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: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
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?


first, eternal life ≠ eternal.

eternal life is where you will never die.

eternal is where you will never die AND you didnt have a beginning.

God is eternal. he has no beginning AND he will have no end.

jesus has eternal life. jesus had a beginning (col 1:15; rev 3:14) but after he died and was resurrected, he will never die again.

so you argument has nothing to do with anything.


The reason you do not understand is because you do not understand the difference between Nature and person.


trinity doctrine very clearly states that Jesus IS the same person as God, not just his "nature"

may want to look that up.




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

trinity doctrine very clearly states that Jesus IS the same person as God, not just his "nature"


This is not so.

When Trinity doctrine uses the word "Person" in a technical sense (= Latin "PERSONA" = Greek "HYPOSTASIS"), it applies that word separately to each of the three - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

In English, the expression is "Three "Persons" in one "Nature", the "Nature" being that of the unity of God. I think this is what Oliveoil was talking about.
The Latin is "Tria Personae in Una Substantia"

The problem is that the word "person" gets used in two completely different ways- the technical, trinitarian sense, and the ordinary sense of common English usage. I pointed out before that you were mixing up the two meanings- I would have to look up your response, but I think you said that you understood the difference. You are mixing up the two meanings again in the above comment.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566



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.


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

God is a person. being in the "form" of that person does not make you that person.


So the first part of your argument is based on accepting my claim that "MORPHE" means "full and true nature". You are disagreeing with me only on the meaning of "God" in that phrase "MORPHE of God".

I put it to you that the distinction you are making here between "God" and "a god" is, for the purposes of this verse, artificial.
Look at the context of the whole epistle.
All the way through the epistle, "God" means "God".
Suddenly, in this verse, you want to change the meaning to "a god".
Why?
Because it suits your purposes.
I do not think this is playing fair with the text.

This is rather like your rather desperate suggestion that "angels are in the form of God". I challenged you to find a New Testament testimony that angels are in the "MORPHE" of God, and I haven't seen one yet.

You then say "being in the form of a person does not make you that person". Excuse me, I thought we had agreed that "MORPHE" does not mean mere "appearance". It seems to me that in this second argument you are trying to drag in the "appearance" interpretation again, because your argument does not work in any other way. If we stick to the original agreement that "MORPHE" means "full and true nature", then "being in the form of a person" DOES give you the full and true nature of that person.

Your second argument actually rests on the statement "God is a person", and I must tackle that statement. I wish to say
a) You have not taken that statement out of the Bible.
b) It is not, strictly speaking, true.
c) It is not valid for argument in the way that you're using it.

a) "God is a person" is not a statement made in the Bible. I would ask you to identify a Greek or Hebrew word which can legitimately be translated "person", and then show me where, in the Bible, that word is applied to God. Biblically speaking, you are making it up.

b) "God is a person" is not. strictly speaking, true. This comes back to a problem we've discussed before, viz that God, as Creator, is so thoroughly different from his Creation, and from humanity. I still don't think that you fully appreciate just how great this difference is. This means that no human words can describe him accurately, and they can only be used with great caution. I assume that you mean "person" in the sense of modern English common usage, i.e. an individual, human, personality. We must not assume, simplistically, that we can transfer that concept directly onto God, because that limits him . God is actually greater than that.

c) "God is a person" is not valid for argument in the way that you're using it, because you're trying to bring God down to the level of being a human individual. Yes, "one person cannot be another person" is true at the human level. But God is NOT at the human level, and we musn't bring him down to it.

The problem is that you are always trying to reduce God, to minimise him. You are trying to bring him down to something small enough to fit inside your human understanding. As I've said before, "Your god is too small".

We need to be willing to accept that Christ is in the "form" of God, that is in the full and true nature of God, if the Bible says so, even if the concept is too great for our understanding.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

This is not so.

When Trinity doctrine uses the word "Person" in a technical sense (= Latin "PERSONA" = Greek "HYPOSTASIS"), it applies that word separately to each of the three - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

In English, the expression is "Three "Persons" in one "Nature", the "Nature" being that of the unity of God. I think this is what Oliveoil was talking about.
The Latin is "Tria Personae in Una Substantia"

The problem is that the word "person" gets used in two completely different ways- the technical, trinitarian sense, and the ordinary sense of common English usage. I pointed out before that you were mixing up the two meanings- I would have to look up your response, but I think you said that you understood the difference. You are mixing up the two meanings again in the above comment.


you say thats the meaning, yet you are trying to say to me that Jesus IS GOD?

so which is it? are they 2 separate people in unity or are they the same person?



