God could not be a man?

[jamil_joseph02]

Here is an argument from a person who denies Christ’s divinity:

According to the book of Hosea, God is not man and man could not be God:

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

God is not a man, that he should lie,
** nor a son of man**, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Christ could not be God because we all know that the one who is seated on God’s throne is God Himself, and where do we find Christ? Only at the right hand of the Father.

So how do we answer this?

 

[John7]

Here is an argument from a person who denies Christ’s divinity:

According to the book of Hosea, God is not man and man could not be God:

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

I’ve always thought of the verse this way: Hosea is a long discourse from the LORD through the prophet…from Yahweh, whom I believe is the Father, so that of course the Father never became incarnate but his only-begotten did.

In the second verse Balaam tells us

NOT that God is not a man BUT that he isn’t a man who would lie (the lying aspect being the important part) God is not a person that lies, which men are prone to do. Its not saying that God will never incarnate himself as a man who tells the truth (Jesus being the truth).

Same idea with the second part of the verse. Its not necessarily saying that, “God is not a son of man**.**” , but that he is not like sons of men that are prone to change their minds.

just my opinion, J7

 

[jamil_joseph02]

okay, thanks for the reply. Are there still any great divinity-of-Christ defender here? Hehe

 

[crazzeto]

Count me as a divinity of Christ defender/believer. You list catholic as your religion, so if that’s still true then really you have to be such a person your self. It’s in all of our creeds, as well as with in the bible it’s self:

drbo.org/chapter/50001.htm
John, Chapter 1

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. 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it…14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

What you just encountered, was the dangers of Sola Scriptura. A philosphy which allows the reader to come up with an interpetation of the bible based on as many or few verses of the bible as the reader personally wishes. We Catholics read the bible based on the principal laid out by 2 Timothy 3:16:

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

Usually, though… We don’t have to remind folks this with regard to the Gospel text as often as the other books (esp OT) in the bible, but it seems clear that your friends need to be reminded that the Gospels are in fact, the inspired word of God. No interpetation of Scripture may violate any of scripture, it has to fully make sense as a whole. Your friends interpetations clearly violate John Chapter 1, a basic tennant of Christianity. If you don’t accept this, then really you’re not Christian. This belief of theirs all dates back to a very early heresy which tries to seperate the divine and human natures of Christ. This is impossible, he is both at the same time. Truely man, who truely suffered and died on the cross, truely God, capable of all God is capable of (anything and everything).

 

[thistle]

okay, thanks for the reply. Are there still any great divinity-of-Christ defender here? Hehe

What’s the joke?
All Christians believe the divinity of Christ. Anyone who does not is not a Christian.

 

[jamil_joseph02]

What’s the joke?
All Christians believe the divinity of Christ. Anyone who does not is not a Christian.

I see that you’re a British but resides in the Philippines. I’m from Philippines too. And may I ask, have you encountered the sect known as the Iglesia Ni Cristo established by a man named Felix Manalo?

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Count me as a divinity of Christ defender/believer. You list catholic as your religion, so if that’s still true then really you have to be such a person your self. It’s in all of our creeds, as well as with in the bible it’s self:

Yes, I’m a Catholic indeed.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, I’m a Catholic indeed.

I would ask these people to explain John Chapter 1.

 

[o_mlly]

Here is an argument from a person who denies Christ’s divinity:

According to the book of Hosea, God is not man and man could not be God:

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

God is not a man, that he should lie,
** nor a son of man**, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Christ could not be God because we all know that the one who is seated on God’s throne is God Himself, and where do we find Christ? Only at the right hand of the Father.

So how do we answer this?

I don’t see any inconsistencies in your citations. I beleive your logic employs the fallacy of the excluded middle. That is, the existence of a third nature which combines the two.

In the Second Person, God is not man nor is man God. The God-head is one in being, three in persons, two in nature – God-man, co-equal and co-eternal.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[jamil_joseph02]

I would ask these people to explain John Chapter 1.

**I’ve got one here. Here are his claims:
**
Trinitarians do not understand John1:1 esp.the 3rd clause.

In order for us to know its meaning, we should ask what was the language used at the time of the Apostles. Was it Hebrew or Greek?

Secondly, John clearly tells us in his gospel “In the beginning”. We the Iglesia ni Cristo’s believe that the logos or “Word” is God’s word used in creation.

Genesis 1:1 says “In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”

That’s why John said “In the beginning”. Thus the “Word” in John 1:1 refers to the word of God which came out of His mouth, his utterance in other words.

John derived his opening of the gospel from the Old testament, so we have to know the equivalent word of “Logos” in hebrew.

In the 3rd clause of John 1:1 “the Word was God” there is no reference to the second person of the trinity because it only refers to God’s word, which is His utterance, and when translated in Hebrew is “dâbhâr”, which is mentioned many times in the bible.

That’s why John said “the Word was God” because no word of God could not be fulfilled.

Isaiah 55:11 says “so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

 

[jamil_joseph02]

I don’t see any inconsistencies in your citations. I beleive your logic employs the fallacy of the excluded middle. That is, the existence of a third nature which combines the two.

