Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

kerygma
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2002
Total Posts : 45

Posted 8/22/2002 4:06 AM (GMT -6)

As a born again Christian, I need to defend my faith from time to time. Lately it's been mostly with Muslims.

Now, I understand all the indirect ways we Christians can tell Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus Christ, God the Savior, the Annointed One, accepted worship and He accepted people calling Him Lord. He made statements, again indirectly, which alluded to His deity. The writers of the Bible proclaimed Him God. Most of His disciples died for Him, believing He was the Son of God, etc. etc.

But is there something in the Bible, are there reasons from scholars, or is it a mystery why Jesus never said plainly "I am God"?

If you look at Jesus' apparent technique, which was to get others to see and proclaim His deity, that is obviously most effective for those who lived during His time.

All the other signs and scripture are enough to convince me, but is there a reason He specifically did not plainly say it? Because my literal minded Muslim friends don't get it.

Thanks,

Kerygma

"And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus" Philippians 4:19

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 8/22/2002 11:52 AM (GMT -6)

kerygma

Interesting situation: problem to figure out, whatever. Just interesting! (I'll invite you to travel through history for the first seven ecumenical councils, to see what the issues where and how they tried and tried to handle them. You could see the pages I'm putting below, if you want.

But the simple point to offer here is: That it was a different issue that needed making when Christ was alive. And even a different point to argue when the Church was very young. You face people demanding proof that Christ is GOD. Originally the revolutionary thing was that God had become MAN. So it was against the Arians that the kind of debate you face was first waged full blown.

Check it out!!!

quote:
The Seven Ecumenical Councils
Nicea 1 325 Formulated the First Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Son of God
Constantinople 1 381 Formulated the Second Part of the Creed, defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit
Ephesus 431 Defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and Mary as Theotokos
Chalcedon 451 Defined Christ as Perfect God and Perfect Man in One Person
Constantinople II 553 Reconfirmed the Doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ
Constantinople III 680 Affirmed the True Humanity of Jesus by insisting upon the reality of His human will and action
Nicea II 787 Affirmed the propriety of icons as genuine expressions of the Christian Faith

www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/doctrine/the-councils.html

AND FOR SOME GOOD READING:

quote:
Incarnation
www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/doctrine/incarnation.html

Has:
Defense of the Doctrine of Incarnation
The Ecumenical Councils ("In the third and fourth centuries attempts were made to teach that although Jesus is truly the incarnate Son and Word of God, that the Son and Word Himself is not fully and totally divine, but a creature -- even the most exalted creature -- but a creature made by God like everything else that was made. This was the teaching of the Arians. ")

The Nestorian Controversy ("a long and difficult controversy developed over the true understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ.")
The Council of Chalcedon
("This teaching about Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, was further elaborated and explained ...")

The Council of Chalcedon ("necessary because there was a tendency to stress the divine nature of Christ to such an extent that His true human nature was underplayed to the point almost of being rejected")
Emperor Justinian and the 5th Ecumenical Council ("confesses the Lord Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man ... ")
The Monothelite Controversy ("Some now said that after the Son of God became man, He had just one activity and will -- the theandric activity and will of the Word-made-flesh. These people, called monothelites, insisted that the One Person of Christ, in uniting the natures of God and Man in His One Person, fused together the human and divine will and activity in such a way that they no longer could be distinguished.
")
Iconoclastic Controversy ("defenders of the veneration of the holy icons claimed that the central point of the Christian faith is that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" and that "we have beheld His glory" (Jn 1:14). ... since Jesus Christ is a real man with a real human soul and body, and as such can be depicted. They said that those who were against the holy icons reduced the incarnation to a "fantasy" and denied the true humanity of the Son of God in His coming to man.")

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/22/2002 4:54:43 PM

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 8/22/2002 12:26 PM (GMT -6)

Kerygma,

Few things . . .

First, consider that titles such as "Son of God" in a Biblical context could only end up meaning one thing: one who is one with God (thus God) but distinct in some manner to God. This creates persons within God, hence a special plurality in and of God; not MORE than one God, but God existing as more than one person. (And for the history of all this as it was worked out in church history, PotOnWheel will, I'm most sure, be willing to post some stuff for us! Actually, he has already, but you'd have to search for it on this site.)