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
so which is it? are they 2 separate people in unity or are they the same person?


Neither.
We don't use the word "people" because it is irrelevant
We don't use the word "person", in the sense of ordinary common usage, because it is irrelevant.

In Greek, they are two different "HYPOSTASES" combined in the same "OUSIA".
In Latin, they are two different "PERSONAE" combined in the same "SUBSTANTIA".

The answer to your question is ; yes
The "OUSIA" is God.
Christ, as the Son, is part of the "OUSIA".
And therefore he is part of God.

I am not a Nestorian, and I am not a Monophysite, so I don't believe either of the two suggestions in your comment.

I would like to propose that the word "person" be dropped from this debate altogether, except when it is being used in the technical trinitarian sense. Otherwise it causes confusion every time it is introduced.

Incidentally, what drew out the reply- "yet you are trying to say to me"? What, exactly, did you think you found in my quoted comment contradicting the belief that "Jesus is God"?




[edit on 29-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
lol, you sound utterly confused.

so the trinity is ONE, but it isnt because they are THREE, oh wait but they arent because they are ONE...

so they are one God, but three persons but persons is not the right word because etc etc etc..

my point: NONE of this is in the bible.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Incidentally, what drew out the reply- "yet you are trying to say to me"? What, exactly, did you think you found in my quoted comment contradicting the belief that "Jesus is God"?


If jesus is God, then they are the same person (even in our modern definition of the word person) yet you are saying thats not the case...

jesus cannot be God and NOT be God at the same time.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
lol, you sound utterly confused.

so the trinity is ONE, but it isnt because they are THREE, oh wait but they arent because they are ONE...

so they are one God, but three persons but persons is not the right word because etc etc etc..


Doesn't worry me. I don't feel confused, if that's what you're trying to achieve.

I made my comments in the first place because your own comment was taunting oliveoil for "not knowing the doctrine of the trinity", while you were simply demonstrating your own ignorance of the subject. Thus, in my opinion, the taunt was rebounding back on you.

If the process of logical reasoning has degenerated to "lol", then you're really getting desperate. Perhaps you would care to use the "sticking tongue out" icon?

Did you discover any biblical authority for "Angels are in the form of God"?
Did you discover any Biblical authority for "God is a person"?





[edit on 30-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566.

jesus cannot be God and NOT be God at the same time.


Easy.
Part of Christ is God.
Part of Christ is not God, but man.
So Christ is both God and man.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
I made my comments in the first place because your own comment was taunting oliveoil for "not knowing the doctrine of the trinity", while you were simply demonstrating your own ignorance of the subject. Thus, in my opinion, the taunt was rebounding back on you.


im not taunting anyone. oliveoil doesnt even read my post half the time, and i can tell because of her responses

if im ignorant to the trinity its because trinitarians cant get it together.

since joining this forum (and even before) i have had many debates about the trinity, and what ive found is that everyone has a different take on it.

some people say jesus is God, some say only a part of him is, ive even had someone tell me God has multiple personality syndrome.

the only "official" document i have to go is not the bible but a creed, and unfortunately that document is confusing and contradicts itself.

to me, this is evidence that the trinity has nothing to do with god, and that its an ill-conceived attempt by man to integrate pagan beliefs into the church


If the process of logical reasoning has degenerated to "lol", then you're really getting desperate. Perhaps you would care to use the "sticking tongue out" icon?


i wrote lol because i literally laughed alittle when i read you reply. it happens...

if you find it offensive, then ill avoid making that known.


