Some responses from another Christian -- Final End

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 00:30:40 05/20/02 Mon
Author: Drummond
Subject: Some responses from another Christian
In reply to: PAUL. 's message, "Drummond,an answer." on 20:44:18 05/17/02 Fri

Don't feel obligated to respond to everything Paul, but I find the discussion interesting. I have invited this other believer to come here to discuss the matter. I don't know if she'll be joining us.

Anyway, she responded as follows:

Scripture does not lend itself to the thought of The Word being A god. There is no doubt that in the Greek grammatical construction of John 1:1 that the verse reads as follows:
�In the beginning (Origin - Arche) was the Word (Logos) and the Word was with God (Thon Theon) and the Word was God. (Theos).� This verse is not saying in the beginning was God and God was with God and God was God, especially in view of verse 2 of John 1 �The same was in the beginning with God�. What is being said is the same one that was with God was also God. There can be no direct object following was since according to grammatical usage intransitive verbs take no objects but take instead predicate nominatives which refer back to the subject. In this case the word would be LOGOS.

You simply can�t render theos as �a god� in John 1:1 and then render the same theou �Of God� in Matthew 5:9; Luke 1:35, 78; or John 1:6. Theou is the gentive case of the same noun!

Isaiah 7:14 states �Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.� Immanuel is not a name like �George� is a name. It is a meaning. It means �God with us�. Since God says there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10, 11) and He is from everlasting to everlasting how can God be born of a virgin unless Jesus is God?

Then there�s Isaiah 9:6 �For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. �

Do you know that the term �mighty� is applied ONLY to God in the Hebrew texts? Yet look what this scripture says and identifies as God. It calls him a �son� and it calls him �The mighty God, The everlasting Father��How is that possible unless Jesus is God?

Your JW friend said: JOHN20*28 Thomas calls Jesus "My Lord and my god", this is entirely different to being called God Almighty, question is can Jesus be rightfully called a god

When Thomas made this statement Jesus was dead! I asked you about death because upon this hinges the basic problem with JW�s. It is their belief that upon death there is a cessation of consciousness or what they term �destruction�. So how did Thomas SEE and TOUCH Jesus if upon death Jesus had a cessation of consciousness? JW's claim Jesus did not raise from the dead WITH a body. So again how did Thomas SEE Jesus and TOUCH His wounds if there was no body?
The rest of the story is �Because you have seen me thou believe��..� Oh now here's another problem how can Thomas SEE Jesus and TALK to him since Jesus is D-E-A-D and dead according to a JW is cessation of consciousness?

Notice how your friend switches to JOHN 10*34-35.
Pretty bad translation form he has used. This comes from Psalms 82:6 in which we all are children of God�I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.�
This is what is meant in this term (god)�. that we all have a connection in that all of us got our beginning from God. However Jesus doesn�t say we are God. Jesus does call himself the Son of God. Very different terms. BTW the way in which your friend states John 10: 34 doesn�t lend itself to back up other things he has said. For instance God clearly has said there are no other gods but Him. So how can God say we are gods if there are no other gods? It can only be the definitions are different than how your friend is using them. Furthermore Jesus is accused of blasphemy which is a charge that is different than saying I am a god. The charge of blasphemy was to claim yourself to be God. To claim yourself as the Son of Man as Jesus did was to claim yourself as the Christ, and to claim yourself as the Son of God was to claim yourself a deity.

Your friend then says: "I guess, the point being that Christianity is polytheistic, which is the charge that Jews and Muslims make. Hence the Jewish phrase: "There is no god but God" in response to Christianity.

Then how does he explain how a human being can be a father and a brother, an uncle and a son yet be one man? Such a flawed statement �Christianity is polytheistic to conclude that Christians believe in 3 gods is like saying you can only be a son never a brother, uncle or father. �Should man limit God�?

Satan is also called the god of this world. Ask your friend is Satan God or a god according to scripture? How can this be if there are no other gods but one?

We are created in the image of the �Us� and �Our� part of God as Genesis clearly tells us we are...then how is it possible that this image which clearly is indicated as being multiple can be God yet be one?

JW cross-reference Colossians 1 with Revelation 3:14 especially in view of their desire to prove that Jesus was the beginning of creation of God. First born mentioned in Colossians is a term of comparison between Christ and of created things. In Colossians 1 Paul clearly shows that Christ was the first born of all things. He was not first created because this chapter clearly tells us Jesus was before creation Colossians 1:17 � And he is before all things, and by him all things consist�. You can�t be before all things and not be before creation.

Colossians 1:16 makes it very clear that by him (Jesus) were all things created. It reads: �For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:�. So again you can�t be before all things and not be before creation. If you are before ALL things you are before ALL things which includes creation. Scripture tells us God was before all things...that God was the beginning. If this is so how can Jesus be the beginning and before all things unless Jesus is God?

Finally John 5:18 clearly states: �Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.�
The word equal here is meaning to claim for one�s self, the nature, rank and authority, which belonged to God. This was the charge brought against Jesus, which then brought His crucifixion.
Philippians 2:6 says of Jesus: �Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.� Is a mere angel or man equal with God? Is 1+1=2 just as much as 2=2?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Some responses from another Christian -- sue da babe, 15:05:38 05/20/02 Mon
- You and me both -- Drummond, 00:27:57 05/21/02 Tue