In the Second Person, God is not man nor is man God. The God-head is one in being, three in persons, two in nature – God-man, co-equal and co-eternal.

Peace,
O’Malley

I did not make the claims. It was from the Iglesia ni Cristo from the Philippines. Have you heard about them? We have a couple of articles in the library that tell about those guys.

 

[crazzeto]

**I’ve got one here. Here are his claims:
**
Trinitarians do not understand John1:1 esp.the 3rd clause.

In order for us to know its meaning, we should ask what was the language used at the time of the Apostles. Was it Hebrew or Greek?

Secondly, John clearly tells us in his gospel “In the beginning”. We the Iglesia ni Cristo’s believe that the logos or “Word” is God’s word used in creation.

Genesis 1:1 says “In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”

That’s why John said “In the beginning”. Thus the “Word” in John 1:1 refers to the word of God which came out of His mouth, his utterance in other words.

John derived his opening of the gospel from the Old testament, so we have to know the equivalent word of “Logos” in hebrew.

In the 3rd clause of John 1:1 “the Word was God” there is no reference to the second person of the trinity because it only refers to God’s word, which is His utterance, and when translated in Hebrew is “dâbhâr”, which is mentioned many times in the bible.

That’s why John said “the Word was God” because no word of God could not be fulfilled.

Isaiah 55:11 says “so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

Wow… That guy did so many twists and turns of scripture to try and get it to fit his bizzar views that it’s making my head spin. For starters, the Gospel was written in Greek, primarly for Greek speaking jews who were not yet believers. So I appriciate the Hebrew, but umm… Yeah. Anyway… Here are a few more passages he needs to explain

From Galatians 1

6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.

If Jesus is not God, why is Paul talking about the “Grace of Jesus”? Don’t these people know that only God may bestow grace? There for it is proper, only to speak of the Grace of God? What about this, do they think St. Paul wouldn’t have understood?

From First Corinthians 1

9 God is faithful: by whom you are called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

Again, Paul clearly identifies Jesus as the Son of God (who is God), how do you deny the divine nature if Jesus is the Son of God?

From Pauls own conversion Acts Ch 9

4 And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad. 6 And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? 7** And the Lord said to him**: Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.

Saul (Paul) is a Pharasie’s Pharasie, this is how he’s described in the Acts. A real Jew, Jelous for God. This is why he hunts Christians, he beleives they are commiting apostacy against The Lord, God. Notice what’s happening here though. Saul (Paul) is continiously referring to Jesus, the one who as coming to him as “Lord”. This is a title reserved for God, Saul (Paul) knows this very well. If he doesn’t believe Jesus is Lord, that Jesus is God, why on earth is he calling him “Lord” here?

From the end of the Gosple of John, ch 20

28 Thomas answered, and said to him: My Lord, and my God. 29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed. 30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

It looks to me that Thomas is throughly convinced that Jesus is Lord and God. What are these peoples problem?

These are but a few examples clearing illistrating how wrong this group is. More over it’s yet another mark against sola scriptura, which encourages this type of belief. This group is heretical, I’m not sure whether or not your actually weighing the truth of their argument. If you are, I would advise not weighing their arguments too heavily, it’s based on improper reading of scripture and as you see here, it falls apart rather quickly.

 

[clmowry]

Here is an argument from a person who denies Christ’s divinity:

According to the book of Hosea, God is not man and man could not be God:

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Christ could not be God because we all know that the one who is seated on God’s throne is God Himself, and where do we find Christ? Only at the right hand of the Father.

So how do we answer this?

This kind of highlights the issues with using “proof texts” independent of the rest of scripture, tradition and the Church.

I think that the rest of scripture would prohibit us from reading the verse as used in the “proof”:

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. **For I am God, and ****[cannot also be] **man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

The rest of scripture could lead us to believe that this verse would be better understood one of several different ways:

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God [the Father], and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. For I am God [the Son], and not [yet or just a] man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I turn and devastate Ephraim. **For I am God ****[the Spirit], **and not man— the Holy One among you. I will not come in wrath.”

I don’t see that the literal words in this one verse prohibit any of these understandings being implied.

Do they?

So we need to look to other verses in scripture that might clarify which of these readings is more likely to be acceptable.

Chuck

 

[jamil_joseph02]

I got here somewhat a different version of their explanation of John 1:1. I can’t think of a quick reply as of now, so do you mind helping me out here. Here’s the claim:

John 1:1-14

John in his gospel said “The Word was God”. This is a saying we could hardly understand, since the Greek language, which was used by John in his writing, have many ways of addressing points different from English. When Greeks use a noun, almost all of these nouns refer to the article accompanying it.

God in Greek is “Theos” and the article “Ho”, when used in Greek when speaking about God, they call it “Ho Theos”.

