Under an old post, one Adam Pastor commented attacking the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, specifically in the point of the Deity of Jesus. I encourage you to read it here first if you want the full background to this reply, and on another blog where the issue came up again. Adam Pastor’s response contains 3 main points.
1) Jesus is god as in elohim (a given title), not Yahweh (a matter of essence) so
God is Father, Son is Lord
2) Echad = one (?)
3) Propitiation can be accomplished by a mere man
First, I might point out that Mr. Pastor has conceded that Jesus is identified as God by Thomas (John 20:28), but has insisted that, in short, “God doesn’t always mean God,” in that, Jesus is not God in the sense that the Father is God (ultimately identified by Mr. Pastor in the Hebrew name Yahweh). The premise of this is stating that the Scriptures identify Jesus as “elohim,” but that is a title given to Judges and Moses as God’s “ultimate Judge and Representative.” Such an interpretation is given to John 10:34-35, where Jesus uses the plural of God (θεοι). I agree that Jesus is bestowed with titles of Judge and being Representitive. In fact, Jesus is also identified as an “apostle…of our confession.” (Heb 3:1) Jesus is indeed the Representative, Judge and Apostle of God.
But is this all that Jesus is?
Mr. Pastor submits yes saying:
“There is ONE GOD, the Father.Or more simply in the earlier reply:
The man Christ Jesus our Lord is in Heaven at the ONE GOD's right hand.
The Lord Jesus is the ONE GOD's right hand man so to speak!
ONE GOD and ONE man!
It's that simple. It is not a difficult teaching at all.”
"ONE GOD, the Father; &
ONE Man, the man Messiah Jesus our Lord!!
ONE GOD, ONE Man
ONE GOD, ONE Lord"
I submit no, this is not all that Jesus is on three grounds beyond the explicit identification of Jesus as God:
A) Jesus is identified as God in the same way the Father is
B) Jesus possess Divine Attributes
C) Jesus is to be Worshipped as God
A) Jesus is identified as God in the same way the Father is.
Mr. Pastor has questioned the use of Theos applied to Jesus as being used in a different sense than when applied to the Father. Though I do not accept that as valid, the Scriptures are so clear as to the deity of Jesus that we can establish such a diety even beyond the explicit identification of Jesus as God in passages such as John 20:28, Titus 2:13, etc. I must point out, however, one wonders how exactly Mr. Pastor would expect the authors of Scripture to express Jesus as God in the same way as the Father explicitly if they do not do so even by the identification of Christ as both Lord and God in John 20:28.
Mr. Pastor, however, has set up a dichotomy between Lord and God, God as an singular existential state and Lord (or even God) as a title like Moses stated above, I.e. judge and magistrate. According to him, God is the Father, and the Lord is Jesus. Does the Scripture do this? It seems to in 1 Cor 8:6 in using the appellation of God for the Father and Lord for Jesus:
“there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”But this begs a further question: What does it mean that Jesus is called Lord (Κύριος)?
Mr. Pastor has claimed that Jesus is only god in the sense of elohim. Yet, the additional title given to Jesus of Κύριος (Lord) is bestowed on the Hebrew names of Elohim, Adonai and Yahweh indiscriminately. One can see this in Psalms 16:2, where the text reads: “Yahweh, you are my adonai.” The Greek Septuagint (LXX) translates both of these as Lord (Κύριος): “Lord, you are my Lord.” Not only does the LXX do so, but the New Testament does as well, such as when Matthew 22:44 quotes Psalm 110:1. The Hebrew read: “Yahweh said to my adonai” and is translated into Greek in Matthew 22:44 as “The Lord (Κύριος) said to my Lord (κυριω, genitive of Κύριος).” Both uses contain the singular article.
Therefore, Mr Pastor’s statement of there being only “ONE GOD,[and] ONE Lord” as one God=Father, and one Lord=Son, is false then under his own method of reading, because the Father (identified by Mr. Pastor as Yahweh) is Lord and Jesus is Lord. There would then be two identified as Lord! This is important, because this affects one’s reading of 1 Cor 8:6 “there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” This is no proof text for Mr. Pastor when by Paul saying there is “one Lord Jesus Christ,” this is not to the exclusion of the Lordship of the Father (for the Father is called Lord too as displayed above). Within the same sentence, Paul cannot mean “there is one God the Father” to the exclusion of the diety of Christ. The two phrases of “one God the Father” and “one Lord Jesus Christ” are identifications, not theological statements of “Jesus only is Lord, and not the Father” or “The Father only is God and not Jesus.” One could just as easily say, there is one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ as there is one Lord the Father and one God Jesus Christ. The titles of God and Lord belong to both Jesus and the Father, without ceasing to be truly one God and one Lord in their shared Godhead. There is one God, and the Father is God and Jesus is God.
We see this identification not only of the Father as Lord, but of the Son with the same titles as the Father in Hebrews 1:10. There, the author says the Father speaks to the Son (Heb 1:8) words intended for Yahweh in Psalm 102. The preceding verses contains the title of Yahweh for God, then says the Father spoke to the Son the words directed to Yahweh. Jesus being called Lord in Heb 1:10 entails everything that the Father being called Lord entails, and addresses Jesus as Yahweh.
This also shows Mr. Pastor’s sarcastic statement “GOD is now in the presence of GOD for us!?! Pleassseee!” to be silly and childish, in that we may say “The Lord is in the presence of the Lord.” Such as is the reality we have seen in Matt 22:44 - “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand.”
So we can see, the Scriptures do not share Mr. Pastor’s characterizations of the words God and Lord as exclusive to either the Father or the Son, but present them as applying to both the Father and the Son. And as said before, Thomas gives Jesus both titles unambiguously: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28) So should we.
B) Jesus possesses Divine attributes
Mr Pastor’s presentation of John 1:1-4 is brief, which is appropriate as it destroys his argument. When in John 1:14 we are told the “Word became flesh,” Pastor says, “Its in verse 14 that GOD's [spoken] word became flesh resulting in Jesus Christ.” The Word is identified here, but it is not identified as spoken, he has read this in himself. The Word is identified as “God.” The “Word was God.” This time, singular as in the one God, not plural as in John 10’s exploration of elohim as applying to Moses. When God becomes flesh, when the Eternal takes on the temporal, yes, this results in Jesus in his full Person as God and as man.
Jesus is the Word of God, that is God. God became Flesh, and so is identified by John the Baptist in John 1:15. This shows us the shared divine attributes of Jesus and the Father since John the Baptist declares that Jesus pre-exists John the Baptist in John 1:15, 30, even though Jesus was born as man after John. This is the next point that leads us to acknowledge Jesus’ deity, namely that Jesus has the same divine attributes as the Father such as here eternality, or such as Omnipotence and Authority (Matt 28:18), Omnipresence (Matt 28:20), and Omniscience (John 1:48, Matt 11:47). The teaching of Scripture is that Jesus was first in the morphe of God, before becoming in the morphe of man (Phil 2). Jesus was God taking on flesh, not flesh being bestowed a title.
C) Jesus is worshipped as God
The Scriptures make clear commands that no one is to be worshiped except God. (Ps 115:1, Isa 42:8, Luke 4:8) Yet, we also see that the author of Hebrews wants to attack the idea that Jesus is just a high figure like an angel. In Heb 1:5-6, the author writes that the Father says of the Son: "Let all God's angels worship him." This passage is very reminiscent of Psalms 97:7: “All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods (elohim)!” Such a passage also brings in our previous point, namely that Christ’s status of elohim is higher than the judges or Moses, for Jesus is to be worshipped. Worship is only allowed for God, yet worship is commanded of Jesus, the Son. This is because the Son is God.
2) Mr. Pastor’s reflections on “echad” (or one) do not clarify. Two Persons are refered to as one flesh in Gen 2:24. Two Persons can therefore make up one reality. Jesus makes a similar connection in John 10:30, when he says “The Father and I are one.” The question is “one what?” The what is God. Two persons in Genesis 2:24 make up one flesh. Two Persons (Jesus and the Father) make up one God, without using a different sense of echad, one.
The language for Jesus’ status as Son is that he is begotten. When mentioned in John 3:16, the word is actually a combination of one, or only and begotten (μονογενής). The distinction should then be made between sons of God in the sense of the saints, and this different category for Jesus. This is the Father begetting a Son, not merely adopting as with God and men. Tell me, what is your father? When a father begets, is it something different from himself? Do pigs beget dogs, or do humans beget bananas? No, human begets human. God begets God. God the Father begets God the Son.
3) On propitiation by man I will respond later when I have a little more time.
50 comments:
Jared, thanks for watching the video, thanks for your time, & thanks for your comments.
In conclusion, I must simply point out that where you say ...
"when Matthew 22:44 quotes Psalm 110:1. The Hebrew read: “Yahweh said to my adonai”" ...
the Hebrew you present is blatantly incorrect.
