Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:24 pm
Good one, PL!puritan lad wrote:Don,
Here is one reason.
"I, I am the LORD (Jehovah), and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)
Evidence for God from Science
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Bart's Invitation
Page 6 of 9
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:46 pm
FFC wrote:puritan lad wrote:Don,
Here is one reason.
"I, I am the LORD (Jehovah), and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)
Good one, PL!
That's the ticket, Don. If Jesus is a savior and he is not God, you've effectively declared God a liar. It's as simple as that. No man, however sinless, is able to redeem us because God promised that he would redeem us himself. That's the difference between Jesus and Adam, Don. Adam, with all his perfection and sinlessness, still sank us all into sin. This was the lesson we are to learn is that no one is perfect for we all fell short of the glory of God, including Adam the perfectly created man. If Jesus were like Adam then we can all become like Adam and exercise our free will albeit not to sin. If we had this measure in us, what do we need a savior for? We could effectively save ourselves by willing ourselves not to sin. God knows us better than we know ourselves Don. He knows we are incapable of following the law not matter how much we try, and we are incapable of saving ourselves; thank God for his mercy. He is the savior because he said so. He came down and became man to show us what perfection is and that we could never achieve it on our own. Either Jesus is God or we're still lost in sin.
In Christ,
John.
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:52 pm
Go ahead, Byblos! Not bad for a Catholic.Byblos wrote:FFC wrote:puritan lad wrote:Don,
Here is one reason.
"I, I am the LORD (Jehovah), and besides me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)
Good one, PL!
That's the ticket, Don. If Jesus is a savior and he is not God, you've effectively declared God a liar. It's as simple as that. No man, however sinless, is able to redeem us because God promised that he would redeem us himself. That's the difference between Jesus and Adam, Don. Adam, with all his perfection and sinlessness, still sank us all into sin. This was the lesson we are to learn is that no one is perfect for we all fell short of the glory of God, including Adam the perfectly created man. If Jesus were like Adam then we can all become like Adam and exercise our free will albeit not to sin. If we had this measure in us, what do we need a savior for? We could effectively save ourselves by willing ourselves not to sin. God knows us better than we know ourselves Don. He knows we are incapable of following the law not matter how much we try, and we are incapable of saving ourselves; thank God for his mercy. He is the savior because he said so. He came down and became man to show us what perfection is and that we could never achieve it on our own. Either Jesus is God or we're still lost in sin.
In Christ,
John.
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:34 pm
Hi Turgonian and Puritan Lad, & FCC, etc. RE: (Isaiah 43:11)
First: Turgonian You correctly pointed out..
Don, you didn't quote I Cor. 8:6 completely. It says, 'Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.'
That's true. But did you notice my little P.S. at the end where I acknowledged that although Paul did mention Jesus, he omitted him in his definition of who our "one God" is.
I also didn't quote the part of verse 5 where Paul said not only were there "many gods," but there are also "many lords."
You then asked...
Now, am I to understand that God the Father is not my Lord?
It's Paul who said that "there is one Lord, Jesus Christ" not me. That would be a good question to ask Paul. But the way I understand him is that we should think of the Father as our God, and his Son as our Lord.
In that list you gave me, let me pick out one of them that I have previously examined. It has to do with Isaiah 43:11 (Puritan Lad)
YHVH is the only Saviour (Isa. 43:11, 45:21), and so is Jesus (Acts 4:12).
The point I think you are making here is that since YHWH is "the only Saviour" and since Jesus is our Saviour that therefore Jesus is YHWH.
When I studied this many years ago I discovered that there have been many saviours that YHWH has provided to save his people at various times In the past. Nehemiah 9:27 says this...
"You yourself (YHWH) would hear from the very heavens; and in accord with your abundant mercy you would give them saviours who would save them out of the hand of their adversaries."
One example of HYWH doing this is mentioned at Judges 3:15...
"And the sons of Israel began to call to YHWH for aid. So YHWH raised up for them a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a left-handed man."
It seems evident that the fact that since YHWH said he is the only saviour and then this man was the saviour at that time, it doesn't mean therefore that that left-handed man was YHWH.
Moses was another example of a saviour that YHWH provided for his people when it was time for them to leave Egypt.
And of course at this time YHWH has provided Jesus as the saviour...
