One argument against the divinity of Jesus

[smaneck]

In fact, if men and women are to live together, one does need to be the final authority.

Why should the 'final authority' be the male? In most working marriages the man at times defers to the woman and the woman sometimes defers to the man.

The picture is extended in the NT and the women are given the great honor. They are shown to be the bride of Christ. The life comes into them from the outside. Christ brings about his life in his bride.

Wait just a minute here. The 'bride' in this context is the church, i.e. the entire community of faith whether male or female. Jesus, then, is the bridegroom.

The imagery still puts women in a subordinate position.

There is nothing disparaging of femininity in here.

Disparaging or not, it is not equal. And its equality women need today not a cage on a pedestal.

warmest, Susan

[smaneck]

The ECF got the Trinity straight out of making sense of the writings of the apostles in the NT.

To be more specific trying to make sense out of what the Gospels were saying in Greek philosophical terms. I think that may be what tripped them up.

[barnasha]

Why should the 'final authority' be the male? In most working marriages the man at times defers to the woman and the woman sometimes defers to the man.

in the case of raising children, arguably the most important part of family, i find the mother often has the final say. in my family, the female had the say on *EVERYTHING* (fortunately)

[smaneck]

It simply means that he claimed to be co-equal with YHWH.

But according both John and Paul He didn't:

If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

(King James Bible, John14:28)

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[ 6 who, though he was in(C) the form of God, did not count equality with Goda thing to be grasped"

(Phillipians 2:5-6)

[smaneck]

Your argument has more to do with what a certain conception of God ought to do in order to be regarded as the greatest conceivable being. I was not actually arguing along those lines. As my response to Apologia Monk clarified, God has attributes that qualify Him as the greatest conceivable being. Since Jesus was missing these characteristics, he was not God, and certainly not the greatest being one can think of.

I think the Qur'an says that God is *greater* than the things we imagine about Him.

[Huguenot]

Whatever is composed of a substance is created.

God is Spirit correct?

God is a Spirit; this is the clear testimony of Scripture, stated plainly in John 4:24 NIV - God is a spirit.

The words of Jesus in Luke 24:39 are emphatic; a spirit does not have flesh and bones. If God did have a body, the comment of Colossians 2:9 about Jesus in would be redundant - the Scripture is marveling at the mystery of the Incarnation - God taking a body; He thus did not previously possess one. Cross reference: Philippians 2:6-9 Jesus is not two halves but ONE revelation both divine and human in a body!

Substance is not meant as in the iron or clay. A metaphorical illustration is ice, water and water vapour. H2*O right? One yet different forms - all of the same molecles.

Hebrews 1:3) NIV "The substance of God [Gk. hypostasis] is really in Christ, Who is its impress, its exact representation [charakter] and embodiment. What God essentially is is made manifest in Christ."

And, the Holy Spirit or separate - yet the of the same God of God. The substance of God is in the Holy Spirit. King David, Psalm 51 - take not thy Holy Spirit from me. What was King David referring to another "substance' - from where? Of what type?

1 Timothy 3:16 says 'He [Jesus] appeared in a body', to indicate that this is 'the mystery of godliness' - that God could take human nature and thus a body alongside His divine nature and essence.

More.......



http://debate.org.uk/topics/theo/trinity.htm

[barnasha]

Why would we need to talk about Hebrew? If you're talking about New Testament language, you're talking about Greek. The Greek says what it says.

because the phrase "son of God" comes from the Hebrews... doesnt it?

This is an objection (which actually originated with the Gnostics, imagine that!) that just misses the mark with Greek language. "Monogenes" is a compound word that just combines "monos" and "genao" - so it means single-begotten, only-begotten, only-produced, only child. If we were to say that Jesus was an extraordinary or special person, "monogenes" is not the word for it; that instead is "monadikos." The word being used in all of these places - John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9 - it means only-born, sole, only-begotten. In all the other places it's used, it's not talking about special people at all (Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38). The word "monogenes" is indeed in the original Greek where it's referring to Jesus being the Only begotten of God.

I'm not a greek scholar but I've heard other, unbiased, scholars write differently.

I was able to find the following point from the b-greek mailing list which seems relevant:

This root GEN/GON/GN that appears in the verbsGI(G)NOMAI, GENNAW, in such nouns as GONEUS (parent), GENEA (kindred),GENOS (kind, kin), GENESIS (birth, generation), and the adjectival rootGENES-, all are associated with birth, generation and relationship throughbirth or generation; English "kin" and "kindred" and German Kind (child)are unquestionable cognates of the IE root seen in those Greek words. With respect to the adjective MONOGENHS, I don't think it's so much that the word CANNOT bear the sense "only-child" but that the actual usage attested in the literature is "only-one-of-its-kind."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)

Tell me... why did the writers of the Nicene Creed, first composed in Greek in 325 AD (before ENGLISH!), also call Jesus "the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God" and not recognize the Greek as it supposedly truly was? Take it up with John and Luke and the writer of Hebrews, not the later English translators.

In any instance, who else on earth is ever said in the Bible to have been conceived in someone's womb by God's spirit?



But the Hebrew "obed" is never used in place of "Son of God" in the New Testament. Neither is any Greek word for "servant" used in place of Son. If the writers meant it, they would've written it.