I'm surprised you even rendered like this, after watching the video.
Let me explain:
the Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 is in fact,
"YAHWEH said to adoni"
"My lord" in this verse is NOT the Hebrew word, Adonai;
rather it is the Hebrew "adoni"!
Big difference! Why?
"adoni" in all its 195 occurrences in the OT, is never used in ref. to Almighty GOD;
rather, it is used to denote someone who is NOT GOD, NOT Deity!
It is solely used to denote beings/lords who are NOT GOD i.e. humans and occasionally angels.
(Please check a Hebrew bible; or confer with someone who reads Hebrew to verify that the word in Psalm 110.1 is in fact "adoni" NOT Adonai! )
Thus, from the Hebrew language of Psalm 110.1, it can be shown that the "lord" who was ordained to be at YAHWEH's right hand, had to be someone who is NOT GOD, NOT Deity.
Thus, some English translations have dropped the capital 'L' when realizing the 2nd word "lord" is not Adonai e.g.
NRSV: The LORD says to my lord
BTW, even in the LXX including Psalm 110.1, this distinction between YAHWEH and l'adoni, to my lord (to kurio mou) is maintained!
Let me close with this quote by James D.G. Dunn in regards to
1 Cor 8.6 & the title "Lord" :-
Unity & Diversity in the New Testament, SCM Press Ltd, 1977, page 53:
“Should we then say that Jesus was confessed as God from the earliest days in Hellenistic Christianity? That would be to claim too much.
(1) The emergence of a confession of Jesus in terms of divinity was largely facilitated by the emergence of Psalm 110:1 from very early on (most clearly in Mark 12:36; Acts 2:34f.;
I Cor. 15:25; Heb. 1:13).
The Lord says to my lord:
‘Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool’.
Its importance here lies in the double use of kyrios. The one is clearly Yahweh, but who is the other?
Clearly not Yahweh, but an exalted being whom the Psalmist calls kyrios.
(2) Paul calls Jesus kyrios, but he seems to have marked reservations about actually calling him ‘God.’ ...
Similarly he refrains from praying to Jesus. More typical of his attitude is that he prays to God through Christ
(Rom. 1:8; 7:25; II Cor. 1:20; Col. 3:17).
(3) ‘Jesus is Lord’ is only part of a fuller confession for Paul. For at the same time as he affirms ‘Jesus is Lord’, he also affirms ‘God is one’ (I Cor. 8:5-6; Eph. 4:5-6). Here Christianity shows itself as a developed form of Judaism, with its monotheistic confession as one of the most important parts of its Jewish inheritance; for in Judaism the most fundamental confession is
‘God is one.’ ‘There is only one God’
(Deut. 6:4). Hence also Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20, I Tim. 2:5 (cf. James 2:19). Within Palestine and the Jewish mission such an affirmation would have been unnecessary — Jews and Christians shared a belief in God’s oneness. But in the Gentile mission this Jewish presupposition within Christianity would have emerged into prominence, in face of the wider belief in ‘gods many.’
The point for us to note is that Paul can hail Jesus as Lord not in order to identify him with God, but rather, if anything, to distinguish him from the One God
(cf. particularly I Cor. 15:24-28; ...).”
Yours In Messiah
Adam Pastor
The Human Jesus
Adam-
Well, you paid attention to one of my several points, though my main point still stands that Scripture does not use the word Lord (Κύριος) in the manner in which you use it. A simple glance through a concordance also contradicts your portrayal of the word אדון. We can see your interest in playing with words and forcing narrow definitions while ignoring the concepts.
Though the explicit identification of Jesus the Son with the words God and Lord are used in Scripture, this truth is not only communicated in those specific words that can be sophistically manipulated. I have pointed out above the broader concepts like words intended for Yahweh are directed to the Son in Heb 1:8-10, or the attributes of divinity attributed to Jesus or the worshipping of Jesus as God. I hope at some point you might step back from mere word-play to ask yourself: What if I’m wrong? What if the church got it right? What if it is proper to worship Christ as God and to call him "my Lord and my God" with Thomas? I pray you will come to worship God as he exists in his true Triune nature and as perfectly manifest in God the Son.
May be out of my league here. :)
But your reference and use of adonai and yahweh may be without merit when in John 12:40-42 we have here Jesus speaking of and quoting Isaiah...specifically "41These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him. "
Now what glory is Christ speaking of? Himself, from Isaiah 6 we see here that this is the Lord (adonai) sitting upon the throne, and the host of angels cry out "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory."
Indeed this is true of Christ, Holy, Holy, Holy is ...Yahweh..."
So we have Christ speaking of Himself on the throne recorded by Isaiah as Yahweh.
You are not out of your league here but just not aware of the full scriptural facts.
You mention Isaiah 6 and how it relates to what we read in John 12:41-43. The apostle John compared the unbelieving Jews of the first century to the people of Isaiah’s day, and noted: “Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory.” Whose glory? That of Jehovah AND of the pre-human Jesus alongside him in the heavenly courts. (Isaiah 6:1, 8-10)
Some centuries later came Jesus’ greatest assignment up to that time. As you know Yahweh or Jehovah God transferred the life force of his beloved Son from heaven into the womb of Mary. Nine months later she gave birth to a baby boy, Jesus. (Luke 2:1-7, 21)
In the words of the apostle Paul: “When the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman.” (Galatians 4:4)
Likewise, the apostle John acknowledged: “The Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.” (John 1:14)
The Jews’ lack of faith in Jesus fulfills the words of Isaiah about the “eyes of people being blinded and their hearts being hardened so that they do not turn around to be healed.”
As stated, Isaiah saw in vision the heavenly courts of Jehovah, including Jesus in his pre-human glory along with Jehovah. Yet, the Jews, in fulfillment of what Isaiah wrote, stubbornly reject the evidence that this One, Christ is their promised Deliverer, the Messiah.
We see in this account that there are those, at least for the present, that do not put their faith in Christ out of fear of being expelled from their positions in the synagogue and so they remained silent. They rather be popular among men but we know they were truly missing out.
Jesus in John 12 verse 44 goes on to say, “He that puts faith in me puts faith, not in me only, but in him also that sent me…” By rejecting Jesus these ones were also rejecting the God and Father of Jesus.
This does not mean that Jesus was Yahweh. Yahweh was the Father. (Isaiah 64:8) Jesus was not the Father. (John 6:46) And any glory Jesus receives is "to the glory of the Father." (Philippians 2:11)
I do hope that some of this helps.
Respectfully,
Nick Batchelor
nickhawaii@gmail.com
To Jared Nelson:
I read your comments to Adam about Jesus receiving "worship."
Just one thought today. The Greek word used in these passages is “proskuneo.” Undoubtedly, Jesus DOES receive “proskuneo” in Bible accounts. I gladly acknowledge this.
But are there examples of others in the Bible that also receive “proskuneo” as well? Does this make them “The God” or part of a Trinity. Can this be understood as simply receiving homage. A very common thing given to respected men and Kings?
There is something most Trinitarians either have not considered or completely ignore. Let me know your findings. How can this be understood? Please think it through. Would love to hear back from you on this.
Sincerely,
Nick Batchelor
nickhawaii@gmail.com
Nick-
The Word was God.
Jesus being God makes him worthy of worship. Your argument merely says the word for worship does not demand Jesus to be God. However, the combination of Jesus being called God, being equal with the Father, one with the Father, worshiped with the Father and sharing the attributes of the Father combine to mitigate against such a "could be, but doesn't have to be" argument.
God is the one being deserving and validly demanding of our worship. To refuse to worship God is sin, and so to refuse to worship the one God as He is, Father, Son and Spirit, requires repentance. May God grant you such that you may turn to Christ as He is, not as we might wish or lower Him to be.
Hello Mr. Jared Nelson,
Appreciate your response. No one is trying to lower Christ at all. He is High, but not the Most High. He is superior over all, with the exception of His God and Father. He is Mighty but not the MOST HIGH. Jesus clearly said, that the "only True God" was not him or a Trinity but His Father.
Everything that Jesus has, including his life, he owes to His Father. He is "theos" or Divine but not "ho theos" THE GOD. "Theos" is a broad word and means "strong one" or "mighty one." But we must remember that there is ALWAYS someone GOD to Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
Because Jesus receives "PROSKUNEO" homage as God's appointed King of God's Kingdom does not mean that it is equal "PROKSKUNEO" with His Father. God shares his Glory with His Son but no where in the Bible is it said to be equally?
Others who are resurrected to heaven would also receive "glory" from the Father as Christ received "glory." Does this mean they are on the same par as God?
I am not sure where you get Jesus was "equal to His Father?" Jesus said quite the opposite in John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I am."
So I am not trying to lower the Son but to ascertain and recognize his rightful God-given position. Perhaps you also need to reevaluate what the Bible really teaches.
