Did Jesus say he was God???

[InChrist]

.

Why? So someone had to be someone else to be the mediator between himself and himself? I'm guessing this is where the dubious and vague "persons" argument comes into play.

Why? Where does it say this so explicitly?

Because a mediator is always a third party between the two parties needing reconciliation. The Son in the unique position as a human/God Being could fulfill that role between humanity and God the Father, which is clearly the teaching of scripture.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

Nothing like it whatsoever. The kinsman is not the same person as his kinsman. And it has to do with property.



There is no Leviticus 47:48. I think you mean 25:25 and it has to do only with property. Why don't you quote exactly what you're talking about. What you're comparing it to has absolutely no basis in comparison. And the kinsman means brothers. Why don't you also show what site you're getting this info from so I can see their reasoning.

I did not get this information from a website and I apologize, I meant Lev. 25:47,48. In those times slavery was a common practice and people who could not pay their debts, or their family members were sold into slavery. So this kinsman-redeemer practice was applicable for people also. God demonstrated this in the physical redemption of the people of Israel out of slavery in Egypt, which was a picture or foreshadow of the spiritual redemption now available to people through Christ from the bondage and slavery of sin.

This is not at all what Hebrews 2:14-16 is comparing to begin with.

I should have included verses 17-18 and also the first verses of Hebrews Chapter 3 which say that He had to be made like us...human and also show that Christ being the Son and builder of the house is God.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. Hebrews 2:17-18

Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. Hebrews 3:1-6

The "scripture" indicates that Jesus was one of the Heavenly hosts who incarnated. And the issue of Hebrews' authenticity is another issue but that's for another thread.

That's not at all what verse 16 says.

"For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants."

Where does that say he wasn't an angel prior to indication? Nowhere? That's right. Trinitarians have such interesting ways of getting scripture to say what it doesn't say whatsoever.

When reading verse 16 in context of the entire book of Hebrews, not to mention the entire Bible, it is clear that the Son of God is not an angel. Hebrews Chapter one shows the sharp contrast between the Son and angels, as the recorded words of the Father God speaking to His Son reveal.

For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

And again:

“ I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

And of the angels He says:

“ Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

But to the Son He says:

“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
And:

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”

But to which of the angels has He ever said:

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

And 9:11-28 don't say anything about him being G-d either. Another example of Trinitarians trying to get the scripture to say what they want even though it doesn't remotely say anything about it. Why don't you show which verse exactly from 9:11-28 you think says that Jesus was fully G-d?

[/quote]

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Hebrews 9:11

Jesus life has infinite value to pay for all sins and fulfill the position of High Priest, as opposed to any created thing, because He is not of creation, He is the eternal Son, the Creator who laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of His hands. He is fully God.

 

[InChrist]

That's why I said ("may") but I do agree that Isaiah 7:14 is not talking about Ahaz's son. Personally I think it's about a son of Isaiah's as described by the Jews in this commentary. It breaks down chapters 7, 8 and 9 and in context I agree.

Yeshayahu - Chapter 7 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible




It's obvious you don't see the contradiction. Matthew is referring to a prophecy supposedly coming from Jeremiah when, in fact, we know he took the words from Zachariah. Additionally what's in Zachariah isn't even a prophecy.



No there isn't.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

First off there's no evidence to support "Matthew" was the actual writer.

Gospel of Matthew
It is the near-universal position of scholarship that the Gospel of Matthew is dependent upon the Gospel of Mark. This position is accepted whether one subscribes to the dominant Two-Source Hypothesis or instead prefers the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis.

It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience. Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):




Don't worry. We are still very much on topic. I understand though. There are so many interpretations when it comes to scriptures. As far as the supposed deity of Yeshua...I haven't found anything in the 4 gospels to suggest he is "God". The information contained suggest the opposite.

I may get back to some of this when I have a little more time.

