Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Deity Of Jesus Christ.


  • Please log in to reply
385 replies to this topic

#61 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 06:44 PM

Colossians 2.9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

This verse seems to leave no room for another conclusion to me.


Also

Revelations 22.12-16
Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done.I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.


Here we see that these are Jesus' words by the statement in verse 16. We also see Jesus claim to be "the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Is this not a claim to diety? if so, is Jesus not diety?

The only argument I see that one could come up with, would be to make a false dichotomy between verse 13 and verse 16. As if verse 13 were talking about God and not Jesus, while verse 16 were talking about Jesus.
I refute this false dichotomy by how verse 12 leads into verse 13. Jesus states "Behold, I am coming soon! my reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." Jesus is the one who will return, he is coming soon! I support this furthermore by Revelations 22.20 where John writes "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."
John ties in verse 12 and 13 to Jesus specifically once more by re-iterating it is Jesus that is coming soon.

I see no way around the fact that Jesus is attributed diety in both these verses.

Edited by ksalzar, 04 November 2003 - 06:47 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#62 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 07:32 PM

Colossians 1:19 speaks of the 'fulness' of God dwelling in Christ.

It ought to be obvious that if the fulness of God is spoken of as 'dwelling in Christ', then this 'fulness of God' is something other than Christ. If it were speaking of Christ's inherent Divine nature, it would not refer to something which belongs to someone else (the fulness of God), dwelling in another person (Christ).

What is this 'fulness'? It is the spirit of God (mental disposition, character, mind, call it what you will, but not the Holy Spirit), which we are told dwells in the faithful believer in the individual sense, and therefore the ecclesia in the collective sense:

John 1:
16And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Ephesians 1:
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the ecclesia,
23Which is his body, the fulness of Him
that filleth all in all.

Ephesians 3:
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Or, as 1 John 4:17 puts it:

1 John 4:
17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so are we in this world.


As for the Alpha/Omega thing, that's even simpler - there is nothing to prevent Christ from bearing a title of God, as His representative.

But the reading of Revelation you have given, has both the Father and son being one and the same person - this is not the trinity.

Edited by Fortigurn, 04 November 2003 - 07:32 PM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#63 Lawpark

Lawpark

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 926 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 07:33 PM

I see no way around the fact that Jesus is attributed diety in both these verses.


umm... :confused:

he was at the beginning (In the plan of God)
he will be at the end (ruler and King)

I don't see how that means that Jesus himself required divinity

Edited by Lawpark, 04 November 2003 - 07:34 PM.

"Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." {Phil. 3:12-14}

#64 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 08:05 PM

Colossians 1:19 speaks of the 'fulness' of God dwelling in Christ.

It ought to be obvious that if the fulness of God is spoken of as 'dwelling in Christ', then this 'fulness of God' is something other than Christ. If it were speaking of Christ's inherent Divine nature, it would not refer to something which belongs to someone else (the fulness of God), dwelling in another person (Christ).

What is this 'fulness'? It is the spirit of God (mental disposition, character, mind, call it what you will, but not the Holy Spirit), which we are told dwells in the faithful believer in the individual sense, and therefore the ecclesia in the collective sense:


QUOTE 
John 1:
16And of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Ephesians 1:
22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the ecclesia,
23Which is his body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.

Ephesians 3:
17That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
19And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:


Or, as 1 John 4:17 puts it:


QUOTE 
1 John 4:
17Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as He is, so are we in this world.


Yes, I understand all this. But Colossians 2.9 is not talking about the fulness which dwells in the believers. It specifically states that "in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form." Of the passages you have quoted, non speak of us having deity dwelling in us. How could it but put more plainly? It specifically says "the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form", Christ is the fullness of Deity in bodily form. Deity is displayed in bodily form in Christ.

As for the Alpha/Omega thing, that's even simpler - there is nothing to prevent Christ from bearing a title of God, as His representative.


Christ is not just bearing a title of God, He is stating "I am the Alpha and Omega", just as He states "I am the root and the descendant of David".

But the reading of Revelation you have given, has both the Father and son being one and the same person - this is not the trinity.