From the offspring of David according to his promise God has brought to Israel a saviour, Jesus. - Acts 13:23
And so, what's the answer? How can YHWH say, "Besides me there is no saviour" and yet there have been many saviours? The answer for me is that YHWH is the only source of salvation. But he has provided different means of salvation as they were needed. The means of salvation He has provided at this time is Jesus Christ.
Does that make sense to anyone - besides me?
Don
P.S. More about your List later.
First: Turgonian You correctly pointed out..
Don, you didn't quote I Cor. 8:6 completely. It says, 'Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.'
That's true. But did you notice my little P.S. at the end where I acknowledged that although Paul did mention Jesus, he omitted him in his definition of who our "one God" is.
I also didn't quote the part of verse 5 where Paul said not only were there "many gods," but there are also "many lords."
You then asked...
Now, am I to understand that God the Father is not my Lord?
It's Paul who said that "there is one Lord, Jesus Christ" not me. That would be a good question to ask Paul. But the way I understand him is that we should think of the Father as our God, and his Son as our Lord.
In that list you gave me, let me pick out one of them that I have previously examined. It has to do with Isaiah 43:11 (Puritan Lad)
YHVH is the only Saviour (Isa. 43:11, 45:21), and so is Jesus (Acts 4:12).
The point I think you are making here is that since YHWH is "the only Saviour" and since Jesus is our Saviour that therefore Jesus is YHWH.
When I studied this many years ago I discovered that there have been many saviours that YHWH has provided to save his people at various times In the past. Nehemiah 9:27 says this...
"You yourself (YHWH) would hear from the very heavens; and in accord with your abundant mercy you would give them saviours who would save them out of the hand of their adversaries."
One example of HYWH doing this is mentioned at Judges 3:15...
"And the sons of Israel began to call to YHWH for aid. So YHWH raised up for them a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a left-handed man."
It seems evident that the fact that since YHWH said he is the only saviour and then this man was the saviour at that time, it doesn't mean therefore that that left-handed man was YHWH.
Moses was another example of a saviour that YHWH provided for his people when it was time for them to leave Egypt.
And of course at this time YHWH has provided Jesus as the saviour...
From the offspring of David according to his promise God has brought to Israel a saviour, Jesus. - Acts 13:23
And so, what's the answer? How can YHWH say, "Besides me there is no saviour" and yet there have been many saviours? The answer for me is that YHWH is the only source of salvation. But he has provided different means of salvation as they were needed. The means of salvation He has provided at this time is Jesus Christ.
Does that make sense to anyone - besides me?
Don
P.S. More about your List later.
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:33 pm
Don, there is a difference between someone who rescues someone from physical conflict and someone who rescues someone from spiritual conflict. Only God can save us from our sins and make us right with God...just as Jesus did. Jesus wasn't just a tool of God. He took away the sins of the world (those He called and chose), He sought and saved those which were lost, there is salvation in no other name period. Belief in Him is what gives us everlasting life. You seem to want to whittle him down to a heavenly messenger boy and that is wrong. Jesus is not a means of salvation, He is the way, the truth, and the (everlasting) life. To say He is just another saviour in a long line of saviors is not only an insult to Him but to God as a whole...who He happens to be.YHVH is the only Saviour (Isa. 43:11, 45:21), and so is Jesus (Acts 4:12).
The point I think you are making here is that since YHWH is "the only Saviour" and since Jesus is our Saviour that therefore Jesus is YHWH.
When I studied this many years ago I discovered that there have been many saviours that YHWH has provided to save his people at various times In the past. Nehemiah 9:27 says this...
"You yourself (YHWH) would hear from the very heavens; and in accord with your abundant mercy you would give them saviours who would save them out of the hand of their adversaries."
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:23 pm
FFC,
I saw your letter after I sent in my understanding of Isaiah 43:11.
You said...
If Jesus is a savior and he is not God, you've effectively declared God a liar. It's as simple as that.
Wow! I sure don't want to be guilty of calling God a liar!
You then said...
No man, however sinless, is able to redeem us because God promised that he would redeem us himself.
That makes me think of 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 where Paul explained...
"Since death is through a man (Adam) , resurrection of the dead is also through a man (Jesus)."
That sure looks to me that "a man" was able to redeem us. And I notice that Paul didn't say, "resurrection of the dead is through God. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in God all will be made alive."