The entire book of John utilizes this title to drill home the point of Christ's Deity; Sonship, the way Jesus harnessed it, was equivelancy with God. Take a look at the Book of John, 5:16-23, most particularly verses 17-18. Note that John records how the Jews interpret Jesus calling Himself God's Son, NOT what John thought Jesus said or what John thought the Jews were thinking. Proof is that the Jews were wanting to stone Jesus . . . for blasphemy; claiming to be God, something that could get you stoned according to the Old Testament's law.

John is very clear by recording what the Jews themselves were thinking: Jesus made Himself equal with God by calling Himself God's Son. The rest of the passage presents more evidence that Jesus believed He was God--he expects to be respected, to have the same power, and to be honored just as the Father. This is rampet in John. It's John's point of writing (see John 20:31).

Next, let's look at John 8:56-58 . . .

Here Jesus says something that, once again, astounds the hearers, so much that, again, they are ready to kill Jesus (and rightly so if He weren't who He said He was). In 8:56 Jesus states Abraham rejoiced to see His day. In 8:57 the Jews think Jesus is nuts: "You aren't even 50-years-old and . . . you've seen Abraham? Huh?" In 8:58 Jesus responds with a statement that blew everyone's mind. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am." The Greek language--though, I do not read Greek, this is well attested to by any Greek Grammarian--is explicitly clear: "Ego Emi" (spelling?): "I am." It isn't that Jesus is merely saying "I existed before Abraham"--the Jews whould have thought He was just a little bit off His rocker--but that He's claiming to be self existant . . . God! This quote is sighted as the same thing God told Moses in Exodus 3:14 when Moses asked what God's name was: "I AM THAT I AM." Self-existing One. Yhwh - the Eternal One. THIS is what Jesus was claiming in John 8. Again, you'll find Him calling Himself all kinds of things and attributing to Himself only things that God can both be and do.

By the way in the 1960s, the Jehova Witnessess translaters of their Greek Interlinear Translation--English and Greek side by side--had to get around this. There was a footnote at 8:58 stating something to the effect (I forget now exactly how it read) "Do to the perfect indefinte tense of the verb "to be" in the Greek, this should be translated "I have been." Problem: there was no such thing as the Greek tense they sighted! The footnote was quickly eliminated in further editions. Back then there weren't even any Greek scholars or Grammarians on the board of the Jehova Witnesses' translater team! I do not think there are any today either, but I could be wrong.

It isn't that Jesus wasn't clear about Who He was, it is that we loose some of that potency in view of the New Testament's Biblical language cultured and contexted in an Old Testament environment (as well as, perhaps, their then-current culture).

Jesus excepted worship, honor, and respect, same as the Father. He also clamied the same power to forgive sins, to raise the dead, to grant eternal life (all these are in the Book of John alone.) It simply can't be dismissed these are just things that God "gave" Him, as if Jesus was just a man whom God like a lot. No, no man can be, say or do what Jesus did if He weren't something more . . . much more! Again, Jehova Witnesses refuse to accept this and claim Jesus was Michael the Archangel before He came to earth. The Mormons (depending on what era of their history you study) claim Jesus was brother to Satan before coming to earth, that the "Board" in heaven chose Jesus to go and become the savior, and Satan (then Lucifer) got real mad. Brigham Young had originally tought that Jesus was a product of "relations" between God the Father (Adam, according to Brigham!) and Mary, who was the Father's daughter in heaven before she was born on earth. It gets really pretty hairy, to tell you the truth.

Anyway, there's plenty of material out there about the subject of Christ and his claims to Deity. You'll find them if you look around.

I'd add one more thing, though it doesn't speak directly of Christ's own claims to Deity.

Consider you have committed a huge crime, I mean, like murdering someone's kid for fun. I your friend am with you in court. The judge says, "Guilty; off with your head." I say, "Your honor, I'd like to die for my friend here." Do you think this is gonna fly in court? I mean, the judge isn't going to let me do it, and you can be sure that the victim's mother and father are going to scream bloody murder.

No, it's an issue between you and the victim. No one else can step in and die for you. Unfortunately we Christians sometimes use something to of a small crime, like a traffic infraction, to try and show this to be opposite--your friend pays your bill, and everything's fine. We try to say, "See, that's Jesus paying our bill for us." Well, that's inaccurate. As far as the court's concerned, YOU paid the fine. The judge could careless where the money came from even though it's still credited to you. HOWEVER, when we take this to full-hilt, we find that it really is YOU who has to pay . . . with your life and not with money alone, the true scenario shows itself when the example uses a major crime. ONLY the perpetrator can and must pay.