The father and the son are one entity. Three heads of the same person? I'm not sure how the correct wording is. This is showing that Christ has been around since the beginning with the Father. He is the first and the last, and they are inseprable.
I am not one to explain the trinity, I take it as something a little out of my comprehension, but I am one to notice exactly what is being said here. Jesus is "the Alpha and Omega". He is claiming to be deity.
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#65 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 04 November 2003 - 08:08 PM


I see no way around the fact that Jesus is attributed diety in both these verses. 




umm...

he was at the beginning (In the plan of God)
he will be at the end (ruler and King)

I don't see how that means that Jesus himself required divinity


No. Jesus is making a more specific statement here than that. He says "I am the Alpha and Omega", He does not say "the Alpha and Omega has had me planned since the beginning". Would it be right for me to say "I am the Alpha and Omega" since I've been planned from the beginning by God?

Edited by ksalzar, 04 November 2003 - 08:10 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#66 Kremlin

Kremlin

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 04:40 AM

Once you can also prove to me that Judges (Psalm 82) and Moses (Exodus 7:1) and the angel in the wilderness (Acts 7:30), and the angel on mount sinai (Acts 7:38) are all God, You'll be most of the way to showing why someone cannot be attributed a divine title, or even, the Name of God.

:confused:

#67 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 09:16 AM

Once you can also prove to me that Judges (Psalm 82) and Moses (Exodus 7:1) and the angel in the wilderness (Acts 7:30), and the angel on mount sinai (Acts 7:38) are all God, You'll be most of the way to showing why someone cannot be attributed a divine title, or even, the Name of God.


The accounts in Pslams 82 and Exodus 7:1 have no reference to the people being around since the beginning of time, nor them being the Alpha and Omega.

In Acts it specifically states "he heard the Lord's voice" in verse 31, this is how we know who the angel represents.


I never said someone cannot bear a divine title, what i said was

Christ is not just bearing a title of God, He is stating "I am the Alpha and Omega", just as He states "I am the root and the descendant of David".

As opposed to the OT verses you quote above, Christ is making a specific reference to being "the Alpha and Omega", to being around since the beginning of time.
As opposed to the Acts verses you quote, we see not only Christ using a divine title, but claiming he is the divine title. As suported by the assessments I've already made. Further more the Acts account you use, while an angel of the Lord may be the one bearing the divine title, it clearly makes a deliniation, letting you know that it is God who is being represented. There is no such deliniation in the Revelation verses I quoted. Infact it is Jesus claiming to be deity.
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#68 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 09:21 AM

But Colossians 2.9 is not talking about the fulness which dwells in the believers. It specifically states that "in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form."

Of the passages you have quoted, non speak of us having deity dwelling in us.

So the difference between saying that all the fulness of God dwells in Christ, and saying that 'His fulness' dwells in us, is what? :confused:

How could it but put more plainly? It specifically says "the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form", Christ is the fullness of Deity in bodily form. Deity is displayed in bodily form in Christ.


It couldn't be more plainly put than Matthew 5:16, and Johnn 4:17.

Christ is not just bearing a title of God, He is stating "I am the Alpha and Omega", just as He states "I am the root and the descendant of David".


Christ was not the literal 'root' of David - David preceded Christ. This is how we know that these are titles.

The father and the son are one entity. Three heads of the same person? I'm not sure how the correct wording is. This is showing that Christ has been around since the beginning with the Father. He is the first and the last, and they are inseprable.


You're begging the question here, and your definition of the trinity I'm having difficulty keeping within the bounds of orthodoxy.

I am not one to explain the trinity, I take it as something a little out of my comprehension, but I am one to notice exactly what is being said here. Jesus is "the Alpha and Omega". He is claiming to be deity.


Where are we told that this is a claim to Deity?
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#69 Kremlin

Kremlin

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 09:22 AM

Your argument is predicated on "Alpha and Omega" being something more than a divine title. Regardless, we know that people in the past not only bore titles of God, but actually bore his name - Yahweh. So this still doesnt prove anything.

#70 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 09:35 AM

QUOTE (ksalzar @ Nov 5 2003, 07:05 AM)
But Colossians 2.9 is not talking about the fulness which dwells in the believers. It specifically states that "in Him all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form."

Of the passages you have quoted, non speak of us having deity dwelling in us. 


