tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post4091343088245244011..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: COLBERT INTERRUPTS EHRMANBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-64557121255307324912009-04-27T06:20:00.000-07:002009-04-27T06:20:00.000-07:00Crom, as I said before, you, like Arius, are readi...Crom, as I said before, you, like Arius, are reading the scriptures with a different canon of faith than that which was received by an apostolic baptism (namely a Trinitarian baptism). The context for the scriptures is the worship of the Church.<br /><br />You said "My comments are all logically deduced from the NT passages and do not require extra-biblical terms." This is a very modernistic reading of the scriptures where the scriptures are merely a set of hypotheses to be deduced logically. As I said before, this is a *modern* reading of the scriptures, one which has *no* support in early Christianity. If what you are arguing for is as provable as you suggest it is, why did *all* the early Christians miss it? Isn't it likely that they have a liturgical context to the scriptures that you do not? In any case, your reading is a modern one and is foreign to early Christianity.<br /><br />Unfortunately, you attribute the divinity of Christ to pagan superstition. Yet this is entirely foreign to the pagan mind. It is paganism, namely platonism, that requires Jesus to be a created being so as not to encroach on the simplicity of the First Principle.<br /><br />Regarding your list of titles, these titles are intentional to show that Jesus is a type of Enoch, Moses and Joseph. This is a standard mode of biblical interpretation pointing out that Christ is the saviour. Using them to argue for the lack of divinity in Christ is a serious misunderstanding at best.<br /><br />My point still stands, Nicea-Constantinople best reflects the subtlety of language in the scriptures read in the context of the Church. In particular, it is a reading not normed by pagan principles such as Arianism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00463464834576379106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-9595687116129735182009-04-26T20:06:00.000-07:002009-04-26T20:06:00.000-07:00npmacculum said...
"I do think Crom has one furth...npmacculum said...<br /><br />"I do think Crom has one further major issue stacked against him, namely, there is no historical record of anyone, ever teaching anything near to what he is saying."<br /><br />My comments are all logically deduced from the NT passages and do not require extra-biblical terms. The trinitarian "orthodoxy" is based on all kinds of extra-biblical creeds (nicene,athanasius)and commentaries (church fathers), and councils, and confessions.<br /><br />The deity of christ as in being of equal "substance/essence" as the Father is not found anywhere in the bible. The bible does however repeatedly and explicitly distinguish Jesus from God time and time again (e.g. john 17:3, acts 3:13, 5:30). Since the arguments used to imply jesus is God (miracles, forgiving sins, receiving homage/worship, being called by god and lord) all can be explained in a unitarian sense the trinitarian explanation is unnecessary at best. The explanation is called legal agency. Just as the post-exile jews attributed similar abilites and attributes to Enoch, Joseph, and Moses without making them into the same substance as God. T<br /><br />The deity of Christ is absent from the synoptics and at best Paul began the process of turning Jesus into another divinized hero like the patriarchs were. However Paul still repeatedly distinguished Jesus from God.<br /><br />npmacculum said...<br /><br />"The Nicene formula is phrased specifically to admit this paradox. There is "One God, the Father." "One God" is not distributed over the other two persons but is unique to the Father. Yet the Son is homoousias with the Father. Constantinople I adds, speaking of the Holy Spirit, "who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified."<br /><br />If there is "one God" and that one God refers to the Father, then perhaps there is a better explanation for what needs to be explained regarding the Son. That explanation is legal agency. The bible explicitly states Jesus was appointed, anointed, ordained, predestined, given, sent, and exalted by his God. He was given the holy spirit (acts 2:33), made lord and christ (acts 2:36), exalted by God (phi 2:9-11), anointed with the holy spirit and power (acts 10:38), sent (1john 4:14), etc.<br /><br />No trinitarian/deity of christ explanation is necessary.<br /><br />The pagan converts took the developed/embellished jesus mythology they were presented with (exalted hero/patriarch) and took the small step of turning that into his divinity/deity. <br /><br />If you read Larry Hurtado's book one God, one Lord you will see Enoch, Moses, and Joseph spoken of in Jewish writings in terms like...