One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Religious question!!
Page <<first <prev 89 of 90 next>
Nov 17, 2019 05:43:01   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Zemirah wrote:
I posted this previously; it answers the verses you mistakenly claim prove lack of deity.

Jesus emptied Himself of the qualities of deity you're screeching about being lacking, while He was here incarnate, resuming those powers upon His return to His eternal heavenly home, at God the Father's side, from whence He had come to earth.

[Jesus Christ] "Who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God, but laid aside (while on earth) his mighty power and glory, and emptied Himself, taking the form of a s***e and becoming like men." (Philippians 2:6-7)

1. He emptied Himself of glory (while here on earth). In John 17:5, Jesus prayed, “Glorify me...with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” He gave up the adoration of the saints and angels when He came into this world.

2. He emptied Himself of His independent authority (while here on earth). In John 5:30, Jesus said, “I can do nothing on My own.”

He brought Himself into a different relationship with the Father, where ALL of His activities and actions had to be cleared in that unusual way.
Though equal with the Father, now temporarily uniquely submissive to God the Father.

3. He temporarily released the voluntary exercise of His divine attributes. Compare John 1:43–51 with Matthew 24:36 to see how Jesus sometimes was omniscient and sometimes not (while on earth).

4. He gave up eternal riches... the treatment that the Son of God, the King of the universe, gets in heaven.

Yet 2 Corinthians 8:9 says, “...though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.”

5. He gave up His intimate relationship with the Father (when on the cross). Who can describe the fellowship that exists between the first and second Person of the Trinity?

...And to hear Jesus on the cross in Matthew 27:46 beseeching, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He made Himself nothing — for you and for me (while here on earth).
I posted this previously; it answers the verses yo... (show quote)


Who, being in the form of God - There is scarcely any passage in the New Testament which has given rise to more discussion than this. The importance of the passage on the question of the divinity of the Saviour will be perceived at once, and no small part of the point of the appeal by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation. The word rendered "form" - μορφή morphē - occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered "form." Mark 16:12; Philippians 2:6-7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them." This "form" was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance - Passow. In Philippians 2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant - and took upon him the form of a servant;" that is, he was in the condition of a servant - or of the lowest condition. The word "form" is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to people; see Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 37; Silius, xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. iv; Aeneid, iv. 556, and other places cited by Wetstein, in loc. Hesychius explains it by ἰδέα εῖδος idea eidos. The word occurs often in the Septuagint:

(1) as the t***slation of the word ציי - Ziv - "splendour," Daniel 4:33; Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9-10; Daniel 7:28;

(2) as the t***slation of the word תּבנית tabniyth, structure, model, pattern - as in building, Isaiah 44:13;

(3) as the t***slation of תּמונה temuwnah, appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, Job 4:16; see also Wisdom Job 18:1.

The word can have here only one or two meanings, either:

(1) splendor, majesty, glory - referring to the honor which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc. - or.

(2) nature, or essence - meaning the same as φύσις phusis, "nature," or ουσία ousia, "being."

The first is the opinion adopted by Crellius, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, "The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God, is his figure. Or to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king - as his scepter, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a counsul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ before the foundation of the world was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was; John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God." Commentary in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth, we may adduce the following considerations:

(1) The "form" here referred to must have been something before he became a man, or before he took upon him the form of a servant. It was something from which he humbled himself by making "himself of no reputation;" by taking upon himself "the form of a servant;" and by being made "in the likeness of men." Of course, it must have been something which existed when he had not the likeness of people; that is, before he became incarnate. He must therefore have had an existence before he appeared on earth as a man, and in that previous state of existence there must have been something which rendered it proper to say that he was "in the form of God."

