Is Jesus God or a god?

[Shazard]

Hi Shazard,

It's not an assumption but a fact. Malachi 3:6a

"For I am the LORD, I change not."

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

Doesn't get any clearer than that. Very few scriptures are as emphatic as Numbers 23:19. Just as God is not a liar, he is not a man. God imposes these limitations upon himself.

1) Heb 13:8 says that Christ does not change too
2) And again, you use Old Testament to proove something clear from New Testament. Go and again read 2 Cor 3 to see how Old testament relates to New Testament and which one explains which one.
3) God does not change. His nature never changes. God allways was, is, and will be God. By becoming man Christ didn't stop beeing God. He just humiliated himself to the level of man. And that was this paradox, that Creator of universe stands in front of those who should know him, and still they can't recognize him. The same applies today. Nobody knows who is Son except Fateher and nobody knows who is Father except Son and those whom Son reveals it (Luk 10:22). And Christ sayed, that those who does not know God are not able to know Jesus. If you would know Jesus you would know Father. He sayed that he has reaveled Father to them. Father is in Christ and Christ is in Father. Can you draw 2 circles where first is inside second and second is inside first. Draw such 2 circles and tell me what you got!

The very appelation son of God proves that Jesus not God. Even the Saints are called sons of God. Angels too.

So then son of Man prooves that Jesus is not man. But it is sayed that Christ is beggotten from God. God beggots only God. Similary as Man can born only Man. Dog can born dog. One Nature borns same nature.

And again you are mixing words 'god' meaning... title with nature. Do not force meaning of one context into other.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Crusader,

Pyth, you are being downright dishonest here. You very well know that Christianity does not teach that the Nature of God, His Substance, changed into a human substance in the Incarnation. The Nature of God and His Substance rather took on an additoinal nature, that of man. Christ is the God/Man. His Human nature was not transformed into Deity, nor His Divine Nature into Humanity. The two resided within the One Person, Jesus Christ.

And this is the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

Nice try. What does "God taking on an additional nature, that of man" mean but that God became a man.

The bible says God is not a man.

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

[Pythagoras]

Hi S.,

1) Heb 13:8 says that Christ does not change too
2) And again, you use Old Testament to proove something clear from New Testament. Go and again read 2 Cor 3 to see how Old testament relates to New Testament and which one explains which one.
3) God does not change. His nature never changes. God allways was, is, and will be God. By becoming man Christ didn't stop beeing God. He just humiliated himself to the level of man. And that was this paradox, that Creator of universe stands in front of those who should know him, and still they can't recognize him. The same applies today. Nobody knows who is Son except Fateher and nobody knows who is Father except Son and those whom Son reveals it (Luk 10:22). And Christ sayed, that those who does not know God are not able to know Jesus. If you would know Jesus you would know Father. He sayed that he has reaveled Father to them. Father is in Christ and Christ is in Father. Can you draw 2 circles where first is inside second and second is inside first. Draw such 2 circles and tell me what you got!

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the bible says God is not a man? Trinitarians say God is man and God, defying scripture.

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

So then son of Man prooves that Jesus is not man. But it is sayed that Christ is beggotten from God.

The bible says there is only one God, so son of God cannot mean God, lest we have more than one God. But son of man means another man because there is more than one man in the world. This is not rocket science. Even the angels are called sons of God. And Saints too.

God beggots only God. Similary as Man can born only Man. Dog can born dog. One Nature borns same nature.