You said...
"Either Jesus is God or we're still lost in sin."
That reminds me of something similar that Paul said in the above letter...
"If Christ has not been raised from the dead you are yet in your sins."
Whereas you said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus wasn't God, Paul said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus has not been resurrected from the dead. That may not prove anything, but I think it is interesting.
My simplistic way of reasoning is that since the once perfect man Adam's sin is what caused all of his descendants to inherit sin and therefore death, the sacrifice of a sinless, perfect man was what was needed to perfectly balance what the man Adam lost. If Jesus was Almighty God that would have made his life much more valuable then then Adam's life.
Don
See you people tomorrow.
I saw your letter after I sent in my understanding of Isaiah 43:11.
You said...
If Jesus is a savior and he is not God, you've effectively declared God a liar. It's as simple as that.
Wow! I sure don't want to be guilty of calling God a liar!
You then said...
No man, however sinless, is able to redeem us because God promised that he would redeem us himself.
That makes me think of 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 where Paul explained...
"Since death is through a man (Adam) , resurrection of the dead is also through a man (Jesus)."
That sure looks to me that "a man" was able to redeem us. And I notice that Paul didn't say, "resurrection of the dead is through God. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in God all will be made alive."
You said...
"Either Jesus is God or we're still lost in sin."
That reminds me of something similar that Paul said in the above letter...
"If Christ has not been raised from the dead you are yet in your sins."
Whereas you said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus wasn't God, Paul said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus has not been resurrected from the dead. That may not prove anything, but I think it is interesting.
My simplistic way of reasoning is that since the once perfect man Adam's sin is what caused all of his descendants to inherit sin and therefore death, the sacrifice of a sinless, perfect man was what was needed to perfectly balance what the man Adam lost. If Jesus was Almighty God that would have made his life much more valuable then then Adam's life.
Don
See you people tomorrow.
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:36 pm
DonCameron wrote:Hi Turgonian and Puritan Lad, & FCC, etc. RE: (Isaiah 43:11)
First: Turgonian You correctly pointed out..
Don, you didn't quote I Cor. 8:6 completely. It says, 'Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.'
That's true. But did you notice my little P.S. at the end where I acknowledged that although Paul did mention Jesus, he omitted him in his definition of who our "one God" is.
I also didn't quote the part of verse 5 where Paul said not only were there "many gods," but there are also "many lords."
You then asked...
Now, am I to understand that God the Father is not my Lord?
It's Paul who said that "there is one Lord, Jesus Christ" not me. That would be a good question to ask Paul. But the way I understand him is that we should think of the Father as our God, and his Son as our Lord.
In that list you gave me, let me pick out one of them that I have previously examined. It has to do with Isaiah 43:11 (Puritan Lad)
YHVH is the only Saviour (Isa. 43:11, 45:21), and so is Jesus (Acts 4:12).
The point I think you are making here is that since YHWH is "the only Saviour" and since Jesus is our Saviour that therefore Jesus is YHWH.
When I studied this many years ago I discovered that there have been many saviours that YHWH has provided to save his people at various times In the past. Nehemiah 9:27 says this...
"You yourself (YHWH) would hear from the very heavens; and in accord with your abundant mercy you would give them saviours who would save them out of the hand of their adversaries."
One example of HYWH doing this is mentioned at Judges 3:15...
"And the sons of Israel began to call to YHWH for aid. So YHWH raised up for them a saviour, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a left-handed man."
It seems evident that the fact that since YHWH said he is the only saviour and then this man was the saviour at that time, it doesn't mean therefore that that left-handed man was YHWH.
Moses was another example of a saviour that YHWH provided for his people when it was time for them to leave Egypt.
And of course at this time YHWH has provided Jesus as the saviour...
From the offspring of David according to his promise God has brought to Israel a saviour, Jesus. - Acts 13:23
And so, what's the answer? How can YHWH say, "Besides me there is no saviour" and yet there have been many saviours? The answer for me is that YHWH is the only source of salvation. But he has provided different means of salvation as they were needed. The means of salvation He has provided at this time is Jesus Christ.
Does that make sense to anyone - besides me?
Don
P.S. More about your List later.
