P
PRmerger
Guest
That’s a curious argument.
A son of an insect is…an insect.
A son of a robin is…a robin.
A son of God is…God, yes?
(Note to all the wags: yes, a son of a gun is NOT a gun.
That is true. It is also an idiom.)
- Status
A son of an insect is…an insect.
A son of a robin is…a robin.
A son of God is…God, yes?
(Note to all the wags: yes, a son of a gun is NOT a gun.
That is true. It is also an idiom.)
M
Monergistic
Guest
I want to add this , if I may.
Titus 2:13- “Waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Special thanks to Granville Sharp’s rule, which, when properly limited as set forth by Granville Sharp, is a rule without exceptions.
“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.”
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3.
The vital point that is available to the reader of Sharp’s work is this: Sharp’s rule is valid only for singulars, not plurals; and it is not intended to be applied to proper names. His rule only applies to persons, not things.
For the clearest example of a parallel structure, look to 2 Peter 1:11- a book that, while small, contains a total of five Granville Sharp constructions. In this verse, it says “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Looking at it in Greek, there is literally one word that changes from one phrase to the next- God is replaced by Lord, theou is replaced with kuriou. That’s it. So that’s one other example.
When this rule is properly defined and limited, there are no exceptions. From a grammatical standpoint, from a linguistic standpoint, there is no argument for decoupling “God” and “Savior” as descriptors of Jesus.
Yay grammar!
Also- I know you have a lot on your plate here, but I am hoping you can comment on Oriental Orthodoxy in some way, specifically their Deity of Christ material if you have any to point to.
Titus 2:13- “Waiting for the blessed hope, the appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.”
Special thanks to Granville Sharp’s rule, which, when properly limited as set forth by Granville Sharp, is a rule without exceptions.
“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of the first named person.”
Granville Sharp, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing Many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ, From Passages Which are Wrongly Translated in the Common English Version, (Philadelphia: B. B. Hopkins and Co., 1807), p. 3.
The vital point that is available to the reader of Sharp’s work is this: Sharp’s rule is valid only for singulars, not plurals; and it is not intended to be applied to proper names. His rule only applies to persons, not things.
For the clearest example of a parallel structure, look to 2 Peter 1:11- a book that, while small, contains a total of five Granville Sharp constructions. In this verse, it says “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Looking at it in Greek, there is literally one word that changes from one phrase to the next- God is replaced by Lord, theou is replaced with kuriou. That’s it. So that’s one other example.
When this rule is properly defined and limited, there are no exceptions. From a grammatical standpoint, from a linguistic standpoint, there is no argument for decoupling “God” and “Savior” as descriptors of Jesus.
Yay grammar!
Also- I know you have a lot on your plate here, but I am hoping you can comment on Oriental Orthodoxy in some way, specifically their Deity of Christ material if you have any to point to.
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
Yes the holy spirit is God. It is a manifestation not a person in my view (but id b happy to grant that it is a person)
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
Bad analogy IMO.That’s a curious argument.
A son of an insect is…an insect.
A son of a robin is…a robin.
A son of God is…God, yes?
(Note to all the wags: yes, a son of a gun is NOT a gun.
A son of God is a god. This would contradict christianity wouldn’t It?
In the OT son of God never means God, right?
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
My point with Jewish literature, was that Jesus was well versed in those stuff, and believed in them. I know they are irrelevant to christianity today, but wessterners read the bible from a non jewish context.
There is no evidence that the earliest converts to christianity were unitarians.
Are there any 2nd century sources on the trinity? I’ve head little stuff on this Arius heretic, but I’m trying to have a jewish viewpoint on Yeshua.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
May I respectfully ask you something? Sincerely. IS there scripture that can convince a person of something? I mean just the scripture? When I converted from my former Buddhist/New Age/Pagan type theology to Catholic Christianity, there were a few key components that figured strongly in my conversion, and scripture was certainly a big part of it. But there was so much more. There was discernment. Prayer. Contemplation. Live discussion with other Christians, both Catholic and protestant, EWTN, Books by apologists. This very website. But the overall process involved two things throughout, (at least, I used to think of it as two things). Faith (by the grace of God), and Reason (with my God given intellect). I would now add a third thing, that I didn’t consciously think about it much. But I think it was a byproduct of both faith and reason. It might be called obedience, but I’m not sure if that’s the right word completely. It is an ever increasing faith in and understanding of the necessity for a single truth. A single authority. When I came to believe that the Catholic Church was indeed to Church which was spoken of by Jesus Christ, the Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Doctors, and the Episcopal and Ecclesial councils then I also came to accept that the scriptures themselves, while inspired by the Holy Spirit, were compiled by the Church as a result of councils. That the bible didn’t come first. That it was the result of the Apostles and then the fathers whom they taught, and then the bishops that those fathers taught, and so on down the line that protected what we new refer to as the “deposit of faith”.Hello guys, I’m new to this site and I hope I will be welcomed here nicely.
