It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some Questions for Christians (and others)

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Dont you get it. All of this has been taken into consideration and the reality is that the amount of variation between all this does not fundamentally alter the message of the scriptures one iota that has been taught for thousands of years. You are only concerned with the critical text and what the JW doctrine says.


context is NOT on your side.

there is more scripture and more reason to believe jesus is NOT God, then there is even the suggestion that he is.

i posted the list of scriptures so many times, i would be surprised if you said you havent seen them


Here again you are not taking into consideration Gods nature, Jesus' dual nature, and the nature of man (humans). The incarnation of the word, and the countless other scriptures which seem to (in your eyes) contradict Jesus' divinity.I don't mean to put you down but you are lacking the most basic obvious common sense as to what ever comes from God (in nature) is God (in nature).You seem to contort scripture to justify your own idealistic views and of which the JW doctrine teaches.Your knowledge of the bible is distorted.All you seem to be concerned with is how the rest of the christian faith differs and is wrong from what you (JW) believe.




posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Nope not confused at all, we actually agree that Jesus existed before Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 1:1 is talking about the physical universe.

Miriam already added the details.

You are discrediting a multitude of bible translations just because it disagrees with your church dogma, it's pretty sad actually.

Romans 10:2 again, this time with the footnote *

2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.*

Footnote
*They have a zeal of God. They were religious, conscientious, zealous. but mistaken and fanatical.





[edit on 26-4-2010 by Blue_Jay33]


What? Bluejay you make no sense at all. What other kind of Universe would there be besides a physical one? LOL.. Col 1:16 says that Jesus made every thing ...Visible and invisible.. I think this would cover the physical universe duhh...



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Here again you are not taking into consideration Gods nature, Jesus' dual nature, and the nature of man (humans). The incarnation of the word, and the countless other scriptures which seem to (in your eyes) contradict Jesus' divinity.I don't mean to put you down but you are lacking the most basic obvious common sense as to what ever comes from God (in nature) is God (in nature).You seem to contort scripture to justify your own idealistic views and of which the JW doctrine teaches.Your knowledge of the bible is distorted.All you seem to be concerned with is how the rest of the christian faith differs and is wrong from what you (JW) believe.


what is your obsession with JW's?

you know im not a JW right?



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Here again you are not taking into consideration Gods nature, Jesus' dual nature, and the nature of man (humans). The incarnation of the word, and the countless other scriptures which seem to (in your eyes) contradict Jesus' divinity.I don't mean to put you down but you are lacking the most basic obvious common sense as to what ever comes from God (in nature) is God (in nature).You seem to contort scripture to justify your own idealistic views and of which the JW doctrine teaches.Your knowledge of the bible is distorted.All you seem to be concerned with is how the rest of the christian faith differs and is wrong from what you (JW) believe.


what is your obsession with JW's?

you know im not a JW right?


Yeah OK..You surly are not a Critical Text Student. Even they recognize the received text as authoritative.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
Yeah OK..You surly are not a Critical Text Student. Even they recognize the received text as authoritative.


lol, you just cant possibly accept that what im posting is actually from the bible can you?

my "denomination" HAS to be to blame right?

well whatever, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe i guess



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oliveoil
 


Ok let me ask you a question then, where did God exist and live before the physical universe was created?

Actually since Jesus was with him, we can add him too.



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
[
Ok let me ask you a question then, where did God exist and live before the physical universe was created?
Actually since Jesus was with him, we can add him too.


Sorry, I can't resist butting in. May I suggest that the question "where?", like the question "when?", relates to the created universe, so that it has no meaning before the universe is created? Outside that created universe, God just "is".



[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
Yeah OK..You surly are not a Critical Text Student. Even they recognize the received text as authoritative.


lol, you just cant possibly accept that what im posting is actually from the bible can you?

my "denomination" HAS to be to blame right?

well whatever, everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe i guess


What other so called Christian denomination believes that Christ died on a stake not a cross? Believes Christ was created? believes Church not built upon Peter.Believes Gods name to be Jehovah. Believes The Holy Spirit is Gods personal energy force. No Trinity. I could go on and on. I personally do not care what one believes in However, when that person starts to contort and distort what I believe then we have a problem.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
[
Ok let me ask you a question then, where did God exist and live before the physical universe was created?
Actually since Jesus was with him, we can add him too.


Sorry, I can't resist butting in. May I suggest that the question "where?", like the question "when?", relates to the created universe, so that it has no meaning before the universe is created? Outside that created universe, God just "is".



