She leaves her sons Victor and Mike behind. My condolences to them and they should justifiably celebrate the life of their mother. She was a great lady!
With sadness for her departure,
CONSTANCE
Tuesday, September 03, 2019
In Memoriam: Dorothy Margraf - New Age Researcher, par excellence
She leaves her sons Victor and Mike behind. My condolences to them and they should justifiably celebrate the life of their mother. She was a great lady!
With sadness for her departure,
CONSTANCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
602 comments:
1 – 200 of 602 Newer› Newest»Sorry to hear this. Dorothy Margraf really contributed much here and elsewhere.
And realizing again, that I am thankful for you, Constance.....
On another note: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/04/the-left-has-a-500-million-dark-money-atm-machine-called-arabella/
With all due respect, what was the advantage of Dorothy's work which involved the warnings to the Jewish community regarding the New Age Movement, IF, that work did not include an uncompromising message that the Lord Jesus Christ IS the ONLY "way, the truth and the life" and that "no one cometh to the Father except by me?" John 14:6
I distinctly recall Dorothy labeling me "anti-Semitic" for posting passages directly from the Gospel of John. She was not attacking me, but Christ Himself for HIS words that were spoken.
The lesson here is that you can spend your life "fighting for a religious cause," in this case, fighting the NAM. But, if you oppose the complete, absolute, authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are still on the losing side.
The quint essential question for EVERY living soul, is NOT "what think ye of the New Age Movement?"
IT IS: "WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?"
Is He your King, your Sovereign, your Lord? Do you bow to His absolute authority? Do you love Him and His Word?
Did you have to make that post about you, RayB?
You just had to point out what was said...about you.
Why not just offer condolences on this day and leave it at that for now...pick up that conversation again later, in another post? I notice you offered no condolence. So what due respect did you offer?
Sorry, and sad that this has to be pointed out to you, but you need to practice grace....a whole lot more than you do, since you think it is to be about the Lord. You lack compassion in your posts. Truth and Grace should walk together, in a life, even in a post.
Truth without grace is brutal.
Grace without truth is hypocrisy.
Lopsided responses are not an advantage since you are judging advantage.
John 1:!4 and John 1:17 show us the balance.
Anon said (in part) with a great deal of "truth and grace" of course:
"Did you have to make that post about you, RayB?
You just had to point out what was said...about you."
What I actually said: "She was not attacking me, but Christ Himself for HIS words that were spoken."
I don't think I have to apologize for having little "compassion" towards anyone that attacks the Word of God.
With all due respect RayB, Dorothy's work was not for moot. You may marginalize her efforts because she did it for different reasons than yours. If she helped to delay the New Age for forty years or more then that is to be commended. Her efforts to fight for the next generation's freedom is commendable. As usual, RayB, you appoint yourself judge and jury. God will be Dorothy's judge, not you.
Why be such a callous, self-righteous troll.
Sorry to hear of Mrs Margraf's passing.
She was a real trooper who didn't tolerate nonsense at all. She definitely was a tireless researcher and a tough love friend of Constance.
She pulled so many disparate parts together and clearly found their interconnectedness in this giant web of evil called The New Age.
I feel honored to have been one of the ones that she called out and roundly scolded.
Thank you Dorothy!
We, who were part of Dorothy's circle of e-mail friends and fellow researchers, will miss her greatly. The world has lost a tireless New Age researcher who made it her mission in life to educate others and to expose its evil dangers... which continue to threaten the traditional Judeo Christian religion.
What exactly is the "traditional Judeo Christian religion"?
By itself, it is an oxymoron.
Judaism is diametrically opposed to the Lord Jesus Christ.
The often used phrase has absolutely no basis whatsoever in scripture.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/theyre-not-sending-their-best-african-migrants-traveling-north-to-enter-us-attack-mexican-police-in-tapachula-video/
Truly it makes no sense why you are frequenting this blog, RayB. The oxymoron is why you think you understand anything much about where the real and present threat even is so you have missed what Constance (and Dorothy) were signaling about the threat to Biblical Christianity and it's Bible root Judaism by the New Age movement. The New Age movement wants to tear it all out by it's very roots, so this must include old and new testament belief, showing us there is reason why these are targeted, but as noted, you are not the judge and jury of who and how God allows for His purpose to expose why and what is to happen in this world. God alone, without your "help" will do the calling out, and sorting out, His time, His way, with the perfectly right measure of mercy in each scenario that you don't have to muster even in the slightest sense. You must have forgotten what you were saved from...
You castigate Constance, you castigate others, for even a hint of difference from your positions and you are very ungracious in your manner. Who do you think you are to promote misunderstanding and divisiveness?
So you are not helpful here, but the opposite. You only help Christianity's many haters have reason to believe we are all your brand of caustic because you are very loud and long in your displeasures at anything short of your exalted attitudes and platitudes. We aren't compromised as you will accuse, we are not tolerant and often vocal to take stands against positions that throw Biblical Christianity under the bus, but not hatefully as you so often, actually are. You only hear your own voice. We are given two ears and one mouth by God so there might be a lesson for you in that perhaps? You are no friend of the brethren of Christ with such self-righteousness in your conveyances.
Your religion includes much that borders on full out anti-semitic, as Dorothy called you out for, so I agree with her about you on that point. The part of the big picture she did see was part of what needed seeing and you should be grateful, but clearly are not.
You should take your proud brand of "pharisical religiosity" where it fits...elsewhere.
Nice 180° 10:57,
Which side of the fence will you slide off? Paradise, or Lake of fire?
Enjoy your pharisaical life 10:57 AM
"God alone, without your "help" will do the calling out, and sorting out, His time, His way, with the perfectly right measure of mercy in each scenario that you don't have to muster even in the slightest sense. You must have forgotten what you were saved from..."
RayB, who needs to practice what Apostle Paul taught in Romans Ch 11, does none a favor making it about his take on what he thinks should happen to the Jews (exclude them). That is repugnant and deserves to be called what it is.
People (none of us, RayB, you, or myself, but it seems you missed that in the above post) are not the ones responsible for judgment. Jew or otherwise. God is.
There is your answer 12:16 PM.
Let the Word of God settler the matter as to the "judgment" of those that reject the Lord Jesus Christ ... and that includes both Jews and Gentiles:
1 John 4:2-3
"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
John 3:18
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
John 14:6
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
John 3: 1-3
"There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Jesus to the "believing" Jews:
John 8: 24
"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
More ....
Again, Jesus speaking to the "believing" Jews:
John 8: 42-47
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? 47 He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
RayB,
This post was never intended to be about Dorothy's salvation. I think you'd fit right into the Westboro Baptist Church.
She-ma yisrael, Adonai eloheinu, adonai echad
Baruch shem kavod malchuto l’olam va-ed....
Shalom, Dorothy, Shalom!
Well this comments section shows that Christine by far has more class than RayB.
How true!
Christine is famous for class!
If you go to Webster's dictionary, under 'class', they have a photo of Christine! No text, nothing else, just her photo! That's as classy as it gets!
Wrong again RayB.
Jews are only saved in Jesus Christ, RayB. Just as we are.
What I very much disagree with you about is that you believe God has no further dealings with them. But you are wrong by prophectic words in Scripture...God has a plan to yet bring in a remnant of them. Those will know Jesus, they will see Him and the gap caused by unbelief, by their blindness. Scripture talks about how God let them come to that place and time of blindness because of their willfulness against Him in not honoring His Son but the day is coming when their eyes and hearts will open. Your strong words against them plainly treats them with disdain and act as though God is just plain done with them as a nation and as individual..but sees and knows who is and will be His so these are needing to come into the fold--just like we did. By faith, RayB, by faith. So I noticed the disdain you spoke against Dorothy.
Westboro Baptist church hates everyone not like them in their beliefs. Maybe it is you who might be more like them. They have grace for none but themselves. You have been quite graceless here. Repeatedly. And your post regarding Dorothy made me sick at how lacking in compassion you are. you are not appreciative of Constance either. Really why are you here?
I believe salvation is very simply grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast. But...with you anyone not quite up to your "belief" is castigated here. It is you with the measuring rod for everyone. I think that is awful for someone saying they believe in Christ Jesus. Your tone in particular is what I take real exception to.
"I don't think I have to apologize for having little "compassion" towards anyone that attacks the Word of God."
RayB, that is your statement @ 12:40 PM.
However, it is God's Word, not yours. The Lord will take care of that business at the proper time, meanwhile compassion is Christlike.
I guess I saw all I needed to in your statement.
We need a thumbs down button for your comment.
The world is a much sadder place today.
I loved and appreciated Dorothy. She was brilliant, and she taught many of us so much here at this very blog. I told her this and thanked her for it many years ago, but I don't know that my appreciation ever sunk in because she didn't like dissent and we clashed a few times LOL. But she was one fierce warrior, driven by conviction.
Dorothy didn't have an easy life, and she should have had much more success and recognition than she did given her intellectual gifts and tireless advocacy.
Mike and Vic, if you are reading this, I am so sorry for your loss. Know that your mom was appreciated deeply by some of us. What a great lady. Totally irreplaceable. I think of her often, was privileged to have known her, and will never ever forget her. Someone who suffered so much yet persisted until the end will surely rest in peace. Godspeed great lady.
AMEN, Aonymous @ 3:05 AM!!! I have nothing else to add.
Major University Study Finds "Fire Did Not Bring Down Tower 7 on 9/11"
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/major-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-bring-down-tower-7-911
Thomas Dahlheimer (and all):
Putting money where?
More on the climate change/crisis hoax. Tony Heller provides another insightful video, this time exposing the lie of sea level rising. I started this one at the 17:00 mark, so you can see and hear for yourself the hypocrisy spewed by former President Obama regarding “climate change.”
“…Barack Obama spent a lot of his time in office trying to scare people about climate and sea level rise. But they (Barack and Michelle) just purchased a 15 million dollar home on Martha’s Vineyard, right above sea level. Obviously, they don’t believe what they’re saying; they’re putting their money where their mouth isn’t…”
Lies, Damned Lies, And NASA Sea Level Graphs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CffMifh73ZE&t=17m
Pope has appointed 'many' pro-LGBT
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fr-martin-at-gay-pride-mass-pope-has-appointed-light-supportive-cardinals-archbishops-and-bishops
Here is a dose of reality ... TruNews broadcast that deals with the forseeable chaotic political, social & economic conditions that continue to develop at an alarming pace.
Most Americans don't have a clue as to what is coming. Sadly, many Christians (and Pastors) don't see it either. Most believe the church will be "raptured" out of the world before all of the REAL trouble starts. They are mistaken. Their "blessed hope" is based upon a man-created, false doctrine.
Here's the link to this informative video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us3debEJct8
To Anon @ 9:45 AM ...
The RCC is morphing into a VERY pro-LGBTQ "church." The reason? It's the trend of the world that is being ruled by the "god" of this world.
Older, more conservative Catholics are dying off and are being replaced by younger Catholics that tend to be far more liberal and more open to the LGBTQ agenda.
This is basically a "business" move by the Vatican. They are attempting to revamp their product to make it more palpable to the youth that they hope will "return to the church."
Heretics such as the radical Jesuit James Martin are not only being tolerated by the Vatican, they are being embraced and encouraged !
It won't be long before the official Catechism is amended in order to reflect the change that has already occurred.
If you haven't heard of her, you need to know about her.
She's the New Wonder Girl for the Main Stream Media, that, like her, want to save the planet from the CHAOS of Climate Change.
With only 12 years left to save us from extinction, we have been visited by this amazing 16 year old that will inspire us all. She's being called the "Voice of the Planet." Her name is Greta Thundberg. If you don't remember that name, don't worry. The Main Stream Media won't let you forget it. She's going to be everywhere, because the MSM is collectively falling all over themselves with being amazingly impressed by this "once in a lifetime intellect" and "she's only 16 years old ... AMAZING".
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-3/climate-kook-greta-thunberg-has-mental-health-problems/
"If you eat burgers and use plastic straws, YOU are part of the PROBLEM." - Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Dem Presidential Candidate
Aren't politicians funny?
Ever notice how easy it is to prove what lying hypocrites they are?
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/column-2/how-do-you-explain-this-buttigieg/
Concerning the Catholic Church, it should be important to all to watch the upcoming Amazon Synod. I'm told that deeply distressing changes are in store. If Suzanne is still around, I would like to hear from her.
