Jesus Is Jehovah/Jehovah Is Jesus (page 16)

Essan

Podo, thanks for replying.

However, you are presenting me again with your own reasoning rather than a Scriptural position for rejecting the very Scriptural idea that the spirit would teach and give knowledge, and that some of this personal revelation could well relate the the nature of God. You're also jumping straight to a rejection of the Trinity rather than sticking to the points under discussion. In short, you just seem to be avoiding discussing the points I made and restating that you reject the Trinity. If I cut out your own rather bizarre, loaded and often unfounded hypotheticals in your reply involving dudes on 'chaise longues', Galatians supposedly awaiting the Messiah (?) etc, then there isn't really anything Scriptural to account for your rejection of the Scriptures I cited. I'd hoped for a bit more of a discussion than that.

godrulz

The context of Gal. 1 is false Judaizers (soteriological), not a Christological/doctrine of God issue (though that is applicable also in principle). Paul develops a trinitarian/Deity of Christ view elsewhere.

Essan

PS.

Podobear said: "The overwhelming share of the Scriptures speak of Almighty God and the "Sent forth one" as separate beings."

But that's the point, they don't speak of them as separate beings. Or can you show me the Scripture which explicitly says "They are separate beings"?

No? How come? You want that explicitness when it comes to the idea of God and Jesus being One, so how come you aren't consistent?

What they do is use metaphorical language and limited analogies regarding function which you interpret as literal, then you can't tell when you are interpreting and when you are not. So, for you, "The Scriptures speak of [them]....as separate beings", but that is simply your interpretation. Other interpretations are possible, and, as far as the vast majority of Christians are concerned, are more likely. Now, you don't have to believe as they do, but I think you should at least be more honest with yourself about what is explicitly said an what is your interpretation, and allow for other possibilities.

Essan

I agree Godrulz, it's a bit rich to invoke Paul and his references to "another Gospel" as if this would disqualify the idea of Jesus being God when a great deal of the Scriptural evidence for Jesus being God comes from the writings of Paul himself. It's hardly what Paul would call "another gospel" if it's what he himself taught.

In short, you can't invoke Galatians 1:8 until you can absolutely establish that it's writer, Paul, never suggested that Jesus was God. This you can't do, because Paul more than 'hinted' at this.

Podobear

PSacramento

Here is a view:

Jesus as God

EntirelyPossible

I am slightly hungover and posting this from 36000 feet while sipping a whisky. Who's your god now, kids?

still thinking

marking, thanks

tec

I agree Godrulz, it's a bit rich to invoke Paul and his references to "another Gospel" as if this would disqualify the idea of Jesus being God when a great deal of the Scriptural evidence for Jesus being God comes from the writings of Paul himself. It's hardly what Paul would call "another gospel" if it's what he himself taught.

Ekcept for this one:

1Corinthians 15: 27,28

For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Note that Paul does not say the Father (or God the Father), but rather God, himself.

(didn't really want to get into this on your thread, Syl... we both follow and love Christ, and we both know that is what matters... love and peace to you)

Peace,

Tammy

Essan

So, Tec, that has to be understood in the context of all the other things Paul says about Jesus, rather than taken in isolation. I'm not aware of that passage causing any particular problems for trinitarians, because they have no problem with Christ being functionally submissive.

Also, the version you are using has 'God' twice, and it's this first 'God' you appear to be drawing attention to, highlighting it:

"it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. "

Then you say:

"Note that Paul does not say the Father (or God the Father), but rather God, himself"

But does Paul say this? The "God" you highlight does not appear in the greek interlinear.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1co15.pdf

Jesus Is Jehovah/Jehovah Is Jesus

Share this