So it is between God and us. A lot of folks on this site do not hold to a penal concept of the sacrificial aspect of Christ's death on the cross, but I think there ultimately has to be something of it respected, or there's just no reason for shedding blood. God's Word is clear: you sin, you die! However, if God takes this to its conclusion, we'd all die, loose life-everlasting (I can't raise myself from the dead!), and God has no one left with which to have a relationship. Loose-loose deal!

So the crime, being between God and us--we have sinned and have committed crimes against Him--leaves God with only one other option: become man Himself, thus qualifying as a real, true human being, and dying as a human being. It meets all the conditions and requirements of "Between God and us". Jesus dies, satisifies and turns away God's wrath towards us, and the sentence is applicable to all persons. This works, because, unlike us, Jesus possessess eternal life; He can raise Himself from the dead. Win-win situation!

This to me is one of the most intimate concepts to me (apart from direct incident's of Christ's claims to Deity) that makes Jesus being God so special.

Hope this helps.

For His Sonship,

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 08/22/2002 5:44:59 PM

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 8/26/2002 4:49 PM (GMT -6)

From Josh McDowall and Don Steward, Answers to tough questions, 1980.

"What did Jesus say about Himself?
Among the religious leaders who have attained a large following throughout history, Jesus Christ is unique in the fact that he alone claimed to be God in human flesh. A common misconception is that some or many of the leaders of the world’s religions made similar claims, but this is simply not the case.
Buddha did not claim to be God; Moses never said that he was Yahweh; Mohammed did not identify himself as Allah; and nowhere will you find Zoroaster claiming to be Ahura Mazda. Yet Jesus, the carpenter from Nazareth, said that he who has seen Him (Jesus has seen the Father (John14:9).
The claims of Christ are many and varied. He said the He existed before Abraham (John 8:58), and that he was equal with the Father (John 5:17,18). Jesus claimed the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which the Bible teaches was something that God alone could do (Isaiah 43:25).
The New Testament equated Jesus as the creator of the universe (John 1:3), and that He is the one who holds everything together (Colossians 1:17). The apostle Paul says that God was manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16, KJV), and John the evangelist says that “the Words was God” (John 1:1). The united testimony of Jesus and the writers of the New Testament is that He was more than mere man, He was God.
Not only did His friends notice that He claimed to be God, but so did His enemies as well. There may be some doubt today among the skeptics who refuse to examine the evidence, but there was no doubt on the part of the Jewish authorities.
When Jesus asked them why they wanted to stone Him they replied, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God” (John 10:33, NASB).
This fact separates Jesus from the other religious figures. In the major religions of the world, the teachings – not the teacher - are all-important."

Edited by - Springs on 08/26/2002 9:51:34 PM

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/16/2002 1:33 PM (GMT -6)

There isn't a single scripture that says one must believe Jesus is The True God.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/16/2002 2:24 PM (GMT -6)

Hey St. Yura,

So, what's your interpretation on John 8:58?
There is, also, John 1:1?

Thanks,

Starkman

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/16/2002 2:38 PM (GMT -6)

For John 1:1-3, 14: http://pub97.ezboard.com/fthewatchmanarea888frm41.showMessage?topicID=37.topic

John 8:56-57 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad."

The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"

Yeshua said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

When we read the scripture in context, the Jews are asking how is it Yeshua saw Abraham for Yeshua wasn't fifty years old yet.

Yeshua answered them and told them he was before Abraham.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/16/2002 3:06 PM (GMT -6)

Saint Yura,

Well, you have the right to approach the New Testament with this kind of hermeneutic, but I'd bet you any amount of money that if you asked the average joe on the street to interpret John 1:1-14, the person wouldn't see it at all as you've interpreted it. Understanding Greek isn't necessary in John chapter 1 to get the simple, clear point. John was very clear, said exactly what he meant to say, and so did Jesus say exactly what he meant to say. Paul was also very clear, as in such passages as Philippians 2:6-11, particularly verses 10-11, a direct quote by God in Isaiah 45:23 (applied to Jesus): "I have sworn by Myself. . . That to Me every knee shall bow, every toungue shall take an oath." One only bows in worship and confesses God as God to God Himself, never anyone else.