Constance
And, I found out this past week that some suspect me to be a partial cause of "Brexit." Check this one out. For the record, the article contains inaccuracies. For one, I definitely did NOT "coin the word 'Prison Planet." However, I do suspect I may have coined the word "New Ager."
https://medium.com/textifire/plutarchy-in-the-uk-an-scl-conspiracy-theory-roundup-c587dc071956
or tinyurl: https://tinyurl.com/y5zrdhlx
Also, an Australian writer, "Isobel Blackthorn" (I do believe the Lord may have assigned her that name with a sense of humor, blames me for "demonizing" poor misunderstood Alice Ann Bailey. Her book billed as a "historical novel" has given me lots of derogatory ink. It is called THE UNLIKELY OCCULTIST Alice Ann Bailey." We are now all supposed to believe that Alice had "Christianized" Theosophy and that she was misunderstood for starting publications under "Lucifer Publishing Company" in 1922. Well, this is just so very similar to the Fetzer Institute's campaign likewise to label this obvious form of dark occultism as "Spiritual." We slowed them down a good 35 years, but now the war is on. Amazing how worried they are about a book (HIDDEN DANGERS) that is now 35 years old!
Constance
Constance
Dear Constance,
The following two articles by Boston College professor Dr. William Kilpatrick speak volumes in terms of the distressing direction in which the Amazon Synod may be going unless there is a meaningful intervention. A link to the Working Document is embedded in the article.
July 3, 2019
The Amazon Synod Goes Native
William Kilpatrick
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/the-amazon-synod-goes-native
______________________________________________________________
July 23, 2019
Pan-Amazon Pandemonium
William Kilpatrick
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/pan-amazon-pandemonium
______________________________________________________________
Another copy of the Working Document.
Pan-Amazon Synod. The Working Document for the Synod of Bishops
http://www.sinodoamazonico.va/content/sinodoamazonico/en/documents/pan-amazon-synod--the-working-document-for-the-synod-of-bishops.html
______________________________________________________________
Amazon Synod Poised to Wage Total War on Catholic Faith: Our Resistance Must Be Equally Forceful
Professor Roberto de Mattei
July 5, 2019
Heterodox “Liberation Theology” Forms Basis of Working Document....
https://catholicfamilynews.com/blog/2019/07/05/amazon-synod-poised-to-wage-total-war-on-catholic-faith-our-resistance-must-be-equally-forceful/
_______________________________________________________________
Cardinal critiques Amazon synod working doc as ‘heretical…apostasy’, urges bishops to ‘reject’ it
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-critiques-amazon-synod-working-doc-as-heretical...apostasy-urges-bishops-to-reject-it
______________________________________________________________
I hope you find this information helpful.
Constance,
Here is another article that you might find useful in terms of clarification of precisely the alleged "heresy" and "apostasy" being described.
Catholic philosopher: Amazon Synod working doc promotes ‘most dangerous’ form of socialismo
06/09/2019
The working document for the upcoming Amazonian synod promotes the “most dangerous” form of socialism and is “absolutely unacceptable,” says a European philosopher.
In an interview with LifeSite at this year’s Roman Forum Summer Symposium in Gardone Riviera, Italy, Austrian philosopher Professor Thomas Stark said the liberation theology once condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Josef Ratzinger has “morphed” into “tribalism” and is now “all through” the synod’s working document.
“[Tribalism] is a new form of socialism that is unknown to most people,” Prof. Stark explained. “And because they are unaware of what it is really all about, they do not realize how dangerous it is.”
The Catholic philosopher said that tribalism is akin to socialism in that it is a “kind of collectivism,” has a “brainwashing effect,” and “suppresses individuality.” He indicated that the latter is something which should be abhorrent to young people and university students who want to be “a personality and not just a number.”
In tribalism, there is “no individual property,” there are “no traditional families” and “children are raised collectively,” added Stark, who has taught philosophy at the Benedict XVI Academy of Philosophy and Theology (Heiligenkreuz) and is a professor of philosophy at the University of St. Pölten in Austria.
He also seconded German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller and other Catholic prelates who have criticized the working document’s description of the Amazon as a “theological place” where new revelation occurs.
“As Western countries,” we are being told to “form and model our societies in accord with the tribal societies in the Amazon,” he said. “This is absolutely unacceptable.”
“It would be very dangerous to go down this tribalistic path, because it would destroy the rest of Christian culture,” he said.
Our interview with Professor Thomas Stark followed a lecture he delivered on “The Socialist Myth: Igor Shafarevich and Modern Nihilism.” Igor Shaferevich (1923-2017) was a Russian mathematician and dissident during the Soviet regime who wrote books and articles criticizing socialism, including The Socialist Phenomenon.
In the interview, we also discussed the strategies used by key proponents of cultural socialism, such as Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, and American socialist, Saul Alinsky, to advance this movement, and what traditionally minded Catholics can actually learn from them.
Here below is our interview with Professor Thomas Stark....read entire article...
https://panamazonsynodwatch.info/articles/commented-news/catholic-philosopher-amazon-synod-working-doc-promotes-most-dangerous-form-of-socialismo/
Oh goody, back to the mile long posts on important issues within Satan's favorite cult!
Seems Susanna was always monitoring things here.
Susanna, your mind is so full of theological filth. Only the blood of Christ can wash it away!
10:41 PM.
This is a terrible post from you.
Anon 10:47 PM,
I agree. Constance had asked for her input, and she supplied it. If Anon 10:41 PM--and anyone else--doesn't like Susanna's content, s/he can simply ignore it. Why the hate?
The hate comes from the Catholic cult! Ask the molested children, and the lost souls who trusted in the 'church' to see them to heaven! You two are spiritual whimps!!! You are not interested in faith, and truth. Only things you can intellectualize!
Whatever happens at the pan amazon synod will be whatever the enemy of Christ wants to happen. That enemy of Christ is who the pope serves.
If Constance Cumby thinks anything good for humanity will come from the Vatican, then she is seriously ignorant.
11:27 PM.
Another terrible post from you. Constance Cumbey is not in the least ignorant, but with your awful statements about both her and Susanna, why are you frequenting this blog? You can have whatever opinion about an institution, in this case the Vatican, but why the hatefulness toward people? That's just wrong and not at all Christlike.
Condolences about Dorothy Margraf. Yes she focussed on the antisemitic nazi thing. the devil hates the Jewish people because Jesus came from them. And there are prophecies regarding them.
Anon 10:41 did you read Susanna's posts before judging?
The working doc for the Amazon Synod supports spirits (demons)and witchcraft of tribal culture.Boff redolent throughout. (panentheism def given in a link is not biblical panentheism Jer. 23:24 Ps. 139:8-10 I Kings 8:27)
RayB, you are obnoxious. you are also wrong a lot of the time.
I recall it was you who started the filthy lie that I advertised psychic services. you are a liar. motive seems to be hate, mistaken for a strengthening righteous outrage, but since it gave birth to a lie it is a root of bitterness.
That quote about the Jews as sons of the devil, I don't know if you are of the two seed heresy of one sort or another, but check context, before that Jesus acknowledged their descent from Abraham physically, then went on to deal with their spiritual descent. they were not "chips off the old block" so to speak.
RayB as candidate for membership in Westboro Baptist Church,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEIqEYP_ZvM Westboro Baptist Chipmunks.
Craig, MARY AND JOSEPH'S BETROTHAL WAS TOO SHORT TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED A YEAR a month plus the time spent with Elizabeth and travel time which would not be much. Luke 1:25-56 Matt. 1:18-20,24 their poverty is consistent with Joseph having a small house he had to move grown kids (i.e., teenagers, who were legal adults in Hebrew and Roman law) out while Mary waited at Elizabeth's house.
"home"; not in Greek - irrelevant, that's what taking her to him as his wife would involve.
The Bible doesn't say how long they were betrothed before the annunciation, and arguing it was several months is arguing from silence. But IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SITUATION THAT THE ANGEL WAS SENT RIGHT AFTER THE BETROTHAL. A putative father was needed for respectability.
CONSISTENT WITH JOSEPH AS AGED is his absence from the wedding at Cana. Joseph was dead or bedridden and dying by then.
CONSISTENT WITH THE NEED TO VALIDATE THE OUTRAGEOUS CLAIM OF VIRGIN CONCEPTION (which is what virgin birth is about) would be her remaining virgin, and as legend said, her hymen not breaking in childbirth. (if one miracle, virgin conception, why not another?) a midwife checking her at any time would validate her virginity.
"CE said this as a response to the question as to why she's such a self absorbed know-it-all:
" because I've been studying the things I argue about more than most I argue with." You couldn't possibly know that Christine.
Not to mention that it's a lame answer."
all right, I'll rephrase it less politely. I was trying to be kind. I KNOW MORE THAN YOU PEOPLE DO, AS SHOWN BY THE STUFF YOU POST AND HOW YOU REACT. If you've studied longer you just studied all the wrong stuff longer. I have rarely run into an argument here I haven't seen elsewhere, and knew the refutation before I got here. I want to educate you and prevent or undo damage you and others do.
self absorbed? meaning I'm not absorbed in you and your sloppy "experts" and "scholars" who tend to ignore that THESE WERE NOT REGULAR PEOPLE OF THE TIME.
paul you are either pathetically ignorant or a blustering liar who figures everyone here will believe YOU (delusional?) without even checking. no way to date rocks? dating systems scientists swear by don't work, but they exist. All the creationist writers know this. why don't you? Potassium-argon and uranium-lead are the two big ones and several others.
Susanna,
Your voice here has been missed greatly.
Christine,
As I wrote earlier, you are nothing if not tenacious. But not only does your position not add up—and you continue to add your own presuppositions into the Biblical record—you are now attributing things to me I’d never stated.
You wrote, MARY AND JOSEPH'S BETROTHAL WAS TOO SHORT TO HAVE BEEN INTENDED A YEAR [missing punctuation] a month plus the time spent with Elizabeth and travel time which would not be much. You later wrote, The Bible doesn't say how long they were betrothed before the annunciation, and arguing it was several months is arguing from silence.
I never argued that the betrothal had begun “several months” before the Annunciation. We just don’t know how long Mary and Joseph were betrothed at that point. What we do know is that the betrothal was at least from Luke 1:27 to Luke 2:5—mnēsteuō is used in both verses—a period including the entirety of Mary’s pregnancy (Luke 1:34-35 indicates she was not yet pregnant at the Annunciation). Had Joseph already taken Mary into his home before the events of Luke 2:5, mnēsteuō would not have been used, for the ‘home-taking’ would have constituted a change in status from mnēsteuō, betrothal, to gamos (the ‘home-taking’ is not part of the betrothal, but only the gamos). As I stated more than once, Scripture never uses this latter term in reference to Mary and/or Joseph, though, of course, we assume this change in status did occur at some point. We just don’t know exactly when.
While Scripture does not indicate when the Holy Spirit ‘overshadowed’ Mary, it was at some point after Gabriel’s words in 1:35. The pregnancy should be assumed to be 9 months (+ or – a few days), of course. This 9 months by itself far exceeds a 30 day betrothal in the case of widowhood. Thus, the Joseph-as-widower position is untenable from this fact alone.
But if we take the information we are given, we can easily see how the typical one year betrothal is Biblically supportable. That is, though we don’t know: (a) how long the two were betrothed before the Annunciation, (b) how long the period was between Gabriel’s words telling Mary she will be ‘overshadowed’ by the Holy Spirit and the time at which this ‘overshadowing’ occurred, and (c) how long after the statement of Luke 2:5 indicating their continued status of being betrothed until the two were actually gamos, there is no difficulty seeing that all this could add up to one year: (a) + (b) + Mary’s 9-month pregnancy + (c) = 12 months.
If I understand you correctly, you assume that Matthew 1:24 indicates that the ‘home-taking’ took place while Mary was pregnant (Matthew 1:18-19); but, this would contradict Luke’s use of mnēsteuō in Luke 2:5. The explanation I provided on the previous thread (@11:13 AM) harmonizes the two. That is, the purpose of the angelic visit to Joseph was to dissuade him from divorcing Mary by explaining the cause and purpose of her pregnancy, and, satisfied by the angel’s explanation, Joseph no longer wanted to “divorce her quietly” but continued in the betrothal and eventually advanced to the gamos stage at some point after their trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:5-7).
Mueller Helped Saudis Cover Up Involvement In 9/11 Attacks: Lawsuit
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-07/mueller-helped-saudis-cover-involvement-911-attacks-lawsuit
Traveling further down the Jeffrey Epstein rabbit hole... this is Polly St. George's
most well researched and mind-blowing video yet!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGSOydtOgY
Here’s a 2.5 year old video illustrating dishonesty in reporting oceanic temperatures:
NOAA accused of manipulating global warming data
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPStj82-iV4
This sort of thing has been going on for a while now. Essentially, a NOAA “scientist”—I put this term in quotation marks, for a real scientist follows the data no matter where it goes—discarded temperature readings from ocean buoys, instead using the much less reliable readings from ships, in order to hide a twelve year pause in global warming.