(2) that it does not refer to any moral qualities, or to his power of working miracles on earth, is apparent from the fact that these were not laid aside. When did he divest himself of these in order that he might humble himself? There was something which he possessed which made it proper to say of him that he was "in the form of God," which he laid aside when he appeared in the form of a servant and in the likeness of human beings. But assuredly that could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in which it can be said that he divested himself of the power of working miracles in order that he might take upon himself the "form of a servant." All the miracles which he ever did were performed when he sustained the form of a servant, in his lowly and humble condition. These considerations make it certain that the apostle refers to a period before the incarnation. It may be added:

(3) that the phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God. When it is said that he was "in the form of a servant," the idea is, that he was actually in a humble and depressed condition, and not merely that he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, what was the "form" which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then "in the form of God?" To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. He himself speaks John 17:5 of "the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;" and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannot now fully understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendor and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe - for he "dwells in light which no map can approach unto;" 1 Timothy 6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: "did not regard his e******y with God as an object of solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his e******y with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations:

(1) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle's reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common t***slation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to greatly desired or eagerly sought to retain his e******y with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.

(2) it accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered "robbery" - ἁρπαγμος harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:19; John 6:15; John 10:12, John 10:28-29; Acts 8:29; Acts 23:10; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Jde 1:23; Revelation 12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word used here does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed - the plunder - das Rauben (Passow), and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner; compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought, and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase "thought it not," means "did not consider;" it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, "he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold" as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 05:53:53   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Who, being in the form of God - There is scarcely any passage in the New Testament which has given rise to more discussion than this. The importance of the passage on the question of the divinity of the Saviour will be perceived at once, and no small part of the point of the appeal by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation. The word rendered "form" - μορφή morphē - occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered "form." Mark 16:12; Philippians 2:6-7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them." This "form" was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance - Passow. In Philippians 2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant - and took upon him the form of a servant;" that is, he was in the condition of a servant - or of the lowest condition. The word "form" is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to people; see Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 37; Silius, xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. iv; Aeneid, iv. 556, and other places cited by Wetstein, in loc. Hesychius explains it by ἰδέα εῖδος idea eidos. The word occurs often in the Septuagint:

(1) as the t***slation of the word ציי - Ziv - "splendour," Daniel 4:33; Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9-10; Daniel 7:28;

(2) as the t***slation of the word תּבנית tabniyth, structure, model, pattern - as in building, Isaiah 44:13;

(3) as the t***slation of תּמונה temuwnah, appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, Job 4:16; see also Wisdom Job 18:1.

The word can have here only one or two meanings, either:

(1) splendor, majesty, glory - referring to the honor which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc. - or.

(2) nature, or essence - meaning the same as φύσις phusis, "nature," or ουσία ousia, "being."

The first is the opinion adopted by Crellius, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, "The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God, is his figure. Or to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king - as his scepter, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a counsul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ before the foundation of the world was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was; John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God." Commentary in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth, we may adduce the following considerations:

(1) The "form" here referred to must have been something before he became a man, or before he took upon him the form of a servant. It was something from which he humbled himself by making "himself of no reputation;" by taking upon himself "the form of a servant;" and by being made "in the likeness of men." Of course, it must have been something which existed when he had not the likeness of people; that is, before he became incarnate. He must therefore have had an existence before he appeared on earth as a man, and in that previous state of existence there must have been something which rendered it proper to say that he was "in the form of God."

(2) that it does not refer to any moral qualities, or to his power of working miracles on earth, is apparent from the fact that these were not laid aside. When did he divest himself of these in order that he might humble himself? There was something which he possessed which made it proper to say of him that he was "in the form of God," which he laid aside when he appeared in the form of a servant and in the likeness of human beings. But assuredly that could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in which it can be said that he divested himself of the power of working miracles in order that he might take upon himself the "form of a servant." All the miracles which he ever did were performed when he sustained the form of a servant, in his lowly and humble condition. These considerations make it certain that the apostle refers to a period before the incarnation. It may be added:

(3) that the phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God. When it is said that he was "in the form of a servant," the idea is, that he was actually in a humble and depressed condition, and not merely that he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, what was the "form" which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then "in the form of God?" To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. He himself speaks John 17:5 of "the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;" and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannot now fully understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendor and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe - for he "dwells in light which no map can approach unto;" 1 Timothy 6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: "did not regard his e******y with God as an object of solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his e******y with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations:

(1) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle's reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common t***slation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to greatly desired or eagerly sought to retain his e******y with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.

