Byblos wrote:The discussion of John 1:1 stopped when you stated that you understood the Word differently than we do. No point in continuing.
The problem here was that I presented Biblical evidence for my understanding of the Word, whereas you didn't present any evidence for yours.
And I can honestly tell you that the eternal Word became flesh and resulted in Jesus the man and Jesus the Word.
I'm sure you think so, very sincerely. This does not mean it is correct.
Yes, he was a man. But he did have another side which you consistently miss and which the apostles and everyone around them clearly understood.
If 'the apostles and everyone around them' did indeed 'clearly understand' this 'other side', then why is it not found in the preaching of the apostles
? Where is it taught? Where is it articulated? Why is it not stated? Why is it that even Daniel Wallace acknowledges that there are only half a dozen
passages in the New Testament which can be advanced as explicitly referring to Jesus as God?
Fortigurn wrote:The phrase 'son of man' simply means 'a human being'. The phrase 'son of God' means 'caused to come into being by God'. We can see this from the fact that the only other person to be called 'son of God' is Adam, who was also a created being. The phrase 'son of God' does not mean 'God', any more than the phrase 'son of Byblos' means 'Byblos'.
Wrong. Son of 'Byblos' refers to a person. Son of man refers to a man in general. When someone was called the son of man, everyone understood to mean a human.
You say 'wrong', but what you have said here agrees with me.
When Jesus was called both the son of man as well as the son of God, there is no mistaking the distinction. It was undersood that Jesus was both man and God.
Could you please prove this to me? Jesus himself answered the accusation that he was calling himself God by saying that he was calling himself the son
of God, and quoted a passage of Scripture in which God referred to mortal men
as His sons. It is clear that he did not use the expression with the sense 'I am God'.
No one thought of Adam as God. He was referred to as the son of God in the literal sense as he was the first human made in the image of God.
I agree. The onus is on you to demonstrate that people thought that this phrase meant Jesus was God, but not Adam.
Jesus was not merely made in the image of God, he is (I AM).
Jesus never claimed to be 'I AM'.
You love saying that, don't you? Even though we've presented you with OT evidence but yet again, you just dismiss it. Who's not reading whose posts? You should heed your own advice every once in a while. Old and tiring.
The problem is, the only Old Testament 'evidence' you've provided is contradicted by standard trinitarian scholarship.
I didn't say you invented it.
Of course you didnt. You couldn't say anything about it until I wrote it. I was simply pre-empting the usual response.
Now you've graduated to answering your own jibberish.
No, I was simply pre-empting the usual response. You've accused me before of 'inventing' arguments which are in fact standard trinitarian arguments. This is a result of you not being well informed on this subject.
What I am saying is that I interpret it to mean exactly as John 1:1 is to be interpreted, not as the Arians saw it. So please do not tell me if I see it that way then I'm supporting an Arian view point, I'm not and you know it. I am merely disagreeing with you.
Well you're the one saying that God created through
Christ. That's what the Arians believed, and that's what you say you believe. If you don't believe it, why did you say it?
I do believe it but my belief does NOT
translate to Jesus and God are separate beings. You are the one making the leap. Please stop doing that.
Firstly, I didn't claim that you believe Jesus and God are separate beings. Secondly, I have demonstrated that grammatically and logically, if X is the agent of Y, then X is not Y. If Byblos is the agent of General Motors, then Byblos is not General Motors. If Christ is the agent of God, then Christ is not God.
The problem for you is that in this passage God and Christ are distinguished as separate entities. In order to be supportive of the trinity, the text would need to say that God the Father
created all things through God the son
. But it doesn't say that. In this passage, as in many others, 'God' is in one category, and 'Christ' is in another category.
The way this verse is phrased, it makes no sense from a trinitarian point of view. To the trinitarian, the word 'God' means 'Father, son and Holy Spirit', but this is clearly not a possible interpretation of this passage ('The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit created all things through Jesus' doesn't make sense).
But if we interpret the verse as 'The Father created all things through Jesus', then it only gets worse for the trinitarian, because this defines 'God' as one person - the Father (which is, of course, how Scripture defines God).
This is precisely why the Arians seized on this passage, and precisely why trinitarians either left it alone, or interpreted it in a manner which did not refer to the literal creation.
Fortigurn wrote:The problem is that you don't read what I write. I have no problem confessing Christ as KURIOS and THEOS in the sense of adonai and elohim, which would have been the words Thomas used. That is not idolatry, as I have shown previously.
Except Thomas and all the other apostles believed Jesus was of human as well as of divine natures.
You need to actually prove this. I find it incredible that you are claiming a man like Thomas - who didn't even believe that Jesus had risen from the dead - was in a single moment converted wholly to a doctrine which wasn't even defined until the 4th century.
Are you seriously telling me that a man who believed Jesus was so utterly mortal that he hadn't even come back from the dead, made a split second conversion to the trinity?
You don't and that makes you an idolator for calling him your Lord and God.
I am not an idolator for referring to him as my KURIOS and my THEOS, my adonai and my elohim.