Toward the end of the video you can hear/see Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) of the House Science Committee remark that scientists receive governmental funding only when their ‘findings’ agree with global warming, losing this funding when they vocally disagree.
This is a hoax perpetrated by our own government—individuals within our government who are not-so-secretly pushing for the biggest transfer of wealth ever to be perpetuated, all the while expanding their own ‘carbon-footprint’. Folks like Obama who recently purchased a $15 million mansion just above sea level.
12:09 AM
I don't have an 'opinion' about the Catholic religious institution. I know by scripture that it is a non Christian cult. Anyone can tell this also by their fruits. Which are rotten. Constance turns a blind eye as to how the Catholic cult is central to the New Age. The pope is obviously AN antichrist. He is a globalist, he is complicit in the abuse of children, to put it mildly. Constance prefers religious people, and cultists, to Christian people, whom she seems to loath!
Dear 6:47 PM,
By all means have your opinions about institutions, in this case talking about the Vatican, and certainly with regards to other denominations in their many compromises also, there is much to call out as wrong according to the Bible. Failures that have harmed the Holy Name of the Lord and shipwrecked many hearts. There is rotten fruit just about everywhere in these apostate days, is widespread in Christendom, (oh come Lord Jesus) so yes, the Vatican, among others, has produced very rotten fruit...and yes Scripture should lead the way, and light the path, to show us wherever darkness is to come out of it, separate ourselves, from it. On that I agree.
But your terrible post is a terrible post because of your treatment of persons, in this instance Constance and Susanna, who should be respected and treated as separate from whatever institutions, so it is affront to be so unkind as you certainly were. On that I most definitely disagree with you. I think you should apologize to them. I think the Bible supports that, because your words were aimed at them personally, so unnecessary and judgmental to say the least.
Kindness is in such a short supply these days, but that should not be....especially when we claim Jesus as our Lord. Honestly, I have been guilty myself..and fallen short, way short, in kindness. That goes for me too, 6:47 PM.
Well, 6:47 PM... you certainly don't 'sound' like Christian 'people' here in your post.
7:41 P.M.
No opinions! Just fact.
An estimated one million faithful turn out for Pope Francis mass in Madagascar
'One by one the group started the journey, huddled together in the cold and singing praise to the Virgin Mary'
https://www.france24.com/en/20190908-one-million-people-pope-francis-catholic-mass-madagascar
"No opinions! Just fact."
With a heaping dose of hate?
I can't even imagine how much knowledge and wisdom we have all lost due to Constance's limitations regarding Christine's posts.
No one can state it better than the humble, meek, servant herself (I'm speaking of Christine):
"I KNOW MORE THAN YOU PEOPLE DO, AS SHOWN BY THE STUFF YOU POST AND HOW YOU REACT. If you've studied longer you just studied all the wrong stuff longer. I have rarely run into an argument here I haven't seen elsewhere, and knew the refutation before I got here. I want to educate you and prevent or undo damage you and others do."
Translation: "I know more stuff because I'm smarter 'bout stuff because I study the right stuff and that makes me smarter than you 'bout stuff." "You people are idiots because you don't even study the right stuff, and I know how to refute your stuff with my stuff before I even know what stuff I'm gonna refute."
Personally, I miss Christine's unrestricted posts.
Who else is there that can teach us the proper knowledge, wisdom and specialized techniques that no doubt is required to "evangelize Martians?"
Yeah. I miss her too...like I miss my dentist's drill.
Thomas Dahlheimer,
Regarding your last comment and being upset as to it being said that you are under the impression that Jesus is Satan:
#1) You are under the impression that Jesus is Lucifer.
#2) Lucifer IS Satan.
#3) YOU do not understand nor believe that BUT what you missed was that the comment that so offended you was NOT directed to YOU, it was directed to PAUL, who KNOWS that Lucifer is Satan, and who would THEREBY understand the gravity of the situation when thusly so explained to him. And so you see, THAT was the ACTUAL point of the comment that so (mistakenly) angered you: That you needed educating because YOU are in the gravely serious situation of NOT understanding that Lucifer IS Satan (and that this Lucifer/SATAN is most definitely NOT Jesus)!
Sorry for any misunderstanding and BTW it's GREAT that you believe that "Jesus is divine and holy." Hold onto that and nurture it (and perhaps one day you'll come to understand that truth of reality more fully than ever and consequently come to embrace it so strongly that you [much to your own surprise] wind up eschewing the erroneous teachings of the New Age Movement in the process)!
Is Global Warming ... I mean Climate Change .... I mean Climate CHAOS something new, or has this hoax been around for a while?
Interesting article that proves that this scare hoax has been around since at least the 1930s.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-09/armstrong-climate-change-has-been-routine-scare-tactic-1930s#comment_stream
Anon @ 3:28 AM ...
In the past, in numerous posts, Dahlheimer has used verses out of the falsified modern"bible translations" in order to make his case that "Jesus is Lucifer." Dahlheimer's "belief" is based upon his reading of counterfeit bibles. Of course, he is in his "natural" fallen state, which affords virtually no true spiritual discernment and is predisposed to believe in an obvious lie.
Satan cannot destroy God's word, because God has promised to protect it. However, Satan can, and does, provide counterfeits. This is exactly what the modern translations are.
As far as his belief that "Jesus is divine and holy," that is a sentiment that Satan and his demons believe as well.
RayB,
Perpetuating the same tripe about modern Bible translations, I see. I suppose you didn't bother to read the link I'd sent earlier on Westcott's commentary on the Gospel of John, and the fact that modern translations have a much stronger christology in John 1:18 than does the KJV, which is based on the so-called Textus Receptus, "received text."
I suppose you also didn't catch that the term "Lucifer" as found in Isaiah 14:12 is derived from the Latin Vulgate. See the variations of this verse here and the NAB footnote in this regard:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2014%3A12&version=NASB;KJV;NABRE
KJV-onlyism is its own little cult.
"KJV-onlyism is its own little cult."
Yes, it is. And self-righteous about it, too...
I have a family member that you can't even discuss the Bible with on passages we both say we love, and though we are both Christians, her version is always better, her expressing it always the truer form, always the correct way to look at the text, though we are often
seeing and saying basically the very same thing.
Thump, thump, thump..
The fact is, both Wescott & Hort held numerous heretical views.
Regarding Wescott, here are just a few that are taken from his own writings:
Concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
Concerning the Scriptures:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
Concerning Hell:
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
More heresies of Wescott & Hort:
Concerning Creation ... Denies the LITERAL truth God's creation in Genesis, then (Hort) PRAISES Darwin:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Concerning the Atonement:
"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
OK RayB,
Let’s just take the very first citation of Westcott. Please show me Scripture in which Jesus expressly and specifically calls Himself “God.”
More Wescott & Hort heresies:
Concerning Man: NOTE: "human forms" in their natural state are FALLEN, SINFUL and in REBELLION against God.
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Fort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)
"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
A small sampling of their heretical views concerning Roman Catholic teachings:
Concerning Roman Catholicism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
RayB,
And while you search for that, ponder this section of Westcott's commentary on John, regarding 1:14:
The announcement of the mystery of the Incarnation, embracing and completing all the mysteries of revelation, corresponds (as has been already noticed) to the declaration of the absolute Being of the Word in vs. 1. “He was God;” and “He became flesh:” eternity and time, the divine and the human, are reconciled in Him. “He was with God;” and “He tabernacled among us:” the divine existence is brought into a vital and historical connexion with human life. “He was in the beginning;” and “we beheld His glory:” He who “was” beyond time was revealed for a space to the observation of men.
- B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Westcott’s Commentaries on the Gospel of John, Ephesians, Hebrews, and the Epistles of John; Accordance electronic ed. (Altamonte Springs: OakTree Software, 2006), paragraph 1209.
Like anything, must consider nuances, and one must read more context to understand intended meaning.
The Problem With KJV Onlyism
By Robert Messner
Okay, so there is more than just one problem with the KJV Only movement. I know that. But having grown up in a KJV only church, there is one major problem that sticks out to me above the rest. It is not just a major problem; it is an insurmountable problem. And it drives me crazy.
If the King James Version, which is a 1611 English translation of the Bible, is truly the only infallible, inerrant, and inspired Word of God, then what about the billions of people who have lived and died and never understood a word of English? At this very moment, there are more than 6 billion people in the world who understand little or no English.
And lest we forget, it wasn’t until 1455 that the first Bible was printed (on the Gutenberg Press) and then much later into the 16th century before the Bible became affordable and widely available. These early Bibles were printed in Latin. This begs an important question. Did the Faithful over the centuries who either never had access to the Bible or had to read it in Latin go to hell because they never held the King James Version in their hands?
By claiming that the King James Version is God’s only chosen version, the KJV Only crowd is dismissing tens of centuries of Christendom and implying that the majority of the world populations today cannot know the truth of God’s word. Such a claim is arrogant and nonsensical. Most of these KJV types proclaim their adherence to “Sola Scriptura” yet nowhere in the King James Version does it tell us which version is the true one. Many of these same people also express their disdain for the”traditions of men” while at the same time swearing allegiance to a tradition that that has been passed down to them since 1611.
The King James Only claim is also deeply and disturbingly ethnocentric because it implies that English speakers have a much better chance of inheriting the Kingdom of God because of their ability to read the KJV. This claim is used to show that God bestowed His special blessing on the West and that we are his Chosen people. I recently heard a KJV only proponent suggest that the best way for non-English speakers to know God’s word was to learn English so that they could read the KJV.
You will find many of these KJV Only pastors leading independent fundamentalist churches. This is not surprising. Such pastors use the KJV to wield control over their congregation by claiming that without it (and also without their personal guidance), the truth of the scriptures cannot be ascertained. The thought of attending another church where some modern “devil-inspired” version is being used is simply out of the question.
I will leave you with one final thought about the King James Only issue. The so called “4ooth Anniversary Edition” of the King James Version that Zondervan printed in 2011 was not as it was claimed an “exact replica” of the 1611 edition. Noticeably absent was the Apocrypha (also referred to as the Deuterocanonicals) which had been included in every printing of the KJV until 1885. Say what you want about the inspiration (or lack thereof) of the Apocrypha but any KJV Onlyist who claims that he is using the 1611 version of the KJV is delusional.
https://runningawayfrommychurch.com/kjv-only-king-james-bible-controversy/
https://www.duckduckgo.com/kjv-translation-errors
Craig said to RayB @ 1:37 PM ...
OK RayB,
Let’s just take the very first citation of Westcott. Please show me Scripture in which Jesus expressly and specifically calls Himself “God.”
Craig,
I'm more than a little surprised by your challenge.
Very early on, after I was, by the infinite grace of God, born again, I came to know a Baptist Pastor. Interestingly enough, he made the exact same claim to me that you did. Although I didn't have an answer, I knew within me that his claim was false.
Later, I came to realize Biblically why. (Incidentally, this same "pastor" was later proven to be quite liberal on a number of other issues. His personal character was also more than a little suspect. Not too long after my relationship ended with him, I found out that he was caught stealing money from the church owned bookstore and was fired).
The ONLY reason for someone to state that "Jesus never claimed to be God" is to purposely bring His deity into question. I have heard this claim made by a number of people over the years. In every single case, it was made by a liberal.
To answer your question: Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD. So ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that is contained in Scripture, both OT and NT is the spoken Word of God, which again, is Jesus Christ. Numerous prophesies clearly declare that Jesus is in fact God. John 1:1 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:14 - "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
How about John 10:30 - "I and [my] Father are one."?
What about John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM."?
When Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God." Did Jesus rebuke him? John 20:28
How about when the spoken Word of God (Jesus Christ) stated in the OT: Isaiah 9:6 - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
I could go on .... but will stop here.
Personally, I WOULD NEVER read any "commentary" by a person that held to so many false teachings and heresies.
Did Jesus Ever Say He was God? What did Jesus say about himself? Did he ever say he was God? See for yourself…
Others were convinced that Jesus was God:
Paul: "Christ is the visible image of the invisible God."1
John: "He existed in the beginning with God."2
Peter: "you must worship Christ as Lord of your life."3
But what did Jesus say about himself?
Did he ever identify himself as God? According to the Bible...absolutely! Below are some of the statements he made.
Is Jesus God? See These Statements
Jesus Said He Existed Before Abraham
"Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad." The people said, "You aren't even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!"4
Jesus Said to See Him is the Same as Seeing God
Jesus shouted to the crowds, "If you trust me, you are trusting not only me, but also God who sent me. For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark."5
"No one can come to the Father except through me. If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is. From now on, you do know him and have seen him!" Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied."
Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"6
Jesus Said He Could Forgive Sins
"...that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he then said to the paralytic--"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God..."7
He said to them, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."8
Jesus Said He Is the Judge and Can Grant Eternal Life
"For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father."9
Anon 3:50 PM; 8:20-21 PM,
You've still not shown me the Scripture in which Jesus declares, "I am God" or "I am Deity". That's because there isn't any. Even the "I am" statement in John 8:58 is subject to interpretation--the same exact syntax in the Greek is present in the statement of the blind man Jesus healed in John 9:9, but we certainly don't think this blind man was making an "I AM" claim, do we? But, this does not mean Jesus isn't God, as part of the Trinity.
If you read the section of Westcott's commentary I cited above @ 1:43 PM you'll see that Westcott affirms the Deity of Christ.
The careful theologian only makes statements that are backed up by what Scripture explicitly states. Certainly we can make extrapolations from these statements, but if we're intellectually honest we would never make the claim "Jesus said He was God", because Jesus not once made this explicit claim. Thus, the careful theologian takes the claims Jesus DID make, and then explains how those statements (and actions) can and should be understood to be implicit claims of Deity, as opposed to outright, explicit claims.
The bottom line is that Westcott does not deny Jesus' Deity. In fact, he affirms it. For RayB, or anyone, to claim otherwise is dishonest. To proof-text various statements without doing any firsthand investigation is intellectually lazy. And, to make the claim--however it was specifically worded--that Westcott is a tool of Satan, or what-have-you, requires some specific evidence to back up the claim.
To: Mr. RayB @11:46 AM
From: Miss Cindy Brady
Not you TOO?!?
That's ALL I already hear here at HOME, ALL day long:
"MARTIANS, MARTIANS, MARTIANS!"
Oh, wait...
I should clarify this statement above: To proof-text various statements without doing any firsthand investigation is intellectually lazy.. I'm referring to RayB's proof-texts of Westcott. But it's not just intellectually lazy; it's downright reckless. First of all, if these citations are from someone other than the author--in this case, Westcott--then, the intellectually honest individual will search out the work in question by following the footnote reference, in order to see if it's a faithful quotation; and then said individual will check the overall context to see if there could be some missing nuance.
From my own experience, time and time again, I've found individuals--to include supposedly highly regarded Christian scholars--overlook an important nuance in their source, such that the source in question is actually stating something completely contrary to what the author claims they are saying!
I don't agree with everything I've read of Westcott, but he affirms a high Christology, and I tend to agree with him wholeheartedly when He writes about Christ. That is, He unequivocally affirms the Deity of Christ, and so do I.
Craig, I appreciate your academic points (thank you) however I will post this also...
John 10:36
"do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' BECAUSE I SAID, 'I AM THE SON OF GOD'?"
(https://biblehub.com/john/10-36.htm)
John 13:13
"You call Me Teacher and LORD; and you are right, for so I am."
Revelation 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the ALMIGHTY."
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/The-I-Am~s-Of-Christ
RayB,
Sorry, it's been a long day for me, and I referenced your 3:50 PM comment as an Anon. That clarified, my two comments above were for both you and the Anon.
You wrote: When Thomas called Jesus "my Lord and my God." Did Jesus rebuke him? John 20:28
This is a verse I like to use to illustrate that (a) Thomas referred to Jesus as "God", and (b) Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for doing so. HOWEVER, this is NOT Jesus making an explicit claim of Deity, is it? Yes, we would reasonably assume that if Jesus were not God, He'd certainly have rebuked Thomas for referring to Him in that manner, and since Jesus did not rebuke Thomas, it's reasonable to assume He did not disagree with Thomas' exclamatory remark. But, that's not the same as Jesus making the explicit statement "I am God" or "I am Deity".
Here's a somewhat analogous example. If I say, "the sun rises in the east, and the sun sets in the west" someone could claim that I am a flat-earther. On the surface, this statement seems to deny the heliocentricity of our solar system and is more congruent with a flat-earth ideology. But, I'm not a flat-earther! This is why nuance and larger context is so important, most especially in theology and Christology. Exactness is what counts.
To not specifically affirm something is not the same thing as denying this same thing. Had Westcott stated, "Jesus is not God", then I certainly would have had a problem with that!
Anon 12:27 AM,
None of these are explicit claims of Jesus’ Deity either. Now, don’t get me wrong, these can and should be used (except the second one—see below) as evidence to make a case of Jesus’ Deity.
On John 10:36, I would—and have—used this verse in its context to make the case for the Deity of Christ, for the reactions of Jesus’ adversaries (and in 10:31) sure do appear to indicate they thought Jesus was making an implicit Deity claim! But, I’ve read others understand this as Jesus’ adversaries thinking He was making a Messianic claim, not a Deity claim, with the attendant understanding that the Messiah was not necessarily understood to be Deity.
As for John 13:13, “Lord” (there’s no way to indicate additional emphasis, like the ALL CAPS you use, in the Greek) is not an explicit Deity claim. Yes, in the LXX “YHWH” from the Hebrew Tanakh (“OT”) is translated to the Greek as kyrios, “Lord”, and is indicated in all caps in our OT where “YHWH” is original, and Jesus is routinely referred to as “Lord” in NT citations of the OT where “YHWH” was original; however, John 13:13 is not an OT citation and this is not expressly a Deity claim. Both “teacher” and “lord” were terms routinely used for rabbis (teachers).
Revelation 1:8 is interesting. These are not the words of Jesus, but the words of “the Lord God”—despite my NIV 1984 red-letter edition putting these words in red ink. Even the accompanying note in this Bible implicitly indicates these words are not Jesus’: …In [Revelation] 22:13 Jesus applies the same title [‘the Alpha and the Omega’] to himself.
But the fact that Jesus is quoted as applying “the Alpha and Omega” to Himself—just as “the One seated on the Throne” (21:5) in 21:6 does—is a strong implication of His Deity, since this title was claimed by “the Lord God”, “the Almighty” in 1:8.
You'll note, Craig, that it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John. He, John, has written down that which Jesus Christ revealed to him. It is logical, therefore, that when the assertion, 'I Am the Alpha and the Omega' (regardless of others 'notes'), is made by Jesus Christ to John, that it is an expressed and unequivocal statement from Jesus Christ that he is indeed God.
Craig,
Simple question for you:
Is Jesus Christ the Word of God ??
Yes or No ?
Anon 6:56 AM,
Compare to the words of Rev 1:4-5:
...Grace and peace to you, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ...
The portion in bold refers to the One on His throne, in distinction from Jesus Christ. Verses 5, 6 ("to serve His God and Father") and 7 ("even those who pierced Him") all clearly refer to Jesus. But, there’s a shift in verse 8, signified in part by the words “who is and who was and who is to come”, which are identical to some of the bolded words in verse 4, and in part by the designation “the Lord God”. This latter phrase in Greek is kyrios ho theos, which occurs 12 times in the Textus Receptus: Mark 12:29; Luke 1:32, 68; Acts 2:39; 3:22; 7:37 [TR only], Revelation 4:8; 18:8; 19:6 (“the Lord God and the Lamb”), 22:5, 6. It is noticeably absent in the TR of Revelation 1:8 (it’s simply ho kyrios, “the Lord”), the complete moniker found only in the newer, modern Greek text underlying modern versions.
Another clue to the identity of the One speaking in Rev 1:8 is “the Almighty”, which is pantokratōr, in Greek. This term is found only in 2 Cor 6:18; Revelation 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22. It never refers to Jesus.
RayB (@ 8:32 AM),
Can we replace "Jesus Christ" for "the Word" in John 1:1? Was "Jesus Christ" made flesh in John 1:14, or was "the Word" made flesh?
To: Mr. RayB @11:46 AM
From: Miss Cindy Brady
Not you TOO?!?
That's ALL I already hear here at HOME, ALL day long:
"MARTIANS, MARTIANS, MARTIANS!"
Oh, wait...
I'm not Cindy, I'm JAN!
https://youtu.be/ICVXf8Vznec
Craig,
So are you making the claim that Jesus Christ did not become the Word of God until he was made flesh?
I assume you believe that Jesus is the "same yesterday, today and forever" ?
Epstein Did NOT Die in His Prison Cell: FEDS
https://truepundit.com/epstein-did-not-die-in-his-prison-cell-feds/
Craig,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The WORD is DEFINED by SCRIPTURE as being none other than Jesus Christ.
What about that is confusing to you?
RayB,
You keep trying to find a 'gotcha'. Once again, you need to discern nuance and consider complete context.
Craig,
I'm not trying to "find a gotcha" at all. I'm simply stating what the Word of God is stating as fact.
You can't seem to grasp that the Word and Jesus Christ are one and the same AND are never changing from eternity.
What is it about this that you are finding so confusing?
Getting back to Wescott & Hort's false beliefs and heresies that I enumerated, why haven't you addressed any of those (other than defending Wescott's statement that Jesus never claimed to be God ???
See truepundit story above: Epstein WAS TAKEN OUT OF HIS CELL and reportedly A SLUMPED OVER (SUBSTITUTE?) BODY IN A WHEELCHAIR came back! THINK ABOUT THIS: WHY take the added risks involved by taking him out of his cell just to kill him? If that's what actually happened, maybe they had a reason, BUT of course you MUST take him out if you: SWITCH him!
--------------------
Is Epstein Dead OR Did He Disappear into a Pedo Protection Program?
...
I believe Epstein is NOT dead. He was taken from the prison and disappeared into the dense fog of the ruling elite’s minion project program. I believe he is alive and well in Israel. I have no evidence of this, just precedent.
It’s NOT happenstance he was supposedly found dead just a couple of days AFTER locking up his millions and the names of coconspirators in a trust fund. At the time of signing his will, I believe Epstein knew he would escape justice.
...
https://kurtnimmo.blog/2019/09/09/is-epstein-dead-or-did-he-disappear-into-a-pedo-protection-program/
Multiple Cops Fired for Exposing Illegal Quota System Forcing Officers to Make Arrests
http://dcclothesline.com/2019/09/11/multiple-cops-fired-for-exposing-illegal-quota-system-forcing-officers-to-make-arrests/
Come on Craig, your assuming a "gotcha" intent from Ray B. You have rules of discourse for others that differ from those you hold yourself too.
Do you think that ego can quench the Holy Spirit? Do you think that the letter killeth? Here's an example: several months ago in the comments here, Paul, who is a passionate brother in Christ, wrote a post that I believe was very much offered because he was greatly affected by the Holy Spirit at the time he wrote it. It was obvious from what he wrote that he wanted to glorify his Saviour. To me he was bearing his heart in praise, and gratitude to Jesus. In what he wrote there was mention of how the word of God was food. Something to that anyway. Please excuse me if I'm not describing this to perfection. You had the audacity to correct him on what he had just said about the digesting, or chewing upon the word of God, that he didn't have proper understanding of what that meant exactly. Don't you think the Lord finds such behavior offensive???? Would you stop someone who was pouring their heart out to the Lord in praise to correct them on some small imperfect understanding you perceived in what they were speaking? To me, that is entering very dangerous territory! I felt in your exchange with Paul in that thread, that you spiritually trampled upon someone who was praising the Lord, and worshiping, and glorifying Him in statement. Not wise, for one so knowledgeable as you! Perhaps spend more time removing the more in your own eye, that trying to remove the speck in your brother's eye.
should be "mote", not more, @ 11:58. Spellcheck! Although "more" kind of works that way too.
'Lucifer king of hell': Church vandalized after opposing 'drag queen' event
http://www.wnd.com/2019/09/lucifer-king-church-vandalized-opposing-drag-queen-event/
ALL Soda, Sugary or Diet, Linked to Early Death!
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/09/09/all-soda-sugary-or-diet-linked-to-early-death-in-new-study/
http://wakingtimes.com/2019/09/05/now-its-official-us-visa-can-be-denied-if-you-or-even-your-friends-are-critical-of-american-policies/
http://newswars.com/new-sexual-fetish-couples-getting-pregnant-and-having-multiple-abortions/
http://newswars.com/illinois-hospital-created-comfort-room-for-aborted-babies-to-die-in/
CNN Gets Blown Out In Ratings!
https://freedomoutpost.com/cnn-gets-blown-out-in-ratings/
Rand Paul Celebrates… Good riddance to John Bolton!
www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/rand-paul-celebrates-good-riddance-to-john-bolton/
Tulsi does NOT want open borders!
www.theepochtimes.com/tulsi-gabbard-says-she-does-not-support-open-borders-and-even-supports-some-physical-barriers_3076403.html
I remember watching 'All In The Family' over 40 years ago and thinking "What a profoundly stupid thing the writers had Archie Bunker say when he was stunned to find out that his newly deceased long-time friend 'Stretch' Cunningham was Jewish." Namely:
"A Jew's name ain't supposed to have no 'ham' in it."
