The one and only Son, who is Himself God
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Logikos
Member
I'm not sure what you mean by that question. Are you unclear about the point I made?
I'm sure that is what you have been taught. That does not make it true.
If is was "entirely appropriate as the teaching," then all translators prior to the Geneva Bible were inadequate for the job.
I don't think so. See the short video Ron Wyatt talking about JESUS blood sample for his explanation.
He should write a paper and submit it to a journal for such a great discovery. When it is published in a scientific journal, then I will read it. I don't spend much time on videos, but thanks for mentioning it. At least now I am aware of its existence.
Logikos
Member
Everything anyone knows has been taught to them. That is not relevant. I did not present an opinion. I presented objective evidence. I presented the original languages and a direct and quite literal translation of it into English. You here want to pretend like I've presented nothing of substance because you have nothing of substance with which to respond to it.
How do you sleep at night knowing that some random guy on the internet can argue you into silence against your doctrine by posting less than ten sentences?
News flash!....
"Appropriate" and "Necessary" are NOT synonyms!
This is why I began the sentence with "So you can capitalize the term "word" or not,"!
The point being that whether you capitalize it or not doesn't change the meaning of the words used in the passage as the rest of my post firmly establishes by citing the original languages!
There is not one verse that says Jesus is God the Son. Nor has there ever been a teaching on it anywhere in the Bible. The Jews never saw it anywhere in the entire Old Testament nor anyone in the New Testament ever taught it. The Catholics who invented this nonsense have used only about 8 verses that they have to piece together from statements that are scattered all over the New Testament. One should think if such nonsense was true and important that it would have been taught by someone. And it is not. Only in the minds of Catholics who cannot explain it.
Because all fell except Messiah... we gain because of Him. Oh and thanks for the correcting Chromosomes.
John 1:1
Jesus Christ is not a lexical definition of logos. The verse does not say "In the beginning was Jesus." The "Word" is not synonymous with Jesus, or even the "Messiah." The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God's creative self-expression... His reason, purpose and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God's self-expression or communication of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation and especially the heavens. It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture. Most notably it has come into being through His Son. The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a "word" is an outward expression of a person's thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it's perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the "Word." Jesus is an outward expression of God's reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason we call revelation "a word from God" and the Bible "the Word of God."
If we understand that the logos is God's expression... His plan, purpose, reason and wisdom. Then it is clear they were with Him "in the beginning." Scripture says God's wisdom was "from the beginning" and it was common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. The fact that the logos "became" flesh shows it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative "existence" as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the "word" in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a "spirit-book" somehow in eternity past, but came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.
He can't do that - he's dead! He died in 1999. The video is only 4m 27s long - surely you can spare that amount of time to seek more knowledge about Jesus! I think the end of the video will make you emotional.
John 8:58
At the last super, the disciples were trying to find out who would deny the Christ. They said literally, "Not I am, Lord" Matthew 26:22, 25. No one would say the disciples were trying to deny they were God because they were using the phrase "Not I am." "I am" was a common way of designating oneself and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. The argument is made that because Jesus was "before" Abraham, Jesus must be God. Jesus figuratively existed in Abraham's time. He did not actually physically exist as a person, but rather he existed in the mind of God as God's plan for the redemption of man. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus' "I am" statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with God's "I am" statement in Exodus 3:14. The two statements are very different. The Greek phrase in John does mean "I am." The Hebrew phrase in Exodus means "to be" or "to become." God was saying "I will be what I will be."
Romans 5:15 says “For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” Some theologians teach that only God could pay for the sins of mankind, but the Bible specifically says that a man must do it. The book of Corinthians makes the same point Romans does when it says “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Corinthians 15:21).
That's still no reason to suppose that the promised Messiah had to be God! What lousy reasoning!
Romans 8:3 (WEB):
(3) For what the law couldn’t do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh;
God didn't "overcome the world" Himself, He sent his own Son to do it. The Scriptures are quite clear about that.
Jesus said, in prayer to God, John 17:3 (WEB):
(3) This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
Because He is Alpha and Omega plus.. Messiah is on the throne!!
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
I accept the Trinity as a mystery and an established mainstream Christian doctrine, as opposed to railing against it. I am THOROUGHLY familiar with the history of the doctrine. The real issues worth pondering are (1) what does the Trinity mean - can we even begin to get our minds around it, and (2) how does the incarnated Jesus relate to the Second Person of the Trinity?