Could you answer this question for me with Scriptures? How can God have a God? If Jesus is "God" in the fullest absolute sense, how is someone God to him?
Respectfully,
Nick
The distinction must be made between function/economy and essence/ontology. There is a difference between a functional/economic superiority and a superiority in essence/ontology.
You are denying this by saying a functional superiority equals an ontological superiority. If so, I would also rebuke you for affirming an ontological inferiority to women (which is also in play in 1 Cor 11:3). Rather, the husband has a functional role above a wife but has no ontological superiority to her.
If you continue to deny this economic/ontological distinction, I would ask how can a man be head of the woman without an ontological superiority? Is the man of a different nature than the woman? Or are they both human? Answer those questions and you have your answer to your question.
Hello Jared,
Can you express yourself by using the Bible instead of philosophical expressions that are extra-biblical and entire unscriptural? You are parroting words from theologians but there is no such language found in the Bible.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hello Jared,
Can you express yourself by using the Bible instead of philosophical expressions that are extra-biblical and entire unscriptural? You are parroting words from theologians but there is no such language found in the Bible.
Sincerely,
Nick
ναί.
θεος ην χριστος ιησους δια πειθαρχειν και προσκυνησαι αυτω.
χριστος ιησους ην ανθρωπος δια ιησους πειθαρχει θεω.
Hello Jared Nelson,
Regarding 1 Cor. 11:3, the scripture shows that God (the Father, Jehovah) has more authority than Christ; just as the man has more authority that the woman in God's arrangement of things.
If Christ were God, no one could have more authority that he, someone does have more authority than Christ, therefore, Christ cannot be God.
The "economic Trinity" contains the teaching of how, Jehovah uses His Son and the holy spirit as His "tools" in the outworking of His purposes.
God is head over Christ showing another person who is "superior in rank" to someone; that would be an impossibility if Christ were the Almighty God.
Nick
Oh no no no no no. You cannot say we must use Biblical language and then ignore my answer in Biblical language and use your 21 century language. You obviously wish to hamstring me with a requirement you do not wish to abide by yourself.
Secondly, Yahweh condescends to be BLESSED by men like Abraham, something that if you think God cannot obey someone else, He certainly could not do that. By your reasoning, the Father isn't even God. You are defining what it is to be God, who are you to do that? God can lower Himself to be blessed, and God can lower Himself to obey. That's the Biblical teaching as described in 21st Century English language. I condescended to your question, now answer how my answer in Biblical language is wrong and you can even use 21 Century unBiblical language like English if you wish, for I will not be pedantic as you wish me to be.
For someone who seems very bright you seem to confuse listening and blessing someone with worshipping them. Jesus worships God. God worships no one, period. Abraham worships God. God does not worship Abraham.
Think you miss the point completely when I said we need to be careful not to use words that go beyond what is verifiable and recognized in Scriptures. This has nothing to do with quoting Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew to each other. We need to exercise caution when trying to use word we have to invent to describe things that are outside the realms of what the Bible writers did to describe the identity of God.
Trinitarians often have to come up with words like "essense" "God-man" "ontological" "economy" "second person of a consubstantial Trinity" and words similiar to this to define something that is absolutely foreign in Biblical Scripture. This is my point.
Nick
You sir have used nothing but language and words that are not found in the Bible. I am not the one who was claiming to understand the real Biblical language while you don't, you made that charge. You can not level a charge of using “unbiblical” words and then think it is alright if you know the English words and that by knowing the English words, you know the Greek or Hebrew. Your most recent argument has already been answered in my post that used only Biblical language. Until you answer it, I assume either or both of two things: either you have no answer or do not really understand the Biblical language, thus rendering your charge towards me of using unbiblical language hypocritical.
Until I see an understanding and answer of my argument that was using Biblical language, I assume you concede your argument and you argue in areas you merely pretend to have proficiency. Again, I am not the one who was claiming to understand the real Biblical language while you don't, you made that charge. But it seems the reality to your charge is clearly the reverse and so having a conversation of your supposed understanding of “ברך” and “προσκυνέω” would be fruitless since it would be based on a dangerous combination of arrogance and ignorance.
Mr, Nelson,
You seem to have an over-exaggerated impression of your own intelligence. I made no claim to know the biblical languages, although I do enjoy studying them. My comments were to encourage you to not use expressions to describe Bible truths found in the Bible that are simply not there. You venture into speculation and philosophy that is no where expressed in the language or word of the Bible itself. It has nothing to do with whether you and I should be speaking Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew to each other. You miss the point completely. Don't want to be redundant. Why not stick to the topic and try to prove your case without deviating from it? There is no need to try to set up a strawman or smoke and mirrors.
Once again, "Can you clearly explain to me and all listening precisely how God has a God?"
If Jesus is God how does he worship someone who is above him?
He cannot be the Almighty if he does right? Think it through.
Nick
Nick -
You asked: "Can you express yourself by using the Bible instead of philosophical expressions that are extra-biblical and entire unscriptural?"
I replied ναι (yes) and gave you an answer that uses biblical language and biblical concepts.
Since then, you have missed both of my points.
1. I have already answered your questions ("Can you clearly explain to me and all listening precisely how God has a God?" If Jesus is God how does he worship someone who is above him?) in Greek with an answer you are not interacting with at all.
2. You are implicitly acknowledging my second point that one can use nonbiblical words to express biblical concepts by your use of English. No English words are biblical words, they are attempts to communicate biblical ideas in other language. We are not in error if we acknowledge biblical teaching and explain the feasibility and reasonableness of that teaching by explaining it in other language (be it philosophical or English).
You can still answer my original argument. You claim to study the original languages and if so the language I used is SUPER SIMPLE Greek, any 1st year Greek student should be able to read it. Any 2nd year Greek student should be able to correct my grammar that is in error in at least one point upon review (my Greek grammar is getting a little rusty).
Until you acknowledge my second point I will not re-answer your point in language other than Biblical language which is not Enlightenment influenced English, but pre-modern koine Greek. You insist on it, and I will continue with such a requirement unless you abide by the same rules as you keep hamstringing me with or acknowledge my second point.
Hi Jared,
I can see why you are so reluctant to directly address my initial question on "How can God have a God?" I would be evasive to if I were in your position.
Let me state once again I did not say we need to ignore expressing ourselves in the English language and only communicate in Biblical languages.
What I am saying is the original Bible writers do not in any way express your description of such a relationship between God and Christ in any way shape or form you are advocating. You are making many puzzling unqualified and unscripturally substantiated statements that others have made that you probably never would have come up with on your own.
The "language" or words you are using are absent in the Bible. That is why I have to reject your unwarranted and unauthorized dogmatic pronouncements. I encourage you to avoid presumptuously defining that which God himself has not found fit to be communicated to us in his written inspired Word. If I am wrong just direct me and all listening.
When it comes to knowing Biblical languages like Greek I do not know what you are accusing me of?
I have a keen "interest" in Biblical Greek and Hebrew and continue to learn as I study. I love word studies and trying to understand the grammar and syntax of Bible languages. I also am very interested in textual criticism.
You seem to be an expert at Greek but I would not say it is a weakness not to know Koine, Biblical Greek. Do you still rely on Greek dictionaries, interlinear Bibles and lexicons? Do we not both have available to us the same research tools to aid us in our understanding?
Any who feel that the ability to read the words of God’s faithful ancient servants in their original languages confers some kind of special wisdom should consider what that implies.
There are many people who know Greek and Hebrew but do not have the truth right?
As Bible students we have at our disposal research and information to check on Bible translation to see if translation principles or linguistic rules have been violated.
We can make informed choices without studying Greek and Hebrew ‘in the schools.’ Having a knowledge of ancient Greek or Hebrew does not in itself miraculously make someone more inclined to understand the message of the Bible.
Since you must recognize that Koine Greek had no indefinite article can you agree that this Greek phrase which is THEOS EN HO LOGOS, could linguistically be translated word for word “a god was the word?”
My question to you is if “HO THEOS” is the Father in John 1:1b, and if the Word (the Son) was with the Father, how can “THEOS” in John 1:1c, be the same “being?”
You would be saying, “the Word was the Father.” Or would you be saying, “the Word was the Trinity?” Which is it? Can you clarify this for me? I bring this up because your first words to me was "the Word was God."
As I keep trying to get you to see that there is someone who is God to the Word. That would be his Father and God. There is no need to use any high-sounding words to explain away this simple Bible truth.
Enjoy the day,
Nick
I am not afraid to answer the statement. I did:
θεος ην χριστος ιησους δια πειθαρχειν και προσκυνησαι αυτω.
χριστος ιησους ην ανθρωπος δια ιησους πειθαρχει θεω.
