and power" doesn't make people overseers).

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by TheEditor » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:07 pm

Just a ridiculous statement to me, sorry. "People disagree on a doctrine therefore it's untrue," is logic unworthy of... anyone.

You are right Dizerner, that is a ridiculous statement. But you said it, I didn't.

And this "more than enough verses" to disprove such and such a thing goes right back at Unitarianism, which sweeps under the rug way too many verses (like the gem, "I can easily explain away the Word being God" :lol:).

One verse does not a doctrine make. And, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why one cannot be something in essence without being something in identity:

I the beginning was Dizerner, and Dizerner was with the Man and Dizerner was Man.

Is Dizerner "the Man", or "Man"? Come one, if you are going to scream "logic" at least be consistent.

The majority of the Christian world does not embrace Trinitarianism for lack of Biblical foundation, it's preposterous, we simply cannot ditch the doctrine without ignoring a substantial amount of verses.


You have a tremendous amount of faith in the reasons "why" 'The majority of the Christian world embraces Trinitarianism'. Do you really think that if Arius had won the Nicene debate that the majority of the Christian world wouldn't be Arians? Do numbers equate truth? I know for a fact that you don't think this, which leaves me to wonder why someone such as yourself would feel the need to make such a feckless argument.

Regards, Brenden.


[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Jesus has a God?

Post by Jose » Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:55 pm

dizerner wrote:But also the idea that all humans sin is found both in the OT and NT, how can you say then, that it only came about through church tradition?
It would be a very strange thing if I thought that the idea of sin came from church tradition and not scripture. I can't understand why you think I said that. You were the one to mention original sin. I did not refer to sin at all, which is why I asked you to re-read what I wrote.

Here's what I wrote: "The idea that no human being could do it comes down to us from church tradition, but where does scripture say that?"

Meaning: The idea that no human being could do it (i.e. be the Lamb, so therefore it had to be God himself who had to become the lamb and die) comes from church tradition. (i.e. that doctrine has it origins in the 11th century and is not found in scripture)

I then cited Romans 5 to show that indeed a human being could do it, that the lamb was indeed a man, the second Adam.

I grew up being a trinitarian my entire life and I'm pretty sure that most Trinitarians believe that Jesus' divine nature did not die, but only his human nature did. If that is so, then you still have a human being dying to atone for sin. Even within the framework of trinitarianism, God does not really die because God is immortal, so even though you say God had to die, he didn't really because Jesus' spirit (his God nature) had to remain alive so that he could raise himself (which is not REALLY himself because his 'real self' was alive and went to Hades to proclaim victory to those there, and also to heaven to present himself before the Father while his temporary human body was in the grave) On the third day, his God nature reunited with his human nature thereby resurrecting himself and hence he is forever the God-man, ascended and seated at the right hand of God, the first person of the Godhead.

All this is said to take place without dividing the substance nor confounding the persons.

Is this truth or tradition?
Last edited by Jose on Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Jesus has a God?

Post by Jose » Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:33 pm

dizerner wrote: How then do you explain this verse:

28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. (Act 20:28 NAS)

Seems like it could hardly be more clear or plainly stated.
It would be clear and plainly stated if that were the only way to translate that verse, but it's not and I suspect you knew that.

RSV - Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.


NET Bible - Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Notes from the NET Bible:
Or “with his own blood”; Grk “with the blood of his own.” The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning “his own blood”; or (2) as a possessive genitive, “with the blood of his own.” In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, “The Blood of God,” CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.sn That he obtained with the blood of his own Son. This is one of only two explicit statements in Luke-Acts highlighting the substitutionary nature of Christ’s death (the other is in Luke 22:19).
dizerner wrote:(Btw, a "work and power" doesn't make people overseers).
You're ignoring the fact that I said that the spirit is personal in that it refers to God himself AND that the word spirit is used in ways that reflect God's power and work in non personal manifestations such as wind and fire. I said it is both, God and/or his power. The verse BTW, does not prove a third being.

dizerner

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by dizerner » Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:15 pm

TheEditor wrote:You are right Dizerner, that is a ridiculous statement. But you said it, I didn't.
Obviously I think you did say, in meaning, just that. How does the logic of what you said point to anything else? I don't see any other way to read it. Can you explain to me how that logic does not fit your implications, otherwise why talk about "Trinitarians never agreeing," or something like that. What does it matter if none of them agree? How does that at all in any way show any truth of anything?
One verse does not a doctrine make. And, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why one cannot be something in essence without being something in identity:

In the beginning was Dizerner, and Dizerner was with the Man and Dizerner was Man.

