Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Restformationist

Was God once a man?

Was God once a man?  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. Was God once a man?

    • Yes
      64
    • No
      28
    • Not sure
      17


Recommended Posts

Howdy Markk

== Then Phil. 2 is in context with John 1:1,14 that God became flesh.

Well now that statement should speak for itself. You grab another verse from different chapter, different book and even a different author, allude to a phrase which is nowhere mentioned and then call that "in context." In fact this "God became flesh" is mentioned only in one verse of forged scripture. What you just did was the antithesis of context.

Phil 2:5-8 "Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross."

Now this is what you call context:

Phil 3:21

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Kevin,

I believe that all scripture is God breathed, and the author is God who inspires men. John and Paul are two different witnesses to that fact and are right on, as matthew was too, that God came here to be with us. The Timothy verse is not forged, one word is different in the received text and the NU. One says God the other says Who, how does that change the context, we know from other scripture that God is the who (John 1:1,14..Phil 2, etc) Also see John 17:5 and 2 Cor. 8:9 for back up for the phil verses. Read 1 John 1:1,2 which also speaks of of the Word (Jesus) being manifest to us. The context of the Bible is clear that the preincarnate Christ took on another form in the likeness of man.

Phil 3:21 is not in context with the verses, it speaks of our citizenship in Heaven and how Jesus will trasnform our bodies to our New glorified bodies. This has nothing to do with Christ's duality.

So you believe God has a form? If so, then you're conceding my point

No, I never said God didn't have a form, what I have been saying is that the preincarnate Christ was in the Form of God, and being in the exact unchanging form of God, He emptyied Himself by reputaion and became human and willfully as a bond servant died for our sins. (John 17:5)

Now if you think being in the form of God proves Christ's deity in the Trinitarian sense, then how do you account for the fact that he gave this up on earth? Logically if form refers to "nature" then this would mean while on earth Christ was just a man, not God.

Half right, read the verses, by "reputation" or lit. "emptied" , Christ is 100% man and had to be to be a perfect sacrifice, yet only God can be sinless. Thats why He is the perfect mediator between God and man, forever interceeding on our behalf. So Christ is also 100% God. Col 2:9 and Matthew 1:23. He was under complete authority to the Father while here on earth and longed to be back in His Glory as God at the side of the Father John 17:5, but also knew that He would bare the wieght of our sins on the cross.

I understand you don't have a answer for John 1:1,14 or the other verses, but read them over again and all the other verses I gave you, and you will see teh "context" god has provided in His Word.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Markk, this is a bit frustrating.

== I believe that all scripture is God breathed, and the author is God who inspires men.

Well if this is your excuse for thinking Gen 1:1 is "in context" with Rev 3:1, then it only goes to argue that people who cloud exegesis with such a basless theological premise have no business dealing in hermeneutics. You're wearing your subjectivity on your sleeve, while I'm using scholars on your side of the fence to make my case.

== John and Paul are two different witnesses to that fact and are right on, as matthew was too, that God came here to be with us. The Timothy verse is not forged

It was forged. This is a proved fact that is beyond scholarly dispute. It only exists in the much later texts, clearly a forgery.

== one word is different in the received text and the NU.

Well one word is all it takes to change a theological meaning. To say "he" (Christ) came in the flesh is one thing. To say "God" came in the flesh is something entirely different. But of course, that is why it was forged. The doctrine needs scriptural support that wasn't already there.

== One says God the other says Who, how does that change the context, we know from other scripture that God is the who (John 1:1,14..Phil 2, etc)

And thanks to textual criticism we know what should and shouldn't be the proper rendering.

== Also see John 17:5 and 2 Cor. 8:9 for back up for the phil verses.

Nothing backs up your interpretation of the verse. Especially the immediate context.

== Read 1 John 1:1,2 which also speaks of of the Word (Jesus) being manifest to us.

That isn't the argument now is it? Let's deal with Phil 2.

== The context of the Bible is clear that the preincarnate Christ took on another form in the likeness of man.

Uh, yeah? Am I supposed to be arguing with this? Alluding to verses is one thing, but you have not demonstrated how any of these verses frees you from the dilemma as I explained it. You've been avoiding the question with non-answers.

== Phil 3:21 is not in context with the verses, it speaks of our citizenship in Heaven and how Jesus will trasnform our bodies to our New glorified bodies. This has nothing to do with Christ's duality.

"Duality" meaning? Phil 3:21 goes to show how the author was thinking when referring to a body of glory along with a defining characteristic. Christ becoming a form in humility and an immediate reference to a "body of humiliation"... It cannot be just a coincidence that these appear within one chapter of one another. If your argument is true for Phil 2:6, then you must also interpret the word for "body" in 3:21 to mean nothing more than "humiliation." This is such a lame argument that seeks to avoid a ton of refuting context.