<br /><br />"angel of God, ruling spirit...firstborn of every living thing"<br /><br />"descended to earth..tabernacled among men"<br /><br />"the archangel of the power of the lord and the chief captain among the sons of god"<br /><br />"son of man"<br /><br />"elect one"<br /><br />"learned everything on earth and in the heavens"<br /><br />"reveal all of the treasures of that which is secret"<br /><br />"lesser yhwh"<br /><br />"equal in glory to the holy ones"<br /><br />"chosen..appointed from the beginning of the world"<br /><br />"greater throne"<br /><br />"judge and lead mortals"<br /><br />"gave into his hands the whole world as a portion well fitted for his heir"<br /><br />"each element obeyed him as its master"<br /><br />Sound familiar?Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324911690454979885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-48392117121457137042009-04-25T20:18:00.000-07:002009-04-25T20:18:00.000-07:00As a former student of Ehrman (many, many years ag...As a former student of Ehrman (many, many years ago), I must say that was the first time I've ever seen him speechless. Brilliant guy, but "I am di-vine, you are di-branches?" GROAN!So I Was Thinkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09769218646459837402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-16168264917318548082009-04-25T19:59:00.000-07:002009-04-25T19:59:00.000-07:00Crom, Philip, Kenny, et al
I think there is somet...Crom, Philip, Kenny, et al<br /><br />I think there is something rather large missing in your conversation. You have polarized on two opposites: 1. Christ is God or 2. Christ is not God. Those who claim that Christ is God argue that this is what the scripture teaches. The same is true of the opposite opinion.<br /><br />Both are true. Christ is both God and not God.<br /><br />The Nicene formula is phrased specifically to admit this paradox. There is "One God, the Father." "One God" is not distributed over the other two persons but is unique to the Father. Yet the Son is homoousias with the Father. Constantinople I adds, speaking of the Holy Spirit, "who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified."<br /><br />The difficulty of Arius is that he sought the terminological simplicity of of a Platonic First Principle. This caused him to adopt as norm the principle of "the unbegotten cannot be begotten" thus "there was a time when Christ was not." It is this canon, rather than the canon of faith handed down by the Apostles through baptism, that for Arius normed his reading of the scriptures.<br /><br />Thus, Arius does not represent the subtly of the scriptures, where Nicea-Constantinople does.<br /><br />I do think Crom has one further major issue stacked against him, namely, there is no historical record of anyone, ever teaching anything near to what he is saying. The closest is a highly speculative reading of the Ebionites. The next closest is probably Arianism, which argues that Christ was the first of all creation, that is, a demi-God. The argument that Jesus is "merely human" is a modern argument that treats first century texts as 5th century theological treatises and then points out that they are "immature" theology compared to later writings. Duh! Even the "dumb" Irenaeus pointed that out while at the same time saying "So then the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God. And so in the substance and power of His being there is shown forth one God; but there is also according to the economy of our redemption both Son and Father."<br /><br />(For the Colbert debaters out there, notice that Colbert's "duck" argument is essentially Irenaeus'.)<br /><br />Is Irenaeus "innovating"? No he is just commenting on the (purposeful) ambivalence of Scripture.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00463464834576379106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-55871896759770427022009-04-24T22:12:00.000-07:002009-04-24T22:12:00.000-07:00Crom,
You wrote:
That is a red herring and irelev...Crom,<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><I>That is a red herring and irelevant to what the Christology was in the NT.</I>It wasn’t meant as a red herring; I just want to know more about Unitarian mythology. Since in the NT Jesus shares the honors due to God, the attributes of God, the names of God, in the deeds that God does, and the seat of God’s throne, yet for a Unitarian these things in no way mean that Jesus is God, I wonder what a Church Father can say that would indicate to you that he <I>really</I> believed that Jesus is God (and wasn’t just kidding or careless with words).<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><I>Tertulian said the son was a created god and that there was a time when the father was not the father and there was no son.</I>Could you please provide a citation of Tertullian so that everyone can know what passage you are talking about? (Presumably, you’re thinking of <I>Against Hermogenes</I> 3: “There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”) I think that you have allowed the few, implicit, and obscure passages to guide your understanding.<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>Apology</I> 21: “He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun—there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. … that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.”