(2) it accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered "robbery" - ἁρπαγμος harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:19; John 6:15; John 10:12, John 10:28-29; Acts 8:29; Acts 23:10; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Jde 1:23; Revelation 12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word used here does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed - the plunder - das Rauben (Passow), and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner; compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought, and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase "thought it not," means "did not consider;" it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, "he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold" as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.
b Who, being in the form of God /b - There is sc... (show quote)


Interesting... Feels like there should be a continuation....

Source?

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 06:24:41   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Romans 14:11-12 because it is written in the Scriptures: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘Everyone will bow before me; everyone will say that I am God.’” So each of us will have to answer to God.

Jesus Christ never stopped being God, and God will not be mocked.

Ridiculing is not the only way of Mocking God. Twisting, rejecting, or disobeying His Word also mocks Him.

For anyone who writes blasphemous things about Jesus Christ, their greatest wish will be for a time machine.

Anyone who mocks God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, will eat their own words.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Wow! So the Trinity became a Duality for a short period of time

Bet that messed with the universe... Which state of water at so and so pressure and such and such temperature do you think ceased to exist?
Wow! So the Trinity became a Duality for a short p... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Nov 17, 2019 06:33:01   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
THANK YOU, Blade, for posting these words from brilliant thinkers on the glorious Word of Almighty God.


Blade_Runner wrote:
Who, being in the form of God - There is scarcely any passage in the New Testament which has given rise to more discussion than this. The importance of the passage on the question of the divinity of the Saviour will be perceived at once, and no small part of the point of the appeal by the apostle depends, as will be seen, in the fact that Paul regarded the Redeemer as equal with God. If he was truly divine, then his consenting to become a man was the most remarkable of all possible acts of humiliation. The word rendered "form" - μορφή morphē - occurs only in three places in the New Testament, and in each place is rendered "form." Mark 16:12; Philippians 2:6-7. In Mark it is applied to the form which Jesus assumed after his resurrection, and in which he appeared to two of his disciples on his way to Emmaus. "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them." This "form" was so unlike his usual appearance, that they did not know him. The word properly means, form, shape, bodily shape, especially a beautiful form, a beautiful bodily appearance - Passow. In Philippians 2:7, it is applied to the appearance of a servant - and took upon him the form of a servant;" that is, he was in the condition of a servant - or of the lowest condition. The word "form" is often applied to the gods by the classic writers, denoting their aspect or appearance when they became visible to people; see Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 2; Ovid, Meta. i. 37; Silius, xiii. 643; Xeno. Memora. iv; Aeneid, iv. 556, and other places cited by Wetstein, in loc. Hesychius explains it by ἰδέα εῖδος idea eidos. The word occurs often in the Septuagint:

(1) as the t***slation of the word ציי - Ziv - "splendour," Daniel 4:33; Daniel 5:6, Daniel 5:9-10; Daniel 7:28;

(2) as the t***slation of the word תּבנית tabniyth, structure, model, pattern - as in building, Isaiah 44:13;

(3) as the t***slation of תּמונה temuwnah, appearance, form, shape, image, likeness, Job 4:16; see also Wisdom Job 18:1.

The word can have here only one or two meanings, either:

(1) splendor, majesty, glory - referring to the honor which the Redeemer had, his power to work miracles, etc. - or.

(2) nature, or essence - meaning the same as φύσις phusis, "nature," or ουσία ousia, "being."

The first is the opinion adopted by Crellius, Grotius, and others, and substantially by Calvin. Calvin says, "The form of God here denotes majesty. For as a man is known from the appearance of his form, so the majesty which shines in God, is his figure. Or to use a more appropriate similitude, the form of a king consists of the external marks which indicate a king - as his scepter, diadem, coat of mail, attendants, throne, and other insignia of royalty; the form of a counsul is the toga, ivory chair, attending lictors, etc. Therefore Christ before the foundation of the world was in the form of God, because he had glory with the Father before the world was; John 17:5. For in the wisdom of God, before he put on our nature, there was nothing humble or abject, but there was magnificence worthy of God." Commentary in loc. The second opinion is, that the word is equivalent to nature, or being; that is, that he was in the nature of God, or his mode of existence was that of God, or was divine. This is the opinion adopted by Schleusner (Lexicon); Prof. Stuart (Letters to Dr. Channing, p. 40); Doddridge, and by orthodox expositors in general, and seems to me to be the correct interpretation. In support of this interpretation, and in opposition to that which refers it to his power of working miracles, or his divine appearance when on earth, we may adduce the following considerations:

(1) The "form" here referred to must have been something before he became a man, or before he took upon him the form of a servant. It was something from which he humbled himself by making "himself of no reputation;" by taking upon himself "the form of a servant;" and by being made "in the likeness of men." Of course, it must have been something which existed when he had not the likeness of people; that is, before he became incarnate. He must therefore have had an existence before he appeared on earth as a man, and in that previous state of existence there must have been something which rendered it proper to say that he was "in the form of God."

