Just a few comments/follow-ups about a couple of things as this is really getting tiring (again) and getting us nowhere (as usual). You have your interpretation (and nothing more) and so do we.Fortigurn wrote:Byblos, this is for you.
Fortigurn wrote:An agent is subordinate to the one for whom he acts, and by whom he is sent. We find this subordination described clearly by Scripture (note again the manner in which Christ is distiguished from God):
An agent receives power and authority from one who is greater than he:* John 14:28 'My Father is greater than I'
* Acts 3:13, 'his [God's] servant Jesus'
* Acts 3:26, 'God raised up his servant'
* Acts 4:27, 30 'your [God's] holy servant Jesus'
* Acts 4:30 'your [God's] holy servant Jesus'
* Matthew 9:6, 'When the crowd saw this, [Jesus healing] they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men'
* Matthew 28:18, 'Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"'
* John 5:19, 'the Son can do nothing from himself'
* John 5:22, '[God] has assigned all judgment to the Son'
* John 5:26, 'For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself'
* John 5:27, 'he [God] has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man'
* John 5:30, 'I can do nothing of myself'
* John 17:2, 'you [God] have given him authority over all humanity'
* Acts 10:42, 'he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead'
* Acts 17:32, 'he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated'
Clearly you misunderstood what I seem to think. I did not say 'God cannot use agents or something' as evidently he did. What I did say is that God did not use an agent for the purpose of affecting salvation because He promised that He, personally, will be our savior. As for God not giving His glory to another, look at the verses you quoted just above. God seems to have given Jesus (the man, as per you) every authority imaginable, from forgiveness of sins, to authority over humanity, to raising the dead, etc. etc. God's glory is manifested in such. So, is God a liar and he did give his Glory to the man Jesus or is Jesus God? Simple.Fortigurn wrote:* God giving His glory to another: I really don't know what you understand by this phrase, but you seem to think it means that God cannot use an agent or something.
God assigning functions only attributable to Him to a mere man is most certainly giving his glory to another. Again, either Jesus is God or God is a liar.Fortigurn wrote:Here's the relevant verse:
This doesn't in the least rule out God working through an agent. God told Moses that he would be 'As God to Pharoah', and that Aaron would be his prophet. Is that God giving His glory to another? David himself was not only addressed as God's son, he is even called 'elohim'. Is that God sharing His glory with another? Solomon was said to sit on the throne of YHWH. Is that God sharing His glory with another? A child born in Isaiah 7 is called 'Immanuel', or 'God with us'. Is that God sharing His glory with another? An angel sent by God to lead the children of Israel during the Exodus was given the name YHWH by God Himself, and also given the authority to judge and punish Israel without mercy. Is that God giving His glory to another?Isaiah 42:
8 I am the Lord! That is my name! I will not share my glory with anyone else, or the praise due me with idols.
You proved nothing. Please see Jac's posts on the subject.Fortigurn wrote:* The bible.ca list: Of my post, you say 'It amounts to 'no this one was an Arian, no that one was a Logos Christologist', and no that one was not a trinitarian''. Well that's perfectly valid, since the declared aim of that page was to present a list of Christians who believed in the trinity from the 1st century onwards. I proved that it didn't do this at all.
You claim 'The simple fact is they all spoke to the divinity of Christ in one fashion or another', but in fact they didn't all do that. First we saw Christ as a created being, the product of the Father. Sometimes he was an angel, sometimes the Holy Spirit, sometimes just 'a power' or emanation. Later we saw Christ as a created being wielding divine power, but still separate from the Father, and not described as having 'divinity'. Only later did we find Christ's 'divinity' being spoken of, and even then he was still being described as a being separate from the Father. By this time we were well into the 3rd century, so it's not true to say the list is 'a clear indication that his divinity dates back to the apostolic age'. It didn't even quote a single source from the apostlic age. Not one.
A quote from the following link describing the purpose of the Apostles' creed, i.e. to counter Gnosticism ideas about the humanity of Jesus which they (the Gnostics) denied. Note that the divinity of Jesus wasn't addressed as an issue because the Gnostics didn't deny it. Amazing what happens when one considers the purpose for which something was written. And look, you discounted the fact that they mentioned the Holy Spirit all the way down, remember? Why do you think they felt the need to mention the Holy Spirit separately?Fortigurn wrote:Don't you wonder why it doesn't quote the 'Apostles' Creed', acknowledged to be one of the oldest (if not the oldest), Christian creedal statement? It is agreed that this goes back to the 1st century. Let's look at it, shall we?