Recently (After watching debates to gain an even broader understanding of Christianity), I have looked at Scripture in a different light, and see no reason to believe that Jesus claimed to be God, and believe that God is tri-une in nature. I do still hold that Yeshua is our saviour, the Son of God, the Messiah, Lamb of God, etc
Is there any scripture that could convince me otherwise?
God bless you and have good day
I wonder sometimes that simply quoting scripture back and forth without the element of agreeing on a deciding authority, or a set of absolutes which are agreed upon, is as productive as we imagine it might be. Is this what Jesus really had in mind for evangelizing our brothers and sisters? A set of holy books which was compiled into various versions, translations, and literations for the first time nearly 200 years after our Lord’s resurrection? To this day, we haven’t even standardized the bible within the Church. The Vulgate? NAB? D-R? RSV-CE? It has to be something more, don’t you think?. The answer lies in those years between the resurrection and the compilation of the New Testament, and even then, between the compilation of the New Testament for Church liturgical purposes, and Guttenberg’s gift to the public in an economical way.
What is the answer for someone who regards the reformation doctrine of sola scriptura? Who or what body is the arbiter of scripture for a believer in the doctrine of sola scriptura? Was Luther the authority? Calvin? What about where they disagreed with each other. Would it come down then to their catechisms? (I’m not sure if Calvin compiled one). Is it the Holy Spirit? Why would the Holy Spirit guide Billy Graham to look at a passage one way, and C.S. Lewis another?
The Church seems to provide an answer to all these questions. It may not be the answer that suits our personal desire for the application of some doctrine or another in our own lives. But this is where faith, and obedience to faith and conscience comes in again. At least for me. The willingness to accept Jesus Christ and His Church as the authority. The doctrines which she has produced over 2,000 years of inspiration and protection to the point that even the if the Church had a sinister personal character in the seat of Peter (i.e. Alexander VI), that the doctrines have been kept safe.
So the question is the triune God, and perhaps even the hypostatic union and dual natures of the Son Himself. The answer is that they are true doctrines of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. They are in fact dogmatic. They are in fact ‘de fide’ dogmatic. They have been prayed on, contemplated, discerned, and discussed and brought to council by the greatest theological minds in history by the grace of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit, and codified in dogmatic form in order to counter heresy over the course of 2,000 years, and promulgated by the Bishops who have a lineage, and a visible presence on earth unbroken from Jesus Christ and His appointed Apostles.
I don’t know what leads some of us to this conclusion, and not others. And I don’t know the varying degrees of importance that scripture has held in each converts life. For this Catholic Christian it has been very important, and will continue to be so. I learn or confirm something every day from these Holy writings. But…I read the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. And I read the New Testament through the lens of the Catholic Church, and her doctrines. The scriptures can only bear out these doctrines since they are both the product of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Yet, knowing this with every fiber of my being, I also know that the very scriptures that I and other Catholics will offer up as your proof, may not hold the same meaning for a person of independent interpretation without an anchoring and decisive authority. May the Lord bring you home to the Church in the way that only you can and He can know, understand and fully appreciate.
Yours in Christ,
Steven
P
PRmerger
Guest
It is not an analogy at all, Yii.
But THE son of God would be GOD. Right?
Perhaps you could point to the verses in the OT you are referencing.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
If there was no reason to think that, why would the Jews listening pick up stones to kill him? Again, there was no death penalty for claiming to be the messiah in the mosaic law, there was however for blasphemy. And it would be blasphemy for a creature to claim to be God.