Paul's intention is clear. As I say, ask someone off the street if it isn't clear that Paul is quoting what God Almighty said and applying it to Jesus. Both you and that person may not believe it's true that Jesus is, in fact, God, but the clarity of the interpretation is for anyone to see. The authors of the New Testament spoke simple Greek or Aramaic and said things quite clearly.

The author of Hebrews was very clear in 1:3. Jesus is the very express image of God. The simple, plain reading of verses 5-13 are very, very clear that God Almighty calls Jesus God; "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever . . . '" It's really very clear.

This kind of stuff goes on throught the whole New Testament. Disagree if you will that Jesus isn't the Savior, but you can't say that the authors of the New Testament, particularly Jesus' own diciples (and Jesus Himself) didn't thoroughly believe that Jesus was God of very God, the Savior of the World. (Incidentally, it is impossible that anyone but God can be the Savior. Man can't do it, angels can't redeem us--they haven't the slightest bit to do with man's sin and rebellion before God anymore than the good friend of a murder in a court room can stand up and ask the judge if he can die for his guilty friend. The issue is between man and God, only these two. Either man dies for his sins and stays dead or God becomes man and dies for man; He can rise from the dead, we can't.)

Well, I'm done!

For the Son,

Starkman

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/16/2002 3:41 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman, What is inspired by the Fathers' Spirit needs to be interpeted by someone who has Fathers' Spirit, not some lost person on the street.

You seem to lack reading skills. I will show you what I mean.

Philippians 2

5: Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6: who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7: but emptied himself , taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8: And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
9: Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
10: that at the name of Yeshua every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11: and every tongue confess that Yeshua The Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Yeshua was at the "right hand of God" (verse 6) which means he had ALL POWER and AUTHORITHY of God.

Yeshua then emptied himself (gave up ALL POWER and AUTHORITHY that God gave him) in verse 7.

Yeshua became obedient to God in verse 8.

Yeshua received a name very high name in verse 9.

At Yeshuas' name every knee shall bow, and it does not say to Yeshua but everyone shall bow at his "name" in verse 10.

In verse 11 we see to whom every knee shall bow and confess (to God The Father) not to Yeshua.

As I have said before, there isn't a single scripture that says one must believe Yeshua is The True God.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/16/2002 4:00 PM (GMT -6)

Sain't Yura,

You said, "At Yeshuas' name every knee shall bow, and it does not say to Yeshua but everyone shall bow at his "name" in verse 10.

In verse 11 we see to whom every knee shall bow and confess (to God The Father) not to Yeshua."

No, this isn't true. Read 2:11 carefully: "and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is Lord, to the GLORY of God the Father," NOT to God the Father directly, as you've said. The text is very clear. The whole point of this passage is to exalt Jesus, not the Father. Since when would God ever exalt anyone but Himself?!

Again, the passage, as well as the others I've noted, is simple. It's clear. In Deuteronomy 30:11, God made it very clear that He hasn't been mysterious (requiring anything but simple, human understanding) or far off in His communication to us. It doesn't take any spiritual enlightment, as you've said it does, to understand plain, simple language. You understand me, and I understand you, and anybody can understand the plain simplicity of the passages I mentioned. What they WON'T have without God's Spirit ministering to them is the conviction (by revelation) of the TRUTH of Scripture, not its simple, plain message. Many atheists acknowledge what Jesus said about Himself, as well as others (that He claimed to be God), but they don't believe it because they have no revelation from God's Spirit to open their eyes. But they DO understand the plain language that was clearly communicated to us.

For the clarity,

Starkman

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/16/2002 4:06 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman, the way you interpet scriptures is how all these false doctrines have started.

It says to the glory of God the Father NOT to the glory of God the Son or to the glory of Yeshua or to the glory of Lord or to the glory of The Messiah.

I know what it says, if you have a hard time accept scripture as it is then don't interpet it for others for the sake of others who want to know the Truth.

There isn't a singel scripture that says one must believe Yeshua is The True God for Salvation.

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/16/2002 4:08 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman said: "Since when would God ever exalt anyone but Himself?!"

Now tell me Starkman, why would God need to exalt himself? Was he lower than his creation? Was he lacking attention?

You are using vain points that bring no fruit nor have Truth in them.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/16/2002 4:37 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Saint Yura,

You said "Now tell me Starkman, why would God need to exalt himself? Was he lower than his creation? Was he lacking attention?"