This doesn't exactly help the trinitarian, does it? It says there is one God, who is the Father Almighty (one God, one person, just as the apostles taught). Jesus is His son. No mention of Jesus as God. No mention of any 'divinity' of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is all the way down the end there, and it isn't remotely personalized or spoken of as a diving being or as God. No surprise that the Website didn't quote this one, despite it being far older than anything else quoted on that list.I believe in God the Father Almighty. And in Jesus Christ His only (begotten) Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; (the life everlasting).
See that Fortigurn? They denied the resurrection. The apostles creed was written to counter that.The Apostles' Creed vs. Gnosticism
A Creed generally emphasizes the beliefs opposing those errors that the compilers of the creed think most dangerous at the time. The Creed of the Council of Trent, which was drawn up by the Roman Catholics in the 1500's, emphasized those beliefs that Roman Catholics and Protestants were arguing about most furiously at the time. The Nicene Creed, drawn up in the fourth century, is emphatic in affirming the Deity of Christ, since it is directed against the Arians, who denied that Christ was fully God. The Apostles' Creed, drawn up in the first or second century, emphasizes the true Humanity, including the material body, of Jesus, since that is the point that the heretics of the time (Gnostics, Marcionites, and later Manicheans) denied. (See 1 John 4:1-3)
Thus the Apostles' Creed is as follows:
* I believe in God the Father Almighty,
* Maker of Heaven and Earth,
The Gnostics held that the physical universe is evil and that God did not make it.
* And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord,
* Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
* Born of the Virgin Mary,
The Gnostics were agreed that the orthodox Christians were wrong in supposing that God had taken human nature or a human body. Some of them distinguished between Christ, whom they acknowledged to be in some sense divine, and the man Jesus, who was at most an instrument through whom the Christ spoke. They held that the man Jesus did not become the bearer or instrument of the Christ until the Spirit descended upon him at his baptism, and that the Spirit left him before the crucifixion, so that the Spirit had only a brief and tenuous association with matter and humanity. Others affirmed that there was never a man Jesus at all, but only the appearance of a man, through which appearance wise teachings were given to the first disciples. Against this the orthodox Christians affirmed that Jesus was conceived through the action of the Holy Spirit (thus denying the Gnostic position that the Spirit had nothing to do with Jesus until his Baptism), that he was born (which meant that he had a real physical body, and not just an appearance) of a virgin (which implied that he had been special from the first moment of his life, and not just from the baptism on.
* Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
There were many stories then current about gods who died and were resurrected, but they were offered quite frankly as myths, as non-historical stories symbolic of the renewal of the vegetation every spring after the seeming death of winter. If you asked, "When did Adonis die, you would be told either, "Long ago and far away," or else, "His death is not an event in earthly time." Jesus, on the other hand, died at a particular time and place in history, under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea from 26 to 36 CE, or during the last ten years of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.
* was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into Hades.
Here the creed hammers home the point that he was really dead. He was not an illusion. He was nailed to a post. He died. He had a real body, a corpse, that was placed in a tomb. He was not merely unconscious — his spirit left his body and went to the realm of the dead. It is a common belief among Christians that on this occasion he took the souls of those who had died trusting in the promises made under the Old Covenant — Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and many others — and brought them out of the realm of the dead and into heavenly glory. But the creed is not concerned with this point. The reference to the descent into Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) is here to make it clear that the death of Jesus was not just a swoon or a coma, but death in every sense of the word.
* The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven,
* and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
* From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.
* I believe in the Holy Ghost,
* the holy catholic church,
The Gnostics believed that the most important Christian doctrines were reserved for a select few. The orthodox belief was that the fullness of the Gospel was to be preached to the entire human race. Hence the term "catholic," or universal, which distinguished them from the Gnostics.
* the communion of saints,
* the forgiveness of sins,
The Gnostics considered that what men needed was not forgiveness, but enlightenment. Ignorance, not sin, was the problem. Some of them, believing the body to be a snare and delusion, led lives of great asceticism. Others, believing the body to be quite separate from the soul, held that it did not matter what the body did, since it was completely foul anyway, and its actions had no effect on the soul. They accordingly led lives that were not ascetic at all. Either way, the notion of forgiveness was alien to them.
* the resurrection of the body,
The chief goal of the Gnostics was to become free forever from the taint of matter and the shackles of the body, and to return to the heavenly realm as Pure Spirit. They totally rejected any idea of the resurrection of the body.
