No it doesn't, it states that even the smallest amount of God's wisdom, is greater than the greatest amount of man's wisdom.
You called Him a foolish, I said the opposite!
-
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!
You called Him a foolish, I said the opposite!
Adam disobeyed God, therefore there was always the propensity to sin within man, even upon inception. Even the angels were created in the image of God, and a third of them did the unthinkable. I'm saying, being in the image of God does not mean perfect unto temptation, the way that Christ was. This is the difference that i'm trying to make.
The goal of man is to be conformed to the image of Christ, who attained to perfection through obedience and love. That was the point of the passage. Not, that Jesus is God.
I'm saying that God created us for our pleasure, that we could enjoy Him. He did not create the universe for Himself to enjoy, He does not take pleasure in material things. He created us to love Him for our sake, not for His. All humans enjoy being in love. God was thinking about us, not Himself, and Christ was His first thought.
The message of the Cross is that man can find redemption through the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Which, abrogated the Law, and the condemnation that comes with it. Christ fulfilled both the Law, and the will that God had for all men, love Him with all our being, and love each other. This is why God exalted him to his right-hand side, and will make us heirs in the Christ's Kingdom if we accept him as Lord and Saviour. And it is for all this, that he cannot be God.
Last edited:
Isaiah 40:3 was speaking of God at the time that he wrote, what he wrote. I believe that John, like many other apostles in the NT, are able to extract both a dual and relevant meaning to the prophecies, outside of their initial intention. This is done with wisdom and insight, so, is thus valid.
Either way, without investigating into the entire pericope, and manuscripts further, i would never exegete a doctrine as radical as the trinity, based on such an ambiguous text. 'lord' and 'god' are used for various entities throughout the Bible.
Yes, I will worship Jesus as prescribed by God, and as he deserves. Many men were worshiped and prostrated to throughout the Bible.
No Renniks, when an interpretation turns rationality upside down, it is at this point that we question or denounce the conclusion. That's hermeneutics 101. You expressed your amazement at, self admittedly, such an absurd notion, but you failed to explain where the glory or amazement lies. Just because the logic defies our preconceptions about something, doesn't mean that it's either valid or glorious. Typically, as stated before, it means the opposite.
Although the cross of Christ is foolishness to those who perish, the saved do see the wisdom behind it. i.e. the necessity for justice, and the attraction that such a humble and altruistic act has upon the good in heart. Such impoverishment and debasement repulses the arrogant. This is the wisdom of God.
Sorry, your atonement theory just doesn't have such an alternate manner of interpreting the nonsense.
Yes, but my interpretation elucidates the meaning. God is not foolish JBF, ...you have some very weird understandings of God and Scripture.
Not at all. I explained where the wisdom lies in God's perceived foolishness. I don't believe that you did the same in your understanding of the Atonement, in claiming that it was effectuated by a god-man.
Of course He isn't...
However, in coming to earth to die on a Cross to save humanity, this appears to be foolishness to many.
And Paul says that it is indeed foolishness.
But God is so wise that He is able to take a foolish action and turn it into the salvation of mankind.
Think for a moment. If I tried to save you from some horrible accident by sacrificing myself, it would be a foolish thing unless you were extremely good and worthy of being saved; and if my life were of less importance than yours, it might even be considered heroic of me to save your life by sacrificing mine....but still foolish. I would be throwing my life away. And the posthumous reward would mean nothing to me because I would be dead.
Now Jesus gave His life for us while we were yet sinners...He did not die for righteous people; but for wicked ones.
If I, as an extremely righteous person, died to save the life of Adolph Hitler, I think you can see how foolish that might be. Because my life is of more importance than Hitler's. If I live on, I can do much good. But if Hitler lives on, he will do much evil. So it would indeed be foolish of me to give my life so that Hitler might live.
But that is what God did for us. All of us were in character like Adolph Hitler (see Jeremiah 17:9); and God was perfect, sinless, absolutely righteous. Him dying in our place is foolishness therefore.
Of course that is not the end of the story. He did indeed rise from the dead. And those whom He died for become righteous.
But if you cut the story off at a specific point, and do not understand the rest of the story, it does indeed appear to be the foolishness of God that is in operation.
Last edited:
Tong2020 said:
As to why he disobeyed God, you can read Genesis 3. He heeded the voice of his wife and so did not continue in heeding the voice of God.
-----------------------
Tong2020 said:
To be conformed in the image of Jesus Christ, who is said to be the image of God is the goal of God for those whom He saves. And God's image is nothing less of Jesus Christ.
And nobody is saying that the point of the passage is that Jesus is God. That's a strawman.
Tong
R0839
As to why he disobeyed God, you can read Genesis 3. He heeded the voice of his wife and so did not continue in heeding the voice of God.
Perhaps, that is what you conclude. On the other hand, I don't conclude like so. What I see is that Adam and Eve were created innocent, without knowledge of good and evil, as like an innocent child. They have no knowledge of sin. Thus, the propensity to sin is out of the picture.
Please cite scriptures where you got the teaching that the angels were created in the image of God so I could check the truth of that. Else, I would take that to be just your making.
I disagree. I have already gave you my argument against that in my previous post. As I said, Jesus was a man too. Should Jesus had sinned, will he be said to be the image of God who is Holy? No sir. For how can a sinner be the image of the Holy God?
-----------------------
Tong2020 said:
To be conformed in the image of Jesus Christ, who is said to be the image of God is the goal of God for those whom He saves. And God's image is nothing less of Jesus Christ.