16:30 mark
https://youtu.be/PFQW10m-Pys
Why mention this NOW you ask, dear reader?
Well, because...
Burger King Is Taking the ‘Ham’ Out Of ‘Hamburgers’ To Avoid Offending Muslims
Burger King is dropping the word “ham” from the names of hamburgers on its South African menu...
https://www.weaselzippers.us/432058-burger-king-takes-the-ham-out-of-hamburgers-to-avoid-offending-muslims/
Jesus did not even have to explicitly say He is God, though He said many, many affirming things from Scripture that show us we can readily and exactly draw that conclusion! His words in first person about Himself make this so clear a child can grasp it! His use of ancient Scripture completed the picture as He stood before men, 100% man and 100% God totally embodied in Himself, that He is the One all mankind could know by faith that He is indeed God. Only Jesus Christ could pull that off! Perfection unveiled.
So the the really point is, He PROVED, multiple times that He is God! The very One that the Scriptures promised so God's Word backs Him up completely so that we may believe, and the plan from the beginning. The Spirit of God imparts conviction and understanding to those willing to surrender to the Lord's authority and the fact remains that Jesus Christ is God..One with the Father and One with the Spirit, whether mere human beings choose to believe Him to trust Him or not!
Why make mincemeat out of what is so obvious?
The humble believe Him.
The proud may parse and still not arrive at or settle for, the truth.....
RayB,
Haven’t we already established that Jesus never stated “I am God” or “I am Deity”, but that I and Westcott both affirm Christ’s Deity? Thus, I’m not sure where you’re going with this line of enquiry—except some attempt at a “gotcha”.
Like you, I used to think Hebrews 13:8 was a great verse to ‘prove’ Jesus eternality. But, it’s not. Jesus is “the same yesterday” likely refers to the time of the Incarnation; “today” likely refers to the time of the writer of Hebrews (or, some may construe today’s time), and the last part is most literally “[in]to the ages” (See Young’s Literal Translation). The Greek is eis tous aiōnas, and this same exact verbiage is found in Revelation 20:10 pertaining to the devil who will be judged “eternally”. We surely wouldn’t think the devil has always been in the Lake of Fire, would we?
As regards John 1:1, you’ve still yet to grasp nuance and full context, apparently.
Excuse me @ 2:00 PM, So the real point is
Craig said to RayB (in part) @ 2:02 PM ...
"Haven’t we already established that Jesus never stated “I am God” or “I am Deity”, but that I and Westcott both affirm Christ’s Deity? Thus, I’m not sure where you’re going with this line of enquiry—except some attempt at a “gotcha”.
Craig,
Please don't include me in your "we" as far as what YOU have "established." I don't agree with you in the slightest.
Regarding your reference to Hebrew 13:8 ....
Please answer the following questions:
1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?
PS: you still have not addressed any of the false beliefs and heresies of Wescott & Hort. Again, why is that?
To Anon @ 2:04 PM ....
VERY GOOD question !
WHAT exactly is the point?
2:04 PM was correcting a spelling mistake not asking a question.
18 Years Ago TODAY!
https://youtu.be/igX7Z8VstN4
https://youtu.be/_EmLvMCRJok
https://youtu.be/8ObvK4NR_LI
https://www.ae911truth.org/
Ray B.,
The stench of Craig's hubris in not admitting when he is wrong is no doubt foul in the nostrils of the Lord Himself. Indeed, there is something very Pharisaical, yea even Jesuitical of Craig's stubborn reliance on vain philosophy, straining at a gnat yet swallowing a camel. Jesus used many terms and in context in which He identifies himself as God.
There's something rather telling about Susanna's fading into the background happened at around the same time as Craig (SJ?) came on to the scene.
RayB,
I’ll pair your questions with four more, plus one:
- Was Jesus Christ born?
- Was “the Word”, ho logos in John 1, born?
- Did Jesus Christ grow in wisdom and stature?
- Did Jesus Christ die?
- Can God die?
This diversion began after I challenged you regarding your list of Westcott quotes, specifically this one:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
I challenged you to provide a Scripture in which Jesus makes the declarative statement “I am God” or “I am Deity” in order to back up the first part of Westcott’s statement (“He never speaks of Himself directly as God”). You’ve yet to provide such a statement—because there isn’t one in Scripture. In any case, you apparently believe the statement above is heretical, and I fail to see how this is so. Since you are the one making the accusation against Westcott, it is incumbent on you to back up your charge. So, what is heretical with this statement?
I’d already quoted a selection of his commentary relative to John 1:14, in order to illustrate that the author is not only not denying the Deity of Christ, but affirming it—in case this is what you were thinking.
RayB,
It took a bit of digging, but I found the complete context for the Westcott quote above, which is the final sentence in some commentary regarding Thomas’ confession (John 20:28). Can you tell me how this is heretical?
------
And Thomas...My Lord and my God The words are beyond question addressed to Christ (saith unto him), and cannot but be understood as a confession of belief as to His Person (comp. ‘Syn. OEc.’ v. Can. 12, De tribus capitulis) expressed in the form of an impassioned address. The discipline of self-questioning, followed by the revelation of tender compassion and divine knowledge, enabled St Thomas to rise to the loftiest view of the Lord given in the Gospels. His sublime, instantaneous confession, won from doubt, closes historically the progress of faith which St John traces. At first (John 1:1) the Evangelist [John the Gospel writer] declared his own faith: at the end he shews that this faith was gained in the actual intercourse of the disciples with Christ. The record of this confession therefore forms the appropriate close to his narrative; and the words which follow shew that the Lord accepted the declaration of His Divinity as the true expression of faith. He never speaks of Himself directly as God (comp. 5:18), but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.
Craig,
I have no problem answering your questions, and, thank you for giving me the opportunity.
I do find it very telling Craig, that you are persistent in NOT answering any of mine.
Q: Was Jesus Christ born?
A: Jesus PREEXISTED His ADVENT. He MANIFESTED Himself in the flesh, in order to provide a perfect sacrifice for humanity. What was "born" was his lowering himself by being manifested into human flesh. As GOD, He never was "born." What was "born" was the manifestation into human flesh.
Q: Was "the Word", ho logos in John 1, born?
A: The Word IS God, therefore, there never was a time when it didn't exist. The Word and God are inseparable.
Q: Did Jesus grow in wisdom and stature.
A: Taking on HUMAN FLESH, and being "TEMPTED" as we are, Jesus "lowered himself below the angels." In his human flesh, he literally lowered himself in such a way that, when it came to his humanity, he suffered in like manner that all humans suffered. This was not only the plan, but HIS CHOICE. The God/Man grew in "wisdom and stature," but it WAS HIS HUMANITY that did so.
Q: Did Jesus Christ die?
A: Of course he died, HIS HUMANITY DIED as the perfect, sinless, suffering sacrifice. Death is eternal, precisely why the sacrifice, contrary to the RCC false doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, was a ONCE, NEVER TO BE REPEATED SACRIFICE. If Christ's Deity died on the cross, then his Deity would no longer exist.
Q: Can God die?
A: Of course not. God is eternal. There never was a time in which he never existed, and there can never be a time when he won't exist; therefore, GOD CANNOT DIE.
During His ADVENT, Jesus was the God/Man ... the Son of Man. He purposely lowered Himself in order to dwell among us.
Craig,
You are making the exact same arguments AGAINST the Deity of Christ that the Jehovah Witnesses make ... a group that I have had extensive encounters with.
Question: are you a JW ?
Craig,
I continue to notice that you have ignored ALL of my questions, except one.
You seem totally obsessed in defending Wescott's statement that "Jesus never stated that he was God."
As I stated before, this is a statement that I have heard posed by numerous people over the years. IT IS A DIRECT ATTACK, in a very clever manner, upon Christ's Deity.
Why haven't you addressed any of my other questions, such as ...
1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?
PS: you still have not addressed any of the false beliefs and heresies of Wescott & Hort. Again, why is that?
Craig,
Re: your 11:15 AM post.
Congratulations. You found one of Wescott's statements that agrees with mine, i.e. that Thomas addressing Jesus as "my Lord and My God" was not rejected by Christ.
You seem to have struggled, or as you so adeptly put it, "it took a bit of digging" to agree on one of my posts that I used to prove Christ's Divinity, but, somehow, you have ignored virtually everything else.
Why is that Craig?
RayB,
You seem to enjoy quoting others out of context in order to ‘prove’ your own pretexts. With respect to your 11:38 AM post, referencing my 11:15 AM post, I stated that it “took some digging” to find the complete context of the pretexted Westcott sentence you supplied. The reason it “took some digging” is that you did not reference which edition you—or the individual you quoted second hand—sourced this particular quote from, or the particular chapter/verse of John on which this provides commentary. (I suspect this is because you relied on Riplinger’s shoddy book—correct me if I’m wrong by providing more info, such as edition, publisher, year.) Since I have Westcott’s commentary on John in software I was able to do this by trying keywords, finally finding it with “His revelation”.
The implicit point of my 11:15 PM comment was to show that additional context can shed much needed light on a quote, and this may well be the same in the other selections you cited earlier. The main point was to illustrate that the larger context of this particular quote reveals that Westcott affirms the Deity of Christ.
As I stated on the other thread to call Westcott & Hort “deceiving agents of Satan” is libelous. Can you provide something more concrete to substantiate your claim that these two are “deceiving agents of Satan”? Thus far, you’ve not addressed the counters I’d posed in the previous thread, including the one in the immediately preceding sentence. Since you are the one who made the initial charges, it is incumbent on you to do so.
Dear Craig,
Why haven't you addressed any of my other questions, such as ...
1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?
PS: you still have not addressed any of the false beliefs and heresies of Wescott & Hort. Again, why is that?
PSS: WHY are you hiding your true "beliefs" ??
RayB,
My beliefs have been posted on my blog for quite a while now:
https://notunlikelee.wordpress.com/statement-of-faith/
You continue to deflect from the questions I'd posed on both this thread and the previous one. When will you address the substance of my 12:31 PM comment, as well as my earlier ones?
Okay, okay, enough is quite enough, gentleman!
Let's end this 'pissing contest' very simply:
(Going alphabetically) Craig, here is a list of RayB's questions to you this thread...
1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?
5. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God, Yes or No?
6. Are you a JW ?
7. What is your view of what RayB said and listed as being the false beliefs and heresies of Wescott & Hort?
RayB, here is a list of Craig's questions to you this thread...
#1) Can you provide something more concrete to substantiate your claim that Westcott & Hort are “deceiving agents of Satan”?
#2) What is heretical with this statement: "He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him."
(Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297)?
#3) Which Scriptures are there in which Jesus expressly and specifically calls Himself “God”?
#4) Thomas calling Jesus "my Lord and my God."
(John 20:28) is NOT Jesus making an explicit claim of Deity, is it?
Each of you answer all of these questions. If either of you post anything else before doing so, you lose.
Craig said to RayB @ 1:44 PM ....
"You continue to deflect from the questions..."
I have to hand it to you Craig, when it comes to Chutzpah, you get the Gold Medal.
Craig wins.
And RayB loses (but in so doing simultaneously gained the aforementioned Gold Medal).
Craig just can't find it in him to answer a few very simple theological questions.
I wonder why that is?
Why haven't you addressed any of my other questions, such as ...
1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?
While Craig refuses to answer my questions, I have no problem whatsoever answering his ....
Craig,
I have no problem answering your questions, and, thank you for giving me the opportunity.
I do find it very telling Craig, that you are persistent in NOT answering any of mine.
Q: Was Jesus Christ born?
A: Jesus PREEXISTED His ADVENT. He MANIFESTED Himself in the flesh, in order to provide a perfect sacrifice for humanity. What was "born" was his lowering himself by being manifested into human flesh. As GOD, He never was "born." What was "born" was the manifestation into human flesh.
Q: Was "the Word", ho logos in John 1, born?
A: The Word IS God, therefore, there never was a time when it didn't exist. The Word and God are inseparable.
Q: Did Jesus grow in wisdom and stature.
A: Taking on HUMAN FLESH, and being "TEMPTED" as we are, Jesus "lowered himself below the angels." In his human flesh, he literally lowered himself in such a way that, when it came to his humanity, he suffered in like manner that all humans suffered. This was not only the plan, but HIS CHOICE. The God/Man grew in "wisdom and stature," but it WAS HIS HUMANITY that did so.
Q: Did Jesus Christ die?
