Evidence for God from Science

Locker wrote:I found this interesting that others have pointed out:

Matthew 1:23 - "and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated 'God is with us"

same as in Isaiah 7:14

And in Luke 1:31 - "and shall call his name Jesus"

Three accounts declaring the Jesus was God is with Us!

I agree that Jesus was 'God with us', but not in the sense you claim. Please note that this prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 had two fulfilments, one of which was the birth in Isaiah's day of a boy called 'Immanuel', 'God with us'. The fact that this boy bore that title does not mean that he was God. It means that God had given a sign that He was with His people. Please read the context, and standard commentaries.

Interesting!! Next -- I did not want too respond to 'Fort' but this was too good to pass up...

Fortigurn wrote: Can you see that if Christ was God, then God couldn't give His glory to Christ, Christ already had it? Can you see that if Christ was God, then he couldn't manifest God in the flesh, he would be God in the flesh?

To bad that you cannot see it either - Yes, Jesus had to be God for the various reason you cite.

No, the reasons I cite prove that Christ couldn't be God.

B. W. wrote:Also, Mr Fortigurn likes to use the Bible.org web site for sources but he always fails to cite how this very source contradicts Him.

It doesn't 'contradict' me. I am completely aware that they believe in the trinity, and I have pointed this out many times.

Here is one example of Mr. Fortigurns's tactic employed in this discussion thread about the Doctrine of the Trinity began many weeks ago.

Fortigurn wrote: I have been through this routine many times before, so I know all the usual arguments. I'm going to see the In Imago Nos of Genesis 1:16, the Trisagion of Isaiah, and the Comma Johanneum, along with the other traditional arguments (many of which have been discarded by modern trinitarian scholarship).

To Readers: The above statement is a tactic often used to silence critics of a particular point of view to prevent honest investigation. It is meant to steal one's thunder.

It doesn't 'prevent honest investigation', that's absurd. It simply shows you that I know exactly what you're going to say. I was waiting for you to run through all the usual cut/paste arguments, and so you did. I was also prepared to read and answer all of those arguments, and I did. You were not 'prevented' from doing anything.

Also when it is convenient He often uses the Christadelphians Forums for sources on varied subject of Elohim as well as the bible.org web site to back up his claims.

Of course I do, I wrote most of that material myself.

He will also fail to recommend other readings from Christian Sites he uses that refute His claims against the Trinity, such as:

Of course I won't recommend 'other readings from Christian Sites' which support the trinity, because I believe they are wrong. You don't recommend 'other readings' from Christadelphian sites, do you? No you don't. Why not? Because you believe they're wrong.

We have on the Trinity thread ample quotes from him and we can answer his objections to the Trinity in a rational manner if anyone so chooses.

Yes, that would be great. Unfortunately, people here have been either unwilling or unable to answer my posts.

Fortigurn uses these tactics and others as this entire thread shows. The best example his argument is when it comes to John 1-1-14. He will often quote from Bible.org and other Christian web site as long as it appears to back his beliefs but closer readings reveal otherwise - see Bold highlighted ending.

I quoted that site to prove that what I was saying about the qualitative use of THEOS in John 1:1 is supported by standard trinitarian scholarship. You can read all you like on that site - including what you quoted, but you will not find 'otherwise'. That site completely supports what I said.

The fact that they believe in the trinity does not change this. I never denied that they believe in the trinity, and said several times that they do. Please don't represent me as having misquoted them, or used their material in a misleading way. That's patently dishonest.

.Mr. Fortigurn, you made a good case for your interpretation concerning the use of the Hebrew word for Elohim as use in Genesis chapter 1-3. You cited Bibe.org well.

http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm

OUOTE: 2sn God. This frequently used Hebrew name for God (אֱלֹהִים,'elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God's sovereignty and incomparability — he is the “God of gods.”

47sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8. do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8. (The most well-known members of this court are God's messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world. END QUOTE.

Another Link on Bible.org — on Use of Elohim:

http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=96&qa_id=285

QUOTE: The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol. I, Moody Press, Editor, R. Laird Harris, Associate Editor, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Associate Editor, Bruce K. Waltke, has the following to say about Elohim:

Elohim. God, gods, judges, angels. This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of eloah, is found far more frequently in Scripture than either el or eloah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun elohim is consistently used with a singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward a universalism:… a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the untiy of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen. 1:2, 26). This is further borne out by the fact that the form elohim occurs only in Hebrew and no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic…

The term occurs in the general sense of deity some 2570 times in Scripture. Yet … it is difficult to detect any discrepancy in use between the forms el, eloah, and elohim in Scripture.