(2) that it does not refer to any moral qualities, or to his power of working miracles on earth, is apparent from the fact that these were not laid aside. When did he divest himself of these in order that he might humble himself? There was something which he possessed which made it proper to say of him that he was "in the form of God," which he laid aside when he appeared in the form of a servant and in the likeness of human beings. But assuredly that could not have been his moral qualities, nor is there any conceivable sense in which it can be said that he divested himself of the power of working miracles in order that he might take upon himself the "form of a servant." All the miracles which he ever did were performed when he sustained the form of a servant, in his lowly and humble condition. These considerations make it certain that the apostle refers to a period before the incarnation. It may be added:

(3) that the phrase "form of God" is one that naturally conveys the idea that he was God. When it is said that he was "in the form of a servant," the idea is, that he was actually in a humble and depressed condition, and not merely that he appeared to be. Still it may be asked, what was the "form" which he had before his incarnation? What is meant by his having been then "in the form of God?" To these questions perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given. He himself speaks John 17:5 of "the glory which he had with the Father before the world was;" and the language naturally conveys the idea that there was then a manifestation of the divine nature through him, which in some measure ceased when he became incarnate; that there was some visible splendor and majesty which was then laid aside. What manifestation of his glory God may make in the heavenly world, of course, we cannot now fully understand. Nothing forbids us, however, to suppose that there is some such visible manifestation; some splendor and magnificence of God in the view of the angelic beings such as becomes the Great Sovereign of the universe - for he "dwells in light which no map can approach unto;" 1 Timothy 6:16. That glory, visible manifestation, or splendor, indicating the nature of God, it is here said that the Lord Jesus possessed before his incarnation.

Thought it not robbery to be equal with God - This passage, also, has given occasion to much discussion. Prof. Stuart renders it: "did not regard his e******y with God as an object of solicitous desire;" that is, that though he was of a divine nature or condition, be did not eagerly seek to retain his e******y with God, but took on him an humble condition - even that of a servant. Letters to Channing, pp. 88-92. That this is the correct rendering of the passage is apparent from the following considerations:

(1) It accords with the scope and design of the apostle's reasoning. His object is not to show, as our common t***slation would seem to imply, that he aspired to be equal with God, or that he did not regard it as an improper invasion of the prerogatives of God to be equal with him, but that he did not regard it, in the circumstances of the case, as an object to greatly desired or eagerly sought to retain his e******y with God. Instead of retaining this by an earnest effort, or by a grasp which he was unwilling to relinquish, he chose to forego the dignity, and to assume the humble condition of a man.

(2) it accords better with the Greek than the common version. The word rendered "robbery" - ἁρπαγμος harpagmos - is found nowhere else in the New Testament, though the verb from which it is derived frequently occurs; Matthew 11:12; Matthew 13:19; John 6:15; John 10:12, John 10:28-29; Acts 8:29; Acts 23:10; 2 Corinthians 12:2, 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Thessalonians 4:17; Jde 1:23; Revelation 12:5. The notion of violence, or seizing, or carrying away, enters into the meaning of the word in all these places. The word used here does not properly mean an act of robbery, but the thing robbed - the plunder - das Rauben (Passow), and hence something to be eagerly seized and appropriated. Schleusner; compare Storr, Opuscul. Acade. i. 322, 323. According to this, the meaning of the word here is, something to be seized and eagerly sought, and the sense is, that his being equal with God was not a thing to be anxiously retained. The phrase "thought it not," means "did not consider;" it was not judged to be a matter of such importance that it could not be dispensed with. The sense is, "he did not eagerly seize and tenaciously hold" as one does who seizes prey or spoil. So Rosenmuller, Schleusner, Bloomfield, Stuart, and others understand it.
b Who, being in the form of God /b - There is sc... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 06:36:34   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Zemirah wrote:
Romans 14:11-12 because it is written in the Scriptures: “‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘Everyone will bow before me; everyone will say that I am God.’” So each of us will have to answer to God.