[edit on 26-4-2010 by DISRAELI]


Some people just don't get it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
What other so called Christian denomination believes that Christ died on a stake not a cross? Believes Christ was created? believes Church not built upon Peter.Believes Gods name to be Jehovah. Believes The Holy Spirit is Gods personal energy force. No Trinity. I could go on and on. I personally do not care what one believes in However, when that person starts to contort and distort what I believe then we have a problem.


what you believe in is your business. just dont claim its biblical if its not.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
What other so called Christian denomination believes that Christ died on a stake not a cross? Believes Christ was created? believes Church not built upon Peter.Believes Gods name to be Jehovah. Believes The Holy Spirit is Gods personal energy force. No Trinity. I could go on and on. I personally do not care what one believes in However, when that person starts to contort and distort what I believe then we have a problem.


what you believe in is your business. just dont claim its biblical if its not.


What I claim to believe in has been Tried, tested, and true for THOUSANDS of years, and has been carried down in succession through the Universal Church.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
What I claim to believe in has been Tried, tested, and true for THOUSANDS of years, and has been carried down in succession through the Universal Church.


no. what you believe in delayed the translation the bible, put many translators to death, and burned people alive for just reading the bible.

im still waiting for a scripture that says jesus is eternal.

im still waiting for you to explain 1 cor 8:6.

you have yet to touch on any of the many scriptures that show jesus praying, learning, admitting god is greater than him, dying, or calling out to his god.

in fact, for my entire debate with you, you have yet to provide any substantial rebuttal to any of my statements. you bring up some verse, i refute it, you move on to the next verse.

its like you cant refute it, so you move on, and you claim victory?

1 tim 2:[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

mediator code of conduct - "the need to adopt a neutral stance towards all parties to the mediation, revealing any potential conflicts of interest."
en.wikipedia.org...

jesus cant be God AND mediator. it is a conflict of interest.

it doesnt get any clearer than this. so believe what you want to believe, but i have shown exhaustively (literally) that the bible disagrees with you.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
you have yet to touch on any of the many scriptures that show jesus praying, learning, admitting god is greater than him, dying, or calling out to his god.


I'd like to butt in again, if I may, because this comment gets into a point which I have tried to explain before.

The teaching being defended is that Christ is God AND Man. Both at the same time. The problem is that this is essentially a debate about the first point, and you keep trying to bring in evidence which actually relates to the second point.

Thus we acknowledge that;
Jesus prayed, being a man
Jesus learned, being a man
Jesus called out to God, being a man
Jesus acknowledged the Father as greater than himself, being a man.
And he died, being a man.

We're not disputing that that Jesus was a man, we acknowledge all that.
One chunk of the Athanasian Creed is dedicated to insisting that Jesus was a man.
We are not claiming that Christ was God and nothing else.
We are claiming that Christ is man and ALSO God. When that point is on the table, all the evidence in the world about the hunanity of Jesus is completely and utterly irrrelevant.

I'm going to use an analogy again.
Look at a ship- any kind of ship, ocean-going liner, sailing yacht.
Is this vessel moving through the water or through the air?
Well, clearly it is doing both.
Part of it is above the waterline, and part of it is below the waterline.
Any part of the ship which is below the waterline, like the rudder, is moving through the water.
Any part of the ship which is above the waterline, like the mast, is actually moving through the air.
If you are standing on the ship's deck yourself, you will feel the breeze in your face; that is because you yourself are then moving through air rather than through water.

On the question of the divinity of Christ, we are arguing that the mast is moving through the air. You keep pointing out obsessively that the rudder is in the water. We reply; "Yes, we know that. Let's talk about the mast."



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I'd like to butt in again


by all means



The teaching being defended is that Christ is God AND Man. Both at the same time.


and yet the bible does not agree.

god is not a man, neither the son of man (num 23:19)

however jesus was a ransom. in my last post, i quoted a scripture,

1 tim 2: [5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
[6] Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

not only is jesus a mediator (which means flat out he CANT be God, because he has to be a third party) but he is also a ransom. but ransom for what?

see unlike the trinity, the ransom is a doctrine that is central to a christian's faith. with out this ransom, our sins cannot be forgiven and we cannot be saved.

paul explains this ransom...

rom 5:[8] But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
[9] Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
[10] For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
[11] And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
[12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
[13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
[14] Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
[15] But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
[16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
[19] For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
[20] Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
[21] That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

why am i going on about the ransom in order to prove that jesus is not god?

look at verse 12. who is this "one man" by which sin entered the world?

its adam.

