Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Why would anyone think most people would have an easy time understanding or believing that while Jesus was on earth talking to men He was also in heaven at the same time?

John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
What?

You're moving the goal post here, marke. You are making that claim that somehow Dartman, and presumably anyone else who dissagrees sufficiently with your doctrine, that they don't get it because they CANNOT get it. That there's something broken that makes them incapable of understanding something as simple as the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh. That's a doctrine of yours that I can't comprehend where you got it from. Why would you believe such a thing? How could a Christian ever allow his mind to be convinced that an unbeliever was somehow incapable of understanding a major tenet of the gospel? It makes no sense!
 

marke

Well-known member
What?

You're moving the goal post here, marke. You are making that claim that somehow Dartman, and presumably anyone else who dissagrees sufficiently with your doctrine, that they don't get it because they CANNOT get it. That there's something broken that makes them incapable of understanding something as simple as the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh. That's a doctrine of yours that I can't comprehend where you got it from. Why would you believe such a thing? How could a Christian ever allow his mind to be convinced that an unbeliever was somehow incapable of understanding a major tenet of the gospel? It makes no sense!
Natural men cannot understand the spiritual things of God unless God reveals those things to them.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You're condescending and insulting.
Perhaps to Dartman. Not to you.

So, tell me, Idolater, where does one start and the other stop? That's the question you claimed that we know the answer too or do you want to walk that back?
I already answered. The answer I gave is the answer. If you don't accept it fine, but it's the correct answer.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You misunderstand Jesus' statement.
lol. As predicted.

Jesus was taking about the act of rising up out of the grave physically ... not about bringing himself back to life.
lol. As predicted.

Here is a great example using the exact same Greek word:
Remember the Greek word "Lord," from the LXX? And Romans 10:9 & 1st Corinthians 12:3?

Mark 2:9-12 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

As we can see, Jesus did NOT resurrect the sick man, Jesus told him to stand up.
Jesus in that passage says, "I AM the LORD." That's the context there. He was challenged, and He met the challenge by saying, "I AM GOD."

Figures you missed it!

This harmonizes perfectly with the REST of Scripture, that states PLAINLY that Christ's God, Christ's Father, God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Once brought back to life, Jesus STOOD UP, WALKED OUT OF THE TOMB, AND "TOOK UP HIS LIFE" AGAIN.

Irenaeus wasn't an Apostle.
No, he was a bishop. You say you're a bishop. The Apostolic Tradition is preserved by bishops. By real bishops anyway.

Please provide an APOSTLIC ORAL TEACHING.
The Trinity.

And, please explain EXACTLY how you think you agree with these "explicit" statements of Scripture paying particular attention to The Father being both the "God of our Lord Jesus Christ" AND that it is God the Father that raised Jesus;

Eph 1:17-20 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of His power to usward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, 20 Which He wrought in Christ, when He raised him from the dead, and set him at His own right hand in the heavenly places,

Gal 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
The Father generates the Son and the Son is begotten by the Father.
 

Dartman

Active member
Jesus in that passage says, "I AM the LORD."
It's pretty obvious why you are trying to change the subject.

If you REALLY are interested in truth, you would be willing to actually address the point.

I'm going to give you another chance.

Mark 2:9-12 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

As we can see, Jesus did NOT resurrect the sick man, Jesus told him to stand up.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
It's pretty obvious why you are trying to change the subject.

If you REALLY are interested in truth, you would be willing to actually address the point.

I'm going to give you another chance.

Mark 2:9-12 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

As we can see, Jesus did NOT resurrect the sick man, Jesus told him to stand up.
Are you a bishop or not?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
If I answer your question, are you going to actually discuss the verses?
Because you haven't already skipped out of plenty of my questions to you itt? (Because you certainly have.)

What's your pedigree? What church are you with? Are you actually a bishop, do other people think you're a bishop or just you in your own mind?
 

Dartman

Active member
Because you haven't already skipped out of plenty of my questions to you itt? (Because you certainly have.)
I don't believe you are correct. To the best of my knowledge I have addressed every Scripture you have provided. I am sure you weren't happy with my answers, but I have given detailed responses, addressing the points of the text.
If this isn't true, I will be happy to address them one at a time.