I don't understand. You are making a case about the original Greek, but cannot interact with my argument in simple NT Greek? I have made no such Gnostic claim that knowing the original languages grants special knowledge, however, you hold a premise you do not abide by. You express (supposedly) biblical ideas in language that is not biblical. I believe that is valid (if accurate), you have said it is not and denied that I can do so. Have you lifted this hypocritical ban? If so, we can proceed and I will make the same case in English, but you keep repeating the ban so I don't know if I am allowed to do so yet.
Because, for the third time, I have already answered your question in biblical language (all words and phrases from the New Testament), an argument that you are not interacting with. Why charge me with not understanding biblical idea because I used unbiblical language when you do not understand biblical language? I do not believe that only Greek students know the truth of the bible, however, I will not drop this because you want to interact over the meaning and nuance of the biblical language in words and grammar. The argument you are now advancing about the article in Greek does require much more than word study knowledge. Your conclusions violate Greek grammar. There is a whole discussion on the application of Colwell's Rule versus a qualitative nuance to this use in John 1:1. Are you aware of it? Noticing that there is no article is not exegesis or grammatical analysis.
Do you understand the simple argument I made in Greek? If not, I will express it in language you can understand, but only if you concede this is valid. This is enlightening to me though, as I said before a first year student of Greek could translate it and a second year student could correct my grammar, but you are attempting to make an authoritative argument about advanced level grammar. Perhaps you are not in a place to make such pronouncements on whether biblical language supports or mitigates certain conclusions against certain ideas, since ideas are expressed in full sentences and paragraphs and if we do not understand the flow of a statement in the biblical language, word studies are unhelpful and even misleading. I will interact over the ideas and over the original language, but I will not let it be asserted no words other than biblical words can express biblical truths.
I have answered your question using nothing but biblical language, which again I will translate for you if you concede it is valid to do so.
Hello Jared,
Please do not talk down to me. No need to be haughty because you can cut an past some Greek Words to me when I never claimed to know Greek. I do understand the issues and it appears your research and understanding is one-sided.
I am very familiar with E.C Colwell’s “rule.” Is this a legitimate “rule” for the Koine Greek language as you are stating?
Dr. Colwell himself found at least 15 exceptions to the “rule,” showing that obviously it was really not a strict or valid “rule” of Greek grammar after all. I realize many Trinitarians try to refer to Colwell to add strength to their argument and they frequently appeal to the “rule” proposed by Colwell as some kind of established rule.
However, the claim that “a definite predicate nominative NEVER takes an article when it precedes the verb,” is completely inaccurate and misleading.
Even respected Trinitarian Robert Bowman has acknowledged, “Where Colwell’s rule can and has been severely abused is in the popular evangelical apologetic argument that the rule alone refutes JW rendering ‘a god.’ Such an argument goes far beyond what Colwell himself, a careful scholar that he was, said…”
(Bowman, Jesus Christ and the Gospel of John, p69)
There are many things I think you need to consider regarding “Colwell’s rule.”
One thing for sure, “the Colwell rule,” is by no means a deciding factor for the translation of John 1:1 which I presume you are referring to. Bowman correctly notes, “to argue that a noun must be definite because of Colwell’s rule, therefore, is logically fallacious.”
Nick
Now you certainly put me in a hard position: I did not assert Coldwell's rule applied to John 1:1, I merely asked if you were familiar that "There is a whole discussion on the application of Colwell's Rule VERSUS a qualitative nuance to this use in John 1:1." I'm sorry, if I am to respond, I have to use that word "essence" that you lumped in as being an unbiblical word. I could use the nearest equivalent biblical words “οὐσία” or “υποστασεως” but that might be construed as condescending. I need permission from you before I can proceed that I may do as you have been doing and use “nonbiblical words” to express biblical ideas. Am I allowed to use an English word, that has a similar meaning to biblical words, to explain the grammar of John 1:1 to you?
Nevermind, I will merely proceed assuming that your practice betrays a concession. I grow tired of not answering hoping that you will acknowledge that your premises are off.
Coldwell's Rule merely allows for the word to be definite, it does not demand it. However, if John wanted to express "the word was a god" he would have written: "ο λογος ην θεος" instead, John wrote: "θεος ην ο λογος." In such an instance either Coldwell's Rule applies (which does I believe it does not here) or a qualitative nature, where the first word is describing the nature of the articled noun. I am glad that Coldwell's Rule does not apply, or Trinitiarianism would be wrong and Modalism would be correct. However, most pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives describe a qualitative nature. John's literal wording is “God was the Word” in which “God” denotes essence, not definite identification. In other words, a more nuanced translation would be “All that God is, the Word is” or “The Word is fully God” or “Fully divine” having John tell us that all that it means that the Father is God, is true that the Word is God, a teaching that harmonizes with what Paul wishes to communicate in Phil 2:6 and the author of Hebrews in 1:1-2 that Jesus is the exact “υποστασεως” or essence of the Father.
If John wrote "o θεος ην ο λογος." we should be Modalists. If John wrote "ο λογος ην θεος" we would be Arians. "λογος ην θεος" then we would be Mormon. Instead, John used the most concise and unambiguous statement "θεος ην ο λογος." to express that the Word is distinct from the Father, but in essence was all that the Father is. Greek grammarians Robertson and Wallace both reject Coldwell's Rule for this point and based on other uses of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives in the NT say that it is qualitative in this way.
The real question you have been getting at it how logically, Jesus who is the Word who is God could have a God. I think you may have confused Docetism with Trinitarianism. Trinitarians are biblical because they recognize that Jesus is both fully God (John 1:1, John 20:28, Titus 2:3, etc) and Jesus is fully man (John 6:51, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 1:7). I have referred you back to what I will translate from the Greek for you here:
Jesus is God, therefore we worship and obey him.
Jesus is man, therefore he obeys [and worships] God.
Hello Jared,
I am glad we can agree on something here. That the Trinitarian must be careful not to subscribe to what may imply some sort of modalistic view of God, which of course, Trinitarians oppose. We also must avoid sabellianism.
My studies have led me to believe that it is unreasonable to believe that “the Word or Logos,” is not “The God/ho theos,” with whom he was with.
Can it be argued that there is a difference between “ho theos/The God,” and “theos? Must one believe that the Word was identical to “The God,” with whom he was with? Or that the Word and “the God,” he was alongside of, somehow make up the very same being?
John seems to tell us twice that he was “with this One,” in case we missed it in verse 2.
If the Word is not the same “God,” then can it be understood in a different way without taking a polytheistic position or violating Biblical monotheism? I believe we Scripturally can.
Many advocates of Trinitarianism maintain that the expression, “the Word was God,” is the only possible and legitimate rendering of this text in John 1:1. This is not the truth.
After weighing all the facts, I can clearly see that many have erred in their judgment in order to protect their own belief system.
Regardless of whether or not one accepts the modern Trinitarian explanation of this text, most Trinitarian scholars now recognize that there definitely is significance to the distinction between the first occurrence of “theos,” (with the definite article) and the second occurrence of “theos,” (without the article), which I believe is concealed in the translation, “the Word was God.”
Although Bible students may continue to wrestle with the understanding and interpretation of this text, recognition of what the apostle said in the original language, and the possibilities of what the language can allow for, must be given adequate consideration.
The fact is, not only is the meaning “the Word was a god,” or “was Divine,” in the realm of legitimate natural possibilities, in terms of language, grammar, and translation into English, the meaning is also entirely appropriate in terms of the Bible’s overall presentation concerning the recognition and exaltation of one supreme God while, at the same time, allowing for the existence of others to be considered, “gods,” or “a god,” in another sense.
In the very same Gospel account, Jesus himself spoke of “gods,” as a term applying to the ancient human rulers of Israel. (John 10:31-36) How about Jesus who will be ruler and judge of God’s Kingdom? No wonder he is called, “an only-begotton god,” in John 1:18.
This is perfectly acceptable within the framework of Biblical monotheism, why then, is it problematic for the one that was “with God in the beginning,” to be called, “a god,” or “a divine being,” when that one is obviously so much closer to God and so much more deserving than them? This is the “only-begotton god,” that sits at the “bosom position,” with his God and Father. What close intimacy they must have!
I do believe as “only-begotton,” God’s Son was unique and one of a kind. And that he was uniquely and directly generated by his Father and all others were created by God through him. He is the only one with this position and privilege. That is why I recognize the Son as being of a Divine kind and gladly accept him being in the class of a “mighty strong one.”
Though I do not believe he was, “the only true God,” which is his Father. The one whom he prays to and worships. The one whom he entrusted his spirit with when he died for us.
Do you believe he is STILL a man, blood and flesh? I believe he was put to death "in the flesh and made alive in the SPIRIT." He is now a glorious mighty spirit like his Father who he is an exact reflection of, worshipping the One who is GOD to him.
Nick
If your studies have led you there, appearance you did not study my response or Greek grammar. You continue to insist that “θεος ” refers to a personal identification rather than a qualitative identification. θεος refers to quality or essense, not personal identity.
