Tweet
One_Brow and me (and some others) got a long good discussion about the question if Jesus is "The One True God" according to the Bible in this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=4
I failed to react to his last post due to lazyness.
I give it another try right here.
To all atheists, agnosts, muslims etc. etc.
I know you don't concider Jesus to be the One True God. you can join this discussion, but only base your argumentations on the bible.
First: I'm sorry for not responding to your last post One_Brow.
There we go:
That's a possibility. Any reason to see it that way?
Let me quote David Guzik,
"d. The idea behind no other gods before Me is not that it is permissible to have other gods, as long as they line up behind the true God; the idea is that there are to be no other gods before the sight of the true God in our life. Before Me is literally, "to My face"
i. This means God demands to be more than "added" to our lives. We don't just add Jesus to the life we already have; we must give Him all our lives"
To answer your question, I'm not studied enoughin greek to fully understand why the phrase "before me" has been added.
That I don't understand that won't change the fact that the commandment says we shall have no other Gods in front of God's Face.
Since nothing could explain that Thomas' names Jesus his God outside the face of The One True God, we still can only conclude that Jesus either is the One True God or Thomas is breaking the first commandment.
Unless of course you can give evidence why Thomas might mean something else with the word 'god' in this context.
1. What does "First" and "Last" add if He's the only one?
2. Your argumentation leads us to nothing else but concluding that this phrase will be undone as soon as the first christians will be risen from death and enter eternal life. Than Jesus won't be "The Last immortal" anymore who has been dead and is currently alive.
3. Besides that does "The Last" imply that there will be no other after Him anymore.
The complete declaratoin is
"I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order From the time that I established the ancient nation."
The extension indeed does add the uniqueness of God.
After this declaration of Who's talking, the content of the message comes.
It's not as if the content of the message can be considered to be a part of the author-declaration. If that would be so, the content of the message would be gone and all that would be left over would be an author who declares himself, but doesn't deliver anything after that.
that's true, but in greek the word 'aggelos' is used for angels.
I concider your 'yes' to mean "Jesus is The Alpha and the Omega who renders every man according to what he has done"
Than we have the 'author-declaration' and 'message' being mixed up again.
The Jewish tradition is very keen on not using titles that were being used by God.
it's identical to the Isaiah part we discussed earlier.
No, the main heir wil be called "Prince of Wales"
Pherhaps he can be named 'a lord of wales' but he is not the lord of wales.
It's impossible to share a title which implies uniqueness.
"Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."
says that Jesus returns the Kingdom to his Father, not His title.
"The beginning" in both cases stand on their own. You must have an argument to claim that Jesus comes from 'another' beginning than The Father.
like? (besides Jesus)
Isaiah 45:5a
"I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me"
the word 'zuwlah' that is being used here can mean:
1) a removal, a putting away
2) except, besides, with the exception of, with removal of
3) except that
It doesn't mean "at His side". Not in this context neither at any other place in the Bible.
I don't deserve any reaction from you, since no-one else must ever have responded after such a long time
I failed to react to his last post due to lazyness.
I give it another try right here.
To all atheists, agnosts, muslims etc. etc.
I know you don't concider Jesus to be the One True God. you can join this discussion, but only base your argumentations on the bible.
First: I'm sorry for not responding to your last post One_Brow.
There we go:
One_Brow: Other gods that they worship, certainly. Since Scripture itself refers to some of God's servants as being gods, the commandment does not mean that there can be no being who are called gods.
CyberShy: The fact that there are other gods doesn't mean we can't anything but "having other gods."
"The God of me" or "My God" is a phrase that morely says that Thomas has Jesus as his god.
It goes beyond plain recognizing, in which case "ho theos" would have done. ("This God")
If Thomas says "the God of me" he either goes against the first commandment or he "has" just One God.
"The God of me" or "My God" is a phrase that morely says that Thomas has Jesus as his god.
It goes beyond plain recognizing, in which case "ho theos" would have done. ("This God")
If Thomas says "the God of me" he either goes against the first commandment or he "has" just One God.