When indicating the true God, elohim functions as the subject of all divine activity revealed to man and as the object of all true reverence and fear from men. Often, elohim is accompanied by the personal name of God, Yahweh.

The key in the study of all biblical words is not their etymology or derivation, but their use with the ingredients of the context as the defining issues. Clearly, in most cases, these words are used in the Old Testament of the one true God who revealed himself to the nation of Israel by divine revelation in various ways through the patriarchs and the prophets. END QUOTE.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

So, for some reason the commentators of the NET forgot to post truly both sides of the debate on Elohim in their comments. These Comments seem to ignore the rule of Contextual Continuity by only spotlighting the surface meaning and center its usage on the original situation and in doing so are avoiding the deep structure principle behind the passage of scripture as explained elsewhere within the bible based on solid contextual continuity. This does not mean the NET is wrong, or evil, but rather it neglected to position correctly both sides of the debate concerning the use of Elohim.

What the NET commentators seem to be doing is relying heavily on the Grammato-historical hermeneutic approach and neglecting specific textual contextual evidence of continuity theme elsewhere in the bible where it is directly and specifically related to the contextual continuity of other scripture passages indicating God's role in the creation of the universe and world.

Spiros Zodhiates comments in His Hebrew-Greek Study Bible on Genesis use of the word Elohim is illuminating: “Until Jesus came, the internal unity of the Godhead was not understood.”

The NET commentators appeared to have stuck with the Grammato-historical hermeneutic approach of the surface meaning of the original situation but avoided the deep structure principle behind the passage of scripture.

Why is this important? Well the word used in Genesis 1:1 is the Hebrew word Elohim, God, which is a plural noun and in grammatical agreement with the singular verb Bara — created, which would make and denote that Elohim in singular function and form.

The word Elohim — God — means the Totality of God, His total being, nature, all who God is and does. In others words: God, and when used with a singular verb, you can rest assured that an attribute of God is being placed in the limelight. In Genesis 1:1 we see that here — God created.

Next, notice the following scriptures to verify strict contextual continuity.

Job 38:1-7 “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: Who is this who darkens counsel with words without knowledge? Get ready for a difficult task like a man; I will question you and you will inform me! “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding! Who set its measurements — if you know — or who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its bases set, or who laid its cornerstone — when the morning stars sang in chorus, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?...” NET

Isaiah 45:11-12 “This is what the Lord says, the Holy One of Israel, the one who formed him, concerning things to come: “How dare you question me about my children! How dare you tell me what to do with the work of my own hands, I made the earth, I created the people who live on it. It was me — my hands stretched out the sky, I give orders to all the heavenly lights…” NET

Hebrews 1:1-4 “After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs…” NET

John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.” NET

As you can see by scriptural context that Elohim in Genesis 1:1, which is a plural noun used in grammatical agreement with the singular verb denoting that Elohim in singular form and function is none other than who? Jesus Christ.

Also you can clearly see that angels were not involved in helping God create the universe and world but rather shouting joy for this — creating them and everything else, thus, the commentators comments for Genesis 1-3 in the NET can promote an error in translation because they did not include use the strict use of contextual continuity of scripture within the framework of their comments.

The point is this - the NET commentators did a poor job here. To err is human. We all must test the experts and not rely on them totally, they can go only so far with evidence.

Truly, “Until Jesus came, the internal unity of the Godhead was not understood,” Spiros Zodhiates comments in His Hebrew-Greek Study Bible should have been granted proper place in NET comments found in Genesis chapter one but were negelected in the NET comments.

Finally, Elohim as used in Genesis is in direct reference to Jesus as the Creator — the second person of the Trinity, as the whole bible boldly proclaims. You cannot deny this, to do so promotes false teaching and denies the bible of what it is saying regarding creation and how God chooses to reveal Himself.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:So, for some reason the commentators of the NET forgot to post truly both sides of the debate on Elohim in their comments. These Comments seem to ignore the rule of Contextual Continuity by only spotlighting the surface meaning and center its usage on the original situation and in doing so are avoiding the deep structure principle behind the passage of scripture as explained elsewhere within the bible based on solid contextual continuity. This does not mean the NET is wrong, or evil, but rather it neglected to position correctly both sides of the debate concerning the use of Elohim.