in this way it is called a ransom. adam ineffect sold the human race to sin and death by sinning. jesus was paying back and effectivelly buying the human race.

this is my point -

jesus could not be GOD, because adam wasn't GOD.

adam was a perfect man so Jesus had to be a perfect man.

jesus' death furthers this point.

we know that GOD cannot die. so if jesus is GOD, then his very death is suspect. however, i have been told by trinitarians in the past that only the human part of jesus died but that the GOD part continued to live.

does the bible support this assumption? no. nowhere in the bible does it say any part of jesus survived

rom 8:[34] Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

not only did jesus die (and we know he was dead because he was dead 3 days), but he was also raised up. which part of him was raised up? if the God-like part of him was already alive, why resurrect the human part as a spirit creature?

1 cor 15:[45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

jesus' death and resurrection give testimony that jesus was not God, nor was any part of him god.

and its interesting that the bible never makes the claim that jesus is part god. the only claims it makes are -

jesus is in the form of GOD (referring specifically to his time in heaven before his birth on earth) and..
jesus is in the image of god.

neither of those statements mean jesus is god because humans also were made in the image of God (im pretty sure we arent God) and angels are in the form of God (they are spirits)


We are claiming that Christ is man and ALSO God. When that point is on the table, all the evidence in the world about the hunanity of Jesus is completely and utterly irrrelevant.


i understand what you are saying but its not irrelevant.

if one does not have the scriptures to back up this idea that jesus is "also" God, the the evidence of jesus' humanity is damning

no scripture says that jesus is "all" or "inpart" or "also" GOD.

its like your telling me to look at the mast, at its not there.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


The question of redemption is actually key to the Church's original rejection of the Arian approach. The argument is that somone who is less than God could not possibly a sufficient ransom for the purpose. It would have to be the true original "owner", as someone who was less than God would not be; it would have to be an offering of "Himself".

I don't have time to track down the details of this argument immediately, so, for the moment I'll give it as it appears in Anselm, "Cur Deus Homo". (The translation is not mine)

"But it is not possible that this should be, unless there be someone who can repay to God, for the sin of man, somewhat which is greater than all that which is not God...

Also, he who of his own should be able to give to God anything, which might surpass all that is below God, must needs be greater than all which is not God...

But nothing exists, which is above all that is not God, save God...

None therefore but God can make this reparation."

PS. Anselm makes the same point that you do, that the redeemer must necessarily be "perfect man". In his case, of course, it is the statement that Christ must ALSO be perfect man.




[edit on 28-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
The question of redemption is actually key to the Church's original rejection of the Arian approach. The argument is that somone who is less than God could not possibly a sufficient ransom for the purpose.


so, the "arian approach" was rejected on an assumption?

does the bible anywhere support that notion?


It would have to be the true original "owner", as someone who was less than God would not be; it would have to be an offering of "Himself".

I don't have time to track down the details of this argument immediately, so, for the moment I'll give it as it appears in Anselm, "Cur Deus Homo". (The translation is not mine)

"But it is not possible that this should be, unless there be someone who can repay to God, for the sin of man, somewhat which is greater than all that which is not God...

Also, he who of his own should be able to give to God anything, which might surpass all that is below God, must needs be greater than all which is not God...

But nothing exists, which is above all that is not God, save God...

None therefore but God can make this reparation."


this is what im hearing (correct me if im wrong)

adam's worth = "x"

instead of x = x,

x cannot be paid unless you have x + infinity... (like paying for a candy bar with all the money on earth)

to me... that is not logical. i dont see how anyone could come to that conclusion unless 1- there is a scripture (which there isnt) or 2- they stated this so as to force the issue in favor of the trinity.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

jesus is in the form of GOD (referring specifically to his time in heaven before his birth on earth) and..
and angels are in the form of God (they are spirits)



Incidentally, here is one point where you yourself make the fault of depending on similarities in English rather than the original Greek.

You translate "MORPHE" as "form".
You suggest that angels are also "in the form of God".

But I think I can safely challenge you to find any statement in the New Testament Greek that angels have the "MORPHE" of God.

The other point of interest is that the statement in Philippians is one of a pair of statements.
"He was in the "MORPHE" of God...
He took on the "MORPHE" of a servant"
These two statements are obviously meant to balance, and they should be related to one another.

The basic question is whether "MORPHE" should be taken as "resemblance, appearance", or whether it denotes the full and true nature of God/the servant. Whatever it means in one statement, it must have the same meaning in the other one.