One_Brow: Another possiblity: what Thomas undertands "god" to mean is in some way fundamentally different from your understanding.
That's a possibility. Any reason to see it that way?
One_Brow: Either "before me" or "in my presence" still implies that this commandment is about the primacy and exclusivity of worship, not exclusivity of category.
CyberShy: Exclusivity in general. It does not say "Thou shall not worship other gods before me"
For sure it means "exclusivity in category" as well.
Otherwise it would have said "Thou shall have no equal gods before me"
For sure it means "exclusivity in category" as well.
Otherwise it would have said "Thou shall have no equal gods before me"
One_Brow: If the commndment were to refer to exclusvity in category, it could simply be "you will have no other gods".
Partially out of curiousity, what do you ee is the differene between "no other gods" and "no other gods before me"?
Partially out of curiousity, what do you ee is the differene between "no other gods" and "no other gods before me"?
Let me quote David Guzik,
"d. The idea behind no other gods before Me is not that it is permissible to have other gods, as long as they line up behind the true God; the idea is that there are to be no other gods before the sight of the true God in our life. Before Me is literally, "to My face"
i. This means God demands to be more than "added" to our lives. We don't just add Jesus to the life we already have; we must give Him all our lives"
To answer your question, I'm not studied enoughin greek to fully understand why the phrase "before me" has been added.
That I don't understand that won't change the fact that the commandment says we shall have no other Gods in front of God's Face.
Since nothing could explain that Thomas' names Jesus his God outside the face of The One True God, we still can only conclude that Jesus either is the One True God or Thomas is breaking the first commandment.
Unless of course you can give evidence why Thomas might mean something else with the word 'god' in this context.
One_Brow: Yes, if you take just those for properties of the five, Jesus is not unique.
The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive
1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.
The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive
1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.
CyberShy: If you agree with me that #3,#4 and #5 are not unique,
how can you still claim that #1 and #2 do not stand alone, but are to be applied at #3, #4 and #5?
If you do apply them anyway, #3,#4 and #5 have to be unique titles of Jesus again, how could he otherwise be either the first and the last.
how can you still claim that #1 and #2 do not stand alone, but are to be applied at #3, #4 and #5?
If you do apply them anyway, #3,#4 and #5 have to be unique titles of Jesus again, how could he otherwise be either the first and the last.
One_Brow: I'm saying not one of 1-5 is unique to Jesus, but the combination is unique. He is the first (1) and last (2) immortal (3) to have once been dead (4) and currently be alive(5).
1. What does "First" and "Last" add if He's the only one?
2. Your argumentation leads us to nothing else but concluding that this phrase will be undone as soon as the first christians will be risen from death and enter eternal life. Than Jesus won't be "The Last immortal" anymore who has been dead and is currently alive.
3. Besides that does "The Last" imply that there will be no other after Him anymore.
One_Brow: Perhaps instead of filling in the blank for ourselves, we can allow Scripture to do so.
Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.
Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.
CyberShy: If it applies to anything, it applies to the line after it, which reads "There is no other god besides me"
One_Brow: That reads more like an extension of being first and last in his passage than the object of the description.
Again, note the context -- in vs. 5 we see an incorrect way of calling for aid. Then in vs. 6 we havethe first and last declaration.
Again, note the context -- in vs. 5 we see an incorrect way of calling for aid. Then in vs. 6 we havethe first and last declaration.
The complete declaratoin is
"I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order From the time that I established the ancient nation."
The extension indeed does add the uniqueness of God.
After this declaration of Who's talking, the content of the message comes.
It's not as if the content of the message can be considered to be a part of the author-declaration. If that would be so, the content of the message would be gone and all that would be left over would be an author who declares himself, but doesn't deliver anything after that.
CyberShy: Or, if there's no other God besides God Jehova, how can Jesus be God as well?
if theos is used it's applied on:
- Jesus (Jesus is God)
- Jehova (Jehova is God)
- idols (false gods, thus in fact not-gods) (plural)
- humans (in the sence of divinity, divine beings) (plural)
if theos is used it's applied on:
- Jesus (Jesus is God)
- Jehova (Jehova is God)
- idols (false gods, thus in fact not-gods) (plural)
- humans (in the sence of divinity, divine beings) (plural)
One_Brow: Note the Hebrew "el", the equivalent of "theos", also referred to angels.
that's true, but in greek the word 'aggelos' is used for angels.