P.S. If you wouldn't mind expressing your view on Jesus or your views on God, I am interested in hearing exactly what they are. You amy have already stated your thoughts previously in this thread or elsewhere, but I don't recall and to go back and read everything would take a long time.

 

[idav]

Jesus had to be God in order to be the Mediator between God and humans.

God has never been under such a restriction regarding humans. If what you say is true then God fails. Being in the image of God gave humans the potential since the beginning.

 

[InChrist]

God has never been under such a restriction regarding humans. If what you say is true then God fails. Being in the image of God gave humans the potential since the beginning.

I am not sure what you are saying.

 

[idav]

I am not sure what you are saying.

Basically I'm saying that the bible speaks of attempting to bring humans up to the level of God. It is not necessary for God to bring himself down to do so which is where he would fail if it were true.

 

[Shermana]

Because a mediator is always a third party between the two parties needing reconciliation.

A third party cannot possibly be himself. Thus you prove that Jesus is a completely separate being, not just "person" (in whatever vague definition of "person" you may have).

The Son in the unique position as a human/God Being could fulfill that role between humanity and God the Father, which is clearly the teaching of scripture.

So he's the intermediator between himself and humanity. The teaching of scripture does not say he's the Father or G-d himself. But "a god". A different being.

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:18-20

Once again, 2 Cor 5:18-20 does not say that G-d himself was the soul within Christ's body. Here are better ways of saying what it's saying: Do you see that part "through"? Do you understand what "Through" means? Many don't it seems.

that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation

NIV

English Standard Version (©2001)
that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

[URL="http://isv.scripturetext.com/2_corinthians/5.htm"]International Standard Version

(©2008)
for through the Messiah, God was reconciling the world to himself by not counting their sins against them. He has committed his message of reconciliation to us.

[/URL]

Even these Trinitarian versions don't back the way you're seeing it. It's not at all a Trinitarian verse. G-d was "in Christ", it does not mean "G-d was Christ himself".

I did not get this information from a website and I apologize,

Ok, so this is completely your own interpretation then.

I meant Lev. 25:47,48. In those times slavery was a common practice and people who could not pay their debts, or their family members were sold into slavery.

Yes, but comparing the situation to the wages of sin is nothing close. Can you find any website that backs this interpretation?

So this kinsman-redeemer practice was applicable for people also

Also? It was ALREADY applicable for people.

God demonstrated this in the physical redemption of the people of Israel out of slavery in Egypt,

Ummmm...how? How is that even a close comparison? Completely different contexts.

which was a picture or foreshadow of the spiritual redemption now available to people through Christ from the bondage and slavery of sin.

If you're going to use this comparison, perhaps you should be aware that G-d smited the Israelites who didn't obey the Law of Moses.

I should have included verses 17-18 and also the first verses of Hebrews Chapter 3 which say that He had to be made like us...human and also show that Christ being the Son and builder of the house is God.

Okay, that still doesn't imply that he never was an angel before he incarnated.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. Hebrews 2:17-18

So yeah, you have not shown that Yashua was not an angel before incarnation, as even Justin Martyr said he was.

Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. Hebrews 3:1-6

Your quote only backs my point and doesn't bolster yours.

When reading verse 16 in context of the entire book of Hebrews, not to mention the entire Bible, it is clear that the Son of God is not an angel. Hebrews Chapter one shows the sharp contrast between the Son and angels, as the recorded words of the Father God speaking to His Son reveal.

Ummm no, reading it in context in no way shape or form gets it to say Jesus was not an angel. Whatsoever. A perfect example of the type of "Context" Trinitarians see. Justin Martyr would definitely object to your "context". I challenge anyone else to show how those verses demonstrate that Jesus was not the highest of the angels somehow.

For to which of the angels did He ever say:

“ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

That doesn't mean he wasn't an angel. That means no other angel had this privelege.

And again:

“ I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?

Same thing.

But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says:

“ Let all the angels of God worship Him.”

All it means is that he was the highest of the angels, as Justin Martyr said, as Philo implied in his Logos Theology.