So the difference between saying that all the fulness of God dwells in Christ, and saying that 'His fulness' dwells in us, is what? 


The term deity is the difference. We aren't deity, Christ is.

QUOTE 
How could it but put more plainly? It specifically says "the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form", Christ is the fullness of Deity in bodily form. Deity is displayed in bodily form in Christ.

It couldn't be more plainly put than Matthew 5:16, and Johnn 4:17.


I dont understand what these two verses have to do with Christ's deity.

QUOTE 
Christ is not just bearing a title of God, He is stating "I am the Alpha and Omega", just as He states "I am the root and the descendant of David".

Christ was not the literal 'root' of David - David preceded Christ. This is how we know that these are titles.


Christ was the literal root of David if you understand that the Word was with God from the beginning and Christ is that word, and all things were made through him.
Thus christ was before David, is the root of David, and is the descendant of David.

QUOTE 
The father and the son are one entity. Three heads of the same person? I'm not sure how the correct wording is. This is showing that Christ has been around since the beginning with the Father. He is the first and the last, and they are inseprable.

You're begging the question here, and your definition of the trinity I'm having difficulty keeping within the bounds of orthodoxy.


Aye, I probably am not wording the trinitarian stuff right, like I said I don't claim to have it all down. Non the less the points I am making from these verses speak for thesmelves.

QUOTE 
I am not one to explain the trinity, I take it as something a little out of my comprehension, but I am one to notice exactly what is being said here. Jesus is "the Alpha and Omega". He is claiming to be deity.


Where are we told that this is a claim to Deity?


If Jesus has been around since the beginning, because he is the root of David as he claims. If that is the case then he is the Word as John states. Then he is deity as John also states "and the Word was God"

Your argument is predicated on "Alpha and Omega" being something more than a divine title. Regardless, we know that people in the past not only bore titles of God, but actually bore his name - Yahweh. So this still doesnt prove anything.


I'm goin to need specific examples so I can compare the contexts. In this example Jesus is claiming to be from the beginning, thus the interpretation of John would follow that the Word actually is Jesus who has been since the beginning, and thus is God
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#71 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 09:44 AM

The term deity is the difference. We aren't deity, Christ is.

Ah, question begging again. You are assuming the conclusion. Is God Deity or not?

I dont understand what these two verses have to do with Christ's deity.


They have to do with ours.

Christ was the literal root of David if you understand that the Word was with God from the beginning and Christ is that word, and all things were made through him.
Thus christ was before David, is the root of David, and is the descendant of David.


Ah, question begging again. You are assuming the conclusion.

Aye, I probably am not wording the trinitarian stuff right, like I said I don't claim to have it all down. Non the less the points I am making from these verses speak for thesmelves.


I find no trinitarian formulation in Scripture. I find Christ as God's mortal son, and then immortal representative.

If Jesus has been around since the beginning, because he is the root of David as he claims. If that is the case then he is the Word as John states. Then he is deity as John also states "and the Word was God"


The moment you said:

If Jesus has been around since the beginning...


...you begged the question. Logical fallacy.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#72 Kremlin

Kremlin

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 09:52 AM


Your argument is predicated on "Alpha and Omega" being something more than a divine title. Regardless, we know that people in the past not only bore titles of God, but actually bore his name - Yahweh. So this still doesnt prove anything.


I'm goin to need specific examples so I can compare the contexts. In this example Jesus is claiming to be from the beginning, thus the interpretation of John would follow that the Word actually is Jesus who has been since the beginning, and thus is God

I have given you the example of Moses, the Judges, and the angel that appeared to moses on several occasions. :confused:

Furthermore, the context here is not the pre-existence of christ at all - it's in the context of his return to the earth as king!!

To assume that the Word in John 1:1-14 is Circular Reasoning. It's certainly not the most natural reading of the text, either.

#73 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 03:08 PM

To assume that the Word in John 1:1-14 is Circular Reasoning. It's certainly not the most natural reading of the text, either.


Ah, question begging again. You are assuming the conclusion.
The moment you said:

QUOTE 
If Jesus has been around since the beginning...

...you begged the question. Logical fallacy.


No, you two are trying to imply my assumption into the reading to justify your own assumptions. Your arguments are based on other passages, and you two are implying your own meanings into the given passages. I am simply stating what is there.