== No, I never said God didn't have a form, what I have been saying is that the preincarnate Christ was in the Form of God, and being in the exact unchanging form of God, He emptyied Himself by reputaion and became human and willfully as a bond servant died for our sins. (John 17:5)

So Christ was in the "unchanging" form of God and then "changed" into the form of a servant. Sounds to me that God's form does change. OR, the form of God and man isn't so different after all. The key difference is the glory which man's body lacks. The "form of God" in a Jewish context referred to the glorious anthropomorphic form. This is how his audience would have understood his point. Nothing in Jn 17:5 conflicts with our interpretation.

== Half right, read the verses, by "reputation" or lit.

And this is supposed to change anything? How?

== "emptied" , Christ is 100% man and had to be to be a perfect sacrifice, yet only God can be sinless.

This is too much theology nowhere found in the text, but irrelevant anyway. Why don't you just answer the question?

== Thats why He is the perfect mediator between God and man, forever interceeding on our behalf. So Christ is also 100% God.

Not while on earth, because your argument says he gave that up.

== Col 2:9 and Matthew 1:23. He was under complete authority to the Father while here on earth and longed to be back in His Glory as God at the side of the Father John 17:5, but also knew that He would bare the wieght of our sins on the cross. I understand you don't have a answer for John 1:1,14 or the other verses, but read them over again and all the other verses I gave you, and you will see teh "context" god has provided in His Word.

If you want to discuss those verses then start another thread. But don't sit there and bloviate while pretending I'm ignoring a refutation. You simply don't understand the basic rules of hermenuetics. Your interpretation is 95% theological assumption and 5% proper process. You're snagging verses from all over the place in order to put together a puzzle that speaks a theology to your liking. For some reason i thought you were interested in actually exploring the verse through proper exegesis. But now you're doing what most people do here. Begging the question about how God wrote it therefore your interpretation is correct. Please.

None of this rhetoric frees you of your problem. If "nature" is implied as you profusely insist, then how could Christ be God on earth when he gave up the form of God before coming here? You still haven't resolved this dilemma in your argument.

Don't tell me. The answer is somewhere in Leviticus. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Kevin,

One of the first rules of hermeneutics is to let scripture interprete scripture. I'll answer your question again, He layed his reputation (lit.emptied) aside of being God, and willfully became human to die for us. Did you read the text, or my answer/s?

Well if this is your excuse for thinking Gen 1:1 is "in context" with Rev 3:1, then it only goes to argue that people who cloud exegesis with such a basless theological premise have no business dealing in hermeneutics. You're wearing your subjectivity on your sleeve, while I'm using scholars on your side of the fence to make my case

Huh! did we talk about Gen and Rev?

You can find a scholar to say what ever you want, look at this site. I can quote scholars til I'm blue in the face that agree that Form implies essence of nature in the context of these verses. What I am doing is called exegesis in that I am following good hermeneutics and letting scripture interpret scripture. What you are doing is called isogesis, taking a pre conceived idealogy of God and trying to make it work in the bible.

I have clearly shown that the bible teaches Jesus is God.

John 1;1,2,14

1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2. The same was in the beginning with God.

14. And the Word was made 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.

Matt. 1:23

23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Col. 2:8,9

8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (receievd text) (who...NU) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Which ever word is the original it does not change the fact that Jesus was manifest in the flesh, and we know from the above verse that Jesus is God.

You wrote:

Well one word is all it takes to change a theological meaning. To say "he" (Christ) came in the flesh is one thing. To say "God" came in the flesh is something entirely different. But of course, that is why it was forged. The doctrine needs scriptural support that wasn't already there.

See John 1:1,2,14 above for scriptual support

There are more verses I didn't bring up like...

Romans 9:5

5. Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The context is that Christ came as a Jew in the flesh

John 20:28

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Thomas knew who Jesus was, even if it took him awhile.

I brought up these verses that back up what Paul said in Phil.

2 Cor.. 8:9

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Paul just paraphrased the Phil. verses.

1 John 1:1,2

1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

John is a old man here and still shows how the word became flesh and manifest to us, and we know the Word is God.

Theres are more if you like, but this is enough to Know that Jesus is God, and was manifest as a man to die willfully for us

Did you tell me what "being" means in Phil. 2:6 and what "equal means" and what does it mean to "empty" Himself?