Read the Jewish encyclopedia, only begotten son is simply another title for Messiah. Yes, cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, but God cannot beget God unlress there is more than one God. This is where trinitarians try to convince themselves 3 = 1, by saying God is threee persons one being. They either (a) defy the law of non-contradiciton or (b) equivocate the words "nature' and "being" in this regard. Trinitairans are disingenious polytheists .

best wishes,

[Shazard]

Hi S.,

Read the Jewish encyclopedia, only begotten son is simply another title for Messiah. Yes, cats beget cats, dogs beget dogs, but God cannot beget God unlress there is more than one God. This is where trinitarians try to convince themselves 3 = 1, by saying God is threee persons one being. They either (a) defy the law of non-contradiciton or (b) equivocate the words "nature' and "being" in this regard. Trinitairans are disingenious polytheists .

best wishes,

Yea, and read you too. "I AM" is the very name of God

And we have just different understanding of word "God". As far as I understand for you God is just another name for Father. Or "title" of Father. In christianity word "God' implies very nature of the beeing. God itself means it is Creator of the universe. And by saying "There is no other gods" it means that there is no other beeing with this nature. You say that angels and saints are called gods. Are they God by nature? Do not mix title with nature. And if something is creator it is God. And if something is God it is creator. And YES there is only one such nature - God. There is no other God's there is no other creators, there is no other source of reality, only one - God.
And John 1:1 says, Word is God and this Word became flesh. New Testament is one which explains Old Testament. New Testament is base for exegesis. So you have to explain book of Malachia using John chapter 1 not otherwise. So basic truth is "Word was God and Word became flesh". And don't forget to read that here we are talking about Creator God, not just "god" as title applied to whatever you like. So how meny creators we have? And is Jesus false god or true god?

[Topherlee]

Sparko
No he doesn't. In fact he claims to be God and John claims it too. But I guess you can't read with that blind eye of yours.

A run from the question, but okay. You say Jesus is claiming to be God. In the OT, YHVH says he is God, he does not claim to be indireclty.

Go do a study on "memra" of the old testament. The use of the "Logos" or "Word" for Jesus directly relates to that. Then come back and tell me what you have found out.

Logos means the literal Word of God. It does not mean the Word describes a physical or spiritual person. Jesus is the Word of. Jesus is described as the respresentative of Gods Word. Jesus speaks the thoughts and plans God has intended for us. His God and our God.

YHWH SAYS THERE ARE NO OTHER GODS! HE SAYS IT OVER AND OVER AND IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS JUST SO THERE IS NO CHANCE OF YOU MISUNDERSTANING HIM. BUT YOU SEEM TO DO SO ANYWAY.

The bible seems to contradict your personal view.

How much clearer do you want God to tell you there are no other Gods beside himself? There there were no God before him nor after him nor with him. There is only ONE true God. All others are false gods, like idols or demons.

A false god is NOT A GOD AT ALL. You yourself just said "the one true God" If there is only ONE TRUE GOD, then all others must be false by definition. There can't be both ONE TRUE GOD and TWO TRUE GODS.

Yeah. let me know how that thinking stuff works out. You should actually try it some time.

To keep it short. In the end, who will you answer to? The Father or the Son?

[Sparko]

A run from the question, but okay. You say Jesus is claiming to be God. In the OT, YHVH says he is God, he does not claim to be indireclty.

"Before Abraham was, I AM."

Or How about the Father calling Jesus God directly?

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Logos means the literal Word of God. It does not mean the Word describes a physical or spiritual person. Jesus is the Word of. Jesus is described as the respresentative of Gods Word. Jesus speaks the thoughts and plans God has intended for us. His God and our God.

BZZT. Logos means "WORD" - not "Word of God", just Word. there is no "of" there. In John 1:1 it simply says "The Word (logos) was with God and the Word (logos) WAS God."

Now go back and find out what the "memra" was in the old testament.


Actually I bet you won't do it so I will help you out. I wanted you to do it so you would not accuse me of making stuff up. I actually first learned of this from ApologiaNick (thanks Nick)

The "memra" means "word" or "command" of God.

The Jews had a problem with theophanies (That's when God appeared in a physical form, like when he wrestled with Jacob or walked with Adam in the Garden, or met with Abraham, etc. In the Jewish Targums, every time God appears in a theophany, the Jewish scribes would use the word "memra"

For example,

Gen 3:8 "And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden."