You admit Jesus is begotten of God? If you have children, will what you beget be a duck? Or will it be the same substance as you, human? That is why John uses the language of begotten, not for a beginning in time but a to communicate the relationship in essence between the begetter and begotten, for when someone is begotten they are of the same essence as the begetter.
The substance of your questions have been answered above in the original entry, please read that material and interact with the answers. Also, interact with the grammar of John 1:1 rather than giving what you personally would like it to say, rather than what the grammar dictates.
And yes I do believe Jesus still has a human body and soul, a humanity we look forward to in the redemption of our bodies (Rom 8:23)
Hi Jared,
Hope you are doing good. You ask me, “You admit Jesus is begotten of God? If you have children, will what you beget be a duck? Or will it be the same substance as you, human?”
First of all, let me make known that I do not argue if whether or not the Son shares with the Father what he INHERITED. Or if they share the same "nature."
He became a mighty spirit just like His Father. He is a spitting image of His Father. And of course our “sons” would be a reflection of us, resembling us in many ways. This is a given. This does not have to mean that you and your son somehow makeup the same “being.” Or that you are "polypersons" making up one being. No where do we find it brought out in the Scriptures that God’s being and His Son’s being are the “same being.”
True, the Son is described as the “radiance” or “reflection” of another’s glory, namely, that of the “God” of the Hebrew forefathers. (Hebrews 1:3) In fact, the “Son” is the “exact representation (GK: charakter)” of this God’s “very being (GK: hupostaseos).”
The text does not identify the Son as “God” but presents him as distinct from “God” as God’s perfect representative, the “exact representation of (God’s) very being.”
Secondly, it should really go without saying that, if someone is “the exact representation” “reproduction” of God’s “being,” then that someone is not “God” but “the exact representation or reproduction of God’s being.”
Thirdly, the text says nothing about the Son’s “coequality with God the Father,” nothing about his “essential deity,” and nothing about him as being of the “same substance” or being as God himself.
To put it another way, according to the clear language of the text, the Son is an exact "representation” or “reproduction” of someone else’s being, namely, God’s being, yet, in Trinitarianism, God’s ‘being’ and the Son’s “being” are the same “being” (one “being” shared by multiple “persons”).
But the first-century text itself completely rules out the need to even bring up a fourth-century concept like “of the same being,” or “essence” since it already tells us that the Son is a “copy” or “representation” of God’s being, not an “eternal partaker” in it (in line with Trinitarian thought).
I am amazed that advocates of the Trinitarian dogma, particularly those who profess to adhere to the Bible alone, maintain that Jesus is the same being as God the Father when Hebrews 1:3 communicates something different. And when there is no example in the Bible that says Jesus is the same being as his Father.
Why would the theological notion, as well as language necessary to the formulation, that the Son mysteriously “shares the being” of God the Father take precedence over the directly articulated scriptural teaching and very specific words that the Son is the “exact representation of God’s being?”
The Son is not the “original One,” His God and Father is. Jesus is like his Father, especially after receiving a superior, glorious exalted position in heaven next to His Father above all the other spirit sons of God, the angels.
Nick
Hi Jared once again,
Before I leave off I would like to thank you for informing me that you do believe Jesus is STILL in his human flesh in heaven. Does this really make sense to you? Reflecting on what Jesus WAS, the inspired writer of Hebrews 5:7 wrote, “In the days of his flesh…”
More specifically Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:45, “It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a LIFE-GIVING SPIRIT.”
Could you comment on this plain text?
The truth is this: God is a spirit, so are the angels, and so are those resurrected to heaven. Christ is now back in a spiritual realm and also “became a spirit” in this spiritual environment just like he was before he “became flesh.”
Can we honestly imagine he is still a human in spiritual heaven needing for instance to use “a heavenly toilet?”
Why not just accept the full Scriptural facts that the Son of God has a God at every stage of his life because he is not “the only True God.” There is a separate BEING, spirit individual that is God to Him, his “God and Father.” (Ephesians 1:3; 17) He gladly worships his God. “The God,” does not worship anyone.
Take care,
Nick
A few questions:
1. Do you believe Jesus was a man?
2. What does the Hebrew word "אדם" / "adam" mean?
3. What does "אדם" mean in Genesis 2:21, 3:17, 5:3-5 also in Gen 9:6, Judges 16:7, Ecc 7:20?
Hi Jared,
I realize there are several words for "man" in Hebrew. The term "adam" is linked to the word for ground which is "ah-dah-MAH", that is why the New World Translation renders it "earthling man."
It is true that Jesus emptied himself as a spirit being and became a man, for sure the Word became "flesh." (Philipians 2:7; John 1:14) But then when Jesus died at Calvary he emptied himself as a flesh and blood -being to be resurrected a spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47)
If Jesus provided a sacrifice what was the sacrifice? What did he relinquish ownership of? (Hebrews 10:10) If Jesus took back what he sacrificed, it is no longer a sacrifice and we are still in need of rescue. One wonders what a human body,even a "glorified" human body would do in a spiritual environment...nothing solid upon which to walk with legs, no air for the lungs, no air to convey sound for the ears. Somewhat like the astronaut disengaged from his vehicle floating in space with a body that does not relate to its surroundings.
What are you trying to argue with your number 3 question? I looked up all the passages. What point are you attempting to make?
Nick
Clarification: what would you find to be an acceptable translation of Gen 3:21 and Gen 5:3-5? Also, the same for Gen 9:6, Judges 16:7. Your translation or one of which you approve.
Hi Jared,
I think it is obvious to all that you want to play word games to fit your own preconception. In the first verses it is clear that the reference is and can only be to the one and only existing human male on the planet. There is really no other option.
And the definite article "the" is used, so it even further isolates the possible meaning to one man rather than top Man in general as a species.
The same cannot be said of Genesis 9:6, since by this time Adam, the first man, was dead, having died before the flood.
The text in Judges 16:7 literally reads "like one of the man" (any one of mankind), no reference can here be attached to the original Adam since he is still dead….. Ecclesiates 7:20 literally says "For there is not a man righteous in the earth…"
The references in Genesis us "Ha-Adam" or "the man" referring to the specific man Adam. They cannot have reference to any other human creature since up till chapter 5 no other male human lived on earth.
Genesis 9:6 can only have reference to mankind and what would happen to anyone of mankind who unlawfully took the life of another. The context and the wording in that verse do not permit any other understanding since "Ha-Adam" of the first chapters of Genesis was by then long dead.
Judges also cannot refer to Adam but instead to any other male of mankind because that is all that the context and the wording in the original language allow.
If you are trying to connect Jesus to Ecclesiates 7:20 are you claiming that Jesus also was not righteous, since the verse says "there is not a man righteous in the earth"? Or do you contend that this verse which uses the root for earth (meaning the soil) is actually saying that there is no righteous soil anywhere on the planet??
It appears you are simply talking nonsense and trying to play word games. The Bible is plain that if Jesus is in heaven he cannot there have a physical body. Do you contend that Jesus did not go to heaven? Do you reject Paul who said that Jesus is now "a life-giving SPIRIT?"
The scripture clearly says "Let God be found true though every many be found a liar." Would you make God out a liar in order that your nonsensical word game can somehow be proved right?
Didn't Paul clearly warn about "debates about words and how foolish and dangerous they are? (1 Timothy 6:4)
Going back to my question, "Did Jesus become a life-giving spirit?" "Was he put to death in the FLESH but made alive in the SPIRIT?"
What I am trying to do is ascertain your understanding of how words are used. Our previous exchange had hit an impasse for you seemed not to wish to grant that a word might be used both as referring to a particular person and to an essence or type of being. However, you have identified the word "אדם" as a word identifying a particular person “Adam” and a type of being: man or human. This is also confirmed in Paul's translation of "אדם" as with man (Eph 5) or Adam (personal identification). This will help me greatly in helping you understand what Scripture means by its use of certain words.
You would grant that Jesus was man as much as Adam was man. Thus, we can say Adam "אדם" was a "אדם" and Jesus was "אדם" without saying Jesus was Adam. Jesus is qualitatively identical to Adam, but not personally the same. The person of Adam and the person of Jesus are different. Jesus is "אדם" in that he has the essence/form/characteristics of man, not that he was identical to the person Adam. We might also note that Paul refers to Christ as the μορφή of man, which we have already established means he shares the essence of man, not exact identity with Adam. Paul also refers to Christ as the μορφή of God. Jesus was not merely an exact representation of man, but truly of the same essence of man. Jesus was not merely an exact representation of God, but truly of the same essence of man. This does not mean that Jesus is the Father, but that the Father is God and Jesus is God, just as Adam is man and Jesus is man.