This is the whole beauty of the concept of the Trinity; there was and is relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Always has been this way. So when second person of this One Essence we call the Trinity--the Logos--became flesh, he "lowered" Himself taking on the form of man. That's the issue in Philippians chapter 2. After having completed the mission of dying for our sins, the Father (as noted in the same chapter and in Hebrews chapter 1) exalts Him to the status Christ prayed for in John 17--"Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was."

The Son is brought to the right hand of the throne of God, a way of clearly denoting power and authority ("All authority has been given to me." Mathew 28:18.)

Please, Saint Yura, don't be upset with me. I'm not trying to argue or fight, but just discuss this issue. It is obviously very important to both of us. I apologize if I seemed inconsiderate or disprespectful in making my points.

Didn't at all mean to!

For more on the subject,

Starkman

(Gads, I've got to get to bed . . . truck driving school in the morning! Ha, but I did get my CDL permit today! Yea! I'll respond tomorrow.)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/16/2002 6:09 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman, its "name that heresy" day:

The word was not made flesh by mutation, but is said to have been made flesh after taking flesh.

Can you name it, Starky?

Then...

Saint Yura challenges: "There isn't a single scripture that says one must believe Jesus is The True God."

Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

The concept of God sending his Word was common in many religions. That God was almighty is also common. But that the Almighty God is "Lord" is not common. THAT is relational. Absolute transcendence is bridged in that relationship. It would be unthinkable in such religions that worshiped a Sun-god who was so far removed that only the im-personal spirit and im-personal word he sent were involved with mankind. But God's love was revealed PERSONALLY in the incarnate-God, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The statement that "Christ is Lord" is bold! Not only does it exalt Jesus as God-incarnate, it also says "For God so loved the world..." It says, "Emmanuel -- God with us." Despite the butchery of John 1 on that site, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." But there is more. The Word who became flesh, taking as his own (enhypostasis) our fallen flesh, he descended to the place of the dead and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19). And, "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men" (Ephesians 4:8). THAT Christ actually now has as his own, enhypostasisized the deified humanity given him by The Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, that is essential to salvation. In fact, Paul writes: "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead." (1 Corinthians 15:12)

Not only is Jesus "Lord" (both exalted and loving), Jesus also was tempted, suffered, died, and being Very God, had the power to raise from the dead. In his flesh, he trampled down death. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He did not discard his humanity. But being transfigured, he is not limited by the measures of space.

So...

If Jesus is [not] God... If Jesus is [not] Lord... If Jesus was [not] raised from the dead... Then we who believe all these things are "most to be pittied among men."

Saint Yura's linked site tries to make a switcheroo and posits that The Word only took a body; saying. "The word dwelt among us ‘IN’ Christ." And it claims: "The word of God is not ‘literally’ Yeshua"

Beware wooden nickles!

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/16/2002 11:19:48 PM

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/17/2002 07:14:27 AM

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/16/2002 6:48 PM (GMT -6)

Starkman, I have no reason to be supset.

If you do not understand scripture then how can I blame you?

John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. (RSV)

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. (KJV)

Yeshua is claiming change in the passage above: "the glory which I had", and notice it says "before the world was", so this is not his flesh talking but his spiritual side.

The True God does not change, and yet Yeshua did as we read in Philippians 2:7.

Matthew 28:18 And Yeshua came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. (RSV)

Matthew 28:18 And Yeshua came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (KJV)

Here we see that Yeshua went back to being at the right hand of The True God.

The thing is, Yeshua (The Son of The True God) will NOT be at the right hand for ever, he will be there until all enemies are destroyed, to know more about Yeshua being at the right hand of The True God visit: http://pub97.ezboard.com/fthewatchmanarea888frm41.showMessage?topicID=79.topic

Al2Si2H4O9, lower-case "Lord/lord" does not mean YHVH (UPPSER-CASE LORD), I also explain this on the link above.

What are you trying to say by Romans 10:9? Let me guess, you acually think "lord" means God?

Let's see how your kind twist this scriptures: Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is God and believe in your heart that God raised God from the dead, you will be saved.

Above is what scripture twisters try to say.

Below is what scripture is trying to say.

Romans 10:9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

There isn't a single scripture that says one must believe The Son is The True God for Salvation.