Here's what Paul said as written in scriptures relative to the those God foreknew, "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son..." Plainly and clearly, it is God who have the goal of conforming us to the image of His Son Jesus Christ. If you don't agree with that and just keep insisting that it is man's goal and not God's, that's up to you. For one, man could not, as had been proven throughout the history of man, attain to that goal even if it were at all man's goal, which is not. It could only be said perhaps to be the goal of every genuine believer, but only after having the knowledge that it is God's goal that he be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.
And nobody is saying that the point of the passage is that Jesus is God. That's a strawman.
Tong
R0839
No, Jesus died knowing that he would be risen 3 days later, and even ascend into heaven to be seated at God's right-hand side, approximately 45 days after that. Your analogy is by no means analogous to the Atonement. You may die for someone knowing that you have a posthumous reward, which, for the sake of argument, is what Christ did.
But, your analogy is even worse than that, because you think that Jesus, as God, died for our sins. Therefore, there was never a threat to die, as God, the eternal and immortal, at any moment can raise Himself back up. Your foolishness theory is inapplicable.
For crying out loud JBH, you have an utterly absurd understanding of Scripture!
I could agree to your first statement, but not with your second statement. And I as have said, that is your personal conclusion concerning God, which is easily refuted by scriptures which speaks of God as have desires, and that God does whatever He pleases. Everything in creation, God had created according to His will, purpose, pleasure, and glory. Do you not read that in scriptures? If not, consider reading again.
Tong
R0840
Last edited:
Propensity in both natures, actually. I was just trying to prove that yes, innocence was there, but clearly defiance and lust also. For again, they sinned without duress or desperation, it came without too much coaxing. Your impression of Adam an Eve, and the image of God, is incorrect.
Every sentient and moral creature, is created in the image of God. No other creature has the moral or spiritual awareness, unless they are created in God's image. 'Let us make man in our image'.
God cannot become man because He is transcendent. There is no such thing as a god-man, as there is no such thing as a square circle. Every attribute that defines deity, is antithetical to what defines humanity. It's an impossibility, a contradiction, and an oxymoron. And a completely absurd and disgraceful, and redundant notion, to have 3 all-powerful persons in a single godhead. For one, the only thing that differentiates them is their names, nothing else.
yes, but I am clarifying what His pleasure is, to maker others happy. He's already entirely content, which cannot be improved upon. Now, because He Himself is so complete and perfect, it is His Holy desire to share His joy with others. He takes pleasure, in giving pleasure to others, not in procuring or sustaining His own joy, that is irrevocable and unable to diminish. That's my point.
Oh, for crying out loud, how long is this going to go on for?
The foolishness to the proud and epicureans, is the suffering and abasement aspect of the cross. The altruism and asceticism that Jesus exuded during his life, and the sadistic and macabre death by Roman crucifixion that he had to suffer, all appear as senseless, defaming and humiliating to the shallow and unwise. Christ, the King of Kings and Saviour, as being tortuously crucified, is the foolishness of the Gospel. But the insightful, humble and reverent, perceive the wisdom of God behind it. Just as much as a proud man cannot for the life of him, comprehend the strength and dignity required in order to turn the other cheek. It appears as foolishness and recklessness to him.
There goes your own thinking and understanding injected in Isaiah 40:3.
And Isaiah 40:3 isn't ambiguous at all, not to those who have the Holy Spirit. And Matthew, Luke, and John knew exactly what they said concerning Jesus Christ when they referred to Isaiah 40:3. Isaiah 40:3 was a prophecy exactly about the ministry of John the baptist concerning Yahweh, who was manifested to Him and later to the world, in the person of Jesus Christ. The three of them made that perfectly clear. And it clearly speaks about the preparation of the way of Yahweh ~ God. And that prophecy was fulfilled in John the baptist and in Jesus Christ.
And so, you worship a creature, even while it is very clear in scriptures that only God should be worshiped and served, even while the creature (according to you) you worship other than God clearly tells you that you should worship and serve only God. Remember, all that Jesus Christ speaks are what the Father commanded Him to speak. With your position, you have made God contradict Himself or have made Jesus Christ, the Son, contradict the Father.
You said "....i would never exegete a doctrine as radical as the trinity...". Well, the Christian don't get to choose what not to exegete or not. Rather, the Christian should let the Holy Spirit guide him into all truths in scriptures and let scriptures interpret scriptures.
And what about the matter of God being the Lord of Lords and King of kings and Jesus Christ being the Lord of Lords and King of kings? Another truth that you apparently can't accept nor refute?
Tong
R0842
Last edited:
Excuse my explanation of Isaiah, that wasn't the best, I would need more time to exegete that correctly. Yes, it is clearly Messianic in many ways, if not entirely, I did not articulate that very well. But, the reason that I didn't address it thoroughly at the time is because, one, lord and god is used throughout the Bible, for many different entities, both singular and plural. And two, and most astutely, the over-arching point still remains, a doctrine as radical, incomprehensible, ignoble and contradictory as that of the doctrine of the trinity, would require innumerable didactic, explicit and fundamental passages to warrant its validity. This is hermeneutics 101.
I will worship a creature as God has required of all humans to do so, in order to attain salvation. Christ is both the first-born from creation (reason behind all of God's creation), and the first-born from the dead (first and only, as of yet, to ascend into heaven). This type of terminology demands a creature ontology. And yes, again so that I am clear, I will bow down and prostrate myself to God's creature, His chosen Messiah.
Similar threads