One_Brow: Rev 22:12-13:
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.
CyberShy: Do you say that Jesus is "The Alpha and the Omega who renders every man according to what he has done" as well?
or Jesus is "The beginning and the end who renders every man according to what he has done"
or Jesus is "The beginning and the end who renders every man according to what he has done"
One_Brow: Yes.
I concider your 'yes' to mean "Jesus is The Alpha and the Omega who renders every man according to what he has done"
Than we have the 'author-declaration' and 'message' being mixed up again.
CyberShy: Why should Jesus not say "He's unique in rendering"
But why does he chose to use these titles that have been used by God Jehova earlier in the book?
But why does he chose to use these titles that have been used by God Jehova earlier in the book?
One_Brow: As indcations that he comes in God's Kingdom.
The Jewish tradition is very keen on not using titles that were being used by God.
One_Brow: I will grant you that in Rev. 1:8, the phrase hangs by itself, without qualification. I haven’t seen this in any other location.
CyberShy: which cannot be explained different than that "The First and The Last" is a title in Rev. 1:8
One_Brow: In that location, yes.
it's identical to the Isaiah part we discussed earlier.
Assume for the moment England has a King and a main heir. Which one would be Lord of Wales? Both, of course, but the Prince's title is a reflection of his servitude to the King.
Both Jehovah and Jesus are described with phrases/titles not applied to the other. They also share phrases/titles.
Both Jehovah and Jesus are described with phrases/titles not applied to the other. They also share phrases/titles.
No, the main heir wil be called "Prince of Wales"
Pherhaps he can be named 'a lord of wales' but he is not the lord of wales.
It's impossible to share a title which implies uniqueness.
One_Brow: The Bible says, in many ways and places, that the Father does give up the title to the Son, with the expectation of it being returned to the Father.
ie. 1Co 15:23-28
ie. 1Co 15:23-28
"Then [cometh] the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power."
says that Jesus returns the Kingdom to his Father, not His title.
CyberShy: If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.
One_Brow: One_Brow: Here you have two beings from beyond time, one having been begotten from the other. They are both from the beginning (one as a self-aware being, the other as a yet-to-be-begotten part of the self-aware being), and now two beings.
CyberShy: You say they are both "from the beginning" but both God and Jesus claim to be "the beginning"
One_Brow: However, not necessarily the beginning of the same thing.
"The beginning" in both cases stand on their own. You must have an argument to claim that Jesus comes from 'another' beginning than The Father.
One_Brow: First of all, we don't even have the definitive "ho" preceding "theos" here, so I don't see why you assume the "theos" of this verse is Yahowah
CyberShy: because it says "who is over all, God blessed for ever."
There can be only one "God, (..) blessed for ever"
There can be only one "God, (..) blessed for ever"
One_Brow: I disagree. There can certainly be more than one god who is blessed forever.
like? (besides Jesus)
One_Brow: While they also equate “theos” to “God”, the point that Jesus is “theos” to all creation, as well as forever blessed, is central to JW theology, not in opposition to it.
CyberShy: Which goes straight into against the first commandment.
If God Jehova says "There is no other god besides me" he didn't add "Besides Jesus Christ who is god to all creation, blessed forever"
If God Jehova says "There is no other god besides me" he didn't add "Besides Jesus Christ who is god to all creation, blessed forever"
One_Brow: Actually, God says there is no other god "beside Him", at His side (the Hebrew preposition has both meanings). Jesus, not having a place of equality, would not be at God's side.
Isaiah 45:5a
"I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me"
the word 'zuwlah' that is being used here can mean:
1) a removal, a putting away
2) except, besides, with the exception of, with removal of
3) except that
It doesn't mean "at His side". Not in this context neither at any other place in the Bible.
I don't deserve any reaction from you, since no-one else must ever have responded after such a long time
Comment