And of the angels He says:

“ Who makes His angels spirits
And His ministers a flame of fire.”

How does that verse possibly mean anything in your point?

But to the Son He says:

“ Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness more than Your companions."
And:

For about the 10th time on this thread, the verse actually says "G-d is thy throne", it's a quote from Psalms, and there is no Vocative case in Hebrew. Even CARM admits that this interpretation is "possible", though they say it "makes no sense" as their defense. Of course, if G-d is one's fortress or rock, that's fine, but if He's one's throne, it doesn't for some reason. Though the interpretation is common and mainstream, it really makes no sense in the actual Hebrew and involves deliberate (and probably deliberately dishonest) distortion of the actual Grammar. "G-d is thy throne" is what it should say, and 'Thy Throne, O G-d" does not work because HEBREW HAS NO VOCATIVE. It's a quote from Psalms, which is in Hebrew. Thus, no vocative.

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”

That verse is irrelevant.

But to which of the angels has He ever said:

That doesn't mean he wasn't among them. It means Jesus was higher than them all. Again, Justin Martyr would agree with me here.So would Philo.

“ Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

This verse proves that they are separate beings.

But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Hebrews 9:11

Do you know what this verse actually means?

Jesus life has infinite value to pay for all sins and fulfill the position of High Priest, as opposed to any created thing, because He is not of creation, He is the eternal Son, the Creator who laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of His hands. He is fully God.

The Logos was the "Firstborn among Creation", if you don't understand (or accept) Philo's Logos Theology, and if you don't accept Wisdom of Solomon's Theology (Canonical for most of Christian history and was in the Dead Sea Scrolls) then you cannot understand how the Logos was the Co-Creator of the current creation, and the First created Angel apart from "This creation" but still created.

 

[InChrist]

A third party cannot possibly be himself. Thus you prove that Jesus is a completely separate being, not just "person" (in whatever vague definition of "person" you may have).



So he's the intermediator between himself and humanity. The teaching of scripture does not say he's the Father or G-d himself. But "a god". A different being.

Once again, 2 Cor 5:18-20 does not say that G-d himself was the soul within Christ's body. Here are better ways of saying what it's saying: Do you see that part "through"? Do you understand what "Through" means? Many don't it seems.
NIV






Even these Trinitarian versions don't back the way you're seeing it. It's not at all a Trinitarian verse. G-d was "in Christ", it does not mean "G-d was Christ himself".






Ok, so this is completely your own interpretation then.



Yes, but comparing the situation to the wages of sin is nothing close. Can you find any website that backs this interpretation?



Also? It was ALREADY applicable for people.




Ummmm...how? How is that even a close comparison? Completely different contexts.




If you're going to use this comparison, perhaps you should be aware that G-d smited the Israelites who didn't obey the Law of Moses.




Okay, that still doesn't imply that he never was an angel before he incarnated.



So yeah, you have not shown that Yashua was not an angel before incarnation, as even Justin Martyr said he was.



Your quote only backs my point and doesn't bolster yours.




Ummm no, reading it in context in no way shape or form gets it to say Jesus was not an angel. Whatsoever. A perfect example of the type of "Context" Trinitarians see. Justin Martyr would definitely object to your "context". I challenge anyone else to show how those verses demonstrate that Jesus was not the highest of the angels somehow.


That doesn't mean he wasn't an angel. That means no other angel had this privelege.



Same thing.

All it means is that he was the highest of the angels, as Justin Martyr said, as Philo implied in his Logos Theology.



How does that verse possibly mean anything in your point?
For about the 10th time on this thread, the verse actually says "G-d is thy throne", it's a quote from Psalms, and there is no Vocative case in Hebrew. Even CARM admits that this interpretation is "possible", though they say it "makes no sense" as their defense. Of course, if G-d is one's fortress or rock, that's fine, but if He's one's throne, it doesn't for some reason. Though the interpretation is common and mainstream, it really makes no sense in the actual Hebrew and involves deliberate (and probably deliberately dishonest) distortion of the actual Grammar. "G-d is thy throne" is what it should say, and 'Thy Throne, O G-d" does not work because HEBREW HAS NO VOCATIVE. It's a quote from Psalms, which is in Hebrew. Thus, no vocative.