Jesus' resurrection was not merely spiritual, but bodily too. I don't know what kind of strange spiritual-only body can be touched in the same wounds of the piercings (John 20:26) or that John would have claimed to have touched with his hands (1 John 1:1) or that would eat breakfast with the disciples (John 21) and which Paul would see as a promise that looks forward to the redemption of our bodies, not merely spiritual existence. (Romans 8:23; Phil 3:21 - “who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body”) You, Nick are a spirit, but you also have a body. To call you a spirit is not to deny your material body and for Paul to call Jesus a life-giving spirit does not do that either.
I am tempted to ask you more questions just to have you speculate at what I am getting at and then say I am talking non-sense! You've argued against a grammatical rule I did not employ and imputed strange meanings to texts to try and anticipate arguments. What I wish to ask is why you are so vehement to proselytize for your particular interpretation of “God” as applied to Christ? You have not formally studied Greek or Hebrew broadly to see if these things are so, but seem to study narrowly merely to argue on a very particular predetermined point of view. Why?
Why are your teeth set against Christ's fully deity? It may be very scary to know that the God of the universe has worn our skin and faced our temptations and prevailed. We on the other hand fail continually with the knowledge that it has been accomplished perfectly the man Jesus Christ. But God coming to take on our flesh to fulfill the Law was not to shame us, but to answer the demands of the Law for us, that we might find reconciliation to Himself. God has done the work to reconcile Himself to you, Nick. Christ did not merely serve as example, but God in Christ did all that you do not do, and even took the punishment you deserved for not doing what you ought. Cease striving, and know that God has accomplished for you what you cannot do for yourself. Find a local church, hear the glorious declaration of the offer of forgiveness and present yourself for baptism, He will surely not turn you away. But do not confuse his kind forbearance for impotence. He delays judgment for your benefit. Seek Him while He is near!
Hi Jared,
Jesus could not have been 100% God and 100% on earth either because even in Hebrews we see this:
"We behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor." (Hebrews 2:9)
If Jesus had been a God-Man, he could not have been really "lower than angels."
Hebrews 2:17 tells us that Jesus was "like us in every way." He had to have been fully human, except without sin of course.
What is "man-made" is the doctrine that Jesus was a God-Man which did not crop up until long after Jesus' death. It was definitely not fully worked out until the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
It is a part of a belief system that arose hundreds of years after the New Testament canon was closed, through philosophical discussions about the relationship between God and Christ, and eventually the holy spirit, also.
The idea of Jesus being 100% God and 100% man at the same time is 100% wrong.
Your reference to Jesus eating with the disciples and allowing them to touch the wounds in his body could easily be compared with the fact that angels (spirit creatures) who came to Abraham in Genesis 18 also ate and drank with him though they are clearly identified as angels in the next chapter.
If you cannot accept the clear biblical (inspired) statement by one of Jesus most intimate disciples that he was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" and that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom" then what else do you want to talk about? We need to believe and teach what the Bible says, not what we wish it said.
First, if you mean that the resurrected body is a “spiritual body” meaning perfected yet still physical and human, then we need not debate because Christianity holds this too and you need not protest against it.
Hebrews 2:9 is not ignored, but rather enthusiastically embraced by Christians, because we recognize that one must be higher than the angels to become lower than them. This is called the humiliation of Christ. This is Christ taking on flesh like all fallen humanity. Yet the mystery remains that Christ could command angels, whether fallen (Mark 5:9) or not fallen like in Matthew 4, where Jesus recognizes his authority to command angels as “Κύριον τὸν Θεόν σου” or in nonbiblical language: “The Lord your God.” Christ is lower than the angels as man, and commands them as God.
You claim that “the doctrine that Jesus was a God-Man which did not crop up until long after Jesus' death.” And that it “part of a belief system that arose hundreds of years after the New Testament canon was closed.” I don’t know what year you think that was (whether pre-Nicea or Jerome or Athanasius’ formulation or if you read Dan Brown for your history) but such a claim can be easily refuted. I will take “God-man” as you mean that Jesus was both God and man. When I was trained as an historian, I was constantly raked over the coals that I could make no historical claim without primary source evidence, or documentation of the events or ideas of an era I wished to make a pronouncement about. You have made an historical pronouncement, without historical data which would be helpful for your cause if your opponent did not check the historical data (or had been studying Church History for most of his adult life).
Before Chalcedon, theologians who died before the Coucil of Chalcedon such as Augustine wrote in his work on the Trinity that “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit God; all together are one God” and Cyril of Alexandria wrote in a letter, “There is nothing to prevent us from thinking of Christ as being the one and only Son at once both God and man, perfect in deity and perfect in humanity…he is conceived of as God and is God.”
Athanasius wrote an entire book “On the Incarnation” arguing against the novel teaching of the Arians, and Athanasius wrote that “wherever a man turns his gaze he sees the deity (or Godhead) of the Word and is smitten with awe.”
Of course the Nicene Creed that declared Christ to be:
“God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man.”
-Nicene Creed circa 325 AD
Origen declared Jesus to be “God and man” in his “Dialogue with Heraclides” circa 240AD
“Of these Jesus is composed, of flesh as man and of spirit as God"
- Tertullian Against Praxeas (circa 213 AD)
“he is man, the formation of God:”
-Ireneaus Against Heresies Book 3 circa 180AD
Jesus “being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.” [He is] “called our Lord and God.”
-Justin Martyr Dialogue with Typho. Circa 160AD
“For our God Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God's plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.”
-Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to Ephesians circa 100
These are a few and take us right to the Biblical account which we have already seen vindicates the full deity and humanity of Christ. But these few are enough to see that the actual record contradicts your assertion.
I think we are making progress. You have adopting some creedal language from Chalcedon that Jesus is “like us in all respects, apart from sin.” The rest is worthy of adoption too!
Also, now you must now recognize that the grammar of the New Testament is your foe, the manner in which Christ is spoken of in Scripture and speaks of himself is your foe, and History is also your foe. You have no factual basis for remaining in error, for the facts are your foe and not your friend. But you ought to know Christ need not be your foe. Happy is the day that you may lay aside the heresy someone has bridled you with and embrace the confession of Christ, that “He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” Christ can truly be your friend, mediator, Lord and God. Again, He is willing, pray that He makes you willing to accept Him as he is, the Lord of your salvation.
Hi Jared,
There is simply nothing in Scripture that supports the amazing
supposition that he is both God and man. There is nothing anywhere, no analogy, no terminology, no defense of any sort that can be produced
to support the idea that ANYBODY could be both God Almighty and a man at the same time. Why can't we just understand Jesus simply as he spoke.
The doctrine of the double nature of Christ, like that of the Trinity, turns the Bible into confusion, rendering the clearest verses obscure and clouding what we know to be true about God and man.
Sorry to have to say this to you but extra-biblical sources cannot be taken with the same level of trust as God's inspired Word. The so-called Apostolic Fathers do not even agree with each other and their word cannot be trusted to be beneficial for "setting things straight." (2 Timothy 3:16)
What they said did not always perfectly coincide with what was found within the Bible.
By the way, who says those councils were even authorized by God? And what of the proclaimed “Church Fathers,” and “creeds” that often go beyond the Scriptures to define a set of beliefs. The Bible already adequately presents to us the truth.
The Trinity doctrine began its slow development over a period of centuries. The trinitarian ideas of Greek philosophers such as Plato, who lived several centuries before Christ, gradually crept into church teachings. As The Church of the First Three Centuries says:
“We maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible.”
I would like to go over with you some of the quotes from “church father’s” as I have time.
Let’s look at two today.
You shared me this:
Origen declared Jesus to be “God and man” in his “Dialogue with Heraclides” circa 240AD
How do you feel about this quote from Origen?
ORIGEN (C. 253) "I admit that there may be some.....(sic) who maintain that the Saviour is the Most High God over all, but we do NOT certainly hold such a view, who believe Him when He said Himself: "THE FATHER WHO SENT ME IS GREATER THAN I"; and again: "Clearly we assert.....(sic) that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but INFERIOR."
You also shared with me this quote from Tertullian:
“Of these Jesus is composed, of flesh as man and of spirit as God" Tertullian Against Praxeas (circa 213 AD)
What do you think of these thoughts from Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., he taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.”
He goes on to say:
"We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."
I will pick up tomorrow. In the meantime how do you feel about these expressions by Origen and Tertullian?
Look Nick, you are all over the map. Our conversation seems to be going nowhere because you seem not to be operating under common logical rules. We must have common rules of logic operating in order to have a real debate/conversation. But so far you seem to merely be using several logical fallacies strung together to make your case such as:
Red Herring: I presented some primary source evidence to show that your statement that the doctrine that Jesus is both God and man was not know before the Council of Chalcedon. I showed you from many sources that your statement was false. However, instead of seeing that you are wrong in your view of history, you merely impute the entirety of Tertullian and Origen's teachings to me. I believe they are both rightly condemned in certain parts of their teaching. That was not the subject. The subject was whether the doctrine of Jesus being both God and man was taught before the Council of Chalcedon. Your avoidance of the substance of my last post is very telling. Your evidence is a red herring because it does not deal with the substance of the material used to show that your historical claim was false.
