| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/26/2013 5:28:25 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 12/22/2013 7:28:20 AM PST by DouglasKC
Sir, I have offered a full lexicon study, at your disposal now, of the use of theos. Me and many others have presented coherent arguments and posed questions that go unanswered. Perhaps you and I today in the 21st century, and alas in the 20th as well may say "My God" when we are surprised, overjoyed or in the case of my dear father when he accidentally hammered his thumb instead of a nail. However, in 1st Century Judea and Galilee, no way did observant Jews blurt "My God!" especially having first said "My Lord" and then "My God." Perhaps if you have another NT example of someone getting surprised and using "theos" to express the emotion would help you. Keep searching.
Again, the lexicon provided for "theos" has a very limited array of terms to choose from. Take a look at that post again and choose one, come back and let me know why you chose what you did.
Perhaps back off on the invective a bit too as it is not a very good debating skill. In fact the use of invective denotes retreat.
I have to ask again (third time maybe more)...Was the Son of God present at creation? Has the Son of God always existed with the Father or is the Son of God a created being. For some reason everyone is avoiding answering those questions.
That's OK,...so do the modern day "Jews", which is why they reject Him, but theirs is one of seven mysteries in Scripture, the Mystery of the Blindness of Israel, which in part, occurs so that when the remnant returns to Him, His grace is more glorified.
God reveals Himself to man in many ways. We, though, are not to judge Him. Since He created man in His image, their may be dimensions of Him we are not able to comprehend, but still are able to understand what He intends for us to grasp.
Think of how difficult it is to communicate with unbelievers prior to them having a human spirit able to discern spiritual things, about anything spiritual.
Likewise, communicating the roles of the Godhead are sometimes best communicated by the persons in language identifiable with God and the relationships between them.
Do you agree that Jesus Christ is our High Priest, through whom our prayers to God the Father are mediated?
It doesn’t really matter..as I wrote earlier and you are in denial about...fact...if you line up all scripture that shows Jesus as the son of God and God’s subservient, many of which are directly from his own words..and you have another line of scripture that seems to show Jesus as God...somehow...the scriptures that show the former are far far more numerous and clearly descriptive, not nebulous, in comparison to the other line. Fact. Match, game..done.
truth seems like “invective” when you have a huge ego.
Sir, I have offered a full lexicon study, at your disposal now, of the use of theos. Me and many others have presented coherent arguments and posed questions that go unanswered. Perhaps you and I today in the 21st century, and alas in the 20th as well may say “My God” when we are surprised, overjoyed or in the case of my dear father when he accidentally hammered his thumb instead of a nail. However, in 1st Century Judea and Galilee, no way did observant Jews blurt “My God!” especially having first said “My Lord” and then “My God.” Perhaps if you have another NT example of someone getting surprised and using “theos” to express the emotion would help you. Keep searching.
Again, the lexicon provided for “theos” has a very limited array of terms to choose from. Take a look at that post again and choose one, come back and let me know why you chose what you did.
Nowhere is “theos” used as Master. When he said “Lord” that was the affirmation of “Master.” When “Lord” is used it is kyrios in Greek. So Thomas was not saying “My Lord and my Lord.” No, “theos” has only the following meanings: God; a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities. So at least choose one of the above and not try to replace the lexicon used.
So within the context of the passage and original language your choices are above. Lord and Master was covered in the very first portion of Thomas’ statement.
The opinion of Michaelis is just that an opinion. An opinion where the lexicon says different and translators over the centuries refute.
I will ask again. What Bible translation are you using to come to your conclusions?
From Vines:
1 Strong’s Number: g2316 Greek: theos God:
(A) in the polytheism of the Greeks, denoted “a god or deity,” e.g., Act 14:11; 19:26; 28:6; 1Cr 8:5; Gal 4:8. (B)
(a) Hence the word was appropriated by Jews and retained by Christians to denote “the one true God.” In the Sept. theos translates (with few exceptions) the Hebrew words Elohim and Jehovah, the former indicating His power and preeminence, the latter His unoriginated, immutable, eternal and self-sustained existence.
In the NT, these and all the other Divine attributes are predicated of Him. To Him are ascribed, e.g., His unity, or monism, e.g., Mar 12:29; 1Ti 2:5; self-existence, Jhn 5:26; immutability, Jam 1:17; eternity, Rom 1:20; universality, Mat 10:29; Act 17:26-28; almighty power, Mat 19:26; infinite knowledge, Act 2:23; 15:18; Rom 11:33; creative power, Rom 11:36; 1Cr 8:6; Eph 3:9; Rev 4:11; 10:6; absolute holiness, 1Pe 1:15; 1Jo 1:5; righteousness, Jhn 17:25; faithfulness, 1Cr 1:9; 10:13; 1Th 5:24; 2Th 3:3; 1Jo 1:9; love, 1Jo 4:8, 16; mercy, Rom 9:15, 18; truthfulness, Tts 1:2; Hbr 6:18. See GOOD, No. 1 (b).
you see..you are not my teacher nor boss..I don’t go by your rules or demands, nor questions. I made a factual statement about the overall comparative scriptures that clearly demonstrate the son of God, not God...and you write to me some snooty comment and direction from a previous smaller point...and ignore the FACT that you just lost the entire argument.
just in case you missed it... and this is not disputable..it is a fact...