That verse is irrelevant.

That doesn't mean he wasn't among them. It means Jesus was higher than them all. Again, Justin Martyr would agree with me here.So would Philo.This verse proves that they are separate beings.




Do you know what this verse actually means?


The Logos was the "Firstborn among Creation", if you don't understand (or accept) Philo's Logos Theology, and if you don't accept Wisdom of Solomon's Theology (Canonical for most of Christian history and was in the Dead Sea Scrolls) then you cannot understand how the Logos was the Co-Creator of the current creation, and the First created Angel apart from "This creation" but still created.

I don't have time to address all the points you have made right now as my day is very busy, but I hope to get back to you soon. In the meantime, I hope you have a good day and you are in my prayers.

 

[InChrist]

A third party cannot possibly be himself. Thus you prove that Jesus is a completely separate being, not just "person" (in whatever vague definition of "person" you may have).

‘For with God nothing will be impossible.” (Luke 1:37) The Son of God in the Person of Jesus Christ is unique, as fully God and fully human, so this makes it possible for Him to be a third party, acting as Mediator between God and humanity. In His humanity He is a separate human being from God and in His deity He is a separate God Being from humans.
I think it is important to differentiate between the terms being and person. When I say person, I mean personal (personality) as opposed to impersonal. When I say being, I mean the state or form in which the person has its existence. The scriptures teach that all things have being, but only God, humans, and angels are personal. It is our being that makes us human, but our personality differentiates you and me from all other humans. When we think of human persons we think of human beings in separate physical terms, but the scriptures point out that God is Spirit and eternal. I am a finite, physical being meaning that only one person can subsist in my being and that is me. But God’s being is infinite and non-physical and according to the scriptures it is revealed that three Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit all share the same qualities and attributes and compose the Being of God.

So he's the intermediator between himself and humanity. The teaching of scripture does not say he's the Father or G-d himself. But "a god". A different being.

Yes, God the Son who became man in the Person of Jesus Christ is the mediator.
You are correct the teaching of scripture does not say the Son is the Father, but the scripturestotally deny any kind of small, different god, unless it is referring to false gods or those who are not really the Creator God or who do not possess the abilities and attributes that only the Creator does. You already know I believe the scriptures reveal God in three Persons. The Son has all the same attributes, abilities, and characteristics which make Him God as His Father. The scriptures portray the Being of God as infinite and omniscient and these same attributes are applied equally to the Son.

Once again, 2 Cor 5:18-20 does not say that G-d himself was the soul within Christ's body. Here are better ways of saying what it's saying: Do you see that part "through"? Do you understand what "Through" means? Many don't it seems.
NIV

Yes, I see the word through and then it goes on to give even more clarification of how reconciliation was done through Christ by saying God was in Christ. The other versions you quoted don’t detract at all from this truth that God was dwelling in Christ, especially when read in context of all the other scriptures and testimony which affirm the deity of Christ.
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19
For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (NKJ)Colossians 2:9
For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (NASB)
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (NIV)
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (ESV)
If God was dwelling in Christ as the scriptures clearly indicate then It seems to me the plain meaning is that Christ is God.

Ok, so this is completely your own interpretation then.



Yes, but comparing the situation to the wages of sin is nothing close. Can you find any website that backs this interpretation?



Also? It was ALREADY applicable for people.




Ummmm...how? How is that even a close comparison? Completely different contexts.

I'll try to find a website which explains this, but we have an out of town visitor for a few days and I may not get to it right away. In the scriptures physical examples often are used to give pictures of spiritual realities. Jesus Himself did this with the parables He told to teach spiritual truths. Slavery as the people experienced in Egypt is symbolic of the spiritual bondage people are under to sin.