You know kevin, in all this debate we are having I have been very clear in what I believe, right or wrong. I don't think you have told me what these verses mean when you put them all togather. I'll say it one more time how I see it then you tell me in your own words...fair?

mine... Paul is exhorting believers to have the same mental attitude of humility that Christ did, and that Christ was in the form of God exactly, essence and nature, and did not consider it any less to be equal with Him, but emptied Himself of his reputaion as God, taking on the exact form in essence and nature as a bond servant, willfully becomeing man to die for our sins. Right or wrong thats my paraphrase of the text, give me yours.

Take care

mark

john 1:12

Share this post


Link to post
Alpha,

Nothing was taken out of context. You still haven't answered the question. How did the Savior see what his Father had done? The Savior left no room for question. First of all the Jews sought to kill him because he had healed on the sabbath (John 5:16). The Savior answered that his Father "worketh hitherto" (which is up to this point) and I work (John 5:17). Then the Jews got real mad because he said God was his Father, making himself an equal (John 5:18). Then he said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do, for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise (John 5:19). The Savior must have seen his Father heal someone and was doing likewise. The Savior also said that the Father "sheweth him (Jesus) all things that himself (God) doeth" (John 5:20). Intersting in the last of that verse, that the Savior mentions greater works than healing the sick. Could he possibly be refering to the resurection? Lets see in verse 21 it says, "For the Father raiseth up the dead". How could the Savior know how these things are done if as he himself had said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." How have I possibly taken anything out of context? Where have I added any meaning? It is what the scripture says. If the scriptures can prove without a doubt, why so many different denominations? You are right that faith is needed, but also a little common sense. So I still await your answer, How could the Savior say he only does what he has seen the father do, unless the father himself had done them?

Hi Flavo...

I guess my answer would have to be, "I don't know why, Jesus says he does what he has seen his father do".

You make some good points, by bringing in "common sense", but as I have been taught there is really "No such thing". Your explanations are based on reasons you have been taught, possibly from family values and doctrine.

It is funny how LDS take scripture to prove their points, but when someone brings up another verse or suggestion...it is "forged" or "misinterpreted scripture". I find it humorous at times that some of us Bible fanatics and Christians don't know much about our Bibles. And we get "preached to" many times over than the LDS saint does...BIBLE. (Given there are preachers that preach ther own philosophies...not taking about these.) We need other scriptures to help complete our beliefs...and of course to find the real truths.

"If Jesus saw his father doing something", is what we are going to stretch to "having a glorified body" as what we were first discussing...then yes, much has been added...can't you use other verses that could be more "literal" to take instead of implying that it makes "common sense".

For one thing the Bible teaches that our ways are not God's ways. Our sense may not be God's sense. Our way of doing things may not be the way that God does things.

I have no problem as a Christian...with your points about Jesus seeing what his father had done. Because of the fact that Jesus is God...And Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for ever...Heb 13:9. Him being God, from the beginning, came down in flesh...being born a babe...knew all that he would do in order for Him to return back to heaven. It would not make sense for him to say that "I came to earth to return to myself in heaven or I have seen myself do these things that you will do". We all know this. It seems that you can take these verses "literally", but for others, common sense has to be added to understand.

The notion of us becoming like our Heavenly Father is not foreign to me. It is just not as practical because I didn't have "goodly parents" as examples. This is one thing I admire from (most of) the LDS families and "religion". They really focus on the Family and bring it upscale to describe how the "Heavenly Family" must be for us to exemplify...

I would like to see "literal" examples of what you described. Before you through me to "Modern Day Revelation", I'd like to see it in Bible...not that I am acting as 2 Nephi describes the Gentiles, but because the Bible is seen to hold more authority in Christianity(regardless of the many denominations). And if you are going to prove your points...it is necessary to find the commonalities in order to gain the other's trust...many times I see LDS "bash" Christian beliefs and vice versa....and really no one gets anywhere, but frustrated and more mis-informed about the other.

:P

Alpha

Share this post


Link to post

Hi

John Chapter 5 is a real good chapter on Christs deity, in verses 17 and 18 Jesus claims equality with the Father. The Jews understood Jesus when he said that 'The Father keeps workin so, so do I', Notice the Jews really understood what Jesus was saying.

In verses 19-21 Jesus is claims equaility with God in Power, as to in 17-18, He was claiming equality to God in nature by claiming to be THE Son of God. Notice in verse 19 Jesus says the Son does in like manner. He is telling the Jews here again He is the Son of God and does whatever the Father does in like manner, only God can do the things God can do. Jesus as a man was in complete authority to the Father, as Phil. 2 shows, Jesus emptied ( by reputation) Himself of deity to come as a man, and in these verses He shows both His human side as man and also His nature as God by telling the Jews of His power in that He does as the Father does that only God can do, and notice at the end of verse 21 He says He (Jesus) gives life to Whom He wills, which only God can do, the Jews understood that, and over and over again wanted Him dead.