Did you discover any biblical authority for "Angels are in the form of God"?


form - 1 a : the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material b : a body (as of a person) especially in its external appearance or as distinguished from the face : figure c archaic : beauty
2 : the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter: as a : idea 1a b : the component of a thing that determines its kind

john 4:[24] God is a Spirit

psalms 104:[1] Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
[2] Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
[3] Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
[4] Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:


Did you discover any Biblical authority for "God is a person"?


acts 3:[19] Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

heb 9:24] For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

before you go on about "presence", understand that the greek word "πρόσωπον" rendered here as "presence" literally means "before the person of...". So christ literally went before the person of God. (even further disproving that jesus is God)

this coupled with the fact that God has his own emotions, ideas and will, i think its safe to say God is a "person"



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Easy.
Part of Christ is God.
Part of Christ is not God, but man.
So Christ is both God and man.


but... thats not in the bible.

according to the bible, jesus is God's son. (matt 3:17)

jesus was a man (john 1:14; gal 4:4)

i dont see any scriptures that say jesus, while on earth, was part god and part man.

and as i explained before, if jesus is part man and part god, which part died for our sins?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Did you discover any biblical authority for "Angels are in the form of God"?


My original request was for a passage where angels were described as the "MORPHE" of God.

We had been discussing "Christ was in the MORPHE" of God.
Your comment was that angels was also "in the form of God".

My response (from memory) was that you were committing the fault of depending on similarity of English expression, and I demanded to know any authority for the claim that the angels were in the "MORPHE" of God. I need the explicit expression in Greek, please.





this coupled with the fact that God has his own emotions, ideas and will, i think its safe to say God is a "person"


I agree that God has some.thing very analogous to human personality (while remembering always that human words do not describe God accurately).

However, this is not the same thing as saying that God is "a person" in the same sense of "human individual", with all the limitations that this implies. You keep wanting to identify God with a human individual, with all those limitations, and to argue on that basis. All your arguments that "Christ cannot be God" are based on treating God as a human individual. He is not a human individual. In that sense, he is not "a person" (and there is no text that says so).



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
i dont see any scriptures that say jesus, while on earth, was part god and part man.

and as i explained before, if jesus is part man and part god, which part died for our sins?


We claim there are scriptures describing Jesus as God.
You know about the ones describing Jesus as man.
The conclusion above is reached by taking them together.

As "man", he died for our sins- while, in the standard teaching, remaining in union with his divine nature. If he could die for our sins as God alone, he would not have needed to become "man".


I think I missed that question the first time you asked it.



[edit on 30-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by DISRAELI
Easy.
Part of Christ is God.
Part of Christ is not God, but man.
So Christ is both God and man.


but... thats not in the bible.

according to the bible, jesus is God's son. (matt 3:17)

jesus was a man (john 1:14; gal 4:4)

i dont see any scriptures that say jesus, while on earth, was part god and part man.

and as i explained before, if jesus is part man and part god, which part died for our sins?


excuse me for butting in.
The Bible does say that Jesus is the son of man many many times
It also says he is the son of God many times.
Tell me, was he a son of human or son of God.
Do you know the difference between God and Humans?
Your problem is you have no theory that backs your claims.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
My response (from memory) was that you were committing the fault of depending on similarity of English expression, and I demanded to know any authority for the claim that the angels were in the "MORPHE" of God. I need the explicit expression in Greek, please.


in greek the word "μορφῇ" means "shape; figuratively, nature -- form. "

it appears 3 times in the bible

phil 2:6 "existing in the form of God"

phil 2:7 "taking the form of a servant"

and

mark 16:12 "After these things he was revealed in another form to two of them," (speaking of jesus after his resurrection)

all three verses mean "shape" or "nature" which is the same meaning as the english "form"

understanding that, it can be said that angels (who are also spirits) exist in the same form as god even though there is no specific scripture that describes them with μορφῇ.

i know what you are trying to do, you are trying to change the meaning of "form" so that phillipians would be supporting your notion that jesus is part God, unfortunatly that just not what μορφῇ means.



However, this is not the same thing as saying that God is "a person" in the same sense of "human individual", with all the limitations that this implies. You keep wanting to identify God with a human individual, with all those limitations, and to argue on that basis. All your arguments that "Christ cannot be God" are based on treating God as a human individual. He is not a human individual. In that sense, he is not "a person" (and there is no text that says so).


except the 2 passages i quoted say exactly that.

GOD is a person.

the bible doesnt say he was a "human individual", it says he is a "person".

want a better word? how about "individual?"

how can jesus appear before god if they are the same individual?


Originally posted by DISRAELI
We claim there are scriptures describing Jesus as God.
You know about the ones describing Jesus as man.
The conclusion above is reached by taking them together.