They didn't neglect anything. They did point out that many people have seen (and continue to see), the trinity implied in the use of this word in Genesis 1:26. But they also pointed out that grammatically it is not possible to read 'elohim' here as referring to more than one person - the subject/verb agreement forbids it.

What the NET commentators seem to be doing is relying heavily on the Grammato-historical hermeneutic approach and neglecting specific textual contextual evidence of continuity theme elsewhere in the bible where it is directly and specifically related to the contextual continuity of other scripture passages indicating God's role in the creation of the universe and world.

What they are doing is actually putting faith in the idea that God wrote the Bible grammatically, rather than ungrammatically. They are reading the text the way it was written. You can look at all the 'contextual evidence of continuity' you like, but it won't change hard and fast grammatical rules.

Incidentally, if you look at all the 'creation' passages in Scripture, you will find that they inform us that the Father created all things, and He did so by Himself. That agrees completely with Genesis 1:26.

Spiros Zodhiates comments in His Hebrew-Greek Study Bible on Genesis use of the word Elohim is illuminating: “Until Jesus came, the internal unity of the Godhead was not understood.”

That is illuminating, isn't it? It says a lot about his ideas of the trinity. It also shows that he acknowledges this doctrine was unknown for about 4,000 years of human history (somehow God never managed to get around to telling people the truth about Himself?).

The NET commentators appeared to have stuck with the Grammato-historical hermeneutic approach of the surface meaning of the original situation but avoided the deep structure principle behind the passage of scripture.

They aren't avoiding anything. They are simply translating what the Bible actually says, according to basic rules of Hebrew grammar.

Why is this important? Well the word used in Genesis 1:1 is the Hebrew word Elohim, God, which is a plural noun and in grammatical agreement with the singular verb Bara — created, which would make and denote that Elohim in singular function and form.

Exactly. It is referring to one person, God (who is the Father, and no one else).

The word Elohim — God — means the Totality of God, His total being, nature, all who God is and does. In others words: God, and when used with a singular verb, you can rest assured that an attribute of God is being placed in the limelight. In Genesis 1:1 we see that here — God created.

It just means 'God', one person. That's it.

Next, notice the following scriptures to verify strict contextual continuity.

Job 38:1-7 “Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind: Who is this who darkens counsel with words without knowledge? Get ready for a difficult task like a man; I will question you and you will inform me! “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding! Who set its measurements — if you know — or who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its bases set, or who laid its cornerstone — when the morning stars sang in chorus, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?...” NET

Isaiah 45:11-12 “This is what the Lord says, the Holy One of Israel, the one who formed him, concerning things to come: “How dare you question me about my children! How dare you tell me what to do with the work of my own hands, I made the earth, I created the people who live on it. It was me — my hands stretched out the sky, I give orders to all the heavenly lights…” NET

These verses say that God, one person, created all things.

Hebrews 1:1-4 “After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs…” NET

This is speaking of the new creation in Christ.

John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.” NET

This is speaking of the creation of all things by God, through the power which is called the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6). It isn't saying anything about Jesus.

As you can see by scriptural context that Elohim in Genesis 1:1, which is a plural noun used in grammatical agreement with the singular verb denoting that Elohim in singular form and function is none other than who? Jesus Christ.

Actually no, I can't see that, because none of the passages you quoted say that.

Also you can clearly see that angels were not involved in helping God create the universe and world but rather shouting joy for this — creating them and everything else, thus, the commentators comments for Genesis 1-3 in the NET can promote an error in translation because they did not include use the strict use of contextual continuity of scripture within the framework of their comments.

I have no idea what you mean here, because the NET says very plainly that the angels were not involved in helping God create the universe, other than 'shouting for joy for this'. You are in fact agreeing with the NET here.

Finally, Elohim as used in Genesis is in direct reference to Jesus as the Creator — the second person of the Trinity, as the whole bible boldly proclaims. You cannot deny this, to do so promotes false teaching and denies the bible of what it is saying regarding creation and how God chooses to reveal Himself.

I most certainly can deny this, because there is absolutley no evidence htat 'Elohim as used in Genesis is in direct reference to Jesus as the Creator — the second person of the Trinity'.