Is Dizerner "the Man", or "Man"? Come one, if you are going to scream "logic" at least be consistent.
But... that's just what Trinitarians believe... they share essence and not identity. We don't believe the Father and Son share identity, I certainly never claimed that.
You have a tremendous amount of faith in the reasons "why" 'The majority of the Christian world embraces Trinitarianism'.
You have a tremendous lack of faith that people can find doctrine from the Bible and Spirit, and not church history.
Do you really think that if Arius had won the Nicene debate that the majority of the Christian world wouldn't be Arians?
I don't think the doctrines of man form the church of God. If you think this is all a man-made thing, maybe that's the source of your difficulties. I started following God with just a Bible and zero knowledge of church history... I didn't know a single fact about church history, yet I read Scripture and believed it.
Do numbers equate truth? I know for a fact that you don't think this, which leaves me to wonder why someone such as yourself would feel the need to make such a feckless argument.
No of course not, however I think it's completely wrong of you to be so constantly dismissive about the reasons so many believe something. It's not just a numbers argument, but a matter of being so dismissive—even if vast numbers are wrong (such as the Catholics), I still take them seriously and understand they have real reasons to believe what they do.

dizerner

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by dizerner » Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:28 pm

Jose wrote:It would be clear and plainly stated if that were the only way to translate that verse, but it's not and I suspect you knew that.
No, I had kind of forgotten this verse's textual evidence and spent the morning studying it. It seems there are two ways to read it, either the textual variant "the Lord" or else "the blood of God's own," meaning God's own Son. Either way though, even if those variants are correct (and they do have legitimate weight), I'd still say they point to the Divine nature of Christ, or at least fit that paradigm very well. It is a problem that, Scripture deciding not to be as crystal clear as it could, we can make it fit several paradigms with some work. It's important to acknowledge that I think; I wouldn't go so far as some saying you can make the Bible say anything (although perhaps it's close to true for some), but in my personal life I rely a lot on the experiential as well. This is something more difficult to convey to people; I mean the Ethiopian Eunuch could easily have argued with Stephen about the passage in Isaiah as the Rabbis do today, "But the suffering servant is clearly Israel!" We assume he had the Spirit's help to understand the meaning. Even the disciples who walked with the Lord and ministered with him, were called "slow of heart to believe" after his resurrection. So I think in the end, although I try to take Scripture as seriously as possible, and always back up my points, you can never really prove something that way since it's all so subjective. I can measure my own sincerity and earnestness, but in the end people generally have reasons for a strongly held opinion and you can't fight the old Mexican stand-off. My own personal threefold cord not easily broken is Scripture, logic and personal experience. But in the end I think you do need all three.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by TheEditor » Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:23 pm


Obviously I think you did say, in meaning, just that. How does the logic of what you said point to anything else? I don't see any other way to read it. Can you explain to me how that logic does not fit your implications, otherwise why talk about "Trinitarians never agreeing," or something like that. What does it matter if none of them agree? How does that at all in any way show any truth of anything?

It was a play on the Yiddish joke about putting 3 Jews in a room and having ten different opinions. The point being that the Jews can often feel different ways and be conflicted. It was popularized in "Fiddler on the Roof" when the main character would constantly shift his opinion when arguing with himself. My point being, I have had extensive conversations with probably hundreds of trinitarians in the past, and find that many of them are actually Modalists, or even quasi-Arian and they don't even know it. Therefore, without an actual working consensus about the doctrine among it's most ardent adherents, what's a boy to do?

But... that's just what Trinitarians believe... they share essence and not identity. We don't believe the Father and Son share identity, I certainly never claimed that.

The use of "God" as both essence as well as identity is the point:


We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

You have a tremendous lack of faith that people can find doctrine from the Bible and Spirit, and not church history.


Yes, I do. I think that the Christian faith is truly simple. I don't think it's required that we think as clinically as I may enjoy doing, to be saved and have a right relationship with the Father. Having said that, most people prefer being told what to believe, rather than thinking it through. If you have a different idea, I believe you are misinformed.
Do you really think that if Arius had won the Nicene debate that the majority of the Christian world wouldn't be Arians?


I don't think the doctrines of man form the church of God. If you think this is all a man-made thing, maybe that's the source of your difficulties. I started following God with just a Bible and zero knowledge of church history... I didn't know a single fact about church history, yet I read Scripture and believed it.

I wasn't talking about doctrines forming the church at all. Wherever did you get that idea? Merely that people come by their ideas quite by happenstance. If you brought zero theological concepts to the table, Mazel Tov! Most people I would assume, unless they lived in a remote village somewhere and a Missionary simply catapulted the Gospel of John into their village, and let the natives dope it out for themselves, probably bring notions to the Scriptures before they read them.

Do numbers equate truth? I know for a fact that you don't think this, which leaves me to wonder why someone such as yourself would feel the need to make such a feckless argument.

No of course not, however I think it's completely wrong of you to be so constantly dismissive about the reasons so many believe something. It's not just a numbers argument, but a matter of being so dismissive—even if vast numbers are wrong (such as the Catholics), I still take them seriously and understand they have real reasons to believe what they do.

I do as well. So what's the point?

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by Paidion » Fri Aug 07, 2015 1:17 pm

Jesus said, “Who do people say that I am?”

His disciples replied, “Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elijah or another of the prophets.”

Jesus replied, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as his rationality and then, by an act of his will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only because Scripture speaks of a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple.”

And Jesus answered, saying, “Huh?”
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: Jesus has a God?

Post by dizerner » Fri Aug 07, 2015 2:54 pm

It was Nicodemus that said "huh" not Jesus.Apparently Jesus wasn't afraid of difficult and confusing language.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”