Is Jesus a Man That God Selected?

[marks]

I don't really know what you are saying here.

I've "horidzo'd" my coffee to my coffee cup. I could have just poured it anywhere. But I horidzo'd it to the cup.

Much love!

I didn't select my cup in this act, as if I had a dozen cups on my desk.

And this could have been the case, and if it were, horidzoing my cup would in fact be selecting it from others. So unless you got a look at my desk this morning, you wouldn't know whether or not I have a dozen cups or one, and therefore you wouldn't know if I'm horidzoing as an act of selection, or simply not spilling.

I limit my coffee to this cup. It's my only cup. Or I can limit the coffee to this cup, though I have many to choose from. You can use it either way, but . . . this is the meaning of the word, to limit.

Not to choose, but to limit. Limiting can be making a selection, but that's not intrinsic to the word, and depends on other factors, not named in this passage.

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

dunno if "obvious" is a prerequisite, but it does seem to be a valid extraction of the dictionary definition

I have seen people on this forum and others over the years use the word, "obvious", when it really was not, in any case, not to me.

To me to believe in a 'Trinity', 'Eternal torment', 'a separate chief devil' and a number of others are not "obvious" things to believe. Just because the majority says that they believe a certain way does not to me make it obvious. Is that not obvious to you?

 

[amadeus]

No, I think the Lord's commandments are very clear.

To someone with "ears to hear" perhaps!

 

[bbyrd009]

I have seen people on this forum and others over the years use the word, "obvious", when it really was not, in any case, not to me.

To me to believe in a 'Trinity', 'Eternal torment', 'a separate chief devil' and a number of others are not "obvious" things to believe. Just because the majority says that they believe a certain way does not to me make it obvious. Is that not obvious to you?

ha, right?

 

[Wynona]

1,000’s of verses in Scripture show you are wrong but this thread is laser focused on one verse only, Acts 17:31.

These 2 things are not the same:
A. Being on the same page as another.
B. Being the same being as another.

Jesus said we are one also but that does not make us God any more than him.

Well, I tried.

Apparently there are 1,000's of verses that, although not mentioned, are against me.

Who could compete with that?

I still don't agree with the Voice's rendering of Acts 17:31. But if you really want us to focus on that verse to the exclusion of, well, 1,000's of others, then you have our hands tied.

 

[Bob Estey]

True but to say there are literal statements in a book is not to say there are no figurative, non-absolute statements ALSO.

Just because a statement is figurative doesn't make it non-absolute.

 

[Wrangler]

You are adding "from among others"

Not so.

It is so. Scripture tells us over and over again Jesus is a man. For doctrinal reasons, you resist this and are in denial of your resistance.

A perfectly valid translation into 21st century English language usage selected the synonym 'selected.' You are offended when you add 'from among others' to the text. Jesus is a man, among others. The text need not say it. God selected this man. God ordained this man. God appointed this man. This makes up the bulk of all the English translations.

Your idea that the Greek word is better translated as 'limited' is a joke on 2 fronts.
1. You take yourself as a better translator than every translation ever made into English.
2. Context. God 'limited' this man to have all authority in heaven and Earth. Elevated to the highest possible office a man can hold is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of 'limiting.'

I see also that you continue to focus on the one word than the structure of the sentence where God, in his unitarian nature, is juxtaposed with Jesus. In this sentence, Jesus is the object, passively being acted upon. The subject of the sentence is God, in his unitarian nature. Language usage is not a friend to trinitarianism.

 

[Wrangler]

Just because a statement is figurative doesn't make it non-absolute.

LOL. A figurative statement is the very definition of a non-absolute statement.

Also, absolute statements are not necessary absolute truths. For instance, when I say it is dark out, it may be true the moment I said it. However, that does not mean it is always true.

 

[Wrangler]

It doesn't seem that you are following my argument.

Appeal to Ignorance. I am rejecting your false claims. This is different from not following your argument.

I totally understand the various fallacies you are employing and I am exposing them for what they are.

 

[APAK]

I've been talking about the language, and what is being said.

And no I don't have a desire for you to share with me your statements of "why I believe as I do". But I'm certain you will if you want to.

Why is the Voice translation not faithful there? It puts a spin on the word and therefore the verse, that the Greek does not. Other translations perserve the idea of the Greek, and I prefer those.

Much love!

You are deliberately avoiding saying that your Trinity prevents you from believing that Yahshua is selected by anyone as you attempt, in vain, to single out and highlight the fact that this verse in the OP is a non classical translation (Voice) and omits the act or function (eg ordination) of Yahshua.

This is a non-argument and a ploy to deceive, to deny the fact that Yahshua was indeed selected by his Father for this specific purpose. And then you toy around with the Greek word for ordination, appointment or designation as some kind of proof that the verse does not say he was selected for this function. Not fooling anyone here marks.