If you're going to use this comparison, perhaps you should be aware that G-d smited the Israelites who didn't obey the Law of Moses.

I am certainly aware of that, but you are trying to change the subject.

Okay, that still doesn't imply that he never was an angel before he incarnated.



So yeah, you have not shown that Yashua was not an angel before incarnation, as even Justin Martyr said he was.

I go by the authority of scripture, not Justin Martyr.

Your quote only backs my point and doesn't bolster yours.

This verse shows, Hebrews 3:1-6 , that Christ is the builder of creation, in reference back to Hebrews 1:2 and10 and He is worthy of more glory than Moses because He the Son is over His own house which He built. Therefore He is God because it was God that built all things.

That doesn't mean he wasn't an angel. That means no other angel had this privelege.


Same thing.

For to which of the angels did He ever say;
“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

This is a rhetorical question and the answer is an obvious, “None, or to No angel did He ever say you are My Son.

All it means is that he was the highest of the angels, as Justin Martyr said, as Philo implied in his Logos Theology.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8
No it does not mean He was the highest angel because the scriptures are clear that angels are not to be worshiped. It means what is says, the Son is God and all the angels are to worship Him.
[FONT=&quot]"Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[/FONT]

How does that verse possibly mean anything in your point?

I just included it with the entire passage.

For about the 10th time on this thread, the verse actually says "G-d is thy throne", it's a quote from Psalms, and there is no Vocative case in Hebrew.

I don’t see any reason why this is not an accurate translation and this is the way it is translated in the major reputable.
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. Ps. 45:6
Psalm 45:6 Hebrew Texts and Analysis
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-your throne O God.htm

That verse is irrelevant.

It is very relevant in showing that the Son is the Creator.

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”

That doesn't mean he wasn't among them. It means Jesus was higher than them all. Again, Justin Martyr would agree with me here.So would Philo.This verse proves that they are separate beings.

No, only separate Persons.
Hebrews Chapter one clearly distinguishes the Son from the angels and shows His superiority over them as Lord and God.

It means He never said these things or spoke to any angel in the way He spoke to His eternal Son.



Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8

The Logos was the "Firstborn among Creation", if you don't understand (or accept) Philo's Logos Theology, and if you don't accept Wisdom of Solomon's Theology (Canonical for most of Christian history and was in the Dead Sea Scrolls) then you cannot understand how the Logos was the Co-Creator of the current creation, and the First created Angel apart from "This creation" but still created.

[/quote]
I don’t know exactly what you mean when you say the Wisdom of Solomon Theology. You can explain it to me, if you like. If firstborn among creation means that the Son was the first created thing or angel then I don’t accept Philo’s Logos Theology and categorize it as a false philosophy of man.

 

[Shermana]

‘For with God nothing will be impossible.” (Luke 1:37)

This verse does not mean that G-d can make a square triangle, or that he can be himself as a mediator of himself.

The Son of God in the Person of Jesus Christ is unique, as fully God.....

This only makes sense to a Trinitarian who thinks "nothing will be impossible" involves the possibility of square triangles. The Father cannot be the same being as the Son. Even the classical Trinity states this concept. What you are talking may be more or less Modalism, which appears to be the actual Theology of most "Trinitarians".

I think it is important to differentiate between the terms being and person

As I've mentioned several times, it appears that the word "person" is never truly articulated and is left up to vaguery, as you demonstrate:

. When I say person, I mean personal (personality) as opposed to impersonal. When I say being,

So yeah, vaguery without any real concrete explanation.

I mean the state or form in which the person has its existence.

More Vaguery.

The scriptures teach that all things have being,

Where?

but only God, humans, and angels are personal.

What's that supposed to be meaning exactly? What do you mean by 'personal"? So "person" and "personal" appear to be fancy words without concrete meaning here.

It is our being that makes us human, but our personality differentiates you and me from all other humans.