In verses 22-30 Jesus Claims equality with God in Authority

Jesus siad His Father wouldn't judge but He would, That they should honor the Son just as they do the Father and that if one does not honor the son they do not honor the Father. And then Jesus said that if we believe in Him who sent Me, they will be saved, But...in John 3:16 Jesus said the opposite that those who belive in Him (Jesus) will be saved, thats why when Jesus siad to the Jews I and my father are one, it ment so much as to saying he is God

The Jews understood He was saying he was God and tried to stone Him. The Apostles wrote and understood he was God, prophets tesified He would be God, and Jesus said he was God. It's something that is clearly taught if you want to believe it, but it's a choice, John 1:12 says to as many receive Him to them he give sthe right, (power and authority) to become a Child of God to those who believe. So again it is a choice, ours?

Mark

John 1:12

Share this post


Link to post

Mark...

I agree with you 100%

Alpha :P

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Kevin,

One of the first rules of hermeneutics is to let scripture interprete scripture. I'll answer your question again, He layed his reputation (lit.emptied) aside of being God, and willfully became human to die for us. Did you read the text, or my answer/s?

Well if this is your excuse for thinking Gen 1:1 is "in context" with Rev 3:1, then it only goes to argue that people who cloud exegesis with such a basless theological premise have no business dealing in hermeneutics. You're wearing your subjectivity on your sleeve, while I'm using scholars on your side of the fence to make my case

Huh! did we talk about Gen and Rev?

You can find a scholar to say what ever you want, look at this site. I can quote scholars til I'm blue in the face that agree that Form implies essence of nature in the context of these verses. What I am doing is called exegesis in that I am following good hermeneutics and letting scripture interpret scripture. What you are doing is called isogesis, taking a pre conceived idealogy of God and trying to make it work in the bible.

I have clearly shown that the bible teaches Jesus is God.

John 1;1,2,14

1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2. The same was in the beginning with God.

14. And the Word was made 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.

Matt. 1:23

23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Col. 2:8,9

8. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Timothy 3:16

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God (receievd text) (who...NU) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Which ever word is the original it does not change the fact that Jesus was manifest in the flesh, and we know from the above verse that Jesus is God.

You wrote:

Well one word is all it takes to change a theological meaning. To say "he" (Christ) came in the flesh is one thing. To say "God" came in the flesh is something entirely different. But of course, that is why it was forged. The doctrine needs scriptural support that wasn't already there.

See John 1:1,2,14 above for scriptual support

There are more verses I didn't bring up like...

Romans 9:5

5. Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

The context is that Christ came as a Jew in the flesh

John 20:28

28. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Thomas knew who Jesus was, even if it took him awhile.

I brought up these verses that back up what Paul said in Phil.

2 Cor.. 8:9

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Paul just paraphrased the Phil. verses.

1 John 1:1,2

1. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

2. (For the life was manifested, and we have seen [it], and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

John is a old man here and still shows how the word became flesh and manifest to us, and we know the Word is God.

Theres are more if you like, but this is enough to Know that Jesus is God, and was manifest as a man to die willfully for us

Did you tell me what "being" means in Phil. 2:6 and what "equal means" and what does it mean to "empty" Himself?

You know kevin, in all this debate we are having I have been very clear in what I believe, right or wrong. I don't think you have told me what these verses mean when you put them all togather. I'll say it one more time how I see it then you tell me in your own words...fair?

mine... Paul is exhorting believers to have the same mental attitude of humility that Christ did, and that Christ was in the form of God exactly, essence and nature, and did not consider it any less to be equal with Him, but emptied Himself of his reputaion as God, taking on the exact form in essence and nature as a bond servant, willfully becomeing man to die for our sins. Right or wrong thats my paraphrase of the text, give me yours.

Take care

mark

john 1:12

We interpret Diety a little different. We (LDS) don't think in terms of "trinitarian" dogma.

We Believe the Godhead is comprised of 3 separate individuals. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

These we do NOT believe are one God. The OT is replete with mention of multiple "dieties" but is sure to mention only one "El Elyon" translated meaning "The Most High God" this is who we worship as God the Father.

Yeaweh is the God of the Old Testament. Yeaweh was one of the 70 sons of El and was given Israel to rule over by none other than El Elyon. Yeaweh translated into the Greek is Jehova whom we believe is the antemortal Jesus Christ. So you see Jesus Christ IS the God of the Israelites, he is the God who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai, He is the great I AM, but He is NOT El Elyon (the Most High God).