But, until you are actually willing to discuss the Scriptures .... (I don't mean ludicrous answers like "the trinity" as a response to a verse ..... but actually addressing the points made in the text) ... there isn't any point continuing.
What's your pedigree? What church are you with? Are you actually a bishop, do other people think you're a bishop or just you in your own mind?
If I answer your question, are you going to actually discuss the verses?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I don't believe you are correct.
Obviously.
To the best of my knowledge
I guess that's the problem. The best of your knowledge ... still isn't very good.
I have addressed every Scripture you have provided. I am sure you weren't happy with my answers
Why would I be happy with someone who's pretending they're a Christian, who wants to identify as a Christian, who wants to wear this name and tell me your pronouns, and I'm supposed to think of you and call you "Christian," and you're absolutely not a Christian? Why should anything you say make me or any other real Christian anything but unhappy with you?
, but I have given detailed responses, addressing the points of the text.
If this isn't true, I will be happy to address them one at a time.

But, until you are actually willing to discuss the Scriptures .... (I don't mean ludicrous answers like "the trinity" as a response to a verse ..... but actually addressing the points made in the text) ... there isn't any point continuing.

If I answer your question, are you going to actually discuss the verses?
Yep.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Natural men cannot understand the spiritual things of God unless God reveals those things to them.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I Corinthians 2:14 is not talking about that basic tenets of the gospel, marke! I've already addressed this? Why won't you have a discussion with anyone?

Anyone who can read can be shown the spiritual things of God.

And, even without the written word, God has shown everyone to the point that they are without excuse....

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

Don't even bother responding to this if you can't find more than a single sentence to say about it. If all you want to do is believe something for the sake of believing it, no matter what anyone says then maybe you should go hang out with Dartman, buy him a beer and discuss what else you two have in common besides believing whatever you feel like believing.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Perhaps to Dartman. Not to you.
Okay look, I've had some things happening around here that have gotten me on edge and so I'm going to take your word for it and chalk it up to me just being an idiot.

I already answered. The answer I gave is the answer. If you don't accept it fine, but it's the correct answer.
If that's your answer then you don't understand the question. All you did was make the distinction between the person's of the Trinity, which is nothing at all but basically acknowledging that the Trinity exists. That isn't the question at all. The question that none of us know because it hasn't been explained to us is, where is the overlap between the Persons of the Trinity? What does it mean, precisely, to say that Jesus and the Father are One and what does it mean, precisely, to say that they are distinct from each other? What does it mean when Jesus claims to have the power to raise Himself from the dead vs. elsewhere where the bible explicitly states that the Father raised Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit? There's clearly a distinction between the Three but there's a mingling that blurs that distinction in important and unexplained ways.

There isn't any way imaginable that you or anyone on Earth knows the answer to such questions, nor will anyone know before we are made like Him and stand before Him face to face.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.​
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Okay look, I've had some things happening around here that have gotten me on edge and so I'm going to take your word for it and chalk it up to me just being an idiot.
That's fine; thank you, and I also hope things wind up working out for you. "This too, shall pass." :)

If that's your answer then you don't understand the question. All you did was make the distinction between the person's of the Trinity, which is nothing at all but basically acknowledging that the Trinity exists. That isn't the question at all. The question that none of us know because it hasn't been explained to us is, where is the overlap between the Persons of the Trinity? What does it mean, precisely, to say that Jesus and the Father are One and what does it mean, precisely, to say that they are distinct from each other? What does it mean when Jesus claims to have the power to raise Himself from the dead vs. elsewhere where the bible explicitly states that the Father raised Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit? There's clearly a distinction between the Three but there's a mingling that blurs that distinction in important and unexplained ways.
OK. In my own experience all I'm really saying is that holding fast to the distinctions I enumerated is sufficient to satisfy all my curiosities about how exactly God "works." I know we're all different, I'm just providing my own personal experience with holding to these precise distinctions, and the impact it makes on my mental apprehension of God (the Trinity; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Of course, I agree with you, there are unknowable things, just generally, about Him. All I'm trying to say is that those particular distinctions can be completely sufficient in understanding the LORD God, as far as He is understandable to us in this life on the Earth.

