 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Abdulhakeem
Little Hamster
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 78
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: Jesus God & Man At The Same Time |
 |
|
| When Jesus gave up the spirit according to Christianity, was Jesus God or man or both? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:20 am Post subject: Re: Jesus God & Man At The Same Time |
|
|
| Abdulhakeem wrote: | | When Jesus gave up the spirit according to Christianity, was Jesus God or man or both? |
What does giving up the spirit mean?
As for Jesus being God, well not all Christians believe that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | As for Jesus being God, well not all Christians believe that. |
Can one serve two masters? If one is a 'christian' then one by definition is a disciple of Christ Jesus. How can one consider Him to be Lord and then serve God as well? The only way this could happen and not be contrary to the scriptural admonition not to serve two masters is if Christ Jesus is God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kejonn
Show Poodle
Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Posts: 251
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | As for Jesus being God, well not all Christians believe that. |
Can one serve two masters? If one is a 'christian' then one by definition is a disciple of Christ Jesus. How can one consider Him to be Lord and then serve God as well? The only way this could happen and not be contrary to the scriptural admonition not to serve two masters is if Christ Jesus is God. |
I've seen this before. It is one of the weaker "arguments" for the trinity. Let's look at the "proof" text.
Mat 6:24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
Now, if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he does only the will of God, then are the "two masters" in opposition to one another? No.
If you work somewhere, then you may have a supervisor. But he/she also likely has someone over them. Is God telling you you can't work there because you might have two or more masters, although they are all working (hopefully) towards the same set of goals? No.
The lesson here is that one cannot serve something that is in opposition to God and still be dedicated to God. Are you saying that Jesus was in opposition to God? Is that the idea you'd like to put forward here? Because that is what you are saying by throwing this reference out: that Jesus leads people in a different and opposing direction than God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, it is not an argument for the trinity, but a simple observation. Jesus cannot be Lord and God be Lord at the same time if the two are not the same.
The 'supervisor' argument isn't really relevant as they are not masters but bosses - a distinctly different animal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | As for Jesus being God, well not all Christians believe that. |
Can one serve two masters? If one is a 'christian' then one by definition is a disciple of Christ Jesus. How can one consider Him to be Lord and then serve God as well? The only way this could happen and not be contrary to the scriptural admonition not to serve two masters is if Christ Jesus is God. |
Not quite that simple, Rev. 'Lord' in the NT doesn't always equate to 'Lord' (i.e. Jehovah) in the OT. Context dictates.
Then, there is Paul's letter to the Ephesians --
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.]
Seems to indicate -- at least to me -- that kurios in this context is speaking of Jesus as our Lord. Then, we have the Father, God, as well. They are not one and the same together. This is completely in harmony with the scriptures. And, since Jesus will remain in subjection to God into eternity, kejonn's suggestion in his post above is quite adequate. There is no opposition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
LORD, n.
1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor.
In scripture, the Supreme Being; Jehovah. When Lord, in the Old Testament, is prints in capitals, it is the translation of JEHOVAH, and so might, with more propriety, be rendered. The word is applied to Christ, Psa 110. Col 3. and to the Holy Spirit, 2 Th 3. As a title of respect, it is applied to kings, Gen 40. 2 Sam 19. to princes and nobles, Gen 42. Dan 4. to a husband, Gen 18. to a prophet, 1 Ki 18. 2 Ki 2. and to a respectable person, Gen 24. Christ is called the Lord of glory, 1 Cor 2. and Lord of lords, Rev 19. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | LORD, n.