When Jesus prayed to the Father He was NOT praying to Himself. Who do you suppose was present when during the creation God said, "let US form man in OUR image?" We believe this passage clearly states there were two dieties present. We believe that is God the Father (El Elyon) and God the Son (Yeaweh).

Now on to the NT. Scholars believe that there were many changes made by scribes with a theological agenda to the 27 books eventually cannonized into the NT. There are numerous manuscripts of NT books from different time periods and they say different things that is how scholarship KNOWS the NT books had changes made to them. One of the problems in the 1st through 4th centuries (pre creedal christianity) was that there were different Christian "sects" proclaiming different views on God. Lots of changes to scripture were made to more conform to the "proto orthodox" way of thinking.

I refer you to a very good book written by Dr. Bart Ehrman, "Lost Christianities, the battle for Scripture and faiths we never knew".

The Bible you quote is not perfect and must be translated correctly. With all the changes to the NT it is pretty difficult without divine revelation to know for certain what the original autographs of the 27 cannonized books in the NT really said.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi docrick,

Nice to talk with you.

The OT is replete with mention of multiple "dieties" but is sure to mention only one "El Elyon" translated meaning "The Most High God" this is who we worship as God the Father.

The OT is very clear that there are many gods, I agree, but the OT is also very clear that these other gods are nothing more than idols, false gods, and powerless. The OT instructs Israel who the One true God is, and when they were disobedient, He would always lead them back to monotheism. Read the First two commandments of the ten and the Shema and it's clear what the message of the bible is.

You wrote;

Yeaweh is the God of the Old Testament. Yeaweh was one of the 70 sons of El and was given Israel to rule over by none other than El Elyon. Yeaweh translated into the Greek is Jehova whom we believe is the antemortal Jesus Christ. So you see Jesus Christ IS the God of the Israelites, he is the God who appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai, He is the great I AM, but He is NOT El Elyon (the Most High God).

Is this a "offical" teaching of the church or is this just your opinion, and opinion of LDS "scholars". if it is offical give me a reference?

You wrote;

When Jesus prayed to the Father He was NOT praying to Himself. Who do you suppose was present when during the creation God said, "let US form man in OUR image?" We believe this passage clearly states there were two deities present. We believe that is God the Father (El Elyon) and God the Son (Yeaweh).

Before you make statement about " "trinitarian" dogma" you should first learn what the bible teaches about the triune God. Your question implies modelism of "oneness" doctrine.

You wrote;

Now on to the NT. Scholars believe that there were many changes made by scribes with a theological agenda to the 27 books eventually cannonized into the NT. There are numerous manuscripts of NT books from different time periods and they say different things that is how scholarship KNOWS the NT books had changes made to them. One of the problems in the 1st through 4th centuries (pre creedal christianity) was that there were different Christian "sects" proclaiming different views on God. Lots of changes to scripture were made to more conform to the "proto orthodox" way of thinking.

That is just anti Christian propaganda, there are over thousands of MSS and there are no major changes, the context is remarkably preserved as the Isaiah scrolls testify. Why don't show all these changes, although, they have been brought up many times here. Give me what you would consider the very worst pollution of the bible, the very worst?

You wrote:

The Bible you quote is not perfect and must be translated correctly. With all the changes to the NT it is pretty difficult without divine revelation to know for certain what the original autographs of the 27 cannonized books in the NT really said.

This is a perfect example of how many LDS feel about the bible, it proves the Richards quote in the beginning of this thread that LDS teachers taught the church really do not need the bible, if it is so bad then why does the church just give lip service to it? Why do the give it out for free with out any warning label?

Mark

john 1:12

Share this post


Link to post

== One of the first rules of hermeneutics is to let scripture interprete scripture. I'll answer your question again, He layed his reputation (lit.emptied) aside of being God, and willfully became human to die for us. Did you read the text, or my answer/s?

A few things.

1) This is the "first principle" for pastors and preachers too lazy to learn proper hermeneutics. For a good list of basic rules try: http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page7.html

2) Scriptures don't interpret themselves or else there would be need for the science of hermeneutics in the first place.

3) Letting scripture interpret scripture is true enough as a principle because "the context" is usually scripture, but in practice it becomes nothing more than our theology telling a biblical passage what it can or cannot mean. Trying to determine the meaning from the context of such a passage is a better procedure than going to other passages which may or may not be dealing with the same subject. Context is to be preferred over prooftext. Why? One may think he has found the common denominator that harmonizes all the passages but may be wrong.