Still vague. In essence, you are confusing the word "person" with "Soul".

When we think of human persons we think of human beings in separate physical terms, but the scriptures point out that God is Spirit and eternal.

That's basically a non-sequitur. G-d being "spirit" and eternal doesn't change the issue.

I am a finite, physical being meaning that only one person can subsist in my being and that is me.....

I have heard this exact same "reasoning" before, it doesn't make any sense or form a cogent argument, all it is, is rehashing a vague and meaningless concept that turns G-d into a multi-souled, multi-personalitied skitzofrenic, using "Qualities and attributes" to substitute for "Soul" without realizing it.

Yes, God the Son who became man in the Person of Jesus Christ is the mediator.

Even if your definition of "person" means "Soul", you are saying that G-d himself has two souls. Basically, amounting to Polytheism.

You are correct the teaching of scripture does not say the Son is the Father, but the scripturestotally deny any kind of small, different god,

Nope. Sorry. Psalm 8:5, Elohim is translated as "angels". The scripture does in fact confirm the existence of beings known as "gods", even Paul says there are "indeed many gods", Psalm 136:2 calls the Most High god, the "god of the gods". This is not Polytheism, this is classical Israelite Henotheism. There is no god "before" the Most high, which means none more important, and none "after Him" which means none like Him. Most of the "Apocryphal" texts, including some of those mentioned in Chronincles like Ascension of Isaiah, clearly confirm the existence of beings called "gods".

unless it is referring to false gods or those who are not really the Creator God or who do not possess the abilities and attributes that only the Creator does.

Well then, you seem to understand the concept, those who are not really the "Creator G-d". As for "abilities and attributes", that's another story, what do you think those attributes are exactly?

You already know I believe the scriptures reveal God in three Persons.

Yes, and I believe that your interpretation is completely wrong.

The Son has all the same attributes, abilities, and characteristics which make Him God as His Father.

Where does it say he has the same attributes and abilities exactly?

The scriptures portray the Being of God as infinite and omniscient and these same attributes are applied equally to the Son.

Quote where exactly.

Yes, I see the word through and then it goes on to give even more clarification of how reconciliation was done through Christ by saying God was in Christ.

The grammar is stating that G-d was using Christ to accomplish this, not being Him directly.

The other versions you quoted don’t detract at all from this truth that God was dwelling in Christ, especially when read in context of all the other scriptures and testimony which affirm the deity of Christ.

There is no scripture in correct context that "affirms the deity of Christ" in the term of "deity" that you are using. The word "deity" itself is up to debate as well. The correct context of this verse is saying that Jesus was the tool that G-d used.

 

[Shermana]

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 2 Corinthians 5:18-19

Clearly that verse is saying that G-d used Christ as his tool to reconcile the world to Himself. Not being Christ. What do you think "In Christ" actually means? That he was Christ's soul?

For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (NKJ)Colossians 2:9

As I've pointed out many times, perhaps not on this thread though, the word "Godhead" means "godhood". What do you think it means?

For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form (NASB)
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (NIV)
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (ESV)
If God was dwelling in Christ as the scriptures clearly indicate then It seems to me the plain meaning is that Christ is God.

Again, the word "deity" is disputable. As the Logos was "a god", the Logos was A deity. It does not say that Christ was G-d, but "A" god. If you disagree, you'll have to prove that "deity" and "godhood" only mean "The most high god", and your presumption that there are no other gods mentioned in the scripture flies in the face of verses like Psalms 136:2 and 8:5.

I'll try to find a website which explains this, but we have an out of town visitor for a few days and I may not get to it right away. In the scriptures physical examples often are used to give pictures of spiritual realities. Jesus Himself did this with the parables He told to teach spiritual truths. Slavery as the people experienced in Egypt is symbolic of the spiritual bondage people are under to sin.

Not the same kind of slavery. The Egyptians had the Israelites under bondage whether they were righteously Torah obedient or not. Let me know when you find a site.