Edited by - Saint Yura on 09/16/2002 11:52:09 PM

Edited by - Saint Yura on 09/16/2002 11:53:04 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/17/2002 2:30 AM (GMT -6)

You guessed it, Starkman! Arianism. Or in this manifestation, The Jehovah's Witnesses.

The Arian heresy!

As to which heresy it is...

The LINK that I posted (second from the top) outlined the various heresies concerning Christ. Here's the one that applies:

Incarnation

www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/doctrine/incarnation.html

P.S. To Yura

The issue with heresies is ALWAYS the issue of salvation. Heresies are dangerous because they endanger people's salvation. And on that very ground they must be opposed.

Where is salvation in the Jehovah's Witnesses? What answer does it have to sin and death?

It is NOT Christian.

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/17/2002 08:59:30 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/17/2002 3:59 AM (GMT -6)

Christ's ministry was WAY more than just what He said!!!

A thread that dealt with Christology can be linked to here:

www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=4&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=668

A quote from that thread (of many pages):

From Bishop Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way", chapter 4--God as Man
(pp78-80)

Obedient unto Death

Christ's Incarnation is already an act of salvation. By taking up our broken humanity into himself, Christ restores it and, in the words of another Christmas hymn, "lifts up the fallen image". But in that case why was a death necessary? Was it not enough for one of the Trinity to live as man on earth, to think, feel and will as a man, without also having to die as a man?

In an unfallen world the Incarnation of Christ would indeed have sufficed as the perfect expression of God's ongoing love. But in a fallen and sinful world his love had to reach our yet further. Because of the tragic presence of sin and evil, the work of man's restoration was to prove infinitely costly. A sacrificial act of healing was required, a sacrifice such as only a suffering and crucified God could offer.

The Incarnation, it was said, is an act of identification and sharing. God saves us by identifying himself with us, by knowing our human experience from the inside. The Cross signifies, in the most stark and uncompromising manner, that this act of sharing is carried to the utmost limits. God incarnate enters into all all our experience. Jesus Christ our companion shares not only in the fullness of human life but also in the fullness of human death. "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Isa. 53:4) -- all our griefs, all our sorrows. "The unassumed is unhealed": but Christ our healer has assumed into himself everything, even death.

Death has both a physical and a spiritual aspect, and of the two it is the spiritual that is the more terrible. Physical death is the separation of man's body from his soul; spiritual death, the separation of man's soul from God. When we say that Christ became "obedient unto death" (Phil. 2:8), we should not think only of the bodily sufferings which Christ endured at his Passion -- the scourging, the stumbling beneath the weight of the Cross, the nails, the thirst and heat, the torment of hanging stretched on the wood. The true meaning of the Passion is found, not in this only, but much more in his spiritual sufferings -- in his sense of failure, isolation and utter loneliness, in the pain of love offered but rejected.

The Gospels are understandably reticent in speaking about his inward suffering; yet they provide us with certain glimpses. First, there is Christ's Agony in the garden of Gethsemane, when he is overwhelmed by horror and dismay, when he prays in anguish to his Father, "If it is possible, let this cup pass from me" (Matt/ 26:39), and when his sweat falls to the ground "like great drops of blood" (Luke 22:44). Gethsemane, as Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev insisted, provides the key to our whole doctrine of the Atonement. Christ is here confronted by a choice. Under no compulsion to die, freely he chooses to do so; and by this act of voluntary self-offering he turns what would have been a piece of arbitrary violence, a judicial murder, into a redemptive sacrifice. But this act of free choice is immensely difficult. Resolving to go forward to arrest and crucifixion, Jesus experiences, in the words of William Law, "the anguishing terrors of a lost soul . . the reality of eternal death". Full weight must be given to Christ's words at Gethsemane, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death" (Matt. 26:38). Jesus enters at this moment totally into the experience of spiritual death. He is at this moment identifying himself with all the despair and mental pain of humanity, and this identification is far more important to us than his participation in our physical pain.

A second glimpse is given us at the Crucifixion, when Christ cries our with a loud voice. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46). Once again, full weight should be given to these words. Here is the extreme point of Christ's desolation, when he feels abandoned not only by men but by God. We cannot begin to explain how it is possible for one who is himself the living God to lose awareness of the divine presence. But this at least is evident. In Christ's Passion there is no play-acting, nothing is done for outward show. Each word from the Cross means what it says. And it the cry "My God, my God..." is to signify anything at all, it must mean that at this moment Jesus is truly experiencing the spiritual death of separation from God. Not only does he shed his blood for us, but for our sakes he accepts even the loss of God.