"Servant" is traditionally taken as a synonym of "human". In that case, translating "MORPHE of God" as "appearance of God" would have the side-effect of reducing his humanity to an appearance in exactly the same way. This plunges you straight into Docetism, the belief that the humanity of Christ was not real, but just an appearance, a phantasm. If he was only "appearing" to be God, then he was only "appearing" to be human.

If you refuse to accept this identification of "servant" with "humanity", the point still applies. Whatever the function of being a "servant" in the process, he needs to be the real thing. Merely "looking like" a servant is not good enough. If you want good service in your household, you hire a real servant, rather than someone who resembles a servant.

If "MORPHE of a servant" means that he really was a servant, then "MORPHE of God" must mean that he really was God.



[edit on 28-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by oliveoil
What I claim to believe in has been Tried, tested, and true for THOUSANDS of years, and has been carried down in succession through the Universal Church.


no. what you believe in delayed the translation the bible, put many translators to death, and burned people alive for just reading the bible.

im still waiting for a scripture that says jesus is eternal.

im still waiting for you to explain 1 cor 8:6.

you have yet to touch on any of the many scriptures that show jesus praying, learning, admitting god is greater than him, dying, or calling out to his god.

in fact, for my entire debate with you, you have yet to provide any substantial rebuttal to any of my statements. you bring up some verse, i refute it, you move on to the next verse.

its like you cant refute it, so you move on, and you claim victory?

1 tim 2:[5] For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

mediator code of conduct - "the need to adopt a neutral stance towards all parties to the mediation, revealing any potential conflicts of interest."
en.wikipedia.org...

jesus cant be God AND mediator. it is a conflict of interest.

it doesnt get any clearer than this. so believe what you want to believe, but i have shown exhaustively (literally) that the bible disagrees with you.





im still waiting for a scripture that says jesus is eternal


Mark 10:17 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

Wouldnt it make sense to say that the only one who can give eternal life is the one who posses it. Jesus alone says to follow him and you will have eternal life, Therefore Jesus must be eternal.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Let me ask you this,How can something that is not eternal give eternal life?

Jesus is God and God is eternal.
The reason you do not understand is because you do not understand the difference between Nature and person.
Maybe this will help

Philippians 2:6-7 (New International Version)
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[a] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


1. Christians (some sects anyway) like to believe that they have a tri-part deity. That God comes as an omnipotent Father figure, a finite human figure, and the space between these two. So a normal Christian would answer that while God's finite aspect (Jesus) was suffering, his infinite (Yahweh), or in-between aspect (Holy Ghost) was commanding universal affairs.

From a non-Christian (such as myself) I'd like to look at it another way: all deities (Abrahamic, Hindu, Egyptian, Norse, Babylonian, Oceanic, European, Greek - all of them) are only divinities over earthly matters. None of these gods arose as universal concepts. Only human archetypal concepts, and earthly controllers. So the universe looked after itself while one specific god was letting its human avatar be tortured.

 


2. The Christians will often look at the "we" in Genesis as symbolic of the three faces of their God. Yahweh, Christ and the Holy Spirit are the "we" in Genesis, which, to the Christian would mean that God was with Christ at the dawning of Christian time. I don't think you'll find a Christian who believes otherwise.

From a non-Christian, I think that Jesus is an avatar of Yahweh. Just as the Emperor was the living god, and the Dalai Lama is the living God - so Jesus was just a man who Yahweh possessed to carry out an important Eastern principle: that God and man have to have a way of uniting. Eastern Mysticism, Buddhism, the Tao, paganism and a majority of other pre-Christian religious ideologies taught that man and God were closely connected. The Christians needed this to try and convert pagans and heathens. So Jesus became Yahweh's avatar, so the older unison with the god-head concept could be kept alive.

 


3. Again, a Christian will make the claim that it's all the same God. Yahweh is an ethereal, incorporeal form. When you worship Jesus you are merely worshiping the shell embodying this ethereal form. So Jesus, Yahweh and the Holy Ghost are actually not separate entities, but are one-in-the-same, only worshiped three different ways. Not that a Christian would use the analogy, but I'm not a Christian, so I will: it's like worshiping Horus the Younger, Horus the Elder and Horus of the Two Horizons. Same god, different forms.

To the non-Christian, it is completely worshiping different gods. Jesus did nothing similar in nature to Yahweh. Jesus did not torture babies, pillage villages, steal, command the rape of women, outlaw heathens and pagans, or command you to take slaves (he only told you how to beat and keep ones you already had). Whereas Yahweh commands pillaging, the rape of captured women, the taking of slaves from neighboring nations, the death and slaughter of children and babes, and more. Two completely different gods.