I am certainly aware of that, but you are trying to change the subject.

Not at all, I'm showing the difference. The Israelites were punished for their sins and G-d wiped them out for it, the Egyptians had them enslaved regardless.

I go by the authority of scripture, not Justin Martyr.

And Justin Martyr went by his interpretation of the authority of scripture, and we can use his testimony to demonstrate how pre-Tertullian "Christians' viewed the Theology.

This verse shows, Hebrews 3:1-6 , that Christ is the builder of creation, in reference back to Hebrews 1:2 and10 and He is worthy of more glory than Moses because He the Son is over His own house which He built. Therefore He is God because it was God that built all things.

If you throw out Wisdom of Solomon and Philo you could arrive at this interpretation, but Wisdom of Solomon, which should be considered Canonical, clearly states that the Logos was co-creator of Creation. If you don't Accept Wisdom of Solomon as Canonical, you'll have to explain why, other than the fact that the Protestant bible and Masoretic text throws it out, the Septuagints and Dead Sea SCrolls certainly showed that it was considered scripture.

For to which of the angels did He ever say;
“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

This is a rhetorical question and the answer is an obvious, “None, or to No angel did He ever say you are My Son.

Not at all, it is sayiing that no other angel was begotten. This is addressed in the Ascension of Isaiah, which is written about in 2 Chronicles 32:32.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8

This verse always gets used when someone wants to say that one's interpretation who disagrees with them is the "Tradition of men".

No it does not mean He was the highest angel because the scriptures are clear that angels are not to be worshiped. It means what is says, the Son is God and all the angels are to worship Him.
[FONT="]"Let all the angels of God worship Him.”[/FONT]

Angels are clearly worshiped. King David is worshiped. Do you know what "Worship" actually means? Most don't.

I just included it with the entire passage.

I don’t see any reason why this is not an accurate translation and this is the way it is translated in the major reputable.

Then you must have totally ignored what I said about Hebrew having no vocative. Want to examine the actual Greek?

Ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα [τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ·

The Throne of you is The God. When you take into consideration that there's no Vocative Case in Hebrew, there's no other way to interpret it. Let's see the Hebrew.

כִּסְאֲךָ֣ אֱ֭לֹהִים

Your Throne is God.

No Vocative.

It's quite common for people to confuse the article with the Vocative, they usually don't know that "O' means "The" to begin with. Can you show any clear cut use of the definite Vocative?

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. Ps. 45:6
Psalm 45:6 Hebrew Texts and Analysis
http://www.ichthys.com/mail-your throne O God.htm

As I showed, it is "Your Throne is G-d". NO VOCATIVE. None.

It is very relevant in showing that the Son is the Creator.

No it isn't. If you don't accept Wisdom of Solomon as Canonical perhaps, but that text clearly shows the Logos/Wisdom as Co-Creator.

“ You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”

Notice how it says "He also says". Why does he say "He also says"? Because he's no longer talking "About the Son". And who is saying this to begin with? David. So in 1:8, it's about the Son, and in 1:10, it's about the Father. Simple.

No, only separate Persons.
Hebrews Chapter one clearly distinguishes the Son from the angels and shows His superiority over them as Lord and God.

It distinguishes the Son from the REST of the Angels, and shows his superiority over them, as demonstrated in Ascension of Isaiah, which was canonical to the author of 2 Chronicles 32:32.

It means He never said these things or spoke to any angel in the way He spoke to His eternal Son.

Exactly. The Son is the Highest, most Special of the angels, that none other of them had the privelege. This was probably the common mentality around Justin Martyr's time.

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Colossians 2:8

You can't just use that anytime anyone uses an example of Church Father or early Canonical writings to discredit the evidence. Likewise, I could use this same passage about Trinitarian interpretations like yours.

I don’t know exactly what you mean when you say the Wisdom of Solomon Theology.

. You can explain it to me, if you like.