Jesus Christ never stopped being God, and God will not be mocked.

Ridiculing is not the only way of Mocking God. Twisting, rejecting, or disobeying His Word also mocks Him.

For anyone who writes blasphemous things about Jesus Christ, their greatest wish will be for a time machine.

Anyone who mocks God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, will eat their own words.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Romans 14:11-12 because it is written in the Scrip... (show quote)


Romans
14:11
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
14:12
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

We have different t***slations...

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 06:45:41   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Yes, and...?

My Bible software has thirty English versions of the Bible. Yours doesn't?


Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Romans
14:11
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
14:12
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

We have different t***slations...

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 07:26:30   #
Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois
 
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
For Parky:

I didn't read all the quotes but the ones that I did are clearly talking about his humanity and not His deity. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. There are things He experienced and learned as a man. God doesn't need to know anything. He is omniscient. Don't claim to understand it but it's true nonetheless.

Reply
 
 
Nov 17, 2019 07:37:29   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Zemirah wrote:
Yes, and...?

My Bible software has thirty English versions of the Bible. Yours doesn't?


I have three different apps on my phone...

One of them was the one you recommended...

But I tend to use the app that has English and Chinese... It saves time when discussing scripture with my friends...

Plus a couple of Bibles at home... English versions and a Chinese one...

T***slations do rather vary...

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 07:39:06   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Parky60 wrote:
I didn't read all the quotes but the ones that I did are clearly talking about his humanity and not His deity. Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. There are things He experienced and learned as a man. God doesn't need to know anything. He is omniscient. Don't claim to understand it but it's true nonetheless.


Fair enough...

I found several rather faulty myself...

For other reasons...

Cheers to continued learning

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 14:29:52   #
Fodaoson Loc: South Texas
 
Romans 14:11-12 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess[a] to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Footnotes:
a. Romans 14:11 Or shall give praise

Jesus was fully man and fully God. It is difficult to understand. It is a divine mystery. God is omnipresent , Jesus was humanly present.

Reply
Nov 17, 2019 16:26:39   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Zemirah wrote:
THANK YOU, Blade, for posting these words from brilliant thinkers on the glorious Word of Almighty God.
You're welcome. There are many more such commentaries on that passage in Philippians, all of which confirm the divinity of Jesus Christ.

If we believe that Almighty God is immutable, eternal, and all knowing, if we believe that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, if He is multi-dimensional, and if we believe that He created our universe and all life within it, then how can we deny that God can manifest in any form He chooses - as Spirit or Son or God Himself? It is a simple thing to accept this as t***h, it is quite another for we of finite mind and limited intelligence to comprehend the mystery of it. How can we possibly understand infinite creative intelligence?

It is not for us to define who or what God is, but it is for us to accept and embrace how God defines us. Do we base our definition of God on our own subjective view of Him? Or, do we look to God Himself to tell us who we really are and what is His purpose for creating us in the first place?

Reply
 
 
Nov 18, 2019 02:35:53   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
Informing mankind of Who God is, and who and what we are, and what our intended mission is here on earth (if we will accept it) is the reason the Bible was given to us.

Man has been arguing with God about His revelation to us ever since.

"Did God really say?"

This is a technique we learned from Satan in the Garden.


Blade_Runner wrote:
You're welcome. There are many more such commentaries on that passage in Philippians, all of which confirm the divinity of Jesus Christ.

If we believe that Almighty God is immutable, eternal, and all knowing, if we believe that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, if He is multi-dimensional, and if we believe that He created our universe and all life within it, then how can we deny that God can manifest in any form He chooses - as Spirit or Son or God Himself? It is a simple thing to accept this as t***h, it is quite another for we of finite mind and limited intelligence to comprehend the mystery of it. How can we possibly understand infinite creative intelligence?