The Targums read more or less: "And they heard the Word or memra of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Word or memra of God amongst the trees of the garden."

http://www.bibleword.org/memra.htm

So when John was using the greek equivalent of "memra" which is "logos" - he was actually telling his jewish readers that Jesus WAS indeed God in the flesh, moreso than any theophany in the OT.

here is an entry from the Jewish Encyclopedia on memra too:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=399&letter=M

The bible seems to contradict your personal view.

Doing this

:fingersinears:


Doesn't help you Topherlee. The bible supports my view which is not my "personal view" but a plain reading of the text.

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me" (Isaiah 43:10).

Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. 7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come-- yes, let him foretell what will come. 8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

God can't be any more clearer on the topic. He is the only God, there is no other. there will be no other. He is the only God.

To keep it short. In the end, who will you answer to? The Father or the Son?

I will answer to JESUS.

2 Tim. 4:1 "In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge..." 2 Cor. 5:10 "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

John 5: 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him


Who will YOU answer to Topherlee?

And that brings up another excellent parallel. You see above where it says Jesus will judge between sheep and goats?

Well YHWH said he would do that HIMSELF in the OT.

Ezekiel 34:17 "`As for you, my flock, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will judge between one sheep and another, and between rams and goats. 20 "`Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says to them: See, I myself will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. 21 Because you shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away, 22 I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another.


So, If YHWH will be doing the judging and Jesus will be doing the Judging, then they must be the same God.

[Pythagoras]

Hi S.,

Yea, and read you too. "I AM" is the very name of God

Then I suppose the blind man in John 9:9 is God.

And by saying "There is no other gods" it means that there is no other beeing with this nature.

On the surface this looks good, but you also believe God is three persons one being which either (a) defies the law of non-contradiciton or (b)equivocates the word being with refrence to person. In the Universe and in the bile, every being is also a person, there is no such thing as one being three persons. It's akin to saying 1 is 3.

You say that angels and saints are called gods. Are they God by nature?

Ofcourse not. And that's my point. Just because Jesus is called God or Theos does not mean he's by nature God.

And if something is creator it is God.

And Jesus is not creator, as already pointed out by the Moses analogy per John 1:3. In addiiton, the bible distinctly says jesus is a creature. Try Col. 1:15 on for size for starters.

And John 1:1 says, Word is God and this Word became flesh.

As I said even humans are called God or Theos in John 10:34. The anarthrous Theos in John 1:1 should tell you something. Origen the Church Father caught on 2000 years ago, why can't you?. Besides John 1:2 says the Word was with God. How can God be with God , unless there is more than one God? In this regard, the one being three persons bit won't work with me, 'cause it's illogical.

New Testament is one which explains Old Testament. New Testament is base for exegesis.

NT is "base" for your 4th century trinitairan eisegesis more like.

best wishes

[JAY-PC]

Ofcourse not. And that's my point. Just because Jesus is called God or Theos does not mean he's by nature God.

Try Hebrews 1:3, and Philippians 2:6:

Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,


Phi 2:6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,

Here Jesus is said to have the nature of God.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Jay-Pc,

Try Hebrews 1:3

This verse actually proves Jesus is not God. Trinitairans usually shy away from it, here you're highlighting it. Interesting. Read the following link:

http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm

and Philippians 2:6:

Here Jesus is said to have the nature of God.

Nice try. Moprhe means form, outward appearance or shape. Consult a host of lexicons( many of them trinitairan) in this regard. -- Bullinger, Walter Bauer, Kittel , Thayer etc. etc.



best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

I will answer to JESUS.

Better be careful in what way you refer to him as Lord, Lord when you answer him.