Now, if the article accompanying the noun is not used in Greek, the noun therefore changes to an adjective. John does not say that the Word is “Ho Theos”, that the Word is God Himself. Trinitarians claim that the “Word” is God Himself, but the article “Ho” is not in the text. John does not say that Jesus is Christ Himself, only he is saying that Jesus is the same with God when thinking and in feeling.

from the Daily Study Bible Series- The Gospel of John, vol 1 p.39

this is just one proof from scholars of the New Testament that John does not say Christ is God but that the word “God” only describes the “Word” as holy. So a correct translation of John 1:1 would be “… and the Word (logos) was Holy”.

but then what kind of word does the word of God have?

Luke 1:37 “For nothing is impossible with God.”

That’s why we read “the Word was God” because it only describes the “Word” as being holy, but it does not refer to Christ Himself.

So John 1:1 should not be a reference when proving that Christ is true God.

And if we are to accept that Christ is God according to this verse, it opposes John 17:1-3 which clearly states that the Father is the only true God.

 

[crazzeto]

I would suggest 2 things to you, first of all get a Gosple of St. John Study guide, I recommend Steve Ray’s, secondly get a copy of the Catechism to go with that (and your bible). From the CCC

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3.shtml

Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to "know the Father and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ."4 But the Spirit is the last of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be revealed. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, explains this progression in terms of the pedagogy of divine “condescension”:

The Old Testament proclaimed the Father clearly, but the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son and gave us a glimpse of the divinity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells among us and grants us a clearer vision of himself. It was not prudent, when the divinity of the Father had not yet been confessed, to proclaim the Son openly and, when the divinity of the Son was not yet admitted, to add the Holy Spirit as an extra burden, to speak somewhat daringly. . . . By advancing and progressing “from glory to glory,” the light of the Trinity will shine in ever more brilliant rays.5

Now, you’ve suggested already that 1-3 states that Jesus is claiming that only God the
father is God. Lets move on to 4 & 5 shall we?

drbo.org/chapter/50017.htm

4 I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.

Jesus is asking to be glorified with God, but if you’re read from the book of Isaias, you should know that

8 I the Lord, this is my name:** I will not give my glory to another**, nor my praise to graven things.

&

11 Let the desert and the cities thereof be exalted: Cedar shall dwell in houses: ye inhabitants of Petra, give praise, they shall cry from the top of the mountains.

God will not share his glory with another. What this means is that if Jesus isn’t God, then he is comitting apostacy. As has been argued many times before, there is no middle ground in Christianity. Either Jesus is Lord and God, and our faith true. Or Jesus is not Lord and God, and all Christians are damned to eternal damnation for apostacy. Jesus very clearly is making claims that he is God! Further, Jesus prays

11 And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me have I kept; and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition, that the scripture may be fulfilled.

Here Jesus is praying that we, followers of Christ, be one people. United for ever as the father and son are one, they are one and the same. As stated at the begining of my post, Jesus is revealing the Trinaty here, or at least specifically he is now reveling the Son.

I hope this helps you.

 

[John7]

Now, if the article accompanying the noun is not used in Greek, the noun therefore changes to an adjective.

Did you make up this Greek rule yourself? Because there is NO such Greek rule saying that an arthrous noun becomes an adjective. Please Jamil, cite me a leading Greek grammar that states this rule. thanks

 

[jamil_joseph02]

Did you make up this Greek rule yourself? Because there is NO such Greek rule saying that an arthrous noun becomes an adjective. Please Jamil, cite me a leading Greek grammar that states this rule.

Hey, I didn’t make that rule sir. And I am not the one who made the claims. I’ll tell you, these are the claims from an Iglesia ni Cristo, a sect from the Philippines, and may I ask, have you heard anything about them? We have an article in the library telling about that sect, so better check it out.

I do hope you understand sir.

 

[John7]

Hey, I didn’t make that rule sir.

okie dokie,
somebody did, right?

‘and the Word was Holy’ while true, isn’t what John 1.1 is saying…just because Theos in the last third of the verse is anarthrous, doesn’t magically morph Theos to the Greek adjective agios.

For some reason I have the faint recollection I’ve gone through this with you before…I’ll check npatrol:

 

[jamil_joseph02]

okie dokie,
somebody did, right?

‘and the Word was Holy’ while true, isn’t what John 1.1 is saying…just because Theos in the last third of the verse is anarthrous, doesn’t magically morph Theos to the Greek adjective agios.

For some reason I have the faint recollection I’ve gone through this with you before…I’ll check npatrol:

But hey, how can I be so sure that there is NO such Greek rule saying that an arthrous noun becomes an adjective? Do you have any reference material explaining Greek grammar? Thanks

 

[crazzeto]

But hey, how can I be so sure that there is NO such Greek rule saying that an arthrous noun becomes an adjective? Do you have any reference material explaining Greek grammar? Thanks

Jamil, you don’t need it. All you need to do is fairly evaluate the scripture I already presented you. Jesus was God, he made a clear statement that he was God. If you don’t beleive this, then you can not call your self Catholic, because you can not even call your self Christian. I would not like to see you take this route, you have been taught the fullest revelation of the truth of God. To reject this, is a terrible thing.