There isn't any way imaginable that you or anyone on Earth knows the answer to such questions, nor will anyone know before we are made like Him and stand before Him face to face.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.​
Basically agreed.
 

marke

Well-known member
I Corinthians 2:14 is not talking about that basic tenets of the gospel, marke! I've already addressed this? Why won't you have a discussion with anyone?

Anyone who can read can be shown the spiritual things of God.

And, even without the written word, God has shown everyone to the point that they are without excuse....

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,​

Don't even bother responding to this if you can't find more than a single sentence to say about it. If all you want to do is believe something for the sake of believing it, no matter what anyone says then maybe you should go hang out with Dartman, buy him a beer and discuss what else you two have in common besides believing whatever you feel like believing.
I'm not saying the wicked can't understand anything God says. I'm saying the hidden things of God are revealed to babes in Christ but not to proud heathen dogs.
 

Dartman

Active member
Are you a bishop or not?
Yes. I am a bishop. My congregation's annual business meeting was today, and I was asked by the congregation to serve in the capacity of bishop again:

1 Tim 3:1-6 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
Titus 1:6-9 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; 8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; 9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Now as you agreed, please discuss this text, as Jesus clearly uses the same Greek word when he asked the sick man to stand up;

Mark 2:9-12 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

As we can see, Jesus did NOT resurrect the sick man, Jesus told him to stand up.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm not saying the wicked can't understand anything God says. I'm saying the hidden things of God are revealed to babes in Christ but not to proud heathen dogs.
The fact that Jesus is God in the flesh is not one of the hidden things of God, marke! The Apostle John wrote it as plain as day in his part of the most widely published book in the history of books!
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That's fine; thank you, and I also hope things wind up working out for you. "This too, shall pass." :)
(y)
OK. In my own experience all I'm really saying is that holding fast to the distinctions I enumerated is sufficient to satisfy all my curiosities about how exactly God "works." I know we're all different, I'm just providing my own personal experience with holding to these precise distinctions, and the impact it makes on my mental apprehension of God (the Trinity; the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Of course, I agree with you, there are unknowable things, just generally, about Him. All I'm trying to say is that those particular distinctions can be completely sufficient in understanding the LORD God, as far as He is understandable to us in this life on the Earth.


Basically agreed.
I thought of a point last night that I wish I had included in order to help convey the point on this matter and since we're mostly in agreement here already, I won't make a big deal of it but I would like to present the brief point just for the sake of doing so....

We human beings are also "triune" beings of a sort. We have a body, a soul and a spirit. This is true of our very own being and yet we don't even really understand just were one of those things begins and the other ends. Just how does your mind and your brain interface? Just what is the difference between your soul and your spirit? How does your spiritual health affect your body? It's all interconnected and interfaced is wildly complex ways that we haven't even begun to really understand. How much more so is this true of the interwoven nature of our Triune God? Indeed, our understanding of it is so incomplete that we can't even say with any certainty that "interwoven" is an appropriate term to use.

Now, as you intimate in your post, I'm not suggesting we don't understand it AT ALL. We understand it enough to make certain important distinctions but I suspect that the distinctions pail in comparison to the commonalities shared by the three person's of the Trinity.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Keep in mind that what- or whoever you put in, must be consistently applied to the rest of the passage, and that everything that is said about it must fit the context.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.____ was in the beginning with God.All things were made through ____, and without ____ nothing was made that was made.In ____ was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.____ was in the world, and the world was made through ____, and the world did not know ____.____ came to His own, and ____ own did not receive ____.But as many as received ____, to them ____ gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in ____ name:who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld ____ glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.John bore witness of ____ and cried out, saying, “This was ____ of whom I said, ‘____ who comes after me is preferred before me, for ____ was before me.’ ”And of ____ fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through ____ ____.No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, ____ has declared Him. - John 1:1-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-18&version=NKJV

So go ahead, fill in the blanks with ONE entity that you think fits, EXCLUDING "He" or "Him" or "Jesus Christ."