4) Scholars see the fallacy of this method. "Rules" are intended to avoid fallacy not cause them. Saying scripture interprets scripture begs the question and can become circular reasoning very quickly. Which scriptures interpret which scriptures? Certainly Lk 17:2 shouldn't be used to "interpret" the phrase "do unto others." So who decides which verses are related and are interpreting one another? This dilemma demonstrates that even when this "rule" is applied you're still back at ground zero relying on private interpretation. So this "rule" in and of itself is rather useless.

5) I did argue from context which was other scripture, so I don't see how you can fault me for using the immediate context to interpret the passage.

Here are the seven rules listed on the link above:

Rule #1

"The first rule of interpretation is to DISCOVER THE AUTHOR THE PEOPLE ADDRESSED AND THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN A GIVEN CASE."

[i did this by noting what the "glory of God" would mean to a first century Jewish audience. Those who simply "let scripture interpret scripture" see no need for this kind of legwork.]

Rule#2

"The second rule of interpretation is to DISCOVER THE FACTS AND TRUTHS PRESENTED IN A GIVEN PASSAGE AND NOTE THE EXACT WORDING OF THE TEXT."

[i did this, but Markk you ran to other scriptures from other books for some weird reason]

Rule #3

"The third rule of interpretation is as follows: WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE. "

[Again the plain sense of Christ's morphe (form) makes perfect sense. So why seek variant interpretations such as "nature"?]

Rule #4

"The Law of First Mention may be said to be the principle that requires one to go to that portion of the Scriptures where a doctrine is mentioned for the first time and to study the first occurrence of the same in order to get the fundamental inherent meaning of that doctrine. When this law is applied the simple precedes the complex."

[Again I noted where the word was mentioned several times in the LXX , and each and every time it supported the point I was making. Markk, you merely hand waved this aside]

I didn't see how rules 5-7 applied to this.

== Huh! did we talk about Gen and Rev?

I'm making the point that scripture cannot interpret itself. This argument begins with too many theological assumptions driving it; like the Bible has one author and cannot contain any contradiction whatsoever. You begin by saying what scripture can and cannot say. The science of hermeneutics is not bound by theological presuppositions. If it were it would be useless to us. Revelation was written in the context of Genesis just as much as Phil was written in the context of John. That was my point.

== You can find a scholar to say what ever you want, look at this site. I can quote scholars til I'm blue in the face that agree that Form implies essence of nature in the context of these verses.

But they do so as Evangelical scholars who admittedly argue from a theological preference. Saying a word can mean X in one non-scriptural instance is not proof that it means X in scriptural instances. Especially when it appears in scripture(LXX) a half-dozen times and always means Y. So much for "letting Scripture interpret Scripture." The only Bible translation that renders morphe as "nature" is the Evangelical produced NIV, and I have noted Evangelical scholars who reject this as an illicit leap based in theology, not the text itself.

== What I am doing is called exegesis in that I am following good hermeneutics and letting scripture interpret scripture.

You already blew your cover when you said the Bible has one author. For that reason exegesis probably isn't even possible with you. You put theological conceptions before you even read the text. Mormons can simply let the text speak plainly without worrying about retranslating the text or arguing how the text could mean something else.

== What you are doing is called isogesis, taking a pre conceived idealogy of God and trying to make it work in the bible.

Uh, I'm using Evangelical scholars to prove my case. I've applied at least four of the rules above in my exegesis. In contrast, you're using pop apologetic rhetoric provided by preachers. Nothing you've presented comes even close to passing as "proper exegesis."

== I have clearly shown that the bible teaches Jesus is God.

Since when has that ever been in dispute? You seem to be understanding my position as well as you interpret the Bible. Not very well. But suffice it to say John 1:1 is hotly debated among scholars, though I have no problems saying Christ was God in the beginning. 1 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous even as a forgery because it doesn't distinguish between God the Father and Jesus Christ like so many other scriptures do. So it super unique and makes people think there must be some kind of "oneness" going on in a "hypostatic" trinitarian sense.

Your slew of prooftexts - as if I'm supposed to disagree with them? - do nothing to change the fact that you've painted yourself in a corner with your interpretation of Phil 2:6. If morphe means nature and it refers to 100% divinity, then since this is what Christ gave up before coming to earth, you must argue that Christ was not God on earth.

But I find it humorous that you continue to push the forgery of 1 Tim 3:16. This in and of itself should demonstrate your refusal to place proper exegesis before theology. Forget what we have known through textual criticism over the years. You like what it says, so you're gonna keep it.