As "man", he died for our sins- while, in the standard teaching, remaining in union with his divine nature. If he could die for our sins as God alone, he would not have needed to become "man".


1 - where are the scriptures decribing jesus as god?

and 2 - what happened to the God part of jesus while the human part was dead?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by oliveoil
excuse me for butting in.
The Bible does say that Jesus is the son of man many many times
It also says he is the son of God many times.
Tell me, was he a son of human or son of God.


"son of man" literally means "human" or "man"

num 23:[19] God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

job 25:[6] How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?

psalms 8:[4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

psalms 144:[3] LORD, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! or the son of man, that thou makest account of him!

psalms 146:[3] Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

isaiah 56:[2] Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.

ezekial 2:[3] And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.

ezekial 3:[1] Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this roll, and go speak unto the house of Israel.

in effect, jesus was calling himself "human"

but jesus was son of god. does being the son of God mean that he cannot be human? no.

gal 4:[4] But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

how did God do it? who knows. what we do know is that mary was pregnant and gave birth to a human.

so while the "individual" "jesus" was god's son, he was 100% human.


Do you know the difference between God and Humans?
Your problem is you have no theory that backs your claims.


im sorry, but i dont understand what you are saying here



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
[
understanding that, it can be said that angels (who are also spirits) exist in the same form as god even though there is no specific scripture that describes them with μορφῇ.

i know what you are trying to do, you are trying to change the meaning of "form" so that phillipians would be supporting your notion that jesus is part God, unfortunatly that just not what μορφῇ means.


Not good enough. What would you say to me if I make an assertion with "no specific scripture" to back it up?

You are trying to make a link betwen this verse and the nature of angels, for which there is no support whatever in the text.

I know what you are trying to do. You are trying to evade the the real implicaton of the fact that Christ has the MORPHE of God.

This is one text which establishes the divinity of Christ, which is what you wanted to know.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566


However, this is not the same thing as saying that God is "a person" in the same sense of "human individual", with all the limitations that this implies. You keep wanting to identify God with a human individual, with all those limitations, and to argue on that basis. All your arguments that "Christ cannot be God" are based on treating God as a human individual. He is not a human individual. In that sense, he is not "a person" (and there is no text that says so).


except the 2 passages i quoted say exactly that.

GOD is a person.

the bible doesnt say he was a "human individual", it says he is a "person".

want a better word? how about "individual?"

how can jesus appear before god if they are the same individual?


The two passages you quoted say nothing of the kind.
You believe that they carry that implication, but they do not utter the words "God is a person".
You have not found a text which uses those words, so you cannot claim that the Bible says so.

You are not paying attention to the point that I am making; human words can only be used about God with great caution, and words which imply human limitations are inappropriate. "Individual" would be a false description of God, for the same reason as "person". That is why there are technical theological words, for the purpose of allowing them to have unique meanings.

In that technical terminology;
The Father is a HYPOSTASIS
The Son is a HYPOSTASIS
There is no reason why one HYPOSTASIS should not stand in the presence on another, even if they belong to the same OUSIA.

You're just going round in circles, over and over again, and its going to be the same answer each time.

However, as Paul says;

"To write the same things to you is not irksome to me, and is safe for you".
Philippians ch3 v1




[edit on 30-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by miriam0566
- what happened to the God part of jesus while the human part was dead?


The standard teaching- well, Berkhof's Systematic Theology is close at hand, so I'll quote from that;

"The LOGOS remained united with the human nature even when the body was in the grave".

Obviously, as God, the divine nature of Christ could not, as such, die.
That would be the Theopassian heresy, and I'm not going to get tripped into expressing it.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


You are telling me that "son of man" literally means "human" or "man".
Using this logic its reasonable to say that men or humans beget humans.

Ex: A son of a man would not be a fish or vise~verse correct?
The son of a human would have a human nature.The son of a fish would have a amphibian nature
This is true, And I agree with you 100%. Now,
Continuing with your own logical truth,
Why then does the term "Son of God" to you, not mean God?
It is truth that Jesus was 100% human, or Son of Man like the Bible says,
However, it is also truth that Jesus was 100% God, or son of God like the Bible says. Jesus Had two natures Human and divine. This is proved over and over again throughout scripture.




top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join