I haven’t seen you address that issue yet, which several other posters have raised as well Though I might have missed it. Sorry if I did
I’m interested in seeing the verse for that. I have no recollection of David ever being worshipped in any remote way, let alone being worshipped in the exact same way as the Father, which is what we have in Revelation 5. Again, if any creature is given that kind of worship, it’s idolatry, a huge sin. And Revelation 22:8 demonstrates that.
There’s one more verse I’d like to mention though, again it’s from Revelation (Bear with me! Revelation used to be freaky for me, but it’s recently opened up for me and I’ve been finding so many gems in there now!
)Anyways, in Revelation 2:23 Jesus here is talking to the church at Thyatira and he says,
if you want proof that this really is Jesus talking, back up to verse 18, that makes it pretty clear who it is who’s speaking. Anyway, why is this important? Because Jesus is quoting almost verbatim Jeremiah 17:10 which says,
Jesus is identifying himself as The Lord God!! And notice he doesn’t say, I am like him who searches mind and heart, but I * AM* him. That’s a pretty powerful claim to divinity right there. No creature or prophet, no matter how exalted or important in God’s plan they are, can claim to be *THE ONE *who searches minds and hearts and repays men for their deeds. God alone can do that.
You say you want to read the NT as a first century Jew would, that’s great, more people need to do that! Do that with this. Imagine you’ve been raised on the Old Testament prophets, you know them by heart. You’ve been taught all your life that there is only one God and he reads the hearts of men and he alone repays them for their deeds. Then you read this verse in Revelation. Could you honestly not think of Jeremiah 17:10 and not see the implications? I’m not saying youd believe it necessarily, but its hard to read that verse from a Jewish perspective and not see a claim to divinity in there. I encourage you to at least consider that.
Just a little more food for thought! I promise I won’t quote from Revelation anymore.
Just curious, I haven’t read through every post, but has anyone mentioned John 20:28 yet? Was wondering what you think of that one???
D
Darryl_B
Guest
So far YiiNaa has used a shotgun approach to any argument presented. You will deal with this statement but not deal with that statement. You will deal with this little part of the argument but not deal with that part of the argument.
Time for personal. YiiNaa why are you here? I used to belong to a cult which has very similar beliefs to the unitarian. All of your arguments I used many times in my earlier life, but I used many more besides those. Until I found I spent most of my time interpreting Scripture (what God really meant to say was … no what God really meant to say was), rather than me listening to God. I too would often have to get in discussion with Trinitarians just so I felt I could defend my faith system. But the problem was my faith system, not the Trinitarians. What I did to get over that unitarian system was difficult because I had to A. accept that I was wrong (which is difficult when you really believe what you preach to be true), and B. trust God to teach ie ask Him.
Time for personal. YiiNaa why are you here? I used to belong to a cult which has very similar beliefs to the unitarian. All of your arguments I used many times in my earlier life, but I used many more besides those. Until I found I spent most of my time interpreting Scripture (what God really meant to say was … no what God really meant to say was), rather than me listening to God. I too would often have to get in discussion with Trinitarians just so I felt I could defend my faith system. But the problem was my faith system, not the Trinitarians. What I did to get over that unitarian system was difficult because I had to A. accept that I was wrong (which is difficult when you really believe what you preach to be true), and B. trust God to teach ie ask Him.
L
ltwin
Guest
How do you arrive at that?
In John 10, Jesus said:
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
Seems like they have the same will to me. he goes on to say in verse 38, “the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
This is talking about much more than Christ “representing” the Father. Not only is Jesus “in the Father” but “the Father is in” Jesus. How can God, who is infinite, be contained inside Jesus unless Jesus is also infinite?
This is where Philippians 2 comes in to play. Keep in mind that Jesus is one with the Father and the Father is in Him:
Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Jesus, the eternal Word, became flesh and dwelt among us and humbled himself. Though he was like God the Father and was equal to the Father, he did not count that equality as something he had to hold on to. Instead, he chose to take on flesh and live like us to show us the image of God and redeem us. It is really quite amazing.
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
Firstly, there are too many points to deal with, I could do with one at a time.
Secondly, I’m here to grasp a better understanding of the trinity. If I believed that I’m wrong, I would have no problem being a trinitarian as I used to be. However, I feel that the points I made are valid, and have chosen to share them with you guys to see if they are invald. I’m not trying to force unitarianism here. I’m searching for the truth.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
What do you say to the fact that you ought to receive your doctrines from the Church, and not from the Scriptures?
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
According to John’s gospel, the Jews didn’t understand what Jesus meant most of the time. They might have thought he was claiming deity, but you can’t make conclusions based on confused JewsIf there was no reason to think that, why would the Jews listening pick up stones to kill him? Again, there was no death penalty for claiming to be the messiah in the mosaic law, there was however for blasphemy. And it would be blasphemy for a creature to claim to be God.
I haven’t seen you address that issue yet, which several other posters have raised as well Though I might have missed it. Sorry if I did
I’m interested in seeing the verse for that. I have no recollection of David ever being worshipped in any remote way, let alone being worshipped in the exact same way as the Father, which is what we have in Revelation 5. Again, if any creature is given that kind of worship, it’s idolatry, a huge sin. And Revelation 22:8 demonstrates that.
There’s one more verse I’d like to mention though, again it’s from Revelation (Bear with me! Revelation used to be freaky for me, but it’s recently opened up for me and I’ve been finding so many gems in there now!
Anyways, in Revelation 2:23 Jesus here is talking to the church at Thyatira and he says, if you want proof that this really is Jesus talking, back up to verse 18, that makes it pretty clear who it is who’s speaking. Anyway, why is this important? Because Jesus is quoting almost verbatim Jeremiah 17:10 which says,
Jesus is identifying himself as The Lord God!! And notice he doesn’t say, I am like him who searches mind and heart, but I * AM* him. That’s a pretty powerful claim to divinity right there. No creature or prophet, no matter how exalted or important in God’s plan they are, can claim to be *THE ONE *who searches minds and hearts and repays men for their deeds. God alone can do that.
You say you want to read the NT as a first century Jew would, that’s great, more people need to do that! Do that with this. Imagine you’ve been raised on the Old Testament prophets, you know them by heart. You’ve been taught all your life that there is only one God and he reads the hearts of men and he alone repays them for their deeds. Then you read this verse in Revelation. Could you honestly not think of Jeremiah 17:10 and not see the implications? I’m not saying youd believe it necessarily, but its hard to read that verse from a Jewish perspective and not see a claim to divinity in there. I encourage you to at least consider that.
Just a little more food for thought! I promise I won’t quote from Revelation anymore.
David was worshipped alogside God in 1 Chronicles 29:20-22.
There are many interesting paralells in the Bible, an I’m glad you saw one. According to Psalm 110:1, Jesus cannot be the lord God, because he is not Adonai, and is subordinate to the father. Adonai is a title for God, and Jesus is never called this. There is also no place in the bible where Jesus is called YHVH
As a first century Jew, I could possibly see the paralells between the verse in chronicles and revelation. It would also occur to me that I can’t call too peop(God and the Lamb) one God. In the entire book of revelation, a distinction is made between God and Jesus.
- As for John 20:28, the word for God could have many meanings.
- Thomas saw Jesus as an agent
- Jesus is never called YHVH
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
I’ve grown up as an anglican, and that might seem a little dificult for me. The scriptures in my view are more sacred than the church
P
PRmerger
Guest
How do you know what is Scripture though, if you don’t accept the Church’s telling you this? (At least, as it applies to the NT).
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
Beacause I see every reason to trust the canon.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Based on what?
You trust the Catholic Church’s authority to define the canon for you, but you don’t trust the CC’s on other things?
B
benjohnson
Guest
Sure… but you wouldn’t have access to them. You would have been a poor barely-illiterate peasant just like everybody else.
You’ve stripped the bible from the religion that created it and came up with your own conclusion on a rather significant point, and then pronounced yourself a member of that religion.
Intellectually, this is the same as me taking the writings of Einstein, getting all wrong, and then then saying I’m an expert nuclear physicist.
If you want to be Christian, then I rejoice. Go be one - go to church.
Don’t spend any more time coming up with a personal pseudo-religion - your life it too short to spend in such a way.
Y
YiiNaa
Guest
carm.org/are-these-lost-books-bibleBased on what?
You trust the Catholic Church’s authority to define the canon for you, but you don’t trust the CC’s on other things?
T
Tomster
Guest
Aren’t you taking a lot for granted? Many early Christians were well-to-do and educated.
I, too, would rejoice. One question that I would have would be which church?
- Status