That isn't something 'the whole Bible proclaims', it's something people have made up.

Fortigurn, your spinning your wheels dude!

People have known about the triune nature of God for a very long time. The bible clearly states that each of the three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. And that there is only one God. You do the math.

Read this. Stop twisting the Word of God to suit your own preconceived notions.

IRQ Conflict wrote: People have known about the triune nature of God for a very long time.

Yes, since at least the 4th century AD. Unfortunately, millions of Jews (and thousands of Christians), remained ignorant of it until that time.

The bible clearly states that each of the three, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. And that there is only one God.

The Bible states that there is one God, the Father. The Bible is consistent in describing God as one person ('He', 'Himself', 'His', 'Him'). God is consistent in describing himself as one person ('I', 'My', 'Myself', 'Me').

God is one person, not three.

You do the math.

Believe me, you don't want me to do the math. Doing the math results in three gods.

Read this.

Thank you. I have read all those arguments before. I note that it includes arguments which many trinitarians these days regard as heretical.

In return, I invite you to read this (I wrote a lot of what is there myself).

Stop twisting the Word of God to suit your own preconceived notions.

I do find that statement ironic. If you believe that I am 'twisting the Word of God', then please address my arguments and show me why. I am more than willing to respond to you personally.

B. W. wrote: So, for some reason the commentators of the NET forgot to post truly both sides of the debate on Elohim in their comments. These Comments seem to ignore the rule of Contextual Continuity by only spotlighting the surface meaning and center its usage on the original situation and in doing so are avoiding the deep structure principle behind the passage of scripture as explained elsewhere within the bible based on solid contextual continuity. This does not mean the NET is wrong, or evil, but rather it neglected to position correctly both sides of the debate concerning the use of Elohim.

Fortigurn wrote: They didn't neglect anything. They did point out that many people have seen (and continue to see), the trinity implied in the use of this word in Genesis 1:26. But they also pointed out that grammatically it is not possible to read 'elohim' here as referring to more than one person - the subject/verb agreement forbids it.

Respond: Yes and true but it is easier to use NET's commentary to base strange doctrines from — that was the point on the Angel comment. Some people have done so with that alone. Also, I did not say that you, Mr. Fortigurn, have done so with Angel doctrine — I just used it as an illustration.

B. W. wrote: What the NET commentators seem to be doing is relying heavily on the Grammato-historical hermeneutic approach and neglecting specific textual contextual evidence of continuity theme elsewhere in the bible where it is directly and specifically related to the contextual continuity of other scripture passages indicating God's role in the creation of the universe and world.

Fortigurn wrote: What they are doing is actually putting faith in the idea that God wrote the Bible grammatically, rather than ungrammatically. They are reading the text the way it was written. You can look at all the 'contextual evidence of continuity' you like, but it won't change hard and fast grammatical rules.

Incidentally, if you look at all the 'creation' passages in Scripture, you will find that they inform us that the Father created all things, and He did so by Himself. That agrees completely with Genesis 1:26.

Respond: Quite right, grammatically it is not possible to read 'elohim' in Genesis 1 as referring to more than one person - the subject/verb agreement forbids it. The strict rule of textual continuity verifies who is being referred to here quiet clearly: Jesus Christ — the second Person of the Trinity. Thank you for clarifying this again and again and again.

B. W. wrote: Spiros Zodhiates comments in His Hebrew-Greek Study Bible on Genesis use of the word Elohim is illuminating: “Until Jesus came, the internal unity of the Godhead was not understood.” The NET commentators appeared to have stuck with the Grammato-historical hermeneutic approach of the surface meaning of the original situation but avoided the deep structure principle behind the passage of scripture

Fortigurn wrote: That is illuminating, isn't it? It says a lot about his ideas of the trinity. It also shows that he acknowledges this doctrine was unknown for about 4,000 years of human history (somehow God never managed to get around to telling people the truth about Himself?). They aren't avoiding anything. They are simply translating what the Bible actually says, according to basic rules of Hebrew grammar.

Respond: My point precisely, the NET commentators appear to use same the logic you cite but however they did a poor job linking to the revelation of Jesus Christ in a clear and concise manner. The Hebrew Grammar speaks of Jesus. He did so in Luke 24:45 — opened their eyes to the Hebrew Scriptures that testify of Jesus. Too bad you cannot see Jesus in the OT as it says plainly written in the NT that you can.