You cannot, nor will you, because the entire passage (barring the passage talking about John) is talking about Jesus Christ, and thus, "He" and "Him" are CORRECTLY used.

In the beginning was God's word, and God's word was with God, and God's word is God.

You're already not doing what I asked. Currently you're just rewriting scripture to make it conform to your beliefs.

I didn't ask you to replace whatever you felt like replacing with whatever you felt like replacing it with.

I asked you to replace the pronoun "houtos" ("He") (because that's where your contention is, as you stated) and all of the following where relevant with either "she," "it," "this same," or any of the other GIVEN pronouns (from my post I quoted above), since your contention was that "he" in verse 2 was a mistranslation. So I asked you to provide your correction, to see if it hold up to scrutiny. So far, you've rewritten almost the entire first verse of the chapter.

God's word was in the beginning with God.

Well at least this time, there's not much for you to mess up.

All things were made through God's word, and without God's word nothing was made that was made.

Ok.

In God's word was life, and the life was the light of men.

Alright, so far, your proposal has God's word being in the beginning, and being with God and being God, and that all things were made through God's word, and without God's word, nothing was made that was made. Fair. But this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men. You continued:

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

AKA, God's word shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Nothing wrong with saying this, on it's own, but within the greater context, you've now severed the tie-in between "LOGOS" and "reason" as opposed to "darkness" being related to "incomprehension," damaging the scripture.

Strike one.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Nothing changed here, good.

This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.

According to you, John was a witness of the light, which you have defined as "God's word," that all through John might believe.

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Same as before, John wasn't the light he came to bear witness of, that being "God's word."

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

Again, according to you, the "true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" is "God's word."

The light (Jesus) was in the world (civilization(, and the world (civilization) was made through Jesus, and the world (civilization obviously NOT the universe) did not know Jesus.

Woah! Why are you talking about Jesus all of a sudden?

Your interpretation has John talking about John and "God's word," not Jesus. Why change everything else up until this point to "God's word" but make this verse talking about Jesus? There's no point! Jesus isn't even a part of the discussion! It would be like me telling you about a speech I had to give at an event, and how important it was that my pastor was there to be a witness of it, and then suddenly stating that John Smith was serving drinks and meat to his family from his grill across the street in his backyard. Who the heck is John Smith? I don't know, some random person! But needing mentioning, but not getting an introduction...

Second, you've already stated your contention with using "He/Him" (referring to Jesus) in previous verses, so why change that now?

Third, you've already defined "the light" as "God's word." You don't get to just change the definition of it midway through the paragraph. That's not how ANY language works, and if you tried to do that in any civilized conversation, people would have absolutely zero idea what you were even talking about most of the time.

In other words, this is strike two.

If you were at all consistent, you would have said "God's word was in the world, and the world was made through God's word, and the world did not know God's word." Which wouldn't have made any sense, but at least it would have been consistent!

Jesus came to his own (obviously the Jewish portion of civilization), and his own did not receive him.

Supra, and this is where it falls apart for the most part, mainly because of your desire to interpret scripture according to your beliefs and reading your beliefs into the text, rather than the other way around, and letting scripture inform your beliefs, but also because of your inconsistency.

If you had been consistent like I said to be, you would have quickly realized, or maybe you already did, that using "God's word" instead of the "He/Him" pronouns throughout the passage doesn't work in this verse, because it reads as:

"God's word" came to "God's word's" own, and "God's word's" own did not receive "God's word."

Do you see the problem yet? But wait, it gets worse!

But as many as received him, to them him gave the right to become children of God (Just like Jesus is a child of God), to those who believe in his name:

Corrected to be consistent with your beliefs:

"But as many as received "God's word", to them "God's word" gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in "God's word"'s name:"

It keeps adding up!

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Nothing changed here.