 


4. A Christian will say no. She is holy, she is special, but she is a woman, and woman are not capable of deity or divinity in Christian theology. At least they weren't until the Enlightenment. So to a Christian it will always be that Mary should feel blessed that her womb was chosen to create the god-man. In their eyes it could have been any woman, but Yahweh chose that one, what's more important is the little man who was born. The schism separating Orthodox Catholicism from Spanish Catholicism is for this very reason: the Spanish believe the Virgin Mary is an important figure, the rest of Catholicism does not.

From a non-Christian viewpoint, this is a maybe. Certain other religious and mythological figures were elevated because they gave birth to a messiah or holy figure. Sometime though, they were ignored and forgotten about. Krishna's mom, the Buddha's mom, Native American mothers - all of these women are revered and honored and respected. It is (unsurprisingly) usually only in misogynistic monotheistic religions were women receive the "short end of the stick", mainly because male-dominated cultures allowed these types of religious backgrounds to fester and grow.

 


Well, I hope this has been helpful to you.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
You translate "MORPHE" as "form".
You suggest that angels are also "in the form of God".

But I think I can safely challenge you to find any statement in the New Testament Greek that angels have the "MORPHE" of God.

The other point of interest is that the statement in Philippians is one of a pair of statements.
"He was in the "MORPHE" of God...
He took on the "MORPHE" of a servant"
These two statements are obviously meant to balance, and they should be related to one another.

The basic question is whether "MORPHE" should be taken as "resemblance, appearance", or whether it denotes the full and true nature of God/the servant. Whatever it means in one statement, it must have the same meaning in the other one.


phillipians is the key to my statement. and you are right, if it means one then it means the other.

so was jesus just the form of a human, or was he a human?

1 john 4:[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

some history about this verse.. around this time, gnostics started to creep into the congregation. one of thier teachings was that jesus wasnt human but a god who was spirit, using a physical avatar.

what they were saying was very similiar to what some trinitarians claim which is that part of jesus was spiritually in heaven.

john was saying no.

is there more evidence?

1 peter 3:[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

notice, jesus didnt shed anything. he died as flesh, but was resurrected (brought back to life) as a spirit.

this statement would not be true if jesus was merely in the appearance of human.

john 1:[14] And the Word was made flesh

so if jesus WAS 100% an actually human, then jesus before his human life was 100% spirit

why?

john 4:[24] God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

phillipians is saying that jesus, who was a powerful spirit, didnt think equality with God was something to be stolen, but rather humbled himself to the point of being made a lowly human.



If "MORPHE of a servant" means that he really was a servant, then "MORPHE of God" must mean that he really was God.


no.. why?

because servent is a class, not a person.

if jesus is in the "μορφῇ" of a servent, he can be a servent. because servent is a class.

now if jesus is in the "μορφῇ" of God, then we are talking about the attribes of the class that is "god"

i understand i may not be explaining that clearly so ill expound.

"god" can be a class (or a group of people or things that share the same attributes)

the word "god" in itself mean "mighty one"

if "mighty" is the criteria from which something can be called "god", then we would have other examples of people or things being called "god"

and we do.

satan -
2 cor 4:[4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

is satan mighty? yes. he is powerful and dangerous. not as powerful as God, of course, but we are told to not underestimate him. he is also mighty in more abstract ways, such as influence. he is called too the "prince of the power of the air" (eph 2:2) meaning his influence is everywhere. in this way, satan is a "god" or belongs to this class called "god"

humans -
psalms 82:[6] I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

this verse is referring to the elders and wise men of isreal. are they mighty? yes. they are given power by God to judge isreal (as psalm 82 implores them to do). they are mighty in that people's live depend on thier judgement. so they too belong to this class "god"

statues -
duet 5:[7] Thou shalt have none other gods before me.

here God himself calls these idols "gods". are thery mighty? phyisically? no. but they are influential. people of canaan would sacrifice and burn thier firstborn to these lifeless idols. so these idols too belong to this class "god"

so is being in the form of God, make jesus god?

not really no. God is a person. being in the "form" of that person does not make you that person.

however, if we are talking about attributes, then we can see how this applies. God is a spirit, jesus was a spirit. (especially since the verse itself is comparing it with a fleshly existence.)

the verse ALSO is comparing power showing that jesus "lessened" himself. jesus wasnt just a spirit, he was a mighty spirit.

if none of this makes sense i will explain again. (forgive me im esl)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join