* and the life everlasting. AMEN
Then by all means let's just go with the NET's footnote on that one (note the sarcasm). And even if we do consider that the Word is qualitatively divine, the fact that it is considered divine at all and the fact that it was with God from the beginning and the fact that it accomplishes the will of the Father without fail should tell you that it is not just an utterance but a living, continuous utterance, which validates my point even more.Fortigurn wrote:* John 1:1: I don't think that 'the word was God' is a mistranslation. But as the NET footnote clearly identifies, it doesn't convey the precise 'nuances' of the Greek, which identifies the word as qualitatively divine (not as a divine being). Yes, throughout the Old Testament God's word accomplishes real, physical things. I agree! And why? Because the word of God is the expression of His will and purpose (Isaiah 55:11), it is the 'breath of His mouth' (Psalm 33:6), it His creative utterance (Genesis 1:3, 'And God said 'Let there be light!', and there was light'). Just look at the Greek word LOGOS. You don't have to take my word for it when I say that LOGOS does not mean 'God' or 'divine being'. It's the ordinary Greek word for 'word', the equivalent of the Hebrew 'davar'.
Baseless accusations but what else can we expect. I did not throw out or mis-define anything. Scripture says The Word was with God and the Word IS God and you want to re-define what the word 'is' is Clinton-esque style. No, it is not 'still a word' as John defines it as God. Besides, let's see how the Bible defines it:Fortigurn wrote:Of course, you say 'it's not just another word as defined by any standard lexicon', which immediately suggests you're going to throw out the lexical definition of LOGOS anyway. But you can't change the language God chose to write the Bible. It means what it means. Certainly it is a unique word, since it is the Word of God. It is not 'just another word'. But it is still a word. It's described in the Bible itself as 'the breath of His mouth'. It couldn't be clearer.
stands for ever,Isaiah 40:8 wrote:8 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
gives life,Psalm 119:50 wrote: "This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life."
[quote="1 Peter 1:23] "...having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...."[/quote] lives and abides forever,
commands,1 Kings 13:9 wrote:(NIV) 9 For I was commanded by the word of the LORD : 'You must not eat bread or drink water or return by the way you came.' "
speaks,1 Kings 13:17 wrote:(NIV) 17 I have been told by the word of the LORD : 'You must not eat bread or drink water there or return by the way you came.' "
does not return empty, accomplishes, and achieves.Isaiah 55:11 wrote:(NIV) 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish]/b] what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
And on and on. Pretty clear to me.
Fortigurn wrote:* GINOMAI: As I pointed out, I have demonstrated that X GINOMAI Y means X became something it wasn't, and ceased to be X. To date you haven't actuall answered any of the questions I posed when I provided my examples. You claim to be using my logic to contradict my case, but in fact you haven't done that. Your objection is that the word of God is eternal, and thus cannot turn into something which is not eternal. But in doing so you're misdefining the word of God. The word of God doesn't have an objective existence. It's not a tangible, physical, or actual entity. It doesn't have properties such as size, shape, colour, taste, smell, immortality, mortality, and thus cannot be described as eternal or not eternal in the physical terms your argument requires.
To say that the word became flesh is no more than to say that 'God said... and it was so'. God said 'Let there be flesh', and there was flesh - the body of Christ in the womb of Mary. That is how the word was made flesh. It's just so simple.
If only the text had supported your version and actually had said 'God said let there be flesh'. As much as you would love nothing more than for it to say that, alas, it did not now did it? No, the text actually said 'The Word IS God'. It is you who are mis-defining the living Word of God into something it is not as I've shown.
Fortigurn wrote: But you use special pleading to claim that X GINOMAI Y in this place does not mean what X GINOMAI Y means in other places where it is used. The burden of evidence is therefore on you, and special pleading doesn't cut it.
Please, who is doing the pleading (notice the italization)? I simply showed you are mistaken about the Word as it is eternal, which then validates my use of the law of contradiction to discredit your case. It's so simple.
Fortigurn wrote:* Law of non-contradiction: You say 'Christ is fully p (God) and fully q (man), no violation of the law of contradiction', but that is a classic case of violating the law of non-contradiction. You see 'p' is not 'q'. So you are claiming that Christ is both p and not-p. Your claim that 'not p' means the opposite of p is not true. In the law of non-contradiction, 'not-p' does not mean 'the opposite of p', it means exactly what it says - not-p.
You are simply mistaken about the law of contradiction. It is not against the law of contradiction to say something is both p and q. If we define p as an apple and q as a fruit then we can certainly say an apple is both p and q at the same time (remember Jac's advice to consider the class?). No contradiction there. What the law of contradiction states is that p and not-p are contradictory. An apple and not-an-apple cannot be one and the same, that's contradictory. Do you see the logic now? It's brilliant. Jesus can be both p (man) and q (God). But eternal (p) most certainly cannot be mortal (not-p). Case closed.