<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>A Treatise on the Soul</I> 41: “For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.”<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>Against Marcion</I> 4.18: Jesus is “in truth the God and Christ of Israel.”<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>Against Praxeas</I> 2: “there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or <I>oikonomia</I>, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. … As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>Against Praxeas</I> 3: The Son and the Holy Spirit are “members of the Father’s own substance”<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>Against Praxeas</I> 25: “These Three are one [unum] essence, not one [unus] Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.”<br /><br />Tertullian, <I>Against Praxeas</I> 27: “But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man”Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222080126313827930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-91066537903698856402009-04-24T15:21:00.000-07:002009-04-24T15:21:00.000-07:00Philip
It is my position that the many, plain, ex...Philip<br /><br />It is my position that the many, plain, explicit passages distinguish Jesus from God and only a handful of ambiguis perhaps implicit passages are used to argue he is God (phi 2, john 1). Each argument used for his deity either is logically fallacious (e.g. jesus doing miracles, forgiving sins,) or comes short of making him of the same substance as the Father and therefore not coequal and coeternal.<br /><br />When did people first believe Jesus was God in the way it exists today? That is a red herring and irelevant to what the Christology was in the NT. However it is clear that tertulian, origen and authors did not hold to the christology that exists today. Tertulian said the son was a created god and that there was a time when the father was not the father and there was no son.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324911690454979885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-39086945950512481912009-04-24T03:46:00.000-07:002009-04-24T03:46:00.000-07:00LOL.
It's a duck!!!!
... and an elephant!LOL.<br /><br />It's a duck!!!!<br />... and an elephant!Seamless Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14486420257544190397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-75463670356777051592009-04-22T19:35:00.000-07:002009-04-22T19:35:00.000-07:00Hail,
I think your problem is that you want to tr...Hail,<br /><br />I think your problem is that you want to try to interpret each verse on it's own, rather than considering these verses in their broader context. Sure, you can make an argument that Thomas wasn't really calling Jesus Almighty God if you are only considering that verse in a vacuum, but when you put everything together, it's seem terribly obvious to me that the NT does affirm Jesus' deity. <br /><br />So your argument to explain away a specific verse would carry more weight if it weren't for the dozens of other verses that contradict your argument. <br /><br />Also, you never answered Phillip. When did people first start believing Jesus was God?Kenny Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03008182728063005894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-43936195379054700522009-04-22T18:02:00.000-07:002009-04-22T18:02:00.000-07:00Philip said...
"Really, what do you think Mark 12...Philip said...<br /><br />"Really, what do you think Mark 12:32 should say in a “Trinitarian version”?"<br /><br />Well Jesus would have corrected him and said "well you formally believed God was one individual but i am here to tell you that he is actually 3 co-equal and co-eternal persons sharing one divine substance/essence" Jesus never changed the jewish unitarian monotheism because he was a unitarian monotheist himself.<br /><br />Philip said...<br /><br />"The deity of Christ is not as clear in the Synoptics as it is in John, but it is not absent. In Matthew 28:17-20, Jesus is worshiped, he has all authority in the universe, he is incorporated into the name of God (“name” is singular) -- God is named as “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” -- Jesus is omnipresent and eternal (he will be with his followers everywhere and for all time)."<br /><br />The word "proskuneo" means literally to kiss towards and could mean worship, homage, reverence, etc. Your assuming he was being worshiped based on your presuppositions. Others would see Jesus being honored as the Messiah and heir to David's throne (acts 2:33-36). If David could receive "proskuneo" in the LXX than Jesus can also.<br /><br />Jesus is given all authority in heaven and earth showing he is not God, he is also given a name above all names showing he is not God. Jesus is not eternal and omnipresent. Jesus said he lived because of the Father (John 6:57). You make all kinds of unfounded claims based on your assumptions.