The point of my post was not "The Trinity is a false doctrine!", which would clearly violate forum rules. My point was that the doctrine of the Trinity was and is an attempt to come to grips with what the Incarnation was and who Jesus is. It is so mysterious that I have difficulty with those who insist it is a Christian essential - i.e., "I don't really understand the Trinity either, but you'd better at least say you believe it or you aren't a Christian!" Could Jesus have been the divine Son of God without the Trinity? I would think so, but I accept the doctrine as a mystery that does add a dimension to the faith.
Last edited:
Logikos
Member
This is a simple abject intentional lie and it's utter stupidity to boot!
You must stop disseminating this nonsense! It is a lie that is INTENTIONALLY designed to make Christians look stupid! You, by presenting this obviously false nonsense, are just being Ron Wyatt's useful idiot. You should delete your post and apologize for being a conduit for spreading such obviously idiotic lies.
Yes, lies!
- Ron Wyatt is known to have been a repeat, even habitual, liar.
- Wyatt was caught on more than one occasion falsifying data, using completely out of context photographs and other dishonest tactics to spread intentional lies because he knew that enough gullible Christians would believe it to make him famous and sell lots of books.
- The ark of the covenant has not been found.
- They have not found Jesus' blood!
- There isn't any way Jesus' blood could have ever gotten on the Ark to begin with.
- Wyatt did not do any DNA testing of any kind.
- There has never been any DNA test done by anyone, anywhere, for any reason that ever showed anything similar to "23 human chromosomes plus a Y chromosome."
Wyatt claimed to have found nearly 100 different biblical artifacts and sites, including the Ten Commandments, which I think we would have all heard about once or twice since the 1980s! He claimed to have found the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah, which has since been actually found by real archeologists. He claimed to have found Jesus Christ’s tomb, which no one goes to visit these days because it was an obvious fabrication. He "found" Goliath’s sword, of all the ridiculous things, as well as the exact location of the Red Sea Crossing and the above mentioned Ark of the Covenant, and a sampling of Christ’s dried blood.
Wyatt said that he’d found the remains of chariots and human bones from the Pharaoh’s destroyed forces while he was scuba diving at approximately 200 feet in the Red Sea, but no samples of the chariots or human bones were ever sent to professional scientists for independent testing. And, as for Christ’s dried blood, Wyatt told contradicting stories about the “lab” where the blood was tested. In some versions, the lab is located in Nashville, Tennessee, and in other versions, the lab is in Jerusalem. Guess what, he was lying! No such lab actually existed and neither did the blood!
I cannot even understand how it is even possible for people to be this gullible! How can anyone be so totally ignorant of how DNA works as to believe that Jesus' blood could have existed on a hard surface for over 2000 years and remained intact sufficient for DNA testing to be performed, never mind the idea that 24 chromosomes would have been sufficient to produce a recognizable, much less a working, human body. Do such people simply have nothing in the their minds that desires actual evidence? Do they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too? Is "Ancient Aliens" their favorite T.V. show? I'm mean, give me a break! I seriously wonder how such people make it through their lives without being talked into selling their own kidneys!
I watched it. A big claim requires a big proof. He didn't have any. I would not spend more time on it unless his technicians publish a scientific article. That's how my brain works. See A Disciplined Probabilistic Approach to Biblical Hermeneutics.He can't do that - he's dead! He died in 1999. The video is only 4m 27s long - surely you can spare that amount of time to seek more knowledge about Jesus! I think the end of the video will make you emotional.
Logikos
Member
This, I think, displays a healthy attitude toward the doctrine. It's clear to anyone who doesn't have a desire to disbelieve it that the bible teaches the doctrine in various ways but it is important to understand and acknowledge that it's neither overtly explicit (i.e. the term "trinity" is not in scripture) nor is it explained to us in any detail beyond the fact that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Three persons in the Godhead. The precise nature of their relationship to one another is not explained nor is it even likely explainable to us. I suspect that such things transcend our existence sufficiently that there wouldn't be any way of communicating them to us because we simply have nothing in our experience by which to meaningfully conceptualize them.
Indeed, I find it a bit annoying when I encounter someone who tries to be the least bit dogmatic about the nature of the Trinity. They almost always are trying to turn the doctrine into a self-contradictory notion as a means to justify their belief in other irrational doctrines that they call "mysteries" or "antinomy" or some other pious sounding term and then chastise those who disagree for their lack of "faith".
It is better to stick strictly to what scripture says and leave the unanswered questions as just that, unanswered. There is a certain healthy humility in acknowledging that there are some questions we don't get the answers to during this life and that jumping to conclusions that are irrational nonsense just for the sake of saying you've got an answer is not only unhealthy hubris but is down right dangerous, if not heretical.
- Status
Similar threads