You seem to use this form of argument in order to sidetrack one from seeing the truth about Jesus in the OT. God revels Himself as He so chooses and takes a long time too. If the Lord of Host would just open your eyes, you would see why it took so long. He did reveal Himself in Tri-nature as one but you cannot see because of a blinder called human intellect, human reason, human pride that serves to exalt and extol human works over God's. God is one and reveals himself as three persons so we can better come to understand who He is and all He does.

B. W. wrote: Why is this important? Well the word used in Genesis 1:1 is the Hebrew word Elohim, God, which is a plural noun and in grammatical agreement with the singular verb Bara — created, which would make and denote that Elohim in singular function and form. The word Elohim — God — means the Totality of God, His total being, nature, all who God is and does. In others words: God, and when used with a singular verb, you can rest assured that an attribute of God is being placed in the limelight. In Genesis 1:1 we see that here — God created

Fortigurn wrote: Exactly. It is referring to one person, God (who is the Father, and no one else). It just means 'God', one person. That's it.

Respond: Then who is God? Except as His nature, totality, and splendor reveals? God is a God of the Living not a God of Grammar — He transcends Grammar and transcends mere human words and transcends human comprehension and transcendantly reveals who He is. Job saw this and cried out that he was undone because of seeing the totality of God as it is recorded Job 42:1-6. Job repented of his human arrogance and self-righteous priggishness because He saw God - who He (God) is and who he (Job) was.

Fortigurn wrote: These verses say that God, one person, created all things.

Hebrews 1:1-4 “After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the world. The Son is the radiance of his glory and the representation of his essence, and he sustains all things by his powerful word, and so when he had accomplished cleansing for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Thus he became so far better than the angels as he has inherited a name superior to theirs…” NET

This is speaking of the new creation in Christ.

John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created.” NET

This is speaking of the creation of all things by God, through the power which is called the breath of His mouth (Psalm 33:6). It isn't saying anything about Jesus.

Respond: In Genesis chapter one — how did God create? He spoke as Hebrews 11:3 states “By faith we understand that the worlds were set in order at God's command (Word — see NET Notes), so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.” NET

Too bad you cannot interpret John 1 from the point of view of the writer 'John' who was around when Luke recorded in Luke 24:45 “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures…” Then you might see who the Word is. Mr. Fortigurn, you like to stick with grammar but miss so much due to neglecting the full rules of interpretations.

Remember the Serial Killer example I used weeks ago? He used the bible to justify murder by using sloppy — frivolous Contextual Continuity Rules. Absolute Strict use of Contextual Continuity Rules stops this cold as it matches theme, scripture, flow — verbatim — all through the bible. This is how the Doctrine of the Trinity comes into focus. Of course, you have an extreme dislike for this truth and use of the Absolute Strict use of Contextual Continuity Rules. However, the bible says what it says.

B. W. wrote: Also you can clearly see that angels were not involved in helping God create the universe and world but rather shouting joy for this — creating them and everything else, thus, the commentators comments for Genesis 1-3 in the NET can promote an error in translation because they did not include use the strict use of contextual continuity of scripture within the framework of their comments.

Fortigurn wrote: I have no idea what you mean here, because the NET says very plainly that the angels were not involved in helping God create the universe, other than 'shouting for joy for this'. You are in fact agreeing with the NET here.

I explained the Angel issue above. Angels were a part of creation and the bible says what it says. Ezekiel 28:12-19 speaks of one such being but of course you may not see who it is because it does not spell out its name clearly or see what it means in Revelations 12:4, 7.

B. W. wrote: Finally, Elohim as used in Genesis is in direct reference to Jesus as the Creator — the second person of the Trinity, as the whole bible boldly proclaims. You cannot deny this, to do so promotes false teaching and denies the bible of what it is saying regarding creation and how God chooses to reveal Himself.

Fortigurn wrote: I most certainly can deny this, because there is absolutely no evidence that 'Elohim as used in Genesis is in direct reference to Jesus as the Creator — the second person of the Trinity'. That isn't something 'the whole Bible proclaims', it's something people have made up.

On the contrary, Mr, Fortigurn, your eyes remain shut. Why do you still justify man so — a mere mortal man who sinned? If Jesus was not God in the Flesh —then who was He?