And now for the final nail in the coffin:

And God's word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So "God's word," which you have defined as "the light," and both WITH God and BEING God Himself, in the beginning, has now become flesh. Huge problem, because the only one who "became flesh" was Jesus Christ. But that would make Jesus "God's word."

OOPS!

Guess you can't get away from Him being God that easy!

Strike three! You're OUT! ... as the umpire would say. But wait, there's more!

John bore witness of him and cried out, saying, “This was him of whom I said, ‘ he who comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me (in God's word).’ ”

Corrected so that it's consistent with your position:

John bore witness of "God's word" and cried out, saying, “This was "God's word" of whom I said, ‘ "God's word" who comes after me is preferred before me, for "God's word" was before me (in God's word).’ ”

Er, what?

Given the context of the surrounding books (not to mention the second half of this chapter!) we know that John was preaching and baptizing Bethabara beyond the Jordan. He's literally talking about Jesus here! But your position (if you were at all consistent with your beliefs) has John talking about "God's word" instead!

This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ - John 1:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:30&version=NKJV

He's talking about JESUS! That makes YOU, WRONG.

Guess what though! It's not over yet!

And of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.

Same as above:

"And of "God's word"'s fullness we have all received, and grace for grace."

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus the Christ.

Again, why Jesus Christ if that isn't who was being spoken about through ALL of the previous verses in this chapter!?

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

According to your position, that last "he" should be "God's word," no?

Or could it be strike four, because again your position has no need for Jesus Christ, despite Him being the focus of the entire chapter, and renders the last sentence of this passage (not the chapter, of course) meaningless.

Notice, the son DECLARED God ..... NOT "the son IS God"!

Notice how you completely missed the fact that verse 14 has your "God's word" being Jesus, and Him being God, completely destroying your position?

Of course Jesus is Lord!!!

I used "LORD" for a reason, because I was referring to the Tetragrammaton, as Idolater explained to you.

His God MADE him, EXALTED him to be both Lord and the Christ;

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 5:30-31 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:36 isn't saying God made Jesus, period. It's saying God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. You were distracted by the "whom ye have crucified."

Sorry, your "yes or no" trap is an artifice.

It's a trap only if your position is inconsistent with itself.

You claim Jesus was not God, but cannot bring yourself to admit that He was, in fact, good. Jesus said only God is good. Thus, your problem is not with my question, Dartman, but with your recognition of Jesus' goodness.

Is Jesus good?

I can answer that question with a simple and unequivocal YES!

Jesus was good, in EVERY way, shape, form, deed, action, etc.

No matter how you look at Him, He was good, and the ONLY way He could be so good is if He's God.

So, Dartman, Is Jesus good?

The answer depends on the context....

What context makes Jesus "not good"?

Why, in that context, is He "not good"?

Do you even HAVE an answer for that question? Or are you stubbornly not answering it because you know answering the question consistent to your beliefs makes Jesus out to be a liar, or worse, a lunatic?

Just like Jesus' position as the head over men, while God is the head over Jesus (1 Cor 11:3)

Red herring.

There are WAY more than two:
Heb 1:8,9 quotes Psa 45 which applies to ALL the Kings of Israel, so there are WAY more than TWO called "god" in that sense.

Except that there's only one throne being discussed in BOTH passages.

Also, the Jews jumped to erroneous assumption (surprise, surprise),

Why do you assume they were in error? They knew the law, and blasphemy was a stonable offence, worthy of the death penalty. And what had just said was, in fact, blasphemy. He claimed to be the one to give eternal life (the only one who can promise that is God), and that no one can snatch His sheep out of His hand. And on top of that, He even made the claim "I and My Father are one."

and in Jesus' correction of their error, he quotes Psa 82:

John 10:33-36 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

You should have kept reading. For He then says that if he doesn't do the works of His Father, that they shouldn't believe Him, but if He does, even if they don't believe Him, they should believe the works, that they may know and believe that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. (Which is also blasphemy, by the way, and their reactions confirm it.)

So, there are three points here:
1) Jesus ABSOLUTELY did not agree with their conclusion

On the contrary, Jesus made claims to deity intentionally, in order to rile them up, working towards His goal of the cross.