<br /><br />Philip said...<br /><br />"The deity of Christ is presented at the beginning, several times in the middle, and again at the end. That isn’t enough for you?"<br /><br />Aside from the prologue, and the john 8:58 "i am" claim (which isn't a direct quote from the LXX) Jesus is depicted as dependent on and inferior to his God by his own words. You read into these statements your hypostatic union concoction. When Jesus said "I am" the bread of life, the light of the world, the door, the vine, the way truth and life, etc. It is clear he wasn't using the words as a divine name. He was using them in their normal usage. So why is John 8:58 a sudden reference to the divine name when they aren't even discussing Moses and the burning bush story. Jesus explicitly brings up the burning bush story in Mark 12 and makes no such claim. Stephen brings up the burning bush story in acts 7 and he also says nothing about Jesus being God or present then.<br /><br />Philip said...<br /><br />"Where in John is Christ presented as “a created/begotten lesser god”? In John 1:1-3, the Word (the pre-incarnate Christ) is presented as being there “in the beginning” and as “God.” The passage also states that all created things were made through the Word."<br /><br />John 1:18 obviously. John 1:1 can be translated "a god" so capitalizing it doesnt help you. Yes the arians believed this 2nd being created everything after God created it. You have not refuted my point.<br /><br />Philip said...<br /><br />In John 10:30, Jesus claims that he is of the same essence as God the Father; Jesus is the same “thing” as God the Father, <br /><br />This is a joke. Jesus backs away from being god just a couple verses later and says ...men were called gods so what is the big deal? Jesus can be called "god" just as moses, david, the judges, and others were. <br /><br />Jesus being "one" with the Father has nothing to do with substance, where are you getting that from? He was speaking of unity in purpose and goals. This is clear by the way he uses that term elsewhere...<br /><br />Joh 17:21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. <br />Joh 17:22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, <br />Joh 17:23 I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. <br /><br />Note Jesus shares his glory with his disciples, i guess they are part of the godhead too. Yes Thomas called Jesus god but as shown in John 10:34-36, humans can be called by that title (see psalms 45 and 82). That didnt stop Jesus from saying his Father is the only true God though (john 17:3).<br /><br />Philip said...<br /><br />"Your idea that the word “begotten” (used in some translations) means that Jesus was “created” has no basis in reality."<br /><br />Does it ever not mean created?<br /><br />Philip said...<br /><br />"Although the NT writers seem to present Jesus as God (they call him “God” and “Lord;” they worship him and pray to him; he is eternal, immutable, creator, and judge; he sits on God’s throne), you claim that they didn’t really mean that"<br /><br />Jesus wasn't called God by Matthew, Mark or Luke and the word "lord/kurios" was used to translate many different Hebrew words. Can you show me where in the synoptics Jesus was called "lord" in sense of deity? Luke/Acts even says Jesus was MADE BOTH LORD AND CHRIST (acts 2:36). It cannot be proven that any New Testament author believed Jesus was the most high God, shared the same substance as God, or was the member of a trinity. This is all presumption and eisegesis.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324911690454979885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-44332890095320608482009-04-22T08:57:00.000-07:002009-04-22T08:57:00.000-07:00Crom,
What I was trying to say about Mark 12:32 w...Crom,<br /><br />What I was trying to say about Mark 12:32 was: (1) Trinitarians have no reason to be embarrassed by the statement, “he is one, and there is no other besides him.” The statement is compatible with Christianity; it is neither an affirmation nor a denial of the Trinity. It is simply a foundational statement of monotheism. (2) My question about a hypothetical “Trinitarian version” of Mark 12:32 was not meant as rhetorical. Really, what do you think Mark 12:32 should say in a “Trinitarian version”?<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><I>“The deity of Christ is absent from Matthew, Mark, Luke and from most of John's gospel also. John at best supports the Arian Christology of a created/begotten lesser god that was used to create everything else”</I>The deity of Christ is not as clear in the Synoptics as it is in John, but it is not absent. In Matthew 28:17-20, Jesus is worshiped, he has all authority in the universe, he is incorporated into the name of God (“name” is singular) -- God is named as “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” -- Jesus is omnipresent and eternal (he will be with his followers everywhere and for all time).<br /><br />What do you mean by “The deity of Christ is absent … from most of John’s gospel”? The deity of Christ is presented at the beginning, several times in the middle, and again at the end. That isn’t enough for you?