Namely that Jesus says "I am the root of David" that Jesus also says "I am the Alpha", and that Jesus is attributed deity. You have not supplied a verse where an angel or someone else represents God by claiming to be God. Quite the contrary the verse supplied in Acts make it clear that the angel is representing God by stating ""he heard the Lord's voice". In the examples of Moses and the Judges the titles of god are given in reference to other humans, its showing the relational position God has put them in as compared to other humans. Jesus' title is given no such context. Indeed Jesus' is the Alpha, and the root of David. I am reading nothing into these verses. I take them at their face value, and draw the logical conclusions from them. Does Jesus say he is the Alpha and the root of David.

Answer: Yes

Given that Jesus is the root of David and the Alpha, how must we then interpret John?

Answer: Jesus is indeed the word, and has indeed been around since the beginning with God and is indeed God

Thus my reasoning is not based on my assumption, but rather based on what is stated in the veres, and then carried through the other texts.

On the other hand, your the ones using outside texts to infer your meanings into these verses, instead of taking them at their face value and then using them to interpret the others properly.


The term deity is the difference. We aren't deity, Christ is. 


Ah, question begging again. You are assuming the conclusion. Is God Deity or not?


I dont understand what these two verses have to do with Christ's deity.


They have to do with ours.


The two verses being ...

Mathew 5.16
In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

and

John 4.17
"I have no husband," she replied.
Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband."


Wow, where does this talk about deity? Where do these mention our deity?


The term deity is the difference. We aren't deity, Christ is. 


Ah, question begging again. You are assuming the conclusion. Is God Deity or not?


I am not assuming the conclusion, I am again taking the verse at face value. You on the other hand are bringing your assumption into the interpretation and thus are assuming the conclusion.

The verse in question is

Colossians 2.9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form


I need no outside interpretation to take this verse at face value. The fulness of the Deity is presented in bodily form in Christ. Christ is the fullness of Deity.

Your interpretation on the other hand brings in an assumption, one which you have yet to prove. Your assumption is based on the idea of relating this verse with other verses that speak of our fullness. But NONE of these talk about our fullness based on Deity dwelling in us. This IS the difference.
We dont need to venture all around to find this type of verse, its the very next one in Colossians. It states...

Colossians 2.10
and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

The difference in these two verses is just what I have said. Verse 10 says we have been given fullness in Christ. It does not say that Deity dwells in us. Rather that in and through Christ we are made complete.
On the other hand verse 9 states that Deity lives in bodily form in Christ. It says that Christ is Deity in the flesh.
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#74 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 03:26 PM

You have not supplied a verse where an angel or someone else represents God by claiming to be God.

Mark 12:26 talks about this event, too. It says:

...have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Here it claims that God was in the bush, but it wasn't God, it was an angel.

Edited by luke, 05 November 2003 - 03:28 PM.


#75 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 03:31 PM

Yes, and that is made painfully clear by the statements...
"how God spoke to him" and "he heard the Lord's voice".
As I've stated two times already and state again,
There is NO qualification like this in Revelations, it does not say "and God spoke" or "and the Lord said". But what does it say?
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony" and
" 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

We see in this passage an angel speaking on behalf of Jesus. And it being said "I am the Alpha and the Omega" and "I am the Root and the Offspring of David"

The passage speaks for itself.

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 03:31 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#76 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 03:43 PM

(humm, confused.) Doesn't what you've just said show that things can have titles that belong to other things?

#77 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:00 PM

(humm, confused.) Doesn't what you've just said show that things can have titles that belong to other things?


In the examples you gave of an angel speaking for God, such as in acts. Here is what we see..

The angel speaks and the bible lets us know who the angel is speaking for with phrases such as "and I heard the Lord's voice" and "God spoke to him". In revelations we have the exact same thing happening, an angel is speaking on behalf of someone. Again the bible lets us know who the angel is speaking on behalf of when it says "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony" in Rev. 22.16.

So the angel is speaking on behalf of Jesus when he says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." The angel is still speaking on behalf of Jesus when he says "I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

So in the examples you gave we see that an angel is speaking on behalf of God in the things being said.
And in the case of revelations we see that an angel is speaking on behalf of Jesus with the things being said.