Probably because you haven't read Wisdom of Solomon, which was Canonical to Christiandom for 1500 years before the Protestants decided to do away with it. It states the Logos/Wisdom was the first created soul and co-creator of the rest of existence.

If firstborn among creation means that the Son was the first created thing or angel then I don’t accept Philo’s Logos Theology and categorize it as a false philosophy of man

I categorize Trinitarianism and Modalism (the more common version of "Trinitarian" logic) as false philosophy of man, but if you take out Philo's Logos Theology, you are ignoring the very historical context of John's intended audience. And it's pretty much the same concept as in Wisdom of Solomon.

 

[Daviso452]

Holy **** guys. Save it for PM's. Or take out the spaces. Jesus.

 

[Shermana]

Holy **** guys. Save it for PM's. Or take out the spaces. Jesus.

Save debate for PMs?

 

[Daviso452]

No, long-*** posts directed at a single person.

 

[Shermana]

No, long-*** posts directed at a single person.

Oh, so I shouldn't address all their points on the forum if it becomes too long of a post? You should petition for a rule: "If too many points are being made, it should not be addressed on the forum but via PMS", see if it flies.

So do you have anything to say on the OP, or are you just here to state that I shouldn't address all of a person's points on the forum if it gets too long?

 

[Daviso452]

I just want to petition for the size of the post, and the number you can make in a row on a single thread.

 

[Shermana]

I just want to petition for the size of the post, and the number you can make in a row on a single thread.

Go to the "Site Feedback" and let them know your thoughts.

 

[Daviso452]

Roflmao.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I just want to petition for the size of the post, and the number you can make in a row on a single thread.

But if you ignored this thread altogether than it wouldn't really bother now would it....

 

[Daviso452]

The post was originally meant to be funny. Then it got serious and boring.

 

[Protester]

When I was a Christian I was entranced by the miracles(magic tricks) as it played to my deposition of liking magic shows. But everyone knows when you have knowledge of the secrets it is not as entertaining. In my studies of Spinoza I have to concur that nothing is above Nature(God) there for anything that appears to be supernatural it must have a natural and rational explanation. Just because we don't have knowledge of that natural explanation does not mean we should ascribe Divinity to it.

Apparently you support the idea of solipsism - definition of solipsism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Considering that, "magic" is condemned in the Bible, I have very little liking for magic shows.

Genesis 41
8 It happened in the morning that his spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all of Egypt’s magicians and wise men. Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh.
Acts 13
. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn aside the proconsul from the faith. 9 But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fastened his eyes on him, 10 and said, “Full of all deceit and all cunning, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11 Now, behold, the hand of the Lord is on you, and you will be blind, not seeing the sun for a season!”

Immediately a mist and darkness fell on him. He went around seeking someone to lead him by the hand.--Hebrew Names Version

Jamison, Fawsett, and Brown Commentary
Genesis 41:8:

8. he called for all the magicians of Egypt—It is not possible to define the exact distinction between "magicians" and "wise men"; but they formed different branches of a numerous body, who laid claim to supernatural skill in occult arts and sciences, in revealing mysteries, explaining portents, and, above all, interpreting dreams. Long practice had rendered them expert in devising a plausible way of getting out of every difficulty and framing an answer suitable to the occasion. But the dreams of Pharaoh baffled their united skill. Unlike their Assyrian brethren (Da 2:4), they did not pretend to know the meaning of the symbols contained in them, and the providence of God had determined that they should all be nonplussed in the exercise of their boasted powers, in order that the inspired wisdom of Joseph might appear the more remarkable.

Acts 13:10:

10. full of all subtlety—referring to his magic arts.
and all malice—The word signifies "readiness for anything," knavish dexterity.
thou child of the devil . . . enemy of all righteousness—These were not words of passion, for immediately before uttering them, it is said he was "filled with the Holy Ghost" [CHRYSOSTOM].
wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord—referring to his having to that hour made a trade of leading his fellow creatures astray.