It is not for us to define who or what God is, but it is for us to accept and embrace how God defines us. Do we base our definition of God on our own subjective view of Him? Or, do we look to God Himself to tell us who we really are and what is His purpose for creating us in the first place?
You're welcome. There are many more such commentar... (show quote)

Reply
Nov 18, 2019 02:54:38   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
The few places there is a rather radical departure between the current Old Testament to New Testament quotes, it's because The Septuagint was the Old Testament of the Christian Church Bible during the first 400 years of its existence.

I use "theWord" Bible Software. It's humongous, if you add all available download modules: Bibles, Commentaries, Bible Dictionaries, Concordances, etc., doubtful it would fit on a telephone, unless you have a satellite phone.

It includes versions in a multitude of languages.

They do have a mobile download with 200 books, which for most would be more than adequate.

http://www.theword.net



Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I have three different apps on my phone...

One of them was the one you recommended...

But I tend to use the app that has English and Chinese... It saves time when discussing scripture with my friends...

Plus a couple of Bibles at home... English versions and a Chinese one...

T***slations do rather vary...

Reply
Nov 18, 2019 03:05:36   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Zemirah wrote:
The few places there is a rather radical departure between the current Old Testament to New Testament quotes, it's because The Septuagint was the Old Testament of the Christian Church Bible during the first 400 years of its existence.

I use "theWord" Bible Software. It's humongous, if you add all available download modules: Bibles, Commentaries, Bible Dictionaries, Concordances, etc., doubtful it would fit on a telephone, unless you have a satellite phone.

It includes versions in a multitude of languages.

They do have a mobile download with 200 books, which for most would be more than adequate.

http://www.theword.net
The few places there is a rather radical departure... (show quote)


It doesn't want to open on my phone...

Although it did download...

Odd...

Will try it on my computer when my wife finishes her work...

Thanks...

Reply
Nov 18, 2019 10:52:53   #
Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You're welcome. There are many more such commentaries on that passage in Philippians, all of which confirm the divinity of Jesus Christ.

If we believe that Almighty God is immutable, eternal, and all knowing, if we believe that He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, if He is multi-dimensional, and if we believe that He created our universe and all life within it, then how can we deny that God can manifest in any form He chooses - as Spirit or Son or God Himself? It is a simple thing to accept this as t***h, it is quite another for we of finite mind and limited intelligence to comprehend the mystery of it. How can we possibly understand infinite creative intelligence?

It is not for us to define who or what God is, but it is for us to accept and embrace how God defines us. Do we base our definition of God on our own subjective view of Him? Or, do we look to God Himself to tell us who we really are and what is His purpose for creating us in the first place?
You're welcome. There are many more such commentar... (show quote)


Well Blade... I finished...

I hope that we can use these to open a discussion on the differences in our understandings...

I must admit that this has been an enjoyable exercise... And that I found some interesting things...And I'll admit that some were hard to call...

Let me know if you're interested in proceeding... It's cool if you're not...

The Deity of Jesus Christ

Quote:
The Bible directly states that Jesus is God in a number of passages.1 Taken by themselves, these verses provide enough evidence for the church to believe in and teach the deity of Jesus Christ. But the indirect evidence of Scripture is equally compelling.

The names of God are often applied to Jesus. He is called "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father" and "Immanuel" (meaning "God with us").2 Elsewhere Jesus is called "The Lord (Jehovah) our Righteousness," "God" and "Son of God."3

The Bible ascribes the characteristics of deity to Jesus Christ. He is described as eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and immutable.4

Jesus Christ is equal with God the Father. He is worshiped as God.5 His name is assigned equal standing with God the Father in the church's baptismal formula and in the apostolic benediction.6

Christ performed works which only God can do. He is creator.7 He is the upholder of all things.8 He forgives sin.9 He will raise the dead and execute judgment.10

Jesus Christ Himself claimed deity. He taught His disciples to pray in His name.11 He claimed that He and the Father were one and that He was the Son of God.12 He claimed that to know Him was to know God, to see Him was to see God, to receive Him was to receive God, to believe Him was to believe in God and to honor Him was to honor God, while to h**e Him was to h**e God.13

1 John 1:1 Neutral
, 20:28;  Supportive
Romans 9:5; Not Supportive... God blessed.
Phil. 2:6; not supportive..earlier verse context
Titus 2:13, not supportive... division...
Hebrews 1:8; not supportive... Context
1 John 5:20. not supportive... context...
Other passages include
John 13:3, not supportive... Division
17:5, neutral
Colossians 1:15–19, supportive... context?
1 Timothy 3:16, neutral... leaning supportive...
Hebrews 1:3 not supportive...context...