Those are rhetorical questions but nonetheless, ask yourself this question Don, of all the appointed saviours you listed above (other than Jesus), how many of them redeemed humanity for all eternity? The answer is none. Then ask yourself this question, who is the only saviour capable of redeeming humanity eternally? The answer is God. That is the truth revealed by scripture and understood by the early church on until today. It's the only conclusion that doesn't make God a liar and at the same time doesn't elevate man to a god-like status, capable of redeeming himself.
Edit: Note by the way that most translations other than the KJV do not say saviour where you indicate it says that. They actually say deliverer to deliver them from their enemies. A far cry from a saviour as in redeemer, a role only attributed to God (and Jesus).
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:40 pm
You have the answers, Don, I'll give you that. I have one more question though. Who exactly did Christ die for? And please be specific.DonCameron wrote:FFC,
I saw your letter after I sent in my understanding of Isaiah 43:11.
You said...
If Jesus is a savior and he is not God, you've effectively declared God a liar. It's as simple as that.
Wow! I sure don't want to be guilty of calling God a liar!
You then said...
No man, however sinless, is able to redeem us because God promised that he would redeem us himself.
That makes me think of 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 where Paul explained...
"Since death is through a man (Adam) , resurrection of the dead is also through a man (Jesus)."
That sure looks to me that "a man" was able to redeem us. And I notice that Paul didn't say, "resurrection of the dead is through God. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in God all will be made alive."
You said...
"Either Jesus is God or we're still lost in sin."
That reminds me of something similar that Paul said in the above letter...
"If Christ has not been raised from the dead you are yet in your sins."
Whereas you said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus wasn't God, Paul said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus has not been resurrected from the dead. That may not prove anything, but I think it is interesting.
My simplistic way of reasoning is that since the once perfect man Adam's sin is what caused all of his descendants to inherit sin and therefore death, the sacrifice of a sinless, perfect man was what was needed to perfectly balance what the man Adam lost. If Jesus was Almighty God that would have made his life much more valuable then then Adam's life.
Don
See you people tomorrow.
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:02 pm
I can't hear the tone of your voice here...so I don't know if you are surprised by Don's ability to provide answers or not...but I think we trinitarians tend to think ours is the only view that can a thinking man could hold. I often have to remind myself that there are many who don't agree with my view of God as a trinity....and of those many are much smarter than I, and of those many devote more time to reading the Bible than do I, and of those many have concluded that the Bible does not accord with a trinitarian view and have produced answers to the trinitarian interpretations. I still think that they are in error, but I have learned not to be surprised by reasoned answers from the other camp.FFC wrote: You have the answers, Don, I'll give you that.
....but then you have probably figured that out too.Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:40 pm
yes, what you have said makes sense to me...I don't agree with it, I don't think it is the way we should understand the passages, but your comments are not devoid of sense.DonCameron wrote:
Does that make sense to anyone - besides me?
I've looked at the "One Lord" etc passages earlier (on the old board) and if you would care to look at what I wrote, I wouldn't mind hearing your comments. My contribution can be found here: old dribble maybe start at the Jan 23 post
.....that post and the next two, discuss the passages that (for me) provide the foundation as to why I will distinguish between the way Jesus is called Lord, King, Savior, God etc and how other mere men may be called by those same or similar titles....and what significance I attribute to that distinction.
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:15 am
Hi FCC,
You asked...
Who exactly did Christ die for? And please be specific.
I understand that he died for all of Adam's descendants who eventually put faith in him as their Lord and Savioiur. I understand that the particular way Jesus died (on a Cross) was necessary in order for his sacrifice to include coverage for the Jews who were accursed for failing to keep the Law of Moses.
I don't think I can explain this very well. Perhaps others can express it better. Let me know how you would answer your question and I'll let you know what I think about it.
Don
You asked...
Who exactly did Christ die for? And please be specific.
I understand that he died for all of Adam's descendants who eventually put faith in him as their Lord and Savioiur. I understand that the particular way Jesus died (on a Cross) was necessary in order for his sacrifice to include coverage for the Jews who were accursed for failing to keep the Law of Moses.
I don't think I can explain this very well. Perhaps others can express it better. Let me know how you would answer your question and I'll let you know what I think about it.
Don
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:10 am
DonCameron wrote:FFC,
I saw your letter after I sent in my understanding of Isaiah 43:11.
It was actually me who said that but I think FFC will forgive you
. DonCameron wrote:You said...