Therefore Jesus is stating that he is the first and the last, that he is the root of David, and that he has been around since the beginning.

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 05:07 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#78 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:07 PM

So in the examples you gave we see that an agnel is speaking on behalf of God in the things being said.
And in the case of revelations we see that an angel is speaking on behalf of Jesus with the things being said.

Sure, I think I get that. But why does that mean that Jesus can't carry titles, too?

#79 Lawpark

Lawpark

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 926 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:11 PM

So in the examples you gave we see that an agnel is speaking on behalf of God in the things being said.
And in the case of revelations we see that an angel is speaking on behalf of Jesus with the things being said.


Who is Jesus speaking on behalf of? Remember, Jesus said he was not here to do his own will, but the will of his father. :popcorn:
"Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." {Phil. 3:12-14}

#80 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:13 PM

(ksalzar @ Nov 5 2003, 06:00 PM)
So in the examples you gave we see that an agnel is speaking on behalf of God in the things being said.
And in the case of revelations we see that an angel is speaking on behalf of Jesus with the things being said. 


Sure, I think I get that. But why does that mean that Jesus can't carry titles, too?


In all the examples we have seen of someone carrying titles it is stated who's title they are carrying. In Revelations the angel is stated as carrying Jesus' title. Thus Jesus is speaking of himself. Otherwise the bible would give us an indication that the angel was speaking on behalf of Jesus who was speaking on behalf of God in this particular instance, but it does not. It says the angel was speaking on behalf of Jesus. Indeed Jesus does not say "my Father is the Alpha and Omega". This is just the point, Jesus is himself claiming deity. Jesus says "I am the Alpha and Omega". Now in order for someone to claim Jesus was ascribing this to the Father and not to himself we would have to see some phrase such as "my Father is".. or "I heard the voice of God" or "Jesus is speaking for God" as the bible does to let us know who claiming this title.
The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#81 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:19 PM

Who is Jesus speaking on behalf of? Remember, Jesus said he was not here to do his own will, but the will of his father. 


It was put forth that I was arguing through circular logic. I denied this and pointed out why.

The above is true circular logic argument.

In this particular interpretation we are figuring out wether Jesus was saying "the Father is the Alpha and Omega" or if He was himself claiming to be "the Alpha and Omega"

As I've already pointed out, I will do so again the reasons why this is Jesus claiming to be himself "the Alpha and Omega".

In the examples we have seen of an angel representing someone it is always said who he represents. In this case the angel represents Jesus. It is not said in the immediate context that the angel represents God the Father, or that God the Father is speaking. Nor did Jesus say "my Father is the Alpha and Omega". He is claiming deity for himself. In order for you to be consistent with this passage of Revelations you would also have to say that God the Father is "the root and descendent of David". Jesus is claiming both titles specifically for himself.

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 06:08 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#82 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:34 PM

This is just the point, Jesus is himself claiming deity.

Is he?

Jesus says "I am the Alpha and Omega".

I'm not sure I see a problem with this, even if Jesus isn't using a divine title. Jesus was the first and the last, e.g.

And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him


looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.


Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.


and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood


And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.


I don't see how being called 'the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev. 22:13) has to mean that the person called it is Diety/God.
:popcorn:

Edited by luke, 05 November 2003 - 05:38 PM.


#83 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:52 PM

I don't see how being called 'the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end' (Rev. 22:13) has to mean that the person called it is Diety/God.


He also states he is the root and descendent of David.

Furthermore

It is the same thought process of IF jesus were to say "I AM THAT I AM". He would be equating himself with God by title. Thus Jesus does here. He claims that he is the Alpha and Omega. This is a particular claim, with the implication of being before the world and after it. Not just the first to rise from the dead.

Jesus was with God from the beginning.

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 05:53 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#84 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:52 PM

In the examples we have seen of an angel representing someone it is always said who he represents.

But in the Mark 12:26 reference no angel is mentioned at all.

#85 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:53 PM

Okay? It still holds true that it is said who is speaking or who is being represented, either way we know who the letter is from.

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 05:54 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#86 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 05:55 PM

He also states he is the root and descendent of David.

And what does that mean?

#87 luke

luke

    Tau

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,175 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 06:07 PM

Okay?