<br /><br />Where in John is Christ presented as “a created/begotten lesser god”? In John 1:1-3, the Word (the pre-incarnate Christ) is presented as being there “in the beginning” and as “God.” The passage also states that all created things were made through the Word. In John 8:58, Jesus uses the divine name “I am” for himself, echoing Deuteronomy 32:39 and Isaiah 41:4; 43:10, 25; 46:4; 51:12; 52:6. Jesus is claiming to not only have existed prior to Abraham, but to have existed eternally as YHWH. In John 10:30, Jesus claims that he is of the same essence as God the Father; Jesus is the same “thing” as God the Father, but not the same person. In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”<br /><br />Your idea that the word “begotten” (used in some translations) means that Jesus was “created” has no basis in reality.<br /><br />Although the NT writers seem to present Jesus as God (they call him “God” and “Lord;” they worship him and pray to him; he is eternal, immutable, creator, and judge; he sits on God’s throne), you claim that they didn’t really mean that. In your view, who was the first person to both present Jesus as God <I>and</I> really mean it? (Again, this is not a rhetorical question.) Was it Ignatius of Antioch? Justin Martyr? Irenaeus? Clement of Alexandria? Tertullian? Do we have to wait until the Council of Nicea?<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><I>“Philip you have no idea how weak your case is.”</I>Actually, my case is very strong. Again, my case is this:<br />Jesus shares the honors (glory, worship, prayer, faith, fear, devotion, love) due to God, the attributes of God (pre-existent, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient), the names of God (God, Lord, King of kings, Savior, I AM, Alpha and Omega), in the deeds that God does (creating and sustaining all things, salvation, sending the Spirit, giving life, judging), and the seat of God’s throne (equality with God, ruling over all things). It is reasonable to conclude, based on the <I>many, explicit, plain</I> passages of Scripture, that Jesus is God in the NT.<br /><br />Your case is: God raised Jesus from the dead and God is one, and there is no other besides him. Therefore, Jesus is not God.<br /><br />Could a “critical thinking person” (as you put it) really believe that your case is stronger than mine?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222080126313827930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56949030823196550392009-04-21T10:49:00.000-07:002009-04-21T10:49:00.000-07:00Philip
Trinitarians say that God is 1 what in 3 w...Philip<br /><br />Trinitarians say that God is 1 what in 3 who's. They say God being multiple persons does not contradict that God is one substance. Therefore your god could of hypothetically been 3 million persons and still remained 1 god. <br /><br />However now your suggesting that if plural pronouns are used like They and Them, this would imply tritheism. However that is not true according to trinitarian reasoning. If God can speak of terms in US and OUR, then surely God's people could have referred to their God (singular) as They and Them. This never happens throughout the bible which obviously indicates they believed their God was a single person which is what Jews believe to this very day.<br /><br />It is Christians which sought to change the Jewish unitarian monotheism as the result of the gradual developing Christology which took places over the decades following the belief in the resurrection. You can call the pronoun argument pathetic but it is clear that your attempts to dismiss it are what is pathetic.<br /><br />The deity of Christ is absent from Matthew, Mark, Luke and from most of John's gospel also. John at best supports the Arian Christology of a created/begotten lesser god that was used to create everything else <br /><br />Unitarian monotheism is the default position and you cannot point to anywhere in your bible where Jesus or his disciples deliberately set out to explain the change to binitarianism or trinitarianism which is obviously an embarassing omission for you.<br /><br />The disciples had to hold meetings and address the issues and controversies involved with changels to the law....how much more time and energy would that have needed to spend changing the very definition of God. The jews never accused the early christians of changing god which they clearlt would have had that been the case. Instead we nly see them accusing the christians of forsaking moses and circumcision.<br /><br />Philip you have no idea how weak your case is. I used to be a Christian...i used to beleive Jesus was God. As a Christian who believed in the inerrancy of scripture i abandoned that view for the christian unitarian view because i saw how weak the trinitarian case was. I ultimately rejected christianity altogether when i finally bothered to look at the basic assumption all christians take for granted. That the bible is the inspired word of god.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324911690454979885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-57106782034521236382009-04-21T08:18:00.000-07:002009-04-21T08:18:00.000-07:00Crom,