2) Jesus correctly pointed out that the term "god" CAN be used in the sense of "mighty ones", which fits him.

On the contrary, Jesus tempered His claims to deity so that any who would listen and believe would come to Him,

3) Jesus made it positively clear he is NOT God,

On the contrary, Jesus made it clear enough that He was God, but not so clear that He would face an early trial for it. In addition, you seem to forget that Jesus is called the rock... "the Rock of Offence" and "a stumbling stone." He spoke in parables to hide the meaning of the stories from those who refused to hear. His divinity being one of those things He hid...

he is THE SON OF GOD, like Adam (Luke 3:38) Like all believers (2 Cor 6:17,18).

But unlike Adam, He was perfect, sinless. Good.

But you can't admit that, because then you would have to admit that He is God.
 

Dartman

Active member
Dartman; In God's word was life, and the life was the light of men


Right Divider: ... this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men.
That's not a problem at all. God's words ARE life, and light:

John 6:63 .... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And, Jesus made it exquisitely clear the SOURCE of words he spoke:

John 12:48-50 "For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me."
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You're already not doing what I asked. Currently you're just rewriting scripture to make it conform to your beliefs.

I didn't ask you to replace whatever you felt like replacing with whatever you felt like replacing it with.

I asked you to replace the pronoun "houtos" ("He") (because that's where your contention is, as you stated) and all of the following where relevant with either "she," "it," "this same," or any of the other GIVEN pronouns (from my post I quoted above), since your contention was that "he" in verse 2 was a mistranslation. So I asked you to provide your correction, to see if it hold up to scrutiny. So far, you've rewritten almost the entire first verse of the chapter.



Well at least this time, there's not much for you to mess up.



Ok.



Alright, so far, your proposal has God's word being in the beginning, and being with God and being God, and that all things were made through God's word, and without God's word, nothing was made that was made. Fair. But this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men. You continued:



AKA, God's word shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Nothing wrong with saying this, on it's own, but within the greater context, you've now severed the tie-in between "LOGOS" and "reason" as opposed to "darkness" being related to "incomprehension," damaging the scripture.

Strike one.



Nothing changed here, good.



According to you, John was a witness of the light, which you have defined as "God's word," that all through John might believe.



Same as before, John wasn't the light he came to bear witness of, that being "God's word."



Again, according to you, the "true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" is "God's word."



Woah! Why are you talking about Jesus all of a sudden?

Your interpretation has John talking about John and "God's word," not Jesus. Why change everything else up until this point to "God's word" but make this verse talking about Jesus? There's no point! Jesus isn't even a part of the discussion! It would be like me telling you about a speech I had to give at an event, and how important it was that my pastor was there to be a witness of it, and then suddenly stating that John Smith was serving drinks and meat to his family from his grill across the street in his backyard. Who the heck is John Smith? I don't know, some random person! But needing mentioning, but not getting an introduction...

Second, you've already stated your contention with using "He/Him" (referring to Jesus) in previous verses, so why change that now?

Third, you've already defined "the light" as "God's word." You don't get to just change the definition of it midway through the paragraph. That's not how ANY language works, and if you tried to do that in any civilized conversation, people would have absolutely zero idea what you were even talking about most of the time.

In other words, this is strike two.

If you were at all consistent, you would have said "God's word was in the world, and the world was made through God's word, and the world did not know God's word." Which wouldn't have made any sense, but at least it would have been consistent!



Supra, and this is where it falls apart for the most part, mainly because of your desire to interpret scripture according to your beliefs and reading your beliefs into the text, rather than the other way around, and letting scripture inform your beliefs, but also because of your inconsistency.

If you had been consistent like I said to be, you would have quickly realized, or maybe you already did, that using "God's word" instead of the "He/Him" pronouns throughout the passage doesn't work in this verse, because it reads as:

"God's word" came to "God's word's" own, and "God's word's" own did not receive "God's word."

Do you see the problem yet? But wait, it gets worse!