Peace in Christ,

[JAY-PC]

Hi Jay-Pc,


This verse actually proves Jesus is not God. Trinitairans usually shy away from it, here you're highlighting it. Interesting. Read the following link:

http://presentingthetruth.bravehost.com/Hebrews%2013.htm



Nice try. Moprhe means form, outward appearance or shape. Consult a host of lexicons( many of them trinitairan) in this regard. -- Bullinger, Walter Bauer, Kittel , Thayer etc. etc.


best wishes,

You’re kidding, right.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
(Heb 1:3 ESV)

ὑπόστασις

Substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. (BAGD 2nd edition page 847)

God's substantial nature real being, essence.
(Analytical Lexicon page 393)

G5287
ὑπόστασις
(III) Substance, what really exists under any appearance, reality, essential nature (Heb_1:3, "the express image" or exact expression of God's essence or being, i.e., of God Himself). Here it approximates ousía (G3776), existence, substance, and phúsis (G5449), nature. One must be careful to remember that some Latin Fathers rejected the rendering substantia because it was distinct from essentia which they felt conveyed unequivocally the notion of hupóstasis. However, the word "substance" as used in English is quite suitable since it does not bear the subtle difference of the original Latin.
(WordStudy Dictionary)

G5287
hupostasis
Thayer Definition:
1) a setting or placing under
1a) thing put under, substructure, foundation
2) that which has foundation, is firm
2a) that which has actual existence
2a1) a substance, real being
2b) the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing
2c) the steadfastness of mind, firmness, courage, resolution
2c1) confidence, firm trust, assurance
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G5259 and G2476
Citing in TDNT: 8:572, 1237
(Thayer's)

2. Hebrews.
The passages in which ὑπόστασις is used in Hb. (1:3; 3:14; 11:1) are essentially
much more difficult to assess. This is especially so in view of the fact that the word
has usually been given different meanings and translations in the three, e.g., “essence”
in 1:3, “steadfastness” in 3:14, and “standing” in 11:1.123
A more or less fixed and developed usage is plainest in 1:3:124 ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασµα
τη̂ς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τη̂ς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου̂. Here ὑπόστασις is parallel to δόξα.
Both words are obviously describing God’s essence → IV, 339, n. 5. It is thus
inadvisable to render ὑπόστασις specifically by “essence.” The translation should
rather express the degree to which δόξα and ὑπόστασις denote two special qualities in
God’s nature that are both present in the Son as their ἀπαύγασµα (→ I, 508, 13 ff.)
and → χαρακτήρ.
(TDNT)

Php 2:6: Being in the form of God; he was by nature in the very form of God. Two words are most carefully chosen to show the unchangeable godhead of Jesus Christ. The word which the King James Version translates being is from the Greek verb huparchein (<G5225>) which is not the common Greek word for "being." It describes that which a man is in his very essence and which cannot be changed. It describes that part of a man which, in any circumstances, remains the same. So Paul begins by saying that Jesus was essentially and unalterably God.

He goes on to say that Jesus was in the form of God. There are two Greek words for form, morphe (<G3444>) and schema (<G4976>). They must both be translated form, because there is no other English equivalent, but they do not mean the same thing. Morphe (<G3444>) is the essential form which never alters; schema (<G4976>) is the outward form which changes from time to time and from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, the morphe (<G3444>) of any human being is humanity and this never changes; but his schema (<G4976>) is continually changing. A baby, a child, a boy, a youth, a man of middle age, an old man always have the morphe (<G3444>) of humanity, but the outward schema (<G4976>) changes all the time. Roses, daffodils, tulips, chrysanthemums, primroses, dahlias, lupins all have the one morphe (<G3444>) of flowers; but their schema (<G4976>) is different. Aspirin, penicillin, cascara, magnesia all have the one morphe (<G3444>) of drugs; but their schema (<G4976>) is different. The morphe (<G3444>) never alters; the schema (<G4976>) continually does. The word Paul uses for Jesus being in the form of God is morphe (<G3444>); that is to say, his unchangeable being is divine. However his outward schema (<G4976>) might alter, he remained in essence divine.
(Barclay – DSB)