== You know kevin, in all this debate we are having I have been very clear in what I believe, right or wrong. I don't think you have told me what these verses mean when you put them all togather. I'll say it one more time how I see it then you tell me in your own words...fair?

Huh? I provided an article I wrote on this passage. Apparently you still refuse to read it.

== mine... Paul is exhorting believers to have the same mental attitude of humility that Christ did, and that Christ was in the form of God exactly, essence and nature, and did not consider it any less to be equal with Him, but emptied Himself of his reputaion as God, taking on the exact form in essence and nature as a bond servant, willfully becomeing man to die for our sins. Right or wrong thats my paraphrase of the text, give me yours.

I already did. Christ humbled himself and gave up the "glory of God," which was understood in a Jewish context as the "form of God." What I argue is that the passage does nothing to vindicate Trinitarian claims. Saying Christ was in the flesh or saying Christ had equality with God, or saying Christ is God is not helping the official Trinity doctrine out at all. Oneness Christians use the same verses. Nobody is arguing that Christ is divine or "one" with the Father. What we argue is how he is one with the Father. Mormons say in purpose, and so does Jesus. Trinitarians have a heavy burden because their position involves more theological jargon and concepts than you can shake a stick at. Christ is a "person" (nonbiblical term) who is one with the Father's "substance" and "essence"(nonbiblical term) and united with him in a "hypostasis"(nonbiblical term) and is "eternally generated"(nonbiblical term) as the son.

There is nothing in Phil 2:6 or John 1:1 or any other verse of scripture that allows us to read so much theological baggage into the Bible. And even your own Trinitarian scholars will admit this.

== The OT is very clear that there are many gods, I agree, but the OT is also very clear that these other gods are nothing more than idols, false gods, and powerless.

Well if you're reading the Bible without any knowledge of the ANE background, then this is a common interpretation. But if you're following the proper method of hermeneutics you'd see that many of the gods mentioned in the OT were first mentioned in the Ugaritic lit, and that in both instances they were understood as real deities.

== The OT instructs Israel who the One true God is, and when they were disobedient, He would always lead them back to monotheism.

This is misleading because when you say "the OT instructs" monotheism, what you're really saying is that the OT eventually instructs. Scholars understand monotheism to be a development in Ancient Israel that eventually took hold around the second temple period.

== Read the First two commandments of the ten and the Shema and it's clear what the message of the bible is.

Again, you're hopping around the Bible to read verses that say what you like, and then insist this is what the "OT instructs." This is dishonest because the OT initialy made the point that the gods were stripped of their authority by the Most High. but sinced you don't believe the Bible could in any sense be in conflict with itself, you do not acknowledge these basic facts. In other words, your theological presupposition precludes your understanding of the text as a whole.

== Is this a "offical" teaching of the church or is this just your opinion, and opinion of LDS "scholars". if it is offical give me a reference?

Markk, you're seriously out of touch with biblical scholarship if you think this is something invented by LDS scholars. And your condescension with the "quotes" is noted. I'll simply post what I said to Johnny almost two weeks ago:

== Why did Joseph Smith preach three Gods and neither the OT nor NT preaches three Gods?

The Bible doesn't "preach." People interpret the Bible and then they "preach." Having said this, the Bible is replete with references to the divine assembly or the council of the gods.

"Will you not possess that which Chemosh your elohim gives you to possess? So whomever Yahweh our Elohim has dispossessed from before us, them will we possess" (Judges 11:24)

It is obvious that Jephthah considered Chemosh of the Ammonites to be elohim in the same sense that Yahweh was the elohim of Israel. He was contending that Yahweh, his elohim, had given the Israelites certain territories just as Chemosh, the elohim of the Ammonites, had given them certain lands and that the two nations should therefore be content with the arrangements of their respective gods. In Psalm 95:3, it was declared that "Yahweh is a great El (god) and a great King above all elohim (gods)." But how could this psalmist have believed Yahweh was greater than other gods unless he believed that other gods existed? Psalm 86:8 declared, "There is none like you among the elohim, O Yahweh." However, if the psalmist thought that Yahweh was the only god in existence his words of praise are rendered completely meaningless. In Exodus 12:12, Yahweh said that on the night of the Passover he would execute judgment "against all the gods of Egypt." But how can judgment be executed against something that doesn't even exist? These are only a few examples of clear biblical polytheism. Evangelicals merely beg the question when they assume these gods to be imaginary...

T. J. Meek comments on the problematic translation of

Share this post


Link to post
Saying God is one, and that Christ is God, does virtually nothing to prove the Trinity dogma. To suggest otherwise is to betray your own lack of understanding as to what the true Trinity dogma constitutes.