When you responded to my previous post, you...Crom,<br /><br />When you responded to my previous post, you repeatedly called me “Kenny.” We aren’t the same person.<br /><br />You wrote:<br /><I>“Funny how Jesus and this scribe are in complete agreement on the Jewish view of yahweh as a single individual using singular pronouns.”</I>So what? Do you think that in a hypothetical Trinitarian version of Mark 12:32, the scribe would say: “You have well said that THEY ARE THREE and there are no others besides THEM”? Christians, like Jews (and Muslims), believe that there is exactly one God. Christians are monotheists, not tritheists.<br /><br />YHWH is one God. The “singular pronouns” argument is about the most pathetic I’ve ever heard. Does Unitarianism really have nothing going for it except grasping at straws?<br /><br />You wrote to Matthew:<br /><I>“A critical thinking person would not [sic] the clear, continous [sic] distinguishing of God from Jesus and seek to explain other passages in light of this fact.”</I>Here is the problem. Most critical thinking people see that Jesus is God in the New Testament.<br /><br />As I’ve mentioned already, Jesus shares the honors (glory, worship, prayer, faith, fear, devotion, love) due to God, the attributes of God (pre-existent, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient), the names of God (God, Lord, King of kings, Savior, I AM, Alpha and Omega), in the deeds that God does (creating and sustaining all things, salvation, sending the Spirit, giving life, judging), and the seat of God’s throne (equality with God, ruling over all things). It is reasonable to conclude, based on the <I>many, explicit, plain</I> passages of Scripture, that Jesus is God in the NT.<br /><br />The one the NT authors call “God,” “Lord,” and “Savior;” the one that they worship, pray to, have faith in; the one who is eternal, immutable, creator, and judge; the one who sits on God’s throne – that is, Jesus Christ – he is God.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00222080126313827930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-54078446209219837572009-04-20T13:38:00.000-07:002009-04-20T13:38:00.000-07:00Will,
Thanks for posting that quote. Yes, I woul...Will,<br /><br />Thanks for posting that quote. Yes, I would say that puts him in the confessing Christian category. Still, I think some of his satire is not appropriate, especially considering that his audience is mostly non-Christian, and the target of his jokes are often Christians.Brett Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17517578424630461933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-13214773762559756462009-04-20T11:41:00.000-07:002009-04-20T11:41:00.000-07:00I love my Church, and I’m a Catholic who was raise...I love my Church, and I’m a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals, who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the Church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That’s totally different from the Word, the blood, the body and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth.<br /><br /> We’re, you know, very devout and, you know, I still go to church and, you know, my children are being raised in the Catholic Church. And I was actually my daughters’ catechist last year for First Communion, which was a great opportunity to speak very simply and plainly about your faith without anybody saying, ‘Yeah, but do you believe that stuff?’ which happens a lot in what I do.<br /><br /> I have a wife who loves me, and I am oddly normative. I go to church. I would say that there would be plenty of Catholics in the world who would think of me as not that observant, but for the world I move in professionally, I seem monastic.<br /><br />-Steve Colbert, http://minorthoughts.com/humor/why-i-like-stephen-colbert/<br /><br />If no one has mentioned this yet, this may be sufficient evidence for establishing his Christianity.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04669543366566439798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-22920342114129316842009-04-18T22:49:00.000-07:002009-04-18T22:49:00.000-07:00Hi,
For anyone who had trouble finding the NPR qu...Hi,<br /><br />For anyone who had trouble finding the NPR quote about colbert's faith, I have posted it <A HREF="http://www.morethancake.org/2009/04/steven-colbert-where-faith-meets-comedy.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A> along with the first Ehrman appearance from 2006.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00772168718321735432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-69644944298463146162009-04-18T21:44:00.000-07:002009-04-18T21:44:00.000-07:00Hail:
I would be careful about insinuating these...Hail: <br /><br />I would be careful about insinuating these people are narrow minded and you are the only one thinking objectively. You do not know their story. You do not know where they are coming from. Most of these people know your arguments, have read your books, and can provide a highly articulate and intelligent defense of their beliefs.<br /><br />To suggest they are being narrow minded actually reveals your subjective bias. I will think about and weigh what you have wrote. If you are truly committed to objectivity as you say you.. I would suggest you give it some time and do the same.Chris Durkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01252180917943028970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-24719645428753218102009-04-18T08:15:00.000-07:002009-04-18T08:15:00.000-07:00Hail Crom,
I know you were writing to Matthew, bu...Hail Crom,<br /><br />I know you were writing to Matthew, but I have to respond. <br /><br />1) I actually came to belief in Christianity through searching. I read a lot. I came to accept Christianity through this searching. I found then and now that arguments against Chrisitianity are very weak. <br /><br />2) You have to really twist the New Testament statements about Jesus to get anywhere close to your interpretation. Jesus in not just called the author of life (as in a new spiritual life), but author of the universe. John says all things were made by him and for him and that without him nothing that is made would be made. Colossians says that he created all things. <br /><br />Jesus is not just the author of a new spiritual life. He is the author of EVERYTHING. Seeing that Gen 1 says that God created the universe, what are we to conclude? Especially considering the other passage where Jesus says he was pre-existent, that Paul says he is the image of God, and tons of other verses that attest to both his pre-existence and his divinity?Kenny Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03008182728063005894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-91888896219411566222009-04-16T09:02:00.000-07:002009-04-16T09:02:00.000-07:00Matthew
The issue here is that you have a commitm...Matthew<br /><br />The issue here is that you have a commitment to your beliefs over reality. You most likely commited to christianity before objectively weighing the evidence for christianity. I know this is true for most christians and was true for me when i was a Christian.<br /><br />When your willing to be objective, to step out of your christian bubble, and objectively analyze the bible then your eyes will be opened to reality. The reality is jesus was not depicted as the supreme being in the bible, not even in john. There are at best a handfull of passages to argue for his deity which are a tiny minority compared to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Scriptural hermeneutics says to read the few in light of the many, the implicit in light of the explicit, and the obscure passages in light of the plain. Trinitarians do the opposite.<br /><br />A case in point is your last comment. I show you that Peter and John explicitly distinguish Jesus from the God of Israel and call him the servant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You ignore this blatant text and then desperately try to use the next verse to cancel it out. A critical thinking person would not the clear, continous distinguishing of God from Jesus and seek to explain other passages in light of this fact.<br /><br />So how is Jesus the author of life if he is not God? The answer to this and all trinitarian arguments is simple and clearly stated in your bible. Jesus isn't the author of their birth from their parents obviously. Peter said in the previous chapted that God raised and exalted Jesus and made him both Lord and Christ. Peter said Jesus received the promise of the holy spirit which he poured out on his disciples making them born again. Jesus has the power to give live by granting the holy spirit to those that accept him.<br /><br />Thus Jesus is the author of life to those that are dead in sin, to give the holy spirit to others just as God gave it to him. It is rather obvious to anyone that knows the bible but your narrow thinking prevents you from seeing these simple facts.<br /><br />Jesus is not God but he is still the author of life and firstborn from the dead.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324911690454979885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-48591856770944815732009-04-16T03:35:00.000-07:002009-04-16T03:35:00.000-07:00Same goes for Philippians 2.
Every knee shall bow...Same goes for Philippians 2. <br />Every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord (even "God the Father" is in here!), while Isiah 45 says that every knee shall bow before God. <br /><br />Christology can hardly climb any higherAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-62629455637314492232009-04-16T03:31:00.000-07:002009-04-16T03:31:00.000-07:00It's funny that Acts 3 is a prooftext against Jesu...It's funny that Acts 3 is a prooftext against Jesus' divinity while Acts 3:15 calls Jesus "the author of life"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-50587634671999226272009-04-14T22:42:00.000-07:002009-04-14T22:42:00.000-07:00Kenny said...