11 sn The Greek term translated form indicates a correspondence with reality. Thus the meaning of this phrase is that Christ was truly God.
(NET Bible notes)



Phi 2:6 -
Being in the form of God (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων)
Being. Not the simple είναι to be, but stronger, denoting being which is from the beginning. See on Jam_2:15. It has a backward look into an antecedent condition, which has been protracted into the present. Here appropriate to the preincarnate being of Christ, to which the sentence refers. In itself it does not imply eternal, but only prior existence. Form (μορφή). We must here dismiss from our minds the idea of shape. The word is used in its philosophic sense, to denote that expression of being which carries in itself the distinctive nature and character of the being to whom it pertains, and is thus permanently identified with that nature and character. Thus it is distinguished from σχῆμα fashion, comprising that which appeals to the senses and which is changeable. Μορφή form is identified with the essence of a person or thing: σχῆμα fashion is an accident which may change without affecting the form. For the manner in which this difference is developed in the kindred verbs, see on Mat_17:2.
(Vincent’s Word Study)


The image of God is Christ, while the μορφη θεου is the garment by which His divine nature may be known.
(TDNT)


“MORPHE implies not the external accidents but the essential attributes.”
J.B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians pg 110

“None could be EN MORPHE THEOU who was not God… MORPHE, like the Latin “forma, the German “gestalt” signifies the form as it is the utterance of the inner life; not “being,” but “mode of being” or better, “mode of existence”; and only God could have the mode of existence of God”
R.C. Trench


“Morphe or form refers to the inner, essential, and abiding nature of a person or thing, while schema or fashion points to his or its external, accidental, and fleeting bearing or appearance.”
W. Hendriksen



“The words EN MORPHE THEOU “in essence God” are really quite simple and straightforward because Paul was not writing to Greek philosophers but to common believers at Philippi. Thus there is no justification for the attempt to read the concepts of Plato and other Greek philosophers into the words EN MORPHE THEOU.

Since the word MORPHE was used in the Septuagint, it has an old testament, i.e., Semitic, background. As the author of The Expositor’s Greek Testament points out:
In LXX MORPHE denotes the form, appearance, look or likeness of someone, that by which those beholding him would judge him…the word had come, in latter Greek, to receive a vague, general meaning, far removed from the accurate, metaphysical content which belonged to it in writers like Plato and Aristotle. It seems, therefore, to us of little value… to discuss the relation of MORPHE to terms such as ICHE, PHUSES, EIDOS in their philosophical refinements. It is far more probable that Paul uses MORPHE, here “in a loose, popular sense, as we use ‘nature’”
After all the word studies of MORPHE and the contrasts made between it and SCHEMATI “fashion” found in verse 7, nearly all commentators now agree that the word MORPHE refers to the inner essence or nature of something while SCHEMATI refers only to the outward appearance:”
Robert Morey, The Trinity Evidence and Issues pg 337-339


it is used with particular significance in the NT, only of Christ, in Phi_2:6-7, in the phrases "being in the form of God," and "taking the form of a servant." An excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford: "morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual, and retained as long as the individual itself exists. ... Thus in the passage before us morphe Theou is the Divine nature actually and inseparably subsisting in the Person of Christ. ... For the interpretation of 'the form of God' it is sufficient to say that (1) it includes the whole nature and essence of Deity, and is inseparable from them, since they could have no actual existence without it; and (2) that it does not include in itself anything 'accidental' or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation, or conditions of glory and majesty, which may at one time be attached to the 'form,' at another separated from it. ...
(Vine's)