A: Of course he died, HIS HUMANITY DIED as the perfect, sinless, suffering sacrifice. Death is eternal, precisely why the sacrifice, contrary to the RCC false doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, was a ONCE, NEVER TO BE REPEATED SACRIFICE. If Christ's Deity died on the cross, then his Deity would no longer exist.
Q: Can God die?
A: Of course not. God is eternal. There never was a time in which he never existed, and there can never be a time when he won't exist; therefore, GOD CANNOT DIE.
During His ADVENT, Jesus was the God/Man ... the Son of Man. He purposely lowered Himself in order to dwell among us.
Ray B., Preach, brother!
Keep contending for the Faith once delivered to the saints. Don't worry about the Jesuitical snakes hissing lies at 7:13 PM and 7:23 PM. Craig's points are longwinded and nonsensical (albeit shrouded in unnecessary convolutions and swirls of elaborated speech) , which is why he refuses to honestly answer your questions.
In view of Dorothy death and her unceasing work against the New Age Movement since our conversation about same in early 1983, I find it ironic that Isobel Blackthorn's book THE UNLIKELY OCCULTIST about Alice Ann Bailey was printed in Monee, Illinois on September 7, 2019. I am supposing that it is a "print on demand" volume. Dorothy lived in Monee, Illinois. I am the apparent villain of that book for "demonizing Alice Bailey." Poor lady (Alice) -- so misunderstood just because she named her publishing venture4 "Lucifer Publishing Company." The author claims my book HIDDEN DANGERS was "foundational", has endured nearly 40 years, and that I maintain a 'strong internet presence." Well, maybe it's time to make that internet presence stronger!
Constance
Dorothy was a convert to what is popularly called, "Judaism", in modern times (the majority of its adherents claiming the Babylonian Talmud (the Pharisaical oral traditions) as Torah (and not the Pentateuch). She was also an ardent defender of the Kabbalah (a book of witchcraft originating in Ancient Babylon), which is also held high by adherents to the New Age Movement. Dorothy rejected Jesus Christ and regularly attacked Christians here. Those who dared speak the truth about her nature were often immediately labeled, "Anti-Semitic", even when they had merely defended themselves against her attacks ... moreover, Dorothy was NOT a Semite, she was, to reiterate, a convert.
She was a spitefully cruel woman in life, unrelenting and unforgiving to those who dared stand up to her frequent and vile attacks. It is hypocrisy to pretend otherwise. It is telling that Dorothy's passing has met with only a few mediocre voices of regret. What is even more saddening is that Dorothy, unless she repented on her deathbed (which we have no proof of either her or Josef Stalin doing), is as a consequence of her own choices, now separated from God for eternity.
She had a very comfortable life here on Earth, economically speaking, and was very much against helping the poor as well as being more than willing with her words to tear the throat out of anyone who disagreed with her, or who was humble (which she saw as weakness). Dorothy died in her sins and left a stumbling block for her sons. Let us hope the Lord God will create a miracle and open their eyes so that they come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.
There is nothing graceless about abiding by the truth here about who Dorothy was and the hurt she caused people. It is a great disservice to those who suffer because of cruelty such as hers if we do not do so.
RayB,
I’ve already implicitly answered your questions earlier @ my 2:02 PM comment regarding Hebrews 13:8 and in my comment @ 1:44 PM, in which I posted a link to my statement of beliefs on my blog. Nonetheless, I’ll post a more detailed comment about my beliefs. Before doing so, it seems to me that our Christological and Trinitarian beliefs are, essentially, the same, and that any differences are in interpretations of details. You may see these interpretational differences as amounting to some sort of error or heresy on my part, and, if so, so be it. I don’t think my understanding and expression of Christology or the Trinity to be at odds with Christianity, to include the early Church Councils/creeds.
Part of these differences will have to do with perspective. The Biblical authors phrase things a bit differently from each other. I’ll begin by using John the Gospel writer’s vernacular and compare to the others. Before going further, I do believe that all Scripture (which includes the 66 books of the Protestant Bible) is “God-breathed”, and as part of this belief, I believe the Spirit superintended the human author to use his own words in conveying God’s intent.
Another difference regarding perspective is whether things are phrased from an eternal or a temporal perspective. More on this below.
The way I interpret you, RayB, is that you believe “the Word” is Scripture, and that Jesus as “the Word” means Jesus is something akin to ‘Scripture made flesh’; i.e., that you believe “the Word” (ho logos) is coextensive with Jesus. You may correct me if I’m wrong on this. I state this given your use of “it” in the following statement you made in answering one of the questions I’d posed: The Word IS God, therefore, there never was a time when it didn't exist. The Word and God are inseparable. I disagree with this, in part because of Jesus’ prayer in John 17 (“thy word” in 17:6, 8 [“words”], 14, 17).
Now I shall proceed.
[continued]
[continuing]
“The Word” in John 1:1 is the eternally existing Son of God the Father (aka God the Son), as part of the Trinity. “The Word” is eternally ‘begotten’, not born. “The Word” eternally exists. “The Word” is uncreated and is the agent of all creation (John 1:3). At the Incarnation, “the Word” began a new mode of existence as ‘Word-made-flesh’ (John 1:14), and this coincides with the virginal conception and birth (Matt 1:25; Luke 2:11) of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, aka Jesus Christ. Thus, the uncreated, eternal Word became the temporal Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, uncreated Word. This God-man (hyphenated, not God/man as you wrote, which can be construed as an admixture of Deity and humanity), Jesus Christ, is 100% Deity and 100% man, His Deity not infringing His humanity and vice versa. Jesus Christ entered our temporal realm during the period of the Incarnation (yet remaining eternal in His Deity), then returned to the Father. From the Incarnation and forward in time Deity is hypostatically conjoined with humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ.
The writer of Hebrews says “in these last days” God has spoken “in/by/through [my] Son” (1:2: en huiō̧). This Biblical author’s use of “Son” here is ingenious as it can be understood as in the eternal, Trinitarian sense and/or the temporal, Incarnational sense. The writer plays on these meanings throughout the first chapter especially.
In the exalted prose of the Colossians ‘hymn’ (some scholars think Paul adapted a Christian hymn into his epistle here) of 1:15-18 the implicit subject of verse 15 is the Father’s “beloved Son” (from verse 13). This also has the advantage of a bit of ambiguity as to the identity of this “Son”. Is it the preexistent “Son” or the God-man? Of course, these are one and the same, but from our temporal perspective there is a difference. In verse 16 it must be the preexistent Son, for Paul describes Him as the agent of creation, which, from a strictly temporal perspective, cannot be the Divine-human Jesus Christ whose humanity is part of creation.
In the Philippians 2:6-11, though Paul uses “Jesus Christ” in verse 5, he is careful to begin this section (probably adapted from a Christian hymn) “in [the] form of God existing” (en morphȩ̄ theou hyparchōn) to differentiate his pre-theanthropic (God-man) existence from his Incarnational one (“made in the likeness of men”). This is to illustrate the temporal progression from Deity to Deity-humanity.
With the above explanation I shall answer your questions:
1. Is Jesus Christ the Word of God?
Yes.
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
No. See above and my answer to 3.
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
Jesus Christ, the God-man, was born in Bethlehem, but He preexisted as the uncreated, eternal “Word”.
4. Has Jesus Christ changed at any time, or, has He always been the same, as in "yesterday, today, and forever"?
In His Deity He is ontologically unchanged, but in His humanity He “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40, KJV).
Craig says:
"2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
No. See above and my answer to 3."
The Word of God states:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
Who is the "Word" ?
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
"John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me." John 1:13,14
The Word is God. Jesus Christ is God. God is eternal and there never was a time when God didn't exist.
Craig's answer "NO" to the question; Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God? is utterly false.
RayB,
You cannot just substitute "Jesus Christ" for "the Word" in John 1:1 as I explained above. Even the Baptizer's words in John 1:15 illustrates this: He who comes after me [Christ was born after the Baptizer]...was before me. He was "before" the Baptizer as "the Word", not as "Jesus Christ".
Once again, despite the fact that I've explained above the difference between the eternal and the temporal with respect to the God-man, you've proved that you have no understanding of nuance. You just wish to argue. As I stated earlier, you're looking for some sort of 'gotcha.'
Ray B., One can only conclude by Craig's additions and subtractions when it comes to the integrity of Holy Scripture, of which he takes many things out of context, omitting some things and asserting others, that Craig denies the Eternal Triune Nature of God, as being three Persons in eternal agreement (existing eternally before the World was created, and continuing to exist eternally after the World was created).
It is tiring to list all his errors here, and by his own words has bound himself in that 'gotcha' moment he is so afraid of you declaring.
Here, of course, is one website with many Old Testament passages showing the Triune Nature of God (yes, before Jesus Christ was born in human form in Bethlehem, we see His Divine existence as a Person, as God the Son, the Word of God. There are, of course, many websites one could use for expediency here to show how heretical and eternally redundant Craig's claims are: https://answersingenesis.org/who-is-god/the-trinity/god-is-triune/
"You cannot just substitute "Jesus Christ" for "the Word" in John 1:1 as I explained above. Even the Baptizer's words in John 1:15 illustrates this: He who comes after me [Christ was born after the Baptizer]...was before me. He was "before" the Baptizer as "the Word", not as "Jesus Christ"."
By your own statement above you just proved the only conclusion to draw is Jesus Christ is the Word! But you should have read the whole chapter for the context! The entire chapter goes on to clarify exactly that. Plus, the Word was with the Father in the beginning...in Genesis 1:26 "let US make man in our Image"...Father, Son, and Holy Spirit present then, and present now. God spoke and the world was, and God spoke His Word, found all throughout the Biblical canon, as a promise to men that He would, and then did, send us a Savior.
He kept His WORD and gave us Jesus..
Context, my man, context!
Don't make this difficult when it isn't.
Anon 1:43 PM, RayB’s cheerleader,
You wrote, Here, of course, is one website with many Old Testament passages showing the Triune Nature of God (yes, before Jesus Christ was born in human form in Bethlehem, we see His Divine existence as a Person, as God the Son, the Word of God… [my bold added for emphasis].
Do you belong to the same KJV-only cult group as RayB? I ask because, like any member of a cult, the mind is numbed to where the individual can only understand his/her own group’s specifically-worded teachings, and flat out cannot comprehend anything that is worded in the slightest way differently, even if it says, in essence, the same exact thing. (See Robert Lifton’s work, as referenced by Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_Reform_and_the_Psychology_of_Totalism.) This mirrors what a previous Anon wrote to me, in response to my statement "KJV-onlyism is its own little cult", which bears repeating:
Yes, it is. And self-righteous about it, too...
I have a family member that you can't even discuss the Bible with on passages we both say we love, and though we are both Christians, her version is always better, her expressing it always the truer form, always the correct way to look at the text, though we are often
seeing and saying basically the very same thing.
So, cheerleader of RayB, how is the bolded portion above different from this statement I made @ 9:14 AM?:
“The Word” in John 1:1 is the eternally existing Son of God the Father (aka God the Son), as part of the Trinity. “The Word” is eternally ‘begotten’, not born. “The Word” eternally exists. “The Word” is uncreated and is the agent of all creation (John 1:3). At the Incarnation, “the Word” began a new mode of existence as ‘Word-made-flesh’ (John 1:14), and this coincides with the virginal conception and birth (Matt 1:25; Luke 2:11) of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Messiah, the Christ, aka Jesus Christ. Thus, the uncreated, eternal Word became the temporal Jesus Christ, while remaining the eternal, uncreated Word. This God-man…Jesus Christ, is 100% Deity and 100% man, His Deity not infringing His humanity and vice versa. Jesus Christ entered our temporal realm during the period of the Incarnation (yet remaining eternal in His Deity), then returned to the Father. From the Incarnation and forward in time Deity is hypostatically conjoined with humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ.
I don’t call the ‘preexistence of Jesus Christ’ Jesus Christ. And neither does Scripture. John the Gospel writer uses “the Word”. The writer of Hebrews uses “Son”. In Colossians, Paul uses “beloved Son” (of the Father), and in Philippians he uses en morphȩ̄ theou hyparchōn, in [the] form of God existing.
Anon 9:27 PM,
You wrote, … By your own statement above you just proved the only conclusion to draw is Jesus Christ is the Word!
Um, no. The correct conclusion is that Jesus Christ is the Word-made-flesh (or Word-become-flesh). Before Jesus Christ was born He preexisted as “the Word”. Jesus Christ didn’t preexist as “Jesus Christ”, and during the Incarnation He didn’t exist (solely) as “the Word”, for He was the Divine-human (theanthropic) God-man.
It’s not that difficult.