In your response to me you ignored...Kenny said...<br /><br /><br />In your response to me you ignored what I said. The context of Romans 10:9-13 indicates Paul is equating the Lord Jesus with the Lord YHWH of the Old Testament. There is no other way for his argument to work. (Or do you think that his argument doesn’t work because he is guilty of equivocating on the term Lord?)<br /><br />If Paul relied on the LXX which most jews did (even the author of hebrews) then this isn't an issue. Since the word Lord replaced several different hebrew words. Paul may not even have known what the original Hebrew said. However even if he did, Jesus said he came in the name of his Father (John 5:43).<br /><br />Kenny said...<br /><br />In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Paul inserts a statement about Jesus into the Shema. You shouldn’t ignore that. In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul says that Jesus will receive the worship that only God is due. Isn’t that significant?<br /><br />1Cor 8:4-6 is a favorite of unitarians to show Jesus is not God. Paul distinguishes Jesus from the 1 God of the bible as he does in Eph 4:4-6, and 1Tim 2:5. You can try to pretend it is a splitting of the Shema, but that is your wishful thinking and nothing more. Jesus explicitly quotes the Shema in Mark 12 as the greatest commandment in a conversation with a scribe. The scribe says "you have well said that HE IS ONE, and there is no other besides HIM" to which Mark comments that Jesus saw the scribe answered wisely and then Jesus says "you are not far from the kingdom of God."<br /><br />Funny how Jesus and this scribe are in complete agreement on the Jewish view of yahweh as a single individual using singular pronouns. Jesus never corrected the Jewish Unitarian monotheism because Jesus is a Unitarian monotheist in the gospels.<br /><br />Phillipians 2 explicitly states Jesus is not God because God is the one who exalts and rewards him in verse 9. You can speculate why your god would allow that but your bible is explicit that he chose that.<br /><br />It is called delegated authority. The gentile Christians confused Jesus' delegated authority with ontological identity with God.<br /><br />If one is honest enough to set aside their presuppositions and let the NT authors speak for themselves then you will see most of them say nothing about Jesus being deity. <br /><br />You can pretend that Jesus saying that his Father is the only true God is not explicit enough for you but your not being honest. That is called denial.<br /><br />The reality is the NT authors continuously distinguish Jesus from God throughout their writings and the "orthodox" have to read their theology into the texts at the expense of a plain reading.<br /><br />Kenny said...<br /><br />"God raised Jesus from the dead....All orthodox Christians believe that. It does not follow that Jesus is not God."<br /><br />When Jesus is distinguished from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and called his servant, IT DOES FOLLOW THAT JESUS IS NOT GOD.<br /><br />Act 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.Adminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03324911690454979885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-59808170785950944152009-04-14T22:38:00.000-07:002009-04-14T22:38:00.000-07:00Yes, that interview was with him in his conservati...Yes, that interview was with him in his conservative character. He's said all sorts of zany things in character. And while I'm not sure what his real views on gay marriage are, politically liberal views don't necessarily mean he's a theological liberal. I think gay marriage is a more complicated issue than some Christians make it out to be (and yes I think homosexual acts are sinful), but I won't derail this any more by going into detail about that.<br /><br />It's obvious that Colbert was joking for most of the interview. But at the end when he talked about the blind men and the elephant, I think he was raising a serious point while not totally breaking character. He does that sometimes, and he makes fun of everyone he interviews to some extent (most of his points against NT Wright were just as silly as the Ehrman interview, for example).Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852497941271934646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-4543426821161164802009-04-14T16:43:00.000-07:002009-04-14T16:43:00.000-07:00ON JESUS' DIVINITY IN MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE...ON JESUS' DIVINITY IN MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE<br /><br />I think Ehrman is wrong about Christ not being divine in the first three gospels.<br /><br />Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.<br />Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said...but I say to you.." <br /><br />We dont need the Gospel of John to make the point that Jesus was both God and Man. The authority with which he spoke is throughout all the Gospels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-43688209788669598392009-04-14T16:37:00.000-07:002009-04-14T16:37:00.000-07:00Philip: I'm glad you mentioned Putting Jesus in Hi...<B>Philip</B>: I'm glad you mentioned <I>Putting Jesus in His Place</I>; it completely slipped my mind when I was recommending books to Matthew.<br /><br /><B>Matthew</B>: Let me also put in a good word for <I>Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ</I>. Komoszewski and Bowman have taken the best of Christological scholarship and boiled it down into a concentrated and compelling argument for Jesus' deity. If you're interested I did a <A HREF="http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/putting-jesus-in-his-place-the-case-for-the-deity-of-christ-toc/" REL="nofollow">multi-part review</A> of the book a while back.Nick Norellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12476840322475063434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-74519831312149314762009-04-14T14:52:00.000-07:002009-04-14T14:52:00.000-07:00john 1:1 can legitimately be translated "a god" as...<B>john 1:1 can legitimately be translated "a god" as R.C. Sproul and others conceed.</B>That would be based on grammar alone. Context is everything.<br /><br />I believe James White once made a video rebuking Ahmed Deedat for this "No one who knows greek would make such claims"-mistake and mentioned an article from answering-islam.<br /><br />http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/deedat.htm#wordAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com