A mere mortal man, a representative — an Angel — however empowered by God could not claim what Jesus claimed himself to be. God would never share that kind of Glory because only God can save by His own right arm and thus He will save humanity because Humanity is fraught with sin and cannot save itself. I rather place my trust in God's work not a mere mortal man however empowered.
-
-
-

Fortigurn, The Holy Spirit is God.

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Act 5:4 While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Jesus Christ our Savior is God.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.



Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

And of course, The Father is God.

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; am the first, and am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Isa 44:7 And who as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them show unto them.
Isa 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

If Jesus say's He is God, and God say's the Holy Spirit is God, And the Father is Claiming He is God, all the while claiming there is only one God, what do you deduce?

3 Persons sharing the Godhood. Simple really. (for the benefit of folk like me).

There are plenty of other scriptures I could quote, but you should get the idea from this.

This give insite to Fortigurn's state of mind. It would seem that he opposes just about everything the Bible teaches.

Such deception

IRQ Conflict wrote:This give insite to Fortigurn's state of mind. It would seem that he opposes just about everything the Bible teaches.

Such deception

That's a thread in which I point out that Jesus really died. If that's opposing 'just about everything the Bible teaches', I'd like to know why.

Sorry Fortigurn, I guess I'll have to read every post. From what I saw, It looked to me you were saying otherwise.

I believe in the 'Trinity' yet I also know that Jesus died Physically and Spiritually He went to hell and preached to those who would follow Him. Why do you stereotype "Another website here just gives the stock trinitarian line - only his body died:" ?

The 'second (spiritual) death' does not mean that God at any time ceased to exist. His spirit went to hell for 3 days iirc.

Your right though, I do not agree with the statement "It was the human part of Jesus that died on the cross, not the divine."

IRQ Conflict wrote:Sorry Fortigurn, I guess I'll have to read every post. From what I saw, It looked to me you were saying otherwise.

Thanks.

I believe in the 'Trinity' yet I also know that Jesus died Physically and Spiritually He went to hell and preached to those who would follow Him.

This is an area of considerable disagreement among trinitarians today.

Why do you stereotype "Another website here just gives the stock trinitarian line - only his body died:" ?

It is not a stereotype, it is the standard trinitarian line. It is the line I receive most often from trinitarians. It is also the 'orthodox' line.

The 'second (spiritual) death' does not mean that God at any time ceased to exist. His spirit went to hell for 3 days iirc.

The doctrine that 'Jesus died spiritually' is considered a heresy by most orthodox trinitarians, as far as I am aware.

Your right though, I do not agree with the statement "It was the human part of Jesus that died on the cross, not the divine."

Yes, in this you are consistent with the true trinitarian belief. Those who insist that only the human part died, are not consistent either with trinitarian belief or the doctrine of the penal substitutionary atonement.

First off, Mr. Fortigurn, do not try to side track the issue. Jesus did die at the point of the cross, but He never died in the sense of non-existence, nor do we at the point of mortal death in our own time. Death can denote an entrance into a place of ruin and punishment or an entrance into everlasting life with God in heaven and the new heavens and new earth to come.

Ecclesiastes3:11 “God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end.” New Living Bible

When one dies, they do not cease to be, nor ever cease to exist at some point in the future. The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke should give you a clue where Jesus went for three days and nights in conformance with the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12:38-42) as told by Jesus Himself.

Jesus' atoning death on the cross does not prove Jesus was not God in the flesh because, how could God die? Jesus had to be both God and man reconciled in order to perform God's work of salvation - the very Glory which God will not share with any other. Only God can save, only God can provide the perfect sacrifice, as Genesis chapter three points out. Jesus came in the flesh to end the law of sin and death. The bible teaches this.

For those that reject God's work salvation:

Jeremiah 17:13 “…All who leave you will suffer shame. Those who turn away from you will be consigned to the nether world. For they have rejected you, the Lord, the fountain of life” New English Translation

For those that do not reject God's work of salvation:

John10:28-30 “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and He is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. The Father and I are one.” New Living Bible

I John5:11-13 “And this is what God has testified: He has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. So whoever has God's Son has life; whoever does not have his Son does not have life. I write this to you who believe in the Son of God, so that you may know you have eternal life.” New Living Bible

Titus1:1-2 “This letter is from Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ. I have been sent to bring faith to those God has chosen and to teach them to know the truth that shows them how to live godly lives. This truth gives them the confidence of eternal life, which God promised them before the world began--and He cannot lie.” New Living Bible

Let us therefore stick with the Topic of the Trinity:

It appears that you are confusing what sharing God's Glory means and do not comprehend what it is that God will not specifically share with any other. Yes, God can and does share His spiritual gifts as the bible teaches, anoint prophets, share power to do certain things to show forth His Glory. God even gave humanity its charge to have dominion over the earth and subdue it. This is all quite different than sharing one specific Glory that belongs to God alone and no other. There are things God will share and there is one specific thing God will not share — the bible tells us plainly what it is He will not share and what He will share.