Here's the NIV 1984 Study Bible text note to John 1:15:
"He was before me. In ancient times [ED. Jewish culture] the older person was given respect and regarded as greater than the younger. People would normally have ranked Jesus lower in respect to John, who was older. John the Baptist explains that this is only apparent, since Jesus, as the Word, existed before he was born on earth."
Craig, L'heretique du jour,
Your explanations, no matter how theologically dressed up for the prom of your imaginations you make them, are replete with logical fallacy and hubris. Woe betide anyone foolish enough to be swayed by your nonsensically contrived assertions, for you will both fall into a ditch!
I refer all back to the Holy Bible, and to be as the Berean Greeks. I for one will not waste my time refuting your nonsense, Craig. The posts Ray B. and others have already made and the links accompanying them, which are harmoniously biblical (unlike your rotten baloney) are sufficient.
Craig,
When Jesus Christ was on Earth, He was STILL Divine as well as human. He had both natures. Sometimes He spoke as a man, from His human nature, and other times He spoke as God, yet He never forewent His position as the God Person called the Word, as God the Son. The Word remained God and HE (not it) did not disappear. Neither Personhood of God the Father nor the Personhood of God the Holy Spirit became the Personhood of God the Word, the Word is God the Son, Who is Jesus Christ, and He retained His Godhood and Position and Personhood as God the Word. The Word was never absent and never disappeared.
Jesus Christ's humanity and His humble position when He was here in the flesh, in no way robbed Him for 33 years of His Godhood and position as God the Son, the Word through which all things were made.
Anon 1:04 (aka cheerleader of RayB),
Like your apparent brother-in-KJV-only-cult RayB, you like to use ad hominem and/or attach pejorative labels to others who don’t express things exactly the way you do or you’d like them to—especially when you cannot comprehend the distinctions made in order to be more precise. So I’m the hairy tick because you cannot refute, let alone understand what I write?
Speaking of logical fallacies, I’d noticed a particular one earlier; but, since I understood the intention behind RayB’s statement, I didn’t specifically point it out. I wanted to be a bit more charitable. But, given the manner in which these discussions have continued, let me now point out this fallacy, which is @ 11:22 AM when he said:
Jesus PREEXISTED His ADVENT. He MANIFESTED Himself in the flesh, in order to provide a perfect sacrifice for humanity. What was "born" was his lowering himself by being manifested into human flesh. As GOD, He never was "born." What was "born" was the manifestation into human flesh.
Let me fix this statement. As a preface, I’m sure all in this discussion agree that God the Son (“the Word” in John’s vernacular) exists eternally, with no beginning (He wasn’t “born”) and no ending to His existence. With this understood, I’ll proceed:
-----
God the Son (“the Word” in John 1:1) preexisted His advent (John 1:14)—His manifestation—as Jesus Christ. God the Son manifesting Himself in human flesh constituted the birth of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:11), the God-man, who came to provide a perfect sacrifice for humanity. Though God the Son surely wasn’t born, the God-man was (see my bracketed remark at the end of this comment). Before this manifestation, there was no Jesus Christ. Phrasing another way, when God the Son took human nature/flesh to Himself (John 1:14) this coincided with the virginal conception of Jesus (the God-man) in Mary, and prior to the virginal conception, there was no Jesus.
-----
See definition 4 here: dictionary.com/browse/incarnation?s=t the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity assumed human form in the person of Jesus Christ and is completely both God and man. God the Son is God, Deity; Jesus Christ is the God-man. Prior to the Advent, God the Son was strictly Deity, with no humanity; at the Advent and forward, God the Son is Deity-humanity in hypostatic union—the Person of Jesus Christ.
To reiterate, clarify, and conclude, God the Son exists eternally. At the Incarnation, when God the Son took human nature to Himself, God the Son became known to the world as Jesus Christ. From the Incarnation and forward, God the Son is yet still “God the Son”, but He is concurrently “Jesus Christ”. Prior to the Incarnation, it is improper (and anachronistic) to call God the Son “Jesus Christ”, yet many do this by convention. But this is not correct—it’s a logical fallacy—and this can create confusion. As an imperfect analogy, a frog is not a tadpole, but a frog was previously a tadpole. To see a frog and say, “look at the tadpole” would be wrong. Similarly, when referring to the preexistence of Jesus it is incorrect, a logical fallacy, to use “Jesus Christ”.
[As an aside, RayB’s statement above, especially when coupled with some of his others, can also be labelled heretical, as it reads like Nestorianism (see here: gotquestions.org/Nestorianism.html).]
Anon 8:56 AM,
Thanks for the civil tone you chose in your comment.
When I refer to Jesus Christ as “Word-made-flesh”, this implies that He is both “the Word” and the One enfleshed. Stated another way, this implicitly affirms that He is “the Word” (Deity) and flesh (human)—the God-man (see numerous comments of mine above in which I use “God-man”). Hopefully, my immediately preceding comment (@ 11:25 AM) will provide clarity.
When you write “[s]ometimes He spoke as a man, from His human nature, and other times He spoke as God” this is absolutely true, and each time He spoke He did so as the theandric (Divine-human) Person of Jesus Christ. This statement also hints at what is known in theological circles as the “communication of attributes”, in which what can be said of one nature is to be understood as of the entire Person of Christ. When Jesus slept He did so because of His human nature, but He slept as the theandric Person of Jesus Christ. When He quelled the storm He performed this miracle via His Divine nature through the theandric Person of Christ.
Pretty amazing stuff posted by our pompous self appointed Intellectual, that loves to portray himself as a Greek scholar.
Craig refers states that I hold to heretical viewpoints ... all based on HIS interpretation of what I have plainly stated. He also claims I am part of some kind of "KJV only CULT," while he maintains that the MODERN "translations" are FAR SUPERIOR to the KJ V. Nothing "cultish" about that, right Craig?
While claiming that I am a member of a cult, along with being a heretic, when Craig was challenged to address the SPECIFIC false beliefs and heresies held by his vaunted Wesscott & Hort (see below), he simply takes a pass and blames it all on my "inability to understand nuance."
Craig justifies all of these false beliefs and heresies, but then strains at gnats, while attempting to attack myself and others:
(from 1:24 PM post)
The fact is, both Wescott & Hort held numerous heretical views.
Regarding Wescott, here are just a few that are taken from his own writings:
Concerning the Deity of Christ:
"He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him." (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).
"(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ." (Westcott, Ibid., p. 16).
Concerning the Scriptures:
"I reject the infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly." (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).
Concerning Hell:
"(Hell is) not the place of punishment of the guilty, (it is) the common abode of departed spirits. (Westcott, Historic Faith, pp.77-78).
"We have no sure knowledge of future punishment, and the word eternal has a far higher meaning." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p.149).
More heresies of Wescott & Hort:
Concerning Creation ... Denies the LITERAL truth God's creation in Genesis, then (Hort) PRAISES Darwin:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Concerning the Atonement:
"I think I mentioned to you before Campbell's book on the Atonement, which is invaluable as far as it goes; but unluckily he knows nothing except Protestant theology." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 322)
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy." (Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430)
"I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father." (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77).
More from Wescott & Hort. What's Craig's response? Look away, ignore, deny, deflect, and then falsely accuse others.
More Wescott & Hort heresies:
Concerning Man: NOTE: "human forms" in their natural state are FALLEN, SINFUL and in REBELLION against God.
"It is of course true that we can only know God through human forms, but then I think the whole Bible echoes the language of Genesis 1:27 and so assures us that human forms are divine forms." (Fort to Westcott, August 14, 1860)
"Protestants (must) unlearn the crazy horror of the idea of Priesthood." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
A small sampling of their heretical views concerning Roman Catholic teachings:
Concerning Roman Catholicism:
"I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (the worship of the Virgin Mary) bears witness." (Westcott, Ibid. )
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-Worship and Jesus-Worship have very much in common." (Hort, Life and Letters, Volume II, pp. 49-51)
"The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)
"I agree with you in thinking it a pity that Maurice verbally repudiates purgatory . . . the idea of purgation, cleansing by fire, seems to me inseparable from what the Bible teaches us of the Divine chastisements." (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. II, pp. 336,337)
Craig,
Agreeing with you at 10:00 AM but still wondering why you need this to remain in the realm of argument when clearly Jesus Christ the Word made flesh in the New Testament, is that Word in the Old Testament. How is this a difficulty to haggle over? If agreeing let's just agree, (unless of course, we don't). But this is the unnecessary rub I see. What point can you make as an aside, when the point fully and truly is: Jesus is that very fulfillment that RayB was talking about, and agree with God that He is the yes and the amen of God? The Yes as a final WORD from God, Amen, the "so be it", another WORD from God about His Son our Savior and Lord.
Though the Name Jesus Christ is not spoken in the OT, it is obvious He is the very fulfillment of the oracles of God spoken, so why all this hassle? When we play the Old Testament forward, it can only be Jesus Christ was the Word in the beginning, Who was with God, Who was God...and remains God. Yes and Amen to that!
Also Craig, I (2:59 PM) agree with RayB about his point in his earlier questions to you, but I don't agree with his parsing either.
To me, you both need to draw back, because I see the baby being thrown out with the bathwater..
Craig answers this question @ 9:14 AM :
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
"No."
What does the Bible state? Who should we believe, the Bible or Craig?
"In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD." John 1:1 (emphasis mine)
Anon 2:59/3:08 PM,
Let me take this discreet statement of yours “clearly Jesus Christ the Word made flesh in the New Testament, is that Word in the Old Testament” along with your use of “fulfillment”, which you used a number of times in 2:59, and harmonize the two. The first long quotation is properly parsed, and “fulfillment” is what occurs in the NT, not the OT. In other words, this “fulfillment” of the Word to Word-made-flesh is not accomplished in the OT but, rather, in the NT. Can we agree on that?
To assist further, let me phrase this a bit differently, as I’d done in my long comment above @ 11:25 AM. To alleviate potential confusion in our discussion here let’s call “the Word” God the Son. God the Son (aka “the Word”) is the preexistent Jesus Christ. God the Son is ever-existing, eternal. So, God the Son takes human nature/flesh to Himself in the New Testament, becoming the God-man, Jesus Christ. The God-man was prophesied about in the OT, and the NT is the fulfillment of those prophecies. Can we agree on that?
The Incarnation occurred at a distinct point in time. Before that time there was no Incarnation. Thus, Jesus Christ was manifested at a distinct point in time. Before that time there was no Jesus Christ. There has always been God the Son. God the Son is the One who added human nature/flesh to Himself, becoming the God-man, Jesus Christ. In the term God-man the “God” portion is to be understood as God the Son, thereby affirming the unbounded eternality of God the Son. On the other hand, the “man” portion of God-man denotes the human nature that God the Son took on at the Incarnation. It’s this human nature that is not unbounded eternally, for it was taken on at the specific moment of the Incarnation, the virginal conception. At that moment God the Son was forever hypostatically conjoined to the human nature, becoming the Person of Jesus Christ (while remaining God the Son, of course).
Thus, it is improper and anachronistic to refer to God the Son as “Jesus Christ” before the Incarnation. It cannot be “Jesus” spoken of in John 1:1-3, for “the Word” (God the Son) is identified as the agent of all creation in John 1:3, and since Jesus Christ is both Deity (God the Son, “the Word”) and creature (‘flesh’) He cannot simultaneously be the acting agent of creation (“the Word”) and creature (the flesh part of ‘Word-made-flesh’, Jesus Christ).
Does this clarify the issue?
Better, yes.
Thank you.
If I may..
My understanding, all summed up, Jesus, the Son of God, as we now know and call Him, this side of the cross and resurrection, is and was always God of eternity, the eternal Word of promise, but in time, specific time, became a man given a name, born with a mission, a commission from God. I am satisfied, in my finiteness, that He is all of that so I know He can be trusted, believed, by me, and I pray others also.
Pre-incarnate Christ became Jesus, the man, who, at His birth also, is God, whose very powerful words and powerful miracles proved He was from before time (as a Lamb slain before the foundation of the world) having entered earth's history to keep the Promised Word of redemption from God and suffered in His flesh as my Savior, died with His heart poured out to show us God's broken heart over our sin. I cannot imagine what the Father felt to see heaven's darling abused and broken , dying, before His eyes--He had to turn His back. My sin on Him made God's face turn away.
I do not feel it was incumbent upon Jesus to have to state Who He was, though He certainly said everything but the actual words "I am God. How humble is this???...Philipians 2:6! So He left us all huge, HUGE, hints and stated His teachings in parables for us to see the need for faith (he who has an ear let him hear), so even more than what He said of Himself, is that He came here to begin with, God keeping His WORD to us! How profound is it that He came! And we are left with the option to accept, to come repenting, because humble faith will repent, will believe, exactly WHO He still is--God. What a reckoning we must allow of heart and soul and mind to realize HE is all of eternity and time wrapped up in His Being..