Corrected to be consistent with your beliefs:

"But as many as received "God's word", to them "God's word" gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in "God's word"'s name:"

It keeps adding up!



Nothing changed here.

And now for the final nail in the coffin:



So "God's word," which you have defined as "the light," and both WITH God and BEING God Himself, in the beginning, has now become flesh. Huge problem, because the only one who "became flesh" was Jesus Christ. But that would make Jesus "God's word."

OOPS!

Guess you can't get away from Him being God that easy!

Strike three! You're OUT! ... as the umpire would say. But wait, there's more!



Corrected so that it's consistent with your position:

John bore witness of "God's word" and cried out, saying, “This was "God's word" of whom I said, ‘ "God's word" who comes after me is preferred before me, for "God's word" was before me (in God's word).’ ”

Er, what?

Given the context of the surrounding books (not to mention the second half of this chapter!) we know that John was preaching and baptizing Bethabara beyond the Jordan. He's literally talking about Jesus here! But your position (if you were at all consistent with your beliefs) has John talking about "God's word" instead!

This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ - John 1:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:30&version=NKJV

He's talking about JESUS! That makes YOU, WRONG.

Guess what though! It's not over yet!



Same as above:

"And of "God's word"'s fullness we have all received, and grace for grace."



Again, why Jesus Christ if that isn't who was being spoken about through ALL of the previous verses in this chapter!?



According to your position, that last "he" should be "God's word," no?

Or could it be strike four, because again your position has no need for Jesus Christ, despite Him being the focus of the entire chapter, and renders the last sentence of this passage (not the chapter, of course) meaningless.



Notice how you completely missed the fact that verse 14 has your "God's word" being Jesus, and Him being God, completely destroying your position?



I used "LORD" for a reason, because I was referring to the Tetragrammaton, as Idolater explained to you.



Acts 2:36 isn't saying God made Jesus, period. It's saying God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. You were distracted by the "whom ye have crucified."



It's a trap only if your position is inconsistent with itself.

You claim Jesus was not God, but cannot bring yourself to admit that He was, in fact, good. Jesus said only God is good. Thus, your problem is not with my question, Dartman, but with your recognition of Jesus' goodness.

Is Jesus good?

I can answer that question with a simple and unequivocal YES!

Jesus was good, in EVERY way, shape, form, deed, action, etc.

No matter how you look at Him, He was good, and the ONLY way He could be so good is if He's God.

So, Dartman, Is Jesus good?



What context makes Jesus "not good"?

Why, in that context, is He "not good"?

Do you even HAVE an answer for that question? Or are you stubbornly not answering it because you know answering the question consistent to your beliefs makes Jesus out to be a liar, or worse, a lunatic?



Red herring.



Except that there's only one throne being discussed in BOTH passages.



Why do you assume they were in error? They knew the law, and blasphemy was a stonable offence, worthy of the death penalty. And what had just said was, in fact, blasphemy. He claimed to be the one to give eternal life (the only one who can promise that is God), and that no one can snatch His sheep out of His hand. And on top of that, He even made the claim "I and My Father are one."



You should have kept reading. For He then says that if he doesn't do the works of His Father, that they shouldn't believe Him, but if He does, even if they don't believe Him, they should believe the works, that they may know and believe that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. (Which is also blasphemy, by the way, and their reactions confirm it.)



On the contrary, Jesus made claims to deity intentionally, in order to rile them up, working towards His goal of the cross.



On the contrary, Jesus tempered His claims to deity so that any who would listen and believe would come to Him,



On the contrary, Jesus made it clear enough that He was God, but not so clear that He would face an early trial for it. In addition, you seem to forget that Jesus is called the rock... "the Rock of Offence" and "a stumbling stone." He spoke in parables to hide the meaning of the stories from those who refused to hear. His divinity being one of those things He hid...



But unlike Adam, He was perfect, sinless. Good.

But you can't admit that, because then you would have to admit that He is God.
Completely brilliant from start to finish.

Don't expect any sort of answer of any substance from Dartman.

I wonder if he allows any of his congregation, of which he a supposed "bishop", to read this thread?
 
Top