As it's already been noted that you yourself do not have a clear understanding "as to what the true Trinity dogma constitutes," it's not readily apparent to me how you can assert that you do and that someone else does not.

Share this post


Link to post

Ave, I figured you'd stop embarrassing yourself by now. Even if I did misunderstand some aspects of the Trinity, I'm not a trinitarian.

So what's your excuse?

You've flatly contradicted several Trinitarian scholars on numerous points. You have not conformed these points with your view, you've merely derailed the issue and avoided a head-on reconciliation. Which is exactly what I was told to expect from you. I'll stick with Waltz and Beckwith when discussing the Trinity. They seem to at least know what it is in its finest details, and they how to defend it beyond the banal "you misunderstand it" gripe.

Now I said that according to the Trinity, Christ is a "person" who is one with the Father's "substance" and "essence" and united with him as a "hypostasis" and is "eternally generated" as the son. If you have problems with this description, then take it up with Beckwith and Waltz.

In any event, there is another thread discussing the Trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
I'll stick with Waltz and Beckwith when discussing the Trinity.

Francis Beckwith?

As I indicated before, unless I'm mistaken, David Waltz and I are both faithful Catholics, and as such, submit to the Magisterium of the Church in matters of faith and morals, and would rely upon it for ultimate authority in this matter.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, Frank Beckwith.

Well it is strange that both you and David "submit to the Magisterium of the Church" yet David disagrees with you on the point I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, Frank Beckwith.

The same Francis (Frank) Beckwith who said this?

But what is disturbing about what happened at BYU is the way in which the apparent Mormons "took over" the meeting and censored any opinions that would have shined a light on their aberrant theology.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, same one. He disagrees with you on the Trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Yep, same one. He disagrees with you on the Trinity.

In what way, specifically?

Is it your view that as a Protestant he also disagrees with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on the trinity, or are you unsure on this point?

Share this post


Link to post

AVE, I have to admit from my debates with you on trinitarian thought, I have no idea what you think.

You are pretty vague most of the time and some of the time you provide links to catholic sites on the trinity and it appears to many (including me) that it is you who don't understand the trinity.

Me thinks you should come back where you belong. Your family and the Lord needs you and deep down I think the spark of LDS teachings and faith are there waiting to come out.

Share this post


Link to post
AVE, I have to admit from my debates with you on trinitarian thought, I have no idea what you think.

You are pretty vague most of the time and some of the time you provide links to catholic sites on the trinity and it appears to many (including me) that it is you who don't understand the trinity.

Me thinks you should come back where you belong.  Your family and the Lord needs you and deep down I think the spark of LDS teachings and faith are there waiting to come out.

docrick--

Respectfully, I appreciate your sentiments, which I'm certain are sincere, if inaccurate.

I could just as easily tell you, and 12 million other Latter-day Saints, that they should come home to the true Church of Jesus Christ, and that "the Lord needs them."

I doubt you'd respond any more favorably to that than I would to your suggestion above.

Both of us, respectfully, believe we are in the Lord's church. I am quite personally assured of that, and no power on earth can sway me from that position, firmly and sincerely held.

p.s. On a lighter note, may I suggest you not try guilt on a Catholic; they invented it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
p.s. On a lighter note, may I suggest you not try guilt on a Catholic; they invented it.

And here's me thinking it was all those Jewish mothers.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Kevin,

You said Allot, it will take awhile to get through all this so be patient.

First...I said letting scripture interpret scripture is "one" of the first rules of biblical interpretaion (biblical herminutics), there are others as you pointed out, and Context, Context, context are certainly important if not the most important, so please do not take my post "out of context" as you did. I have taken two herminutic classes one at a bible college and another via mail. both were designed not only to help us that have been blessed with the information highway, but also those in other places that rely only on the bible, with out the luxury of commentaries and other sourses we take for granted.

Second... I still do not get what your context meaning of Phil. 2:5-9. Phil 2:31 has hard as I try has nothing to do with Christ emptying Himself and coming to earth as man. I'll quote it here...

"who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself". (NKJ)

How is this in context with our discussion? If Anything it is a proof text that Jesus is God in that it says..."according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." This verse is saying that Jesus in all powerfull and is in complete control. Only God can have this attribute and power.

It would help if you would give a understanding in your own words as to what these verses mean? I did read your "article" and it speaks nothing of the structure of the sentences, I asked earlier what the Greek words "being", "equal", and "emptied" mean. These are very important words that construct the "context" the sentences. In your article it speaks only of Morph and says nothing about Morph meaning "exact, unchanging form", and begins with the false premus "And he concludes that,

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...