1. A master; a person possessing supreme power and authority; a ruler; a governor.
In scripture, the Supreme Being; Jehovah. When Lord, in the Old Testament, is prints in capitals, it is the translation of JEHOVAH, and so might, with more propriety, be rendered. The word is applied to Christ, Psa 110. Col 3. and to the Holy Spirit, 2 Th 3. As a title of respect, it is applied to kings, Gen 40. 2 Sam 19. to princes and nobles, Gen 42. Dan 4. to a husband, Gen 18. to a prophet, 1 Ki 18. 2 Ki 2. and to a respectable person, Gen 24. Christ is called the Lord of glory, 1 Cor 2. and Lord of lords, Rev 19. |
Neat, you can cut and paste. However, this definition does nothing to negate my point in my previous post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Actually twoputt, the definition I posted demonstrates clearly that you have absolutely no idea of what you are posting about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Actually twoputt, the definition I posted demonstrates clearly that you have absolutely no idea of what you are posting about. |
Well, you're entitled to your opinion I suppose. Interesting that you seem to still be evading my post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I hadn't avoided anything. You assert that Lord doesn't mean Lord. I've demonstrated that you are wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:20 am Post subject: trinity discussion |
|
|
Actually you are wrong RevJP:
Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name [is] in him. 22 But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. {an adversary...: or, I will afflict them that afflict thee} (Ex. 23:20 - 22) KJV
As we see here, God delegates authority to both His angels and to His appointed mediator and Son. For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Tim. 2: 5) KJV
Obviously you must serve three masters by your logic, 1. God's appointed angel 2. God's appointed Son, 3. God the Father Himself, but by God's Logic, serving and obeying whomsoever God appoints or authorises,(angel or Christ) is only actually serving ONE Master i.e. God.
Also: Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Eccl. 12: 7) KJV
So Christ can certainly never also be God, because we see here that at Christ's death, his Spirit 'returns to God who gave it' and God can't 'give itself its own spirit, nor can its spirit 'return to itself' that is absurd and demonstrates further and unambiguously, the foolishness of trinitarianisn.
Cheers! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwoPutt
Fierce Puppy
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 227
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | I hadn't avoided anything. You assert that Lord doesn't mean Lord. I've demonstrated that you are wrong. |
No, you did not. Not by a long shot. It's a shame really; you cut and paste a definition (lacking a source, BTW), then say that you've proven me wrong.
Let's try it again....
I wrote --
| TwoPutt wrote: | Not quite that simple, Rev. 'Lord' in the NT doesn't always equate to 'Lord' (i.e. Jehovah) in the OT. Context dictates.
Then, there is Paul's letter to the Ephesians --
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.
Seems to indicate -- at least to me -- that kurios in this context is speaking of Jesus as our Lord. Then, we have the Father, God, as well. They are not one and the same together. |
Care to give it another try? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Bear
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know many father, sons and many are called lords.
Point being could not all these terms used just be TITLES for the same person ??
IN HIM DWELLS ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY.
And Isaiah 9:6 He is refered to as our EVERLASTING FATHER.
Whatever we in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And we also have the great commision of Matt 28:19 ...baptizing them in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.....But in Acts 2:38 Peter told them to be baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. And this is how they baptized in the whole book of Acts.
I look at this and see either (1) Jesus told it wrong, (2)Peter told it wrong and everyone in the whole book of Acts did it wrong.(3) Or the revelation of it was that the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is our Lord Jesus Christ.
If we accept scripture as divinely inspired of God (2 Tim 3:16) then the 3rd choice is the only possibility.
There could be other perspectives on this that I have not thought of.
Just a thought, thats all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
composer2005
Fierce Wolf
Joined: 14 Jul 2007
Posts: 561
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:09 pm Post subject: trinity discussion |
|
|
| james wrote: | | If we accept scripture as divinely inspired of God (2 Tim 3:16) then the 3rd choice is the only possibility. |
The Original Gospel NEVER taught the trinity, why not? because the trinity is false and is a corruption that developed later on.
The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:
"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)
Or more recently:
"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)
27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980
In other words it is a corruption that developed only after the Original Message had been given.
Regarding your '3rd choice' must be the solution well all your choices are false. Christ nor the Apostles tell lies and therefore all that remains is your misunderstandings, i.e. you and the orthodox churches are wrong.
Now why can't your third choice be correct? (i.e. . . . NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is our Lord Jesus Christ.}
Simply because - But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: (Mark 3:29) KJV
You see IF Christ = God = Holy Ghost (Spirit) then to blaspheme against one is to blaspheme against them all, but Mark 3:29 demonstrates how they are not co-equal because the consequences of blasphemy against Christ is far less than against the Holy Ghost!
QED |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