If Jesus is a savior and he is not God, you've effectively declared God a liar. It's as simple as that.
Wow! I sure don't want to be guilty of calling God a liar!
You then said...
No man, however sinless, is able to redeem us because God promised that he would redeem us himself.
That makes me think of 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 where Paul explained...
"Since death is through a man (Adam) , resurrection of the dead is also through a man (Jesus)."
That sure looks to me that "a man" was able to redeem us. And I notice that Paul didn't say, "resurrection of the dead is through God. For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in God all will be made alive."
Yes he did say it was through God in
Time and again in scripture Jesus is described as both man and God. Yet you consider only the 'man' side, only one side of the coin. There's a whole other side you're missing Don.1 Cor 15:47 wrote:47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
DonCameron wrote:You said...
"Either Jesus is God or we're still lost in sin."
That reminds me of something similar that Paul said in the above letter...
"If Christ has not been raised from the dead you are yet in your sins."
Whereas you said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus wasn't God, Paul said we are still lost in our sins if Jesus has not been resurrected from the dead. That may not prove anything, but I think it is interesting.
It's also interesting that Paul makes a very big distinction between Adam and Jesus which you still fail to see. According to an earlier post of yours on Jesus and Adam
This says the only difference between Adam and Jesus is that Adam exercised his free will to sin and Jesus didn't. Paul in 1 Cor 15:47 makes the distinction that one came from the dust of the earth and the other from heaven.you wrote:I understand they were both created perfect and both had free will. The difference between them is that Adam used his free will to disobey God. Jesus used his to be obedient even to his death (thank goodness).
DonCameron wrote:My simplistic way of reasoning is that since the once perfect man Adam's sin is what caused all of his descendants to inherit sin and therefore death, the sacrifice of a sinless, perfect man was what was needed to perfectly balance what the man Adam lost. If Jesus was Almighty God that would have made his life much more valuable then then Adam's life.
Like I said before Don, the problem with this simplistic approach is that it inadvertently deifies all of mankind. If Adam used his free will to sin and similarly Jesus used his not to sin, then the logical extension is that we can also use our free will not to sin (regardless of our sinful nature). We become our own saviors and no longer need Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Does that make any sense to you?
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:22 am
Hi ttoews,
I looked at your posts back in January but there is so much information there that I don't know how to handle it. If there is something specific you want to bring to my attention I'd be happy to consider it.
Don
P.S. I appreciated your comments to FFC.
I looked at your posts back in January but there is so much information there that I don't know how to handle it. If there is something specific you want to bring to my attention I'd be happy to consider it.
Don
P.S. I appreciated your comments to FFC.
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:54 am
Hi John Byblos,
I had said...
You then concluded with...
I need more help to understand that one.
Don
I had said...
Then you said...My simplistic way of reasoning is that since the once perfect man Adam's sin is what caused all of his descendants to inherit sin and therefore death, the sacrifice of a sinless, perfect man was what was needed to perfectly balance what the man Adam lost. If Jesus was Almighty God that would have made his life much more valuable then then Adam's life.
That sounds right to me. Despite our sinful nature, we can use our free will to obey God or not to obey Him - just like Adam had the freedom to do so. Although it should have been much easier for Adam not to sin since he hadn't been born with the sinful nature that he had passed on to all his decedents after he sinned.If Adam used his free will to sin, and similarly Jesus used his not to sin, then the logical extension is that we can also use our free will (to sin or) not to sin (regardless of our sinful nature).
You then concluded with...
Well, everything you said made perfect sense to me - until your conclusion. I don't understand why using our free will to try to do what God wants us to do or not do means that we "no longer need Jesus' sacrifice on the cross."We become our own saviors and no longer need Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Does that make any sense to you?
I need more help to understand that one.
Don
Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:12 am
Jesus came to deliver us from sin and in the process give us eternal salvation. If we do not sin, what are we being delivered from? Why can't we obtain eternal salvation on our own? Why do we need Jesus if we're capable of not ever sinning? After all, he did it. In fact, we would be better than Jesus because we did it despite our sinful nature which he didn't have to contend with.DonCameron wrote:Well, everything you said made perfect sense to me - until your conclusion. I don't understand why using our free will to try to do what God wants us to do or not do means that we "no longer need Jesus' sacrifice on the cross."
I need more help to understand that one.
Don