"He descended into hell" (Apostles Creed). Does this mean merely that Christ went to preach to the departed spirits during the interval between Great Friday evening and Easter morning (see 1 Pet. 3:19)? Surely it has also a deeper sense. Hell is a point not in space but in the soul. It is the place where God is not. (And yet God is everywhere!) If Christ truly "descended into hell", that means he descended into the depths of the absence of God. Totally, unreservedly, he identifies himself with all man's anguish and alienation. He assumed it unto himself, and by assuming it he healed it. There was no other way he could heal it, except by making it his own.

Such is the message of the Cross to each one of us. However far I have to travel through the valley of the shadow of death, I am never alone I have a companion. And this companion is not only a true man as I am, but also true God from true God. At the moment of Christ's deepest humiliation on the Cross, he is as much the eternal and living God as he is at his Transfiguration in glory upon Mount Tabor. Looking upon Christ crucified, I see not only a suffering man but suffering God.

Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 09/17/2002 09:03:51 AM

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/17/2002 8:38 AM (GMT -6)

Al2Si2H4O9, I must say you're like a blind bat flying by the sun for judging so blindly.

The grand heresy is the false doctrine known as "trinity" which cannot be explained, you just have to have "faith" that somehow it is true, when in reality it's nothing but paganism.

I am not a JW's and you would know this if you would take a look around my board where I condemn JW's.

I am not sure what this Arianism is either, but I am sure they don't believe as I do, and if they do then I'll do some search of this belief.

You can whine and say all the vain words you can find, but you still won't find a single scripture that says one must believe The Son is The True God for Salvation.

Have you read what is written in Galatians? Idolatures shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Edited by - Saint Yura on 09/17/2002 1:39:57 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/17/2002 8:52 AM (GMT -6)

Kerygma said:

If you look at Jesus' apparent technique, which was to get others to see and proclaim His deity, that is obviously most effective for those who lived during His time.

All the other signs and scripture are enough to convince me, but is there a reason He specifically did not plainly say it? Because my literal minded Muslim friends don't get it.

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/17/2002 9:06 AM (GMT -6)

Al2Si2H4O9, and Benny Hinn said: Adam was superman because he had dominion over the fowls of the air.

But is it true?

You're vain guesses do not make it true.

As I said many time, there isn't a single scripture that condemns those who do not believe The Son is The True God, noR is there a single scripture that says one must believe that The Son is the True God for Salvation, but there is a lot of scriptures that condemn IDOLATURES.

Edited by - Saint Yura on 09/17/2002 2:08:28 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/17/2002 12:40 PM (GMT -6)

The Taize Community

www.taize.fr/

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/17/2002 12:41 PM (GMT -6)

The Taize Community

www.taize.fr/

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/17/2002 12:53 PM (GMT -6)

An indescribable Christ would be an incorporeal Christ.

...this concrete reality of God-who-became-Man . . .presents in our own lives an ever- Present challenge as we gaze upon His Holy Image. For we must ask ourselves with the very words of our Lord, "What think you of the Christ?" (Matthew 22:42)

"No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh . . . He accepted to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images."

St. Theodore the Studite writes: ‘Christ was certainly not a mere man nor is it orthodox to say that he assumed an individual among men but the whole totality of the nature. It must be said however that this total nature was contemplated in an individual manner for how otherwise could it be seen - in a way that made it visible and describable.. which allowed it to eat and drink? An indescribable Christ would be an incorporeal Christ . . .

Unless this is true then real human life has not been assumed and, to quote St. Gregory Nazianzus in context, ‘that which He has not assumed He has not healed.’

Saint Yura
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 9

Posted 9/17/2002 1:27 PM (GMT -6)

Al2Si2H4O9, your vain words do not prove nothing but you urdge to try to find a scripture that supports your Polytheistic belief call "trinity".

I said it so many time, so this will be the finally one, there is NO scripture that say one must believe The Son is The True God.

I'll leave this board alone, and remember, the scriptures do condemn IDOLATURES.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 9/17/2002 2:18 PM (GMT -6)

Saint Yura,

I suppose, then, we should agree to disagree agreeably.
There's not much more I can say regarding this issue.

For the end of ends,

Starkman

29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:24 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual