Announcement

Collapse

General Theistics 101 Guidelines

This area is open for nontheists and theists to interact on issues of theism and faith in a civilized manner. We ask that nontheist participation respect the theistic views of others and not seek to undermine theism in general, or advocate for nontheism. Such posts are more suited for and allowable in Apologetics 301 with very little restriction.

The moderators of this area are given great discretion to determine if a particular thread or comment would more appropriately belong in another forum area.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Gospel of John 1:14

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Some of the miracles Jesus performed were on a different level (calming the storm, multiplying a child's lunch to feed thousands, healing someone without even seeing them as in the case of the centurion's servant), but it's more notable that unlike the apostles and prophets, Jesus performed miracles on his own authority.
    Except that Jesus denied he did anything on his own authority. John 5:30; 8:28

    Calming the storm doesn't seem any more impressive than parting the Red Sea, and seems roughly to be in the same neighbourhood as far as style goes.
    Multiplying a child's lunch has two parallels in the Old Testament: Elijah (1kings 7:12-14) and Elisha (2Kings 4:1-6). The first account can be argued, the second can't.
    Healing someone without even seeing them: the handkerchieves account in Acts is close enough (Paul, Acts 19:12). Also Peter's shadow (Acts 5:14-16)

    see also Matt9: 7-8
    Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 07:37 AM.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      I suspect that your argument is with your own interpretation of the scriptures, which contradicts standard theology. I have, after all, done no more than post the scriptures with no comment beyond underscoring of key points.
      Word games are needed to make it seem that the scriptures and standard theology are not in conflict.

      So pare it back to basics:
      Do the ECF's admit that Logos became flesh? Or will it be necessary to post copies of the various ECF's declarations denying it?
      There's no need to keep proving that you're playing word games. Now you're introducing a new term, "standard theology", which you allege both contradicts my interpretation of the scriptures AND is in some sort of conflict with scripture can only seemingly be resolved. How that differs from "mainstream" and "orthodoxy" is anybody's guess.

      Every heretic imagines that his is the TROO interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the Chalcedonian Definition; both sides of that debate would have flatly rejected your view as not in accord with all of scripture (as opposed to cherry-picked passages interpreted in isolation) OR with what they had received from those who had gone before them.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
        There's no need to keep proving that you're playing word games. Now you're introducing a new term, "standard theology", which you allege both contradicts my interpretation of the scriptures AND is in some sort of conflict with scripture can only seemingly be resolved. How that differs from "mainstream" and "orthodoxy" is anybody's guess.

        Every heretic imagines that his is the TROO interpretation of scripture. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the Chalcedonian Definition; both sides of that debate would have flatly rejected your view as not in accord with all of scripture (as opposed to cherry-picked passages interpreted in isolation) OR with what they had received from those who had gone before them.
        So far, your arguments have been directed at discrediting me. You haven't offered any argument that discredits mine.
        If the verses and passages that I have offered are cherry picked, you should have no difficulty in providing an exposition and passages that show where and how my understanding is flawed.

        There was a time when a woman decided to prove something I was saying wrong. She opened up the Bible to a relevant passage and read it off. I reached across and ran my finger under the verse preceding what she had read. She read it, and proceeded to vilify me for more than 15 minutes straight, loudly and in no uncertain terms. Did she think she was making a point?

        Flip side

        Often enough, in personal encounters, the Holy Spirit has been with me to show that what I have said is true, at least well enough to have my listeners willing to give me second and subsequent hearings. I don't know how that would work on the net, can't even begin to imagine how it might work ... but I'm confident that it can be done.

        Whether I am vilified for what I say, or the Holy Spirit acts to confirm what I say seems largely to depend on the attitude of my audience to what I say. Accusations against me are therefore wasted.
        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
        Scripture before Tradition:
        but that won't prevent others from
        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
        of the right to call yourself Christian.

        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Except that Jesus denied he did anything on his own authority. John 5:30; 8:28

          Calming the storm doesn't seem any more impressive than parting the Red Sea, and seems roughly to be in the same neighbourhood as far as style goes.
          Multiplying a child's lunch has two parallels in the Old Testament: Elijah (1kings 7:12-14) and Elisha (2Kings 4:1-6). The first account can be argued, the second can't.
          Healing someone without even seeing them: the handkerchieves account in Acts is close enough (Paul, Acts 19:12). Also Peter's shadow (Acts 5:14-16)

          see also Matt9: 7-8
          Yes, there were times that Jesus spoke as an ambassador for God, but other times he clearly acted on his own authority as God himself. This simply points to his dual nature as both essentially God and essentially man. In the cases you describe, Moses parting the Red Sea, for example, scripture makes it explicitly clear that they were not acting on their own but were simply doing as God had commanded.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

            Yes, there were times that Jesus spoke as an ambassador for God, but other times he clearly acted on his own authority as God himself. This simply points to his dual nature as both essentially God and essentially man. In the cases you describe, Moses parting the Red Sea, for example, scripture makes it explicitly clear that they were not acting on their own but were simply doing as God had commanded.
            So


            how do you deal with the records showing that Jesus denied that he did anything on his own authority (John 5:30; 8:28), or that he was a man attested by god by the miracles that God performed through him (Acts 2:22)? or that he was made lesser than the angels (Hebrews 2:9)?
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              So


              how do you deal with the records showing that Jesus denied that he did anything on his own authority (John 5:30; 8:28), or that he was a man attested by god by the miracles that God performed through him (Acts 2:22)? or that he was made lesser than the angels (Hebrews 2:9)?
              As I said, there were times that Jesus spoke as an ambassador for God, but other times he clearly acted on his own authority as God himself which is evidence of his dual nature.

              We've been over this before. It's not the case that Jesus was either God or man. Rather, he was God and man. Jesus even instructed us to pray in his name which would be blasphemy if he wasn't God.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                As I said, there were times that Jesus spoke as an ambassador for God, but other times he clearly acted on his own authority as God himself which is evidence of his dual nature.

                We've been over this before. It's not the case that Jesus was either God or man. Rather, he was God and man. Jesus even instructed us to pray in his name which would be blasphemy if he wasn't God.
                So where are these places that show Jesus acting on his own authority as God?

                I think both Rome and Constantinople would be quite happy for people to pray in the name of a saint. (can't be sure of it though).

                And please note, I have no argument with the concept that Jesus IS both God and man. The problem is trying to find something in scripture that shows he WAS both God and man from conception to (probably) some time during the week following his resurrection.

                So you will need something in scripture that shows him to have been God during that time frame, not after the resurrection, when he was restored to godhood.
                Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 09:59 AM.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                  So


                  how do you deal with the records showing that Jesus denied that he did anything on his own authority (John 5:30; 8:28), or that he was a man attested by god by the miracles that God performed through him (Acts 2:22)? or that he was made lesser than the angels (Hebrews 2:9)?
                  Where was God the Son during the time Jesus was just a human? Did God become a Binity instead of a Trinity during that time? In order for Jesus to just have a human nature and no longer be a divine person of the Godhead, God's nature would have to change.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                    Where was God the Son during the time Jesus was just a human? Did God become a Binity instead of a Trinity during that time? In order for Jesus to just have a human nature and no longer be a divine person of the Godhead, God's nature would have to change.
                    Abdicated.
                    Logos did not cease to exist, he simply lay aside godhood during that time. Cupboard emptied does not mean cupboard annihilated.


                    God's nature would have to change even in the standard (normative) theologies. He had a quality (human existence) that had not existed before. Not even adoptionism would completely preserve the concept of God's impassibility.
                    Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 10:05 AM.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                      Abdicated.
                      Logos did not cease to exist, he simply lay aside godhood during that time. Cupboard emptied does not mean cupboard annihilated.
                      Are you saying God the Son's nature still existed in conjunction with his human nature?
                      How is that different than Jesus simply not accessing his "God powers?"


                      God's nature would have to change even in the standard (normative) theologies. He had a quality (human existence) that had not existed before. Not even adoptionism would completely preserve the concept of God's impassibility.
                      No. God's nature didn't change. All three persons of the Godhead existed at all times, The Son just added a human nature to his own. The hypostasis.


                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                        Are you saying God the Son's nature still existed in conjunction with his human nature?
                        If the emperor abdicates, the person who was the emperor does not cease to exist. At least once in history, an emperor abdicated for some years, and then resumed the throne.

                        How is that different than Jesus simply not accessing his "God powers?"
                        It is the difference between not using the gun holstered on one's hip, and disposing of the gun.

                        No. God's nature didn't change. All three persons of the Godhead existed at all times, The Son just added a human nature to his own. The hypostasis.
                        Even in that limited an action, he would have taken on a characteristic that he had not had before - it is a change. A person gets married, there is a change in the person: a spouse has at least a new attitude, and a new role. Even the strongest advocates of impassibility among the ECF's were forced to admit that God is not entirely impassible.
                        Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 10:29 AM.
                        1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                        .
                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                        Scripture before Tradition:
                        but that won't prevent others from
                        taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                        of the right to call yourself Christian.

                        ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                          So where are these places that show Jesus acting on his own authority as God?

                          I think both Rome and Constantinople would be quite happy for people to pray in the name of a saint. (can't be sure of it though).

                          And please note, I have no argument with the concept that Jesus IS both God and man. The problem is trying to find something in scripture that shows he WAS both God and man from conception to (probably) some time during the week following his resurrection.

                          So you will need something in scripture that shows him to have been God during that time frame, not after the resurrection, when he was restored to godhood.
                          Jesus told us to pray in his name, and he forgave sins which Jesus' critics understood to be a divine claim without Jesus contradicting them. When he calmed the storm, he simply said the word, and his disciples were amazed at how the wind and the waves obeyed him. Again, Jesus did not contradict their understanding but chastised them for lacking faith in him.

                          There are multiple examples in scripture of Jesus operating as both human, and as God himself.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                            Jesus told us to pray in his name, and he forgave sins which Jesus' critics understood to be a divine claim without Jesus contradicting them. When he calmed the storm, he simply said the word, and his disciples were amazed at how the wind and the waves obeyed him. Again, Jesus did not contradict their understanding but chastised them for lacking faith in him.

                            There are multiple examples in scripture of Jesus operating as both human, and as God himself.
                            You are placing a lot of weight behind what uncited verses can be said to imply in contradiction of explicit claims.

                            Jesus' critics claimed that only God could forgive sins and Jesus did not contradict them? I assume you're referring to Mark 2: 7-11

                            7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?”
                            8 Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?
                            9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’?
                            10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–He *said to the paralytic,
                            11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”



                            .
                            Jesus did not contradict them? The son of man has authority to forgive sins (he does not even say the son of God). That says even the son of man has authority to forgive sins, an authority that was also passed on to the apostles. The least that needs to be done is to show that "the son of man" (bar nash) would have been understood by the audience to mean God. Oop - everything available shows that in the teachings of the time, Bar Nash was not considered to be God. Jesus' audience was well aware that the claim "the son of man has authority to forgive sins" contradicts their claim: the authority to forgive sins was firmly held by someone who was not God. Various explanations of the identity of Bar Nash were extant, but not one of them declared him to be God. By "son of man" the audience understood "not God (alone)"

                            What significance do you assign to Jesus only said the word and the storm was stilled?
                            Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 11:53 AM.
                            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                            .
                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                            Scripture before Tradition:
                            but that won't prevent others from
                            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                            of the right to call yourself Christian.

                            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                              You are correct. I was mistaken, having forgotten to run the concept through first century understandings.

                              From current understanding of "conceive," Christ would then have been a demi-god, the product of a pairing between a god and a human, which would mean that Logos had not become flesh.
                              In Luke and Matthew's birth narratives angels tell Mary and Joseph respectively that:

                              Luke 1: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.


                              Matthew 1: But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.


                              If the angels got it wrong presumably their boss did as well!

                              In the classical world the pairing of gods with mortal women produced heroes and demi-gods. A concept easily understood by Hellenised communities.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                In Luke and Matthew's birth narratives angels tell Mary and Joseph respectively that:

                                Luke 1: You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.


                                Matthew 1: But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.


                                If the angels got it wrong presumably their boss did as well!

                                In the classical world the pairing of gods with mortal women produced heroes and demi-gods. A concept easily understood by Hellenised communities.
                                Reading that with current definitions of conceive in mind gives rise to a completely different interpretation to what the original authors and audiences would have understood by use of the word.
                                Reading that the sinking of the Titanic was terrific with the current commonly understood definition of terrific will give rise to a completely different interpretation to what the original readers of the newspapers understood by use of the word. In the early 1900s terrific had the same relation to terror that horrific does to horror.

                                So the error was mine - I failed to correct for the understanding of the authors, and therefore the meaning of those texts.
                                Last edited by tabibito; 03-16-2023, 12:23 PM.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X