Morphḗ in Phi_2:6-8 presumes an obj. reality. No one could be in the form (morphḗ) of God who was not God. However, morphḗ is not the shaping of pure thought. It is the utterance of the inner life, a life that bespeaks the existence of God. He who had been in morphḗ Theoú, in the form of God, from eternity (Joh_17:5) took at His incarnation the morphḗn doúlou (doúlos [G1401], servant), a form of a servant. The fact that Jesus continued to be God during His state of humiliation is demonstrated by the pres. part. hupárchōn, "being" in the form of God. Hupárchō (G5225) involves continuing to be that which one was before. Nothing appeared that was not an obj. reality from the beginning. In His incarnation, Jesus took upon Himself the form (morphḗ) of a servant by taking upon Himself the shape (schḗma) of man. The schḗma, shape or fashion, is the outward form having to do not only with His essential being, but also with His appearance. The eternal, infinite form of God took upon Himself flesh (Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14). See Sept.: Dan_4:36; Dan_5:6, Dan_5:9-10.
(Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates)


“In the form of God (en morphēi theou). Morphē means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ.”
(Robertson’s Word Pictures)

Morphe "always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it"
(The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament )


"It is not doubtful that Paul thought of Jesus Christ in terms of God. He says of Jesus that he was in the form of God. (Phil. 2:6). He then goes on to say that Jesus was found in human form (Phil. 2:8, RSV), where the AV renders that he was found in fashion as a man. The RSV somewhat misleadingly translates two Greek words by the English word form, whereas the AV correctly distinguishes between them. In the first instance the word is morphe, which means the unchanging and unchangeable essential nature of a thing; the second word is schema, which means the changing and altering external form of a person or a thing. For instance, a man has always the unchanging morphe of manhood; that is what he essentially is; but he will have different schemata, different outward forms, in babyhood, childhood, youth, maturity and old age. A tulip, a rose, a chrysanthemum, a marigold, a daffodil, a delphinium all have the same morphe, the same essential nature, for they are all flowers; but they have very different outward schemata, outward forms. Paul says that Jesus was in the morphe of God; that is to say, the essential nature of Jesus is the same as the essential nature of God; but he says that Jesus was found in the schema of a man; that is to say, he temporarily took the form of manhood upon him. The NEB renders the Greek well here. In translating the word morphe it renders the passage: 'The divine nature was his from the first.' In translating the word schema it says that he was 'revealed in human shape.' This passage leaves us in no doubt that Paul believed that the nature of Jesus is the nature of God."
(William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him)

God bless
JAY-PC

[Pythagoras]

Hi,

You’re kidding, right.





God bless
JAY-PC

Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

[JAY-PC]

Hi,




Is that the extent of your rebuttal?

?? Did you even read the quotes?

I don't know why I bother talking with you. Maybe someone else would like to discuss these passages.

Go get Alam to help you out.

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

I’ve seen you make the following claim,

Hi S.,

On the surface this looks good, but you also believe God is three persons one being which either (a) defies the law of non-contradiciton or (b)equivocates the word being with refrence to person. In the Universe and in the bile, every being is also a person, there is no such thing as one being three persons. It's akin to saying 1 is 3.

best wishes

a couple of times, yet I’ve never seen how you explain how the doctrine defies of the law of non-contradiction. I don’t see your definition, “every being is also a person”given as a definition of the word “Being”.

The fact that God is unique doesn’t seem like a very good argument, I would suspect the Creator to be unique.



Regards,



Paul

[Pythagoras]

Hi Jay-Pc,

?? Did you even read the quotes?

I don't know why I bother talking with you. Maybe someone else would like to discuss these passages.

Go get Alam to help you out.

That's still not a response. Either tackle the arguments presented by the link below or keep your peace. As they say, put up or shut up:

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: apologianick

Please do not use argument by weblink

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

good luck,

P.S. Regarding morphe only trinitarian sources like Vine and the like think it represents some sort of essential nature leading to oneness of being (and other such mumbo-jumbo). As already noted impartial lexicons give a totally different picture.

Following quote is from a Unitarian link:

"A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. In Bullinger’s Critical Lexicon, morphe is given a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphe, “form, outward appearance, shape.” The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphe, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many....”

etc.