Plain and simply put: Yahshua has/had to be SELECTED FIRST before being given authority to judge mankind. He was given this authority, and by whom? As you well know it was by his same Father who gave him authority to forgive sin and perform miracles. Yahshua, as you can obviously read scripture, NEVER has this power or authority in himself! He was always selected in the mind of God, his Father, and never anyone else to be his Son, to make him his own Christ for us and thus our Savior. There is no dispute in this applicable scripture at all. And yet you want to dispute the language of this verse, to completely deny this scripture of issue all together. Shame on you.

So who is putting the spin on anything. You are, plain and simple. And that is deceitful in my books....

 

[APAK]

That's what troubles me in that translation. It seems to me to change the intent of the passage, by not holding true to the meaning of that word. It doesn't mean to choose from among others, or something like that. But that translation makes it sound as though it does.

And, this seems to be being examines as a trinitarian issue, I see this as a translational issue. And we ought to get the translations worked out so we know what God actually said, and THEN move on to doctrine. Not choose a doctrine, and then pick a translation to support it.

Much love!

Read my post #130...stop evading and really say what's on your mind. It's your Trinity belief over scripture that keeps you for the truth.

 

[APAK]

I'm just looking at the use of "horidzo", the work that you are pointing to. It does not mean to choose or select, it means to limit, place a bound.

Jesus is the only One.

Much love!

Stop it already. Who are you trying to fool....horidzo =>'limited', 'bounded', ordination, declaration, designation, appointment.... so what, we know this already..how does this reveal anything new here in this topic? .address the real issue!

 

[APAK]

No. I'm challenging your translation of one word.

You've point to that word, and based your arguments upon it. I'm not talking about Trinity at all. This verse doesn't, in my opinion, have any real contribution to make to that discussion one way or the other, as it doesn't make that kind of a statement.

But it seems you are presenting is as if it were making a statement with Trinitarian/non-Trinitarian implications. And I'm saying, you are going on a translation that's not true to the word being translated.

I'm not even beginning to think about Trinitarian arguments, not unless we can come so some agreeable conclusion of what this word even means.

Is examining the foundation of your conclusion a diversion? I think it's the heart of the matter.

Much love!

I would not recommend you become a lawyer any time soon.......you might become penniless...

 

[APAK]

When you add "select from among others" as a meaning to the word, you go beyond what that word means. And the context does not require anything other than what the word normally and customarily means.

And apparantly because you see the standard translation as being Trinitarian, and the Voice translation being non-trinitarian.

Trinity, no trinity, you believe which way you believe, but let's let the words be what they are, shall we?

Much love!

You are now entertaining a new definition of selection in this context regarding Yahshua and his Father. You really think that this verse suggests that his Father selected Yahshua amongst other people? How dare you think of such a thing. You know better!! Is this how low you have to stoop to convince anyone you have a case here? You have nothing but deceit in these words....

 

[Wrangler]

Plain and simply put: Yahshua has/had to be SELECTED FIRST before being given authority to judge mankind. He was given this authority, and by whom? As you well know it was by his same Father who gave him authority to forgive sin and perform miracles.

Adoptionism: The heart of the Good News. “The LORD said to me, ‘You are my son. Today I have become your Father.' It means a selection was made by the Father in choosing, appointing, selecting, ordaining, adopting who is children are. Hebrews specifically says this applies to Jesus.

Not only is it that a man was selected, the selection was made after eternity past. "Today" is the resurrection day of Jesus as Hebrews was written after that day. When was the proof of God's plan fulfilled in Acts 17:31? When people saw the resurrected Jesus, a man selected to judge the world on behalf of who? On behalf of God, in his unitarian nature.

 

[bbyrd009]

For instance, when I say it is dark out, it may be true the moment I said it

another caveat would prolly be “true for you, not for a nocturnal predator” maybe. Or maybe even not for someone who is up on their carotenoids lol

good points tho imo

 

[bbyrd009]

When you add "select from among others" as a meaning to the word, you go beyond what that word means

You really think that this verse suggests that his Father selected Yahshua amongst other people?

guess im lost, seems like you guys are agreeing in loud voices here?

 

[marks]

Stop it already. Who are you trying to fool....horidzo =>'limited', 'bounded', ordination, declaration, designation, appointment.... so what, we know this already..how does this reveal anything new here in this topic? .address the real issue!

I'm addressing the OP.

Lighten up.

Much love!

 

[marks]

guess im lost, seems like you guys are agreeing in loud voices here?

Yeah, I think so.

I'm getting torn a new one for saying the same thing.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It is so. Scripture tells us over and over again Jesus is a man. For doctrinal reasons, you resist this and are in denial of your resistance.

I perceive that in your endeavor to support your non-trinitarian view, you've applied a meaning to a word in a passage that isn't correct. And you've posted that passage as to show that it says something to support your non-trinitarian view, and have said the passage is better shown with this meaning.

I'm challenging the meaning of the word, and it's being put back on me as though I'm challenging the doctrine, or trying to support my own.

And somehow we can't seem to stay on point about the word, and now some are wanting to force the discussion onto what I guess was the real reason for the OP, not so much to discuss the word, but the doctrine.

So instead of discussion of the verse, we are now to discuss the doctrine.

And quite frankly, given the way people are writing here, I don't feel too inclined.

Much love!