I never argued it was. I was saying what the meaning of 'abd was.

[smaneck]

Allah doesn't have the characteristics of the greatest conceivable being to me since he is petty and pays off his devotees with virgins and sex.

Psst, virgins don't have sex. And don't blame Allah for what dirty-minded 'ulama imagined later one.

Not only that but he expects people to do silly things like repeat the same prayers over and over while facing a location on the earth.

How often do you say the Lord's Prayer? And why is salat any sillier than saying grace before every meal?

My concept of God trumps yours and proves that Allah is not God.

Neither your concept of God or Abu Talib's has anything to do with who Allah is, al-hamdulillah.

[smaneck]

If you don't think that God exists then you are not a theist and you should stop posting in Islam immediately.

and I notice you are now qualifying exist with (i.e. as a thing) - Nobody said that God exists as a "thing" or a "creature"

God exists as a spirit, a BEING. The ultimate being. Being means the same thing as "Entity" if that makes you feel any better.

Sparko, in theology being and existence are two different things. Read Paul Tillich.

[barnasha]

Sparko, in theology being and existence are two different things. Read Paul Tillich.

What does to "exist" mean? it brings up the whole ontological question.

If you say God exists, what does that mean? The god, the thing you worship, exists as a reference point in your mind.

In the case of Abraham's god, the object of that worship does not 'exist', in a sense of being created.

[smaneck]

What does to "exist" mean? it brings up the whole ontological question.

Barmasha, you're being too subtle. Consider your audience. People here don't know what ontological means, or being or existence. Or the difference between them.

[cbacavis]

because the phrase "son of God" comes from the Hebrews... doesnt it?

This is true, but it's confusing the issue. Jesus is called THE Son of God. "Servant" actually is one of the definitions inherent in the Hebrew word for "son," but the literary context always has to provide for such a definition. Greek, on the other hand, has a separate word for "servant" (sundoulos) , and uihos isn't one of them. If Jesus were merely the SERVANT of God, the gospels would say so. But they don't!

I'm not a greek scholar but I've heard other, unbiased, scholars write differently.

Neither am I... I'm just trying to use my head here. You're just as biased as I am, don't kid yourself!

I was able to find the following point from the b-greek mailing list which seems relevant:

This root GEN/GON/GN that appears in the verbsGI(G)NOMAI, GENNAW, in such nouns as GONEUS (parent), GENEA (kindred),GENOS (kind, kin), GENESIS (birth, generation), and the adjectival rootGENES-, all are associated with birth, generation and relationship throughbirth or generation; English "kin" and "kindred" and German Kind (child)are unquestionable cognates of the IE root seen in those Greek words. With respect to the adjective MONOGENHS, I don't think it's so much that the word CANNOT bear the sense "only-child" but that the actual usage attested in the literature is "only-one-of-its-kind."

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)

So this would mean is that Jesus was the only-one-of-his-kind from God? That doesn't mean anything that wouldn't already be obvious.

I don't care how educated this scholar is. Unless he has evidence within the text and also has linguistic support, his thoughts are false. How does he address the "only son" and "only daughter" applied in other places to non-significant people? (see again - Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38 - it's the exact same word monogenes being used). Can you address this at all?

I never argued it was. I was saying what the meaning of 'abd was.

So then, what about the Nicene Creed, where their Greek is also rendered as "the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God" and not clarified? Because monogenes is never used in any other sense than of a solely-born person. I trust those speakers of Greek who were around at the time. I don't blindly trust Joe Blow scholar who happens to disagree with most of the other scholars.

[smaneck]

because the phrase "son of God" comes from the Hebrews... doesnt it?

I'm not sure it is. I think it may be related to Philo of Alexandria's view of the Logos as God's thought, as His eternally generated first-born son.

It is only in John's Gospel, after all, that the term "only-begotten" occurs and this is the only gospel which speaks of Jesus as the Word as well.

[Dan Zebiri]

You are quite right,cbaa, monogenes DOES MEAN - 'Only Son' which also carries the meaning of 'the only one of its kind'.

The other 2-3 places where it occurs in the original Greek in the NT, in the Luke Gospel, further confirms this conclusively.
Luke 7:12


12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son (mongenes) of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.

Luke 8:42

42 For he had one ONLY daughter (monogenes), about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.


and:

Luke 9:38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child

So, the scrioptures are right, and the word used in all 3 cases is inded 'monogenes' and is used accurateLy to mean an 'ONLY CHILD'.

It is also used accurately to describe Jesus Christ - as God's ONLY SON.

ONLY Son in the sense that only Jesus Christ is God's ONLY Son because Jesus alone is the LIVING WORD of God, Who shares in God's eternal, divine qualities and nature, in a way that no other being shares.

Dan.

[barnasha]

I'm not sure it is. I think it may be related to Philo of Alexandria's view of the Logos as God's thought, as His eternally generated first-born son.

It is only in John's Gospel, after all, that the term "only-begotten" occurs and this is the only gospel which speaks of Jesus as the Word as well.

The term "only begotten" does not appear in John, since that is not the meaning of monogenes. Except in the "Christian understanding". Which one might argue the author of the gospel of John had... but I will never assume that without precedent.