Guilt by Association: You say since Origen believe something wrong, and he also believed in the deity of Christ, then the deity of Christ is wrong. That is a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.
Bare Assertion: you are merely asserting many things about the teaching of Scripture and history without support. You declare: “There is nothing anywhere, no analogy, no terminology, no defense of any sort that can be produced to support the idea that ANYBODY could be both God Almighty and a man at the same time.”If this is your presupposition, then why are we talking? Are we testing this proposition or does this bare assertion present itself as a self-evident truth? You must submit yourself to the standard of Scripture to see if in fact the Scriptures teach this, without a presupposition that it cannot teach this.
Appeal to Ridicule: You have been merely repeating that Jesus can't possibly be God and man, as if it is merely ridiculous to believe this, rather than arguing the substance of my replies. I have shown you linguistically that the Scriptures' use of language says adam is adam and Jesus is adam but Jesus is not adam, if the first and last use in the statement is the use of “adam” as the proper name of the first man. The same linguistically holds for God. You have not answered whether this is true or false, but merely declared that it cannot be true and is ridiculous.
Appeal to Ignorance: You seem to continually think that you are the measure of all things and if you can say “I am not convinced” that is sufficient. There are agreed upon laws of logic and if one has committed a fallacy, then one should be called on it. But if you do not understand or like the implications of the argument, that is not a ground for denying it.
Hi Jared,
Let’s look at what I said.
"What is "man-made" is the doctrine that Jesus was a God-Man which did not crop up until long after Jesus' death. It was definitely not fully worked out until the Council of Chalcedon in 451. It is a part of a belief system that arose hundreds of years after the New Testament canon was closed, through philosophical discussions about the relationship between God and Christ, and eventually the holy spirit, also."
This is historical, documented fact. The whole dual-nature philosophy was slowly being developed and formulated after Jesus died but this did not become “fully worked out” until hundreds of years after Jesus death. No one is saying that this idea sprung up at Chalcedon. Christendom’s churches abandoned the clear truths of the Bible and chose to follow Greek philosophy and “Saint” Augustine’s theology.
Augustine became influenced by the ideas of the pagan mythologies and worldly philosophers with whom he was so well acquainted.
The Catholic Encyclopedia reports: “Augustine gradually became acquainted with Christian doctrine, and in his mind the fusion of Platonic philosophy with revealed dogmas was taking place.” Augustine’s interpretation, we are told, “became standard doctrine in the middle ages.”
Then, you quote Cyril of Alexandria who happents to be one of the most controversial figures among Church Fathers is Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375-444 C.E.)
Church historian Hans von Campenhausen describes him as “dogmatic, violent, and cunning, permeated by the greatness of his calling and the dignity of his office,” and adds that “he never considered anything as right unless it was useful to him in the furtherance of his power and authority . . . The brutality and unscrupulousness of his methods never depressed him.”
While he was bishop of Alexandria, Cyril used bribery, libel, and slander in order to depose the bishop of Constantinople. He is considered responsible for the brutal murder in 415 C.E. of a renowned philosopher named Hypatia.
Regarding Cyril’s theological writings, Campenhausen says: “He initiated the practice of deciding questions of belief not solely on the basis of the Bible but with the aid of appropriate quotations and collections of quotations from acknowledged authorities.” His post-biblical belief matters little to me.
Your theological review of these “church fathers” is quite selective. You quote Justin and view what he says with authority but ignore that Justin regarded the Son "As distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father's will always prevailing with the Son."
One thing for sure, Justin clearly did not view the Son as equal to the Father, any more than the angels were considered to be His equal.
Regarding Justin, I quote again from Alvan Lamson’s Church of the First Three Centuries:
“Justin regarded the Son as distinct from God, and inferior to him: distinct, not, in the modern sense, as forming one of three hypostases, or persons, . . . but distinct in essence and nature; having a real, substantial, individual subsistence, separate from God, from whom he derived all his powers and titles; being constituted under him, and subject in all things to his will. The Father is supreme; the Son is subordinate: the Father is the source of power; the Son the recipient: the Father originates; the Son, as his minister or instrument, executes. They are two in number, but agree, or are one, in will; the Father’s will always prevailing with the Son.” (The Church of the First Three Centuries, pages 73-4, 76)
Mr. Lamson also went on to write in his book: “The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions.”
You pretend that I am “all over the map,” when you have to work very hard to explain away that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” His Father is a spirit. (John 4:24) And the Son is now an exact reflection of his Father. (Hebrews 1:3)
The Scriptures plainly tell us that Jesus became “lower than the angels” but you don’t like that and have to make it a mystery that since he has access to God’s angels he is somehow a God-man. You said, “Christ is lower than the angels as man, and commands them as God.”
In Matthew 4 the quote comes from Psalms 91:11, 12. It speaks of “He, (Jehovah the Father) will give his own angels a command concerning you,(speaking of Christ) to guard you in all your ways. Upon their hands they will carry you, that you may not strike your foot against any stone.” (Psalm 91:11, 12
Angels certainly ministered to Jesus and strengthened him but it was not until after his resurrection that he was GIVEN a better name, more authority by His Father over them (the angels) and all things, with the exception of his Father. (1 Corinthians 15:24:28) Angels were at his call if he needed them, but he needed to ask his FATHER to send them.
Jesus said in Matthew 26:53, “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to MY FATHER to supply me at this moment more than twelve legions of angels?” And of course Jesus had power over even the “fallen angels.” The apostles had authority over the demons (fallen angels) what did that make them? Were they also God-men? (Matthew 10:6-8)
When any attempt is made to answer your questions like, "How can spirit eat breakfast with the disciples (John 21)" And when a scriptural example is given in Genesis 18, where do you go?
Let’s go back to the Scriptures to support our conclusions.
Let me add two more logical fallacies to your list:
Appeal to Authority: You have cited someone else that has written on history rather than engaging with the primary sources. History is a discipline of giving a sequence to events and determining meaning from the evidence from a particular era such as archeology/artifacts and writings/written record.
Ad hominum: You impugn the reputation of Cyril and Augustine as well as others rather than see how those sources were used to disprove your point. I don't care if they kicked puppies and hated rainbows, that's not the question.
However, this can be a much more fun way to argue. I might have fun adopting your means of argument: Chairman Mao did not believe in the deity of Christ and killed 50 million Chinese. Do you believe in killing millions of Chinese? Therefore, Christ is God.
Renowned Historian Joe Smoe says “anyone who denied the deity of Christ was stupid.” Or I could use Historians that would agree with me like Jaroslav Pelikan or Phillip Schaff, but then we are merely appealing to authority rather than dealing with whether your statement that no one talked about Jesus as god and man before 451 was true or not with the actual evidence.
It's more fun, however it is not a proper logical debate and it does not contribute anything to the conversation.
When you get to Scriptures, The substance of it has been answered by Paul in Phillipians 2 when he describes Jesus as the morphe of God and the morphe of man. You do not say Jesus was a “representation” of man but not really a man, but somehow being the morphe of God is different though Paul makes no such false distinction but rather calls Jesus equal to God, lesser only in taking on the morphe of man. What it means for Jesus to be man, it means for Jesus to be God. That's Paul, not me. You have offered no plausible alternative interpretation, merely avoided the point. You have not answered that point but merely use other Scriptures without using the analogy of Scripture, comparing Scripture to Scripture. Proper interpretation is not pitting Scriptures against each other but comparing and harmonizing them. I will not argue certain Scriptures while you ignore others. I've given interpretations that harmonize the texts rather than pit them against each other and I have worked hard to answer your points while you ignore mine.
You do make two points about a derived authority given by God (Jesus) to the apostles which does not deal with the substance of Jesus having the authority to command angels. You can say it is given to him by the Father, so it goes in circles rather than deal with the points made about the actual Greek and the argument of Paul.
We could argue about Genesis 18 which actually says this partner to Abraham was Yahweh, however my presupposition is that “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. ” (John 1:18) That God the Father is the first referent and the second is Christ the Word (the subject of John 1) and the one only God making God known is the Person of Christ who is the Word and the one called Lord in Genesis 18, taking a bodily form however a pre-incarnate body. Arguing this point however is a bit of a side issue, an implication of the main argument of Jesus being the Word and being God and man, the member of the Godhead who reveal God, and only God can properly reveal God. You do not accept the premise, so why argue about the implication of the premise other than to distract from the fact that you can no longer debate with any substance the topic?
Stay on topic on the premise and Phil 2, not implications from a premise you have avoided arguing about with any substance or logic.
Hi Jared,
Several problems pour over your recent comments. (1) There are people with formal training in Classical Hebrew, Greek (and Aramaic) that do not subscribe to your view of Jesus. Others that do must haul in metaphysical views to make their case for it is not supported in the original text.