It doesn’t really matter..as I wrote earlier and you are in denial about...fact...if you line up all scripture that shows Jesus as the son of God and God’s subservient, many of which are directly from his own words..and you have another line of scripture that seems to show Jesus as God...somehow...the scriptures that show the former are far far more numerous and clearly descriptive, not nebulous, in comparison to the other line. Fact. Match, game..done.
The Jesus is God thing is the devil’s concoction in order to deceive the deceivable and keep them in his kingdom of the lost. The original sin was wanting to be as God was..and the devil put that very same sin onto Jesus, through the minds of “smart” intellectuals of the apostasy. How dare you try and mess up such a wonderful thing God has done for all of us!
Christians believe the Scriptures make the case that Jesus Christ is full man and full God.
If you believe the Scriptures do not make this case, you should state why that is and provide your evidence to support your claim.
I know of very few Christian denominations that agree with you.
No, true Christians still have their commonsense and see clearly that Jesus is the Son..period. There are far far more clear Scriptures that show that rather than him being God. Fact. Not even close.
Now your saying “Jesus had original sin?” Please clarify.
It might help if you can define the “theos” Thomas was addressing in John 20:28. So if Jesus Christ, according to you, is not Truly God and Truly man, what was/is He? Putting it another way, what is the Nature of the Son of God and Son of man? Was He created, or always existing?
I have asked a few posters from your aisle the same questions and no one seems to be able to answer those questions.
I can see by a few posts you may not be familiar or comfortable with formal discussions and debate. That is fine. Just say you don’t want to discuss something any longer and we can go on from there. But please don’t play the victim. By coming on FR especially the RF, you should know this is a full contact sport here and if you don’t want to enter the field of battle, then don’t suit up and stay in the locker room.
I see, so the Early Christians, those closest to Christ and all of those that followed Jesus Christ, and then all of Christianity after that...they got it wrong.
You got it right. Gotcha.
How does that work? How is saying Jesus Christ, Jesus being the Son of Man definition, and Christ His Son of God definition, thus truly man and Truly God, how does that take away from the perfect sacrifice for the remission of sins?
I mean even Jesus Christ said to Satan the following...
Matthew 4:
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him,It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Whoops, what did Jesus Christ say in verse 7? Did He mention to Satan to "not tempt the Lord thy God"? Wasn't Jesus being tempted? Jesus did not say "not to tempt the Son of God" nor did He say "not to tempt God's Begotten Son." No Jesus said "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Or do you have an explanation of the use of "theos" here as well?
And for reference this is what Strongs has for the lexicon of "theos" for this passage:
Strongs G2316 in the following manner: God (1,320x), god (13x), godly (3x), God-ward (with G4214) (2x), misc (5x).
The early Disciples had it right. Only after that generation died out,many martyred, did the idea that Jesus is God take hold. And I have posted extensive evidence of this including a Trinitarian Dean of St. Paul’s who concedes that Paul the Apostle knew nothing of the Trinity.
It is much like our Constitution. Only after the Founding Fathers died out did the Judges really begin to pervert its meaning.
In both cases, the Founders and Early Christians would not have stood idly by and let it happen. They had to die out first.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.
My earlier comparative scriptures post still stands and proves you are scripturally very wrong. Fact. It is not even arguable.
Yes, will not see, and then go about trying to lead others into their web...that they THINK is salvation. I thank God I am not in their shoes.
You are correct they did. For example in Matthew's Gospel (he was a disciple, right?) he records the following:
Matthew 4:
5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
And Thomas said the following:
John 20:
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
And clearly CynicalBear, Iscool, GarySpFc and quite a few others pointed out epistles from Paul where the Deity of Jesus Christ is confirmed. I just stick to the quite obvious Gospel references. I am sure I already provided the lexicon examples for "theos", so please pick one definition from the lexicon and please explain your choice. Because there is no wiggle room. Theos is theos in the Greek. I have heard from your side of the aisle that Thomas was not calling Jesus "My God" but saying "OMG" as if he had an iPhone and texting. That was rather a silly comment, no? Especially how the itinerant Jews handled how and when they said "God", "YHWH", elohim...For Thomas to say "OMG" would be busting a big one of the "Big 10." As I said above, I am only giving you a small sample. We both know Jesus used the "I AM WHO AM" "YHWH" or "Yahweh" statement in the Gospels.
You have the greatest burden of proof or evidence to be more exact. Those who believe Jesus Christ is Truly God (Son of God) and Truly man (Son of man), have absolutely no issues with the verses you present showing a suffering servant submitting to the Father. That is where Jesus Christ is the Son of man. Why? Because the only perfect sacrifice, well had to be perfect and no mere human being is perfect. Not even a “demigod.” Jesus set out what the perfect standard of righteousness had to be in Matthew 5. The summary of that is the standard is one must be perfect like the Father in Heaven is perfect. And we both know Jesus Christ was the only one to put on flesh to meet that standard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.