Isaiah 42:5-9, Isaiah 46:9-13, Isaiah 48:9-11, Isaiah 53:1-12, Isaiah 55:7-11, Isaiah 59:1-4, 13, 15-21 declare what it is in context: and it is this — The work of Salvation. Only God can save. This is the Glory He will not share with any other: God's once and for all act of Salvation's Glory. Only His hand can provide the perfect sacrifice to redeem humanity as Genesis 3:21 reveals.

Therefore, do not confuse this type of God sharing power with the sharing of the once and for all act of bringing salvation to humanity. Those are two different matters. The grand glory of salvation God will not share with another, this came by His hand — not from a mere mortal man however empowered — as you proclaim how it happened.

Yes, Jesus died on the cross for far greater reason than you suppose, but again, He did not really die — but was risen from the dead for a reason and propose that only God could bring about and no other.
-
-
-

Fortigurn, how is Taipei Taiwan?

The reason I ask, is I like to be polite if you are from overseas and live in a different culture, we may being seeing things from a differing cross-cultural level. Knowing this - it may be best to redefine the terms used in this thread. If you are not from Taipei Taiwan - then where do you hale from?

I also would like to correctly address you by your correct Gender. I have referred to you as Mr. Fortigurn but you maybe a Ms. or Mrs. Fortigurn. I do not know. I am used to showing respect by using Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. when I respond to people on Forums. This is from my own USA Southern Culture. I am a Mr. if you would like to know and moved to Colordao, USA 24 years ago. How about you?

Next, do you believe in this statement from Christadelphians.org cite?

Jesus Christ - That Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, who was an ordinary woman of human nature. Jesus did not pre-exist nor was he the second person of the trinity. He was the Son of God, conceived by the power of God but inheriting a human nature from his mother. He was tempted yet was sinless. He died on a cross as a sacrifice for sins, as our representative not as our substitute. He was raised from the grave and given immortality by his father. He ascended to heaven where to the right hand of the father until he returns to the earth at his second coming. He is now the only mediator between men and God, prayer is made through Jesus to the father and forgiveness is obtained from him. There is therefore no need of human priests and pastors - all male baptized believers can pray and lead worship. Christ is our Priest and him alone.
-
-

B. W. wrote:Fortigurn, how is Taipei Taiwan?

It's crowded and polluted, but there are many things about it which I love.

The reason I ask, is I like to be polite if you are from overseas and live in a different culture, we may being seeing things from a differing cross-cultural level. Knowing this - it may be best to redefine the terms used in this thread. If you are not from Taipei Taiwan - then where do you hale from?

I am actually from Australia.

I also would like to correctly address you by your correct Gender. I have referred to you as Mr. Fortigurn but you maybe a Ms. or Mrs. Fortigurn. I do not know. I am used to showing respect by using Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. when I respond to people on Forums. This is from my own USA Southern Culture. I am a Mr. if you would like to know and moved to Colordao, USA 24 years ago. How about you?

Thank you. I am a 'Mr', but please just call me 'Fortigurn'.

Next, do you believe in this statement from Christadelphians.org cite?

Jesus Christ - That Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, who was an ordinary woman of human nature. Jesus did not pre-exist nor was he the second person of the trinity. He was the Son of God, conceived by the power of God but inheriting a human nature from his mother. He was tempted yet was sinless. He died on a cross as a sacrifice for sins, as our representative not as our substitute. He was raised from the grave and given immortality by his father. He ascended to heaven where to the right hand of the father until he returns to the earth at his second coming. He is now the only mediator between men and God, prayer is made through Jesus to the father and forgiveness is obtained from him. There is therefore no need of human priests and pastors - all male baptized believers can pray and lead worship. Christ is our Priest and him alone.

Yes I do.