So this:

In the examples we have seen of an angel representing someone it is always said who he represents.

isn't true - it's not so fixed as you make it out to be.

Also, this:

There is NO qualification like this in Revelations, it does not say "and God spoke" or "and the Lord said".

isn't entirely true: -

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John

The whole of the Book of Revelation is from God. Jesus is speaking on behalf of God.

(There's a whole heap of representation going on here - God gives the revelation to Jesus; Jesus gives it to an angel; the angel gives it to John; and John gives it to the believers.)

#88 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 06:24 PM

QUOTE (ksalzar)
In the examples we have seen of an angel representing someone it is always said who he represents.

isn't true - it's not so fixed as you make it out to be.


Perhaps not, but In every example you or I have proposed thus far it is always said who the speaker is or who is being represented. So it is true.


Also, this:

 
There is NO qualification like this in Revelations, it does not say "and God spoke" or "and the Lord said".


isn't entirely true: -

QUOTE (Rev. 1:1)
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John


The whole of the Book of Revelation is from God. Jesus is speaking on behalf of God.

(There's a whole heap of representation going on here - God gives the revelation to Jesus; Jesus gives it to an angel; the angel gives it to John; and John gives it to the believers.)


Your are right.
Non the less the immediate context of Romans 22 12 - 16 implies that it is Jesus who the particular implication of being the Alpha and Omega is being attributed to.
(Actually I contend that it is attributed to both the God the Father, and Jesus in this specific statement thus the whole trinity thing). The point is though, that in this immediate context it is deffinetly speaking particularly of Jesus. Verse 12 says
"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done." This is speaking of Jesus return, then we read verse 13 which says "I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last"

Furthermore here is another Revelations verse to support this.
Revelations 1.17b-18
"Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One, and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and Hades"

We see here that this verse is talking specifically about Jesus, because it says He was dead, but is alive evermore. We see also that Jesus claims to be the first and last, just as he says in verse 13 chapter 22.
Also note that Jesus refers to himself as the living One. This is crossreferenced with the verses of Joshua 3:10, Psalms 42:2 and Psalms 84:2 in my NAS. Relating this saying to the OT passages where the phrase "living God" is used.

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 06:25 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

#89 Kremlin

Kremlin

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,159 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 06:27 PM

ksalzar, you seem to think we are trying to say that in revelation 22 Jesus is actually saying "God is the Alpha and the Omega".

We are not saying this at all. I accept that Jesus has the title "Alpha and Omega". This does not make him God.

You suggested it means he was before the world and what not. Please substantiate this. Beginning and Ending can have many meanings, and as Luke clearly showed it is referring to resurrection and the beginning of the new faith we have. You have suggested it is more than this - please back this up.

#90 ksalzar

ksalzar

    Pi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPip
  • 984 posts

Posted 05 November 2003 - 06:35 PM

ksalzar, you seem to think we are trying to say that in revelation 22 Jesus is actually saying "God is the Alpha and the Omega".

We are not saying this at all. I accept that Jesus has the title "Alpha and Omega". This does not make him God.

You suggested it means he was before the world and what not. Please substantiate this. Beginning and Ending can have many meanings, and as Luke clearly showed it is referring to resurrection and the beginning of the new faith we have. You have suggested it is more than this - please back this up.


Yes, this was an argument which is why i replied to it.
Now, why do I think that Alpha and Omega is referring to prior to the world and after the world? Because of how this specific phrase is used in every other situation through out the whole bible.

For instance, at the beginning of revelations we see chapter 1 verse 8
" 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.' "
This phrase is used to apply to God being always existent.

Also notice what I said in my post above about chapter 1 verse 18 "I am the living One"

Furthermore this closing phrase of revelations is congruent in how it closes out the whole bible because of the fact it applies to both the Father and Jesus in the same way.

They both are the First and the Last, they both are the Alpha and Omega, and have both been around forever, from before the world. While at the same time they are the same entity, and aren't seperate, thus we can conclude with one phrase "the Alpha and Omega" on the behalf of both Christ and the Father to close out the bible without having to have two deffinitions for this one phrase to apply to each.

Yea for the trinity. :popcorn:

Edited by ksalzar, 05 November 2003 - 06:44 PM.

The Father is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users