(2) You should not be judging me on my acceptance of Christ or appreciation of baptism; that is the role of Jesus and the Father, Yahweh/ Jehovah (
(3) At 1 Timothy 2:5,6 we learn from the Greek that Jesus was not just a "ransom" (lutron) but a "corresponding ransom" (antilutron) therefore a perfect man like Adam.
Had Jesus been a God-man; he would not have corresponded to Adam. It has always been curious to me that well qualified Greek New Testament translators--obviously seeing the difference between "antilutron" at 1 Tim and "lutron" in other passages like Matt 20:28 fail to show that difference in their translation. I would say theological bias may be the basis, especially when it turns on the doctrine of the Trinity.
Looking at Philippians 2 we see that being in “morphe” the form of God does not mean Jesus was God. He at one time before come to earth was in God’s form and was a glorious, mighty spirit like his Father.
Trinitarians like to superimpose their own inference on what “morphe” insisting that “form” conveys the idea of “essential nature.” This is not the case at all. Have you ever read Greek Scholar Jason BeDuhn’s book, “Truth in Translation” comparing this verse in Philippians in light of the actual Greek text?
He wrote: “Now, the Greek word “morphe” (“form”) is fairly generic, and can mean a number of things. But it does not mean “nature” or “essence,” nor does it signify that anything “was” or was “one with” something else. These four translations (NIV, TEV, AB, LB) do not translate the Greek, but substitute interpretations of their own that are not based in Paul’s language at all. Therefore they are inaccurate; and their bias is evident in what they try to import into the passage. The TEV and NIV have tried to introduce a “two-nature” Christology (first worked out by Christians at the Council of Chalcedon over three hundred years after the New Testament was written). The LB and AB have attempted to eradicate the distinctions between Jesus and God the Father that Paul makes in this very passage. We do not gain much confidence in their interpretation of the passage when we see how they tamper with the text to support it.”
It also perplexes me how you try to escape the meaning of Genesis 18 that shows it was not literally YAHWEH but Yahweh’s representatives. You are correct that no one has seen the Father so it could not have been the God of Israel, Yahweh, that Abraham saw.
Abraham knew them to be angels representing God. Lot also refers to two “men” as Yahweh or Jehovah in Genesis 19:18 but throughout the rest of Chapter 19 they are repeatedly referred to as angels.
So Lot, like Abraham, knew they were God’s representatives and spoke to them as if they were God. So who again ate with Abraham? Yahweh or “the materialized angels in the form of men,” standing in His place? If Christ was one of the angels described in Genesis 18 or 19 it still shows that one can take on a body that can “eat” this is without question. This is not a side issue but overturns your defective reasoning you tried to employ as though it would have been impossible for Christ to have taken on “another body.” Angels took on bodies temporarily other times and accepted hospitality. Did they keep that body when they returned to heaven?
Who is avoiding logic and pertinent points to our discussion? You are obviously grasping at straws and pretend I am the one avoiding your "irrefutable reasoning." It amazes me why you would want to work that hard?
Paul calls Jesus equal to the Father and in the same morphe as God just as Jesus was the same morphe as man. Paul relates that in the same way Jesus was man (not just a representation, as you say but actually man) so Jesus was actually God.
Then it just gets back into appeals to authority rather than deal with that reality. This is not going anywhere. I've noted your logical fallacies and I don't really have the interest or time to get into a quoting match between my experts and your experts. May the Triune God grant you eyes to Him as He is.
Hi Jared,
I respect your decision to withdraw from this discussion since it is obviously not going your way.
If I accomplished anything please let it be known that not all scholars and "church fathers," line up with your thinking. And many of your arguments require strained reasoning.
Yet, you insist Jesus is equal to God. All someone has to do is be honest and accept the natural reading and understanding of John 14:28. There Jesus Christ himself said: "The Father is greater than I."
No interjection or inference needed. Many of the passages you have shared are by no means "absolute proof texts," to prove Jesus is equal to His God and Father Jehovah. And Philippians 2:6 does not prove Paul believed Jesus was equal to His Father.
"Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person of Christ, p. 48).
"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim's Further Progress, pp. 40, 42).
"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the 20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22).
"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of 'God'" (Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194).
"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123).
Many Trinitarians before you have pointed out that the King James Version of the Holy Bible in Philippians 2:6, is proof that Jesus did not think it was wrong to be equal to God. But, this is not the case.
Is the KJV accurate here? If we check modern versions with modern scholarship we will find that Jesus thought it NOT right to be equal with God.
-continuing
Looking to some of the best translations available I have discovered that the use of "robbery" is stretching the Greek grammar a little too far. If we look at what other translations say we will get a better understanding of this. Here are a few.
"who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped,"—American Standard Version.
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."—Revised Standard Version.
"Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God's form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God."—The Emphatic Diaglott
"Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God."—An American Translation
"For let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus also: who, being in the form of God, did not eagerly grasp at the resemblance to God."—The New Testament in an Improved Version
"The same thing esteem in yourselves which also in Christ Jesus ye esteem, who in form of God subsisting, not a thing to be seized accounted the being equal with God."—The Emphasized Bible
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not think that equality with God was some thing to be grasped."—The Riverside New Testament
"who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
"He—truly of divine nature!—never self-confidently made himself equal to God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.
"who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.
"He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Today's English Version.
"who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
"Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.
-continuing
What do we see here? That other Bible translations translate this verse to show that Jesus did not grasp at equality with God.
The truth is Jesus did not think he was equal to God, either in heaven or on earth. This thought never crossed his mind. He did not follow the example of Satan the Devil, although Christ could have done this if he had wanted to.
This is what the Bible consistently teaches.
But what about the Greek text itself? The translators of the KJV were bending the rules of Greek to support the Trinitarian views they held. The Greek word translated "robbery" by the KJV is "harpagmon."
The Expositor's Greek Testament says: "We cannot find any passage where [har•pa'zo] or any of its derivatives [including har•pag•mon'] has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1967), edited by W. Robertson Nicoll, Vol. III, pp. 436, 437.
In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek:
"It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'"
In other words, it's not correct to translate the word "harpagmon," into something like "to snatch violently", but it must mean to "grasp at". Even though Jesus was of divine nature he being "the firstborn of the creation of God," he did not think it was right to "grasp at" equality with God.
A word-for-word rendering of the Greek text reads this way: "who in from of God existing not snatching he considered the to be equal (things) to God," Or, "who existing in the form of God, he did not consider being equal to God." So one of the best renderings of this text I have found are in the RSV: "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God, a thing to be grasped."
The Son of God was in God's form as a heavenly spirit person, but did not try to make himself equal to God. (Heb. 1:3)
Philippians 2:6 does not make me believe that Jesus was equal to His Father in anyway. Where do we see Jesus trying to be equal to God anywhere in Scripture? Never, ever forget that there is always someone God to Jesus at every stage of is life. This is irrefutable. If one is higher in rank he cannot be "equal."
I will leave you with that.
Best wishes,
Nick Batchelor
Yes nick, when required me only to use biblical language and I did, I was unable to properly respond to someone who did understand the biblical languages he was pretending to understand and thought, this is not going my way
When I explained that most pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives describe a qualitative nature, and you completely ignored that verse for the rest of the conversation, I knew this is not going my way.
And when I brought up the language of begottenness with no coherent reply, I thought: wow this is not going my way.
After you described you ignorance as to how θεος (the Father) can be θεος (in essence) and Jesus can be θεος (essence) and Jesus is not identical in person with θεος (the Father) and I showed how you, by your translations admited Adam "אדם" was a "אדם" and Jesus was "אדם" without saying Jesus was Adam "אדם". When you completely ignored my argument I thought, wow this is not going my way.
When I cited Phillipians 2 and you could not explain it but merely tried to contradict it by going to another verse, I thought, wow this is not going my way.
And when you used the logical fallacies of an appeal to ignorance, an appeal to ridicule, bare assertion, guilt by association, red herring, appeal to authority, and ad hominum, I thought this is not going my way
So I concede nick, that I cannot argue effectively against an opponent that serially ignores arguments, is untrained in the areas he pretends to have proficiency in, and does not abide by the rules of logic in a rational discussion. So like a 5 year old that is ignorant of much and easily distracted, I will let you wander off and perhaps after you have some training in Greek, the rules of logic and prozac for ADD, then perhaps we can have a conversation that goes somewhere, since my way of conversation is informed, rational and focused.
Jared,
I could not help but think of Proverbs 26:4,5 as you were rambling non-sense.
It is really sad to see. You should change your approach. Don't think you are going to gain anyone by talking down like you do to people. Too bad you have to be that way.
I will never respond to you again.
Pray one day you have a change of heart.
John 1:1 - WHEN ALL THINGS BEGAN,
the Word already was.
The Word dwelt with God,
and what God was, the Word was.
(NEB)
Post a Comment