2 Used God's name
Isaiah 9:6; neutral...Leaning supportive
Isaiah 7:14 not supportive.. subjective
Matthew 1:22–23 not supportive... subjective

3 called son of God and other titles
Jeremiah 23:6; neutral... subjective
Isaiah 40:3; neutral... subjective
Hebrews 1:8; not supportive... context
1 Timothy 3:16; neutral..leaning supportive
John 10:36 not supportive....

4 Godlike attributes of Christ...
Eternal
Isaiah 9:6; Neutral...
Micah 5:2; not supportive...Subjective
John 1:1–2; Neutral... Subjective
8:58; Neutral... Subjective
17:5; Neutral...Subjective...
24; Neutral...Subjective
Colossians 1:15, not supportive.. An image is not equal with the source...
17; Supportive...
1 John 1:1; Neutral... Subjective...
Revelation 1:8; neutral... Subjective...
omnipresent
Matthew 18:20; neutral..subjective
28:20; neutral...subjective...
John 3:13); Not supportive... T***slation?
omniscient
John 2:24, neutral...Subjective..
25; neutral...subjective
16:30; not supportive... Contradicts...
21:17; neutral... subjective...
Revelation 2:23 not supportive...T***slation?
omnipotent
Isaiah 9:6; neutral...Subjective
Philippians 3:21; neutral...subjective
Revelation 1:8; neutral..subjective
cf. John 5:17; neutral...leaning towards not supportive... Clear distinction..
Hebrews 1:3; not supportive... Context
Matthew 28:18) not supportive... Clear distinction
and immutable
Hebrews 1:10–12; not supportive... Distinction
13:8)neutral... subjective..

5 Christ worshipped as God
John 20:28; supportive...
Acts 7:59; neutral... subjective
Hebrews 1:6; supportive... Angels told to worship him...
cf. Exodus 34:14 Not supportive... distinction
Matthew 4:10 Not supportive... Clear distinction...Context... Contradicts Christ being omniscient...

6 Baptism formula
Matthew 28:19;  Supportive...
cf. Acts 2:38; not supportive... No equation
2 Corinthians 13:14; not supportive.. comparison differentiates
1 Corinthians 1:3, not supportive. Differentiates
Ephesians 1:2 not supportive...

7 Christ performs God's work
John 1:3, supportive... Subjective
10; supportive...
Colossians 1:16; supportive
Hebrews 1:2 supportive
,10 supportive.. but context is conflicting

8 upholder of all things
Colossians 1:17; Neutral.. Subjective
Hebrews 1:3; cf. neutral... Subjective... leaning towards not supportive..context...
Luke 10:22; not supportive...context
John 3:35; not supportive...context
17:2; not supportive... context
Ephesians 1:22 not supportive...context

9 Forgives sin
Matthew 9:2–7; Not supportive.. contradicts that Jesus is God
cf. Mark 2:7; not supportive
Luke 7:47, 48; neutral...
Colossians 3:13 neuteal

10 Raise dead, execute judgement
John 11:25; neutral... Subjective
cf. John 5:25, 28–29; not supportive... context
6:39, 40, not supportive... context
54; neutral... and gross if taken literally
John 5:22 not supportive... context

11 pray in Jesus's name
John 16:23, not supportive... context
24

12 Equal to God...
John 10:30, 36; neutral... context... leaning towards supportive..
14:9; not supportive... Agency..
17:11 neutral..leaning not supportive...context...

13 Symbol of God
John 8:18; not supportive...
14:7; not supportive...context
John 12:45; not supportive...context
14:9; not supportive...context
Mark 9:37; neutral...leaning not supportive
John 12:44; not supportive..context
14:1; not supportive...context
John 5:23; supportive.... but subjective


Interesting find... Support for the Trinity?
1 John 5:7... Trinity?
The Bible directly states that Jesus is God in a n... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 89 of 90 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.