Oh, let our words be few in that sense.
Honestly, Craig, I am glad words fail us, no matter how much Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, (and from whatever version) only that we learn to say, and agree as His followers, that He is Lord, because we are only beginning to know Him.
It will take eternity.....
Craig states:
"The Incarnation occurred at a distinct point in time. Before that time there was no Incarnation. Thus, Jesus Christ was manifested at a distinct point in time. Before that time there was no Jesus Christ."
This statement appeals to the LOGIC of a fallen, religious person that seeks to arrive at a "faith" that comports with his own rational reasoning.
It is NOT BIBLICAL. His statement "Before that time there was no Jesus Christ" is ASTONISHINGLY FALSE. It literally is calling God a liar.
Don't be fooled into considering for one moment that his point if valid, it is not.
It is absolute, unadulterated, blasphemous heresy!
Anon 6:00 PM,
I am moved by your heartfelt comment. Paul refers to the Incarnation as the great “mystery of godliness” in 1 Timothy 3:16. We cannot fully comprehend it this side of eternal life.
Regarding your parenthetical statement “the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world”, I must comment. The syntax of the Greek in Rev 13:8 allows one of two interpretations: 1) Jesus was slain from the creation of the world, or 2) the writing of the names into the Book of Life occurred from the foundations of the world. To accept number 2 would seem to necessitate number 1, for it appears difficult to have a Book of Life unless there first had been a Life Giver. Tangentially, Rev 3:5 quotes Jesus as saying that those who overcome will not have their names blotted out of the Book of Life, which implies the converse that those who fail to overcome will have their names blotted out of the Book of Life! All this causes one to ponder the relationship of the temporal realm to the eternal. I like Lewis Sperry Chafer’s words in this regard:
…Whatever time may be and whatever its relation to eternity, it must be maintained that no cessation of eternity has occurred or will. God’s mode of existence remains unchanged. Time might be thought of as something superimposed upon eternity were it not that there is ground for question whether eternity consists of a succession of events, as is true of time. The consciousness of God is best conceived as being an all-inclusive comprehension at once, covering all that has been or will be. The attempt to bring time with its successions into a parallel with eternity is to misconceive the most essential characteristic of eternal things (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 1948, 1976 Dallas Theological Seminary (1993), Kregel: Grand Rapids, MI, Vol. VII, pp 141-42).
On balance, I’d say that God knows the past, present and future of our temporal realm, and I personally don’t think the above literally means the Lamb was either slain before creation or believers’ names were written in the Book of Life before creation from our temporal perspective. That is, I think God knows and ‘knew’ these things before the creation event, so it’s as if they already happened from an eternal perspective. But, admittedly, that’s just speculation.
In any case, when the eternal Word entered the temporal realm at the Incarnation He was forever hypostatically attached to the human nature/flesh He took on, and from our temporal perspective He continues as the God-man (now glorified, of course). Accordingly, from our temporal perspective, prior to His Advent He had no human nature and cannot legitimately called ‘Word-made-flesh’, Jesus Christ, the God-man. Before the Incarnation He was God the Son, “the Word”, God without the “-man” part.
Craig, it seems to me you are looking at Jesus Christ almost the way a Hindu would look at an avatar of Vishnu. If you are not, then please explain how it is different, and I will stand corrected.
Anon 9:48 PM,
I'm not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4lLh8mmhtk babies kept alive for organ harvesting comes out in hearing in San Francisco
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_JjvKK1VE
BOMBSHELL! Did Ghislaine's Sisters Backdoor the FBI, NSA + more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqCb2slSKv4
all kinds of dirt on the transumanist scene and Jeffrey Epstein's ivolvement, torture facilities, selling live babies brains not sucked out third trimester abortions for organ harvesting
Craig you idiot blind to the obvious, when Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM" He was calling Himself YHWH by the short form of the Name, YH. Same as saying "I am God."
questions 1 - 5 yes. 6 no. 7. probable.
Craig you self contradictory idiot, you admit Jesus preexisted as the eternal word, yet deny He has always been The Word yet admit He the manGod Jesus is the same person - HE IS AND ALWAYS WAS THE ETERNAL WORD/LOGOS. "Jesus Christ" is the name by which the eternal word is known since His incarnation but its the SAME person so yes Jesus Christ always existed, though not always from all eternity incarnate. And you say "when HE was incarnate" as if that is past and over HE IS RESURRECTED FROM THE DEAD PHYSICALLY AND PERMANENTLY. CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH, IS AND NOT JUST DID BUT IS. Whe you say "jesus" or more accurately "preincarnate Jesus" did such and so OT time, you know Who you are talking about.
Craig you biblically illiterate idiot.
you smugly say you figure I am referring to Matthew (yes) but it would contradict Luke's use of mnesteuo so the betrothal WITHOUT living together was "including the entirety of Mary's pregnancy" and they travelled together but advanced to gamos later.
WRONG
"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife,
"AND DID NOT KNOW HER [while they lived together] till she had brought forth her firstborn son, And he called His name Jesus."
Matthew 1:24, 25
THEY WERE TOGETHER THROUGH MOST OF HER PREGNANCY. Before the pregnancy was obvious. First period miss would be known to those around her, because not in required isolation from others (a near universal thing by the way).
So the term for betrothed remains, because gamos marriage is accomplished in the sex act which never happened, gamos is based in the word for sex. THAT IS WHY SHE IS CALLED THE UNWEDDED BRIDE IN THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH.
So this betrothal was turned into a marriage in name only long before the birth.
I DO NOT HAVE PRESUPPOSITIONS. you do.
I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT LIKE YOU DO THEN I LEARNED BETTER.
not by accepting tradition but by noticing the Scripture was not explicit enough one way or another. HOWEVER as I kept looking at it I realized what WAS said was more consistent with ever virginity than not, and the arguments around siblings totally fail because of typical middle eastern sloppy terms note again Abraham married his half sister who he called sister pretending she was ONLY his sister but in admitting to Abimelech she was his wife he said indeed she was his sister but not out of his mother.
Mary used forward tense I am verb said "I know not a man" saying actually "I will not know a man." This is dealt with in the article I linked on the prior thread or the one before it.
I think you are wrapped up self absorbed in smug posturing and display of lilnguistic skill, and are blinded by your pride.
Craig,
I would be very much appreciative if you would kindly tell us what your thoughts are regarding the following:
"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." (Westcott, cited from Which Bible?, p. 191).
Craig,
Do you hold to the literal history of Creation as stated in Genesis? Or, do you agree with Wescott?
"But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with..... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Hort, cited from Which Bible?, p. 189)
Craig,
What are your thoughts on Darwin?
Thank you.
Christine,
Quite simply, the betrothal was much too long for Joseph to have been a widower. That should be the end of this discussion. But no…
You wrote: So the term for betrothed remains, because gamos marriage is accomplished in the sex act which never happened, gamos is based in the word for sex.
This is simply not true. The term means marriage ceremony/celebration, the state of being married, or the wedding hall. The word has absolutely nothing to do with sex. Perhaps you can provide a source for your novel assertion?
You wrote, in your characteristically caustic manner: Craig you idiot blind to the obvious, when Jesus said "before Abraham was I AM" He was calling Himself YHWH by the short form of the Name, YH. Same as saying "I am God."
I suppose then that the blind man that Jesus healed was calling himself “God” in John 9:9 also?: ekeinos elegen hoti egō eimi = he himself said that ‘I am’. The English translations that are generally more literal (KJV, Young’s Literal, NASB, ESV, e.g.) render this “I am he” or “I am the one”, but it literally just states “I am”. The KJV consistently italicizes extra words for English translation that are not in the Greek, and thus renders this “I am he”, indicating he is not in the Greek.
So, Christine, this is not quite as clear cut as you make it out to be, though I largely agree with you, given the context. In John 8:58 Jesus is clearly saying “I am”, and by the context He is declaring His preexistence, and He may well be using the Divine Name. This strongly implies His Deity, but, again, Jesus is not saying specifically “I am God” here. Of course, I’m convinced He is God incarnate, not just with this discourse, but in others prior, such as in John 5 in which He makes claims about Himself that only God can make, such as providing eternal life.
I’ll quote Raymond Brown regarding this verse (bold added for emphasis):
The climax of all that Jesus has said at Tabernacles comes in the triumphant proclamation by Jesus of the divine name, “I AM,” which he bears (see App. IV). In 8:12 he had opened this third scene of the Tabernacles discourses with “I am the light of the world”; the concluding “I AM” of vs. 58 represents an inclusion. No clearer implication of divinity is found in the Gospel tradition, and “the Jews” recognize this implication (Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, 2nd ed., The Anchor Yale Bible [Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1966], p 367).
Being implicit is not the same as being explicit. As one of the Anons wrote above, sometimes Jesus speaks from His Divine nature, other times from His human. In 8:58 He is speaking from His Divine nature.
You wrote [snippet]: …you admit Jesus preexisted as the eternal word, yet deny He has always been The Word….
I’m going to answer this in a separate comment addressed to all.
All,
For the life of me, I cannot fathom why this is so difficult!
Jesus Christ is the unique Divine-human Person, our Savior. God the Son, “the Word”, attached a human nature/flesh to Himself at the Incarnation and not before.
God the Son, “The Word” always existed, exists, is eternal. Jesus is ‘Word-made-flesh’, not simply “the Word”, for to call Jesus “the Word” smacks of Nestorianism—dividing His Divine nature from His human nature to the extent that there are two separate ‘persons’. And to claim “the Word” is Jesus Christ (in John 1:1, e.g.) is to implicitly claim that “the Word” was ‘Word-made-flesh’ before the Incarnation, i.e., that “the Word” had a hypostatically attached human nature before becoming incarnate. This is illogical.
Let’s try this analogy. Imagine an infinite number line in which all the negative numbers extend leftwards to infinity, and all the positive numbers extend rightward to infinity. In the middle is 0 (zero). Picture God the Son, aka “the Word”, over the entire number line, both negative and positive; whereas Jesus Christ should be pictured just right of 0 and extending rightward—only the positive numbers. Thus, God the Son is over the entire number line, while Jesus Christ is only over the positive numbers. The negative numbers represent BC (or BCE), while the positive numbers represent AD (CE). “BC” literally means before Christ.
Really guys, this is not that hard, and it’s certainly not heretical!
Now, like any analogy, this one is imperfect, but I hope the reader can see the intent. Of course, I’m not stating that there is a separate God the Son and a separate Jesus Christ with this illustration. The 0 (just right of it, to be more specific) represents the Incarnation—the point at which God the Son attached human nature/flesh to Himself, becoming Jesus Christ. At that point and forward in time and through eternity, the Divine God the Son had and has a hypostatically attached human nature/flesh. At that point He became and is the unique Divine-human Person of Jesus Christ, the God-man.
At the Incarnation, now, and forevermore the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity has humanity attached to His Divinity. The two natures can never be separated and should not be referred to separately to the extent that two persons are implied. And, similarly, prior to the Incarnation it is improper to refer to God the Son as if He had a human nature; so, referring to God the Son as “Jesus Christ” at a time pre-Incarnation is simply not correct!
Craig states (in part) @ 10: 25 AM ....
In answering the clear statement by Jesus Christ that HE IS GOD,
"John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.",
Craig offers up this convoluted gem:
"I suppose then that the blind man that Jesus healed was calling himself “God” in John 9:9 also?: ekeinos elegen hoti egō eimi = he himself said that ‘I am’."
This is one of the weirdest things I have ever read.
Craig is desperately twisting the obvious meanings of the Scriptures in order to justify his equally twisted points.
Another real gem:
"At the Incarnation, now, and forevermore the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity has humanity attached to His Divinity."
Incredible. Absolutely incredible.
The only purpose of his "humanity" was to offer a PERFECT sacrifice, which died on the cross. His MANIFESTATION in the FLESH ON EARTH was TEMPORARY and did not become an inseparable, ETERNAL part of His God nature !
This strange position of Craig's very similar to that of the heretic "Dr." Joyce Meyers claiming that (paraphrase) "Jesus had to go to hell for 3 days where his humanity needed to be born again."
This is one of the weirdest things I have ever read.
Craig is desperately twisting the obvious meanings of the Scriptures in order to justify his equally twisted points.
Really Craig, You should be ashamed of yourself !!
PS: practically everything I read that this guy posts demands a response. More to come, and for that, I apologize.
Craig stated (in part):
" At that point and forward in time and through eternity, the Divine God the Son had and has a hypostatically attached human nature/flesh. At that point He became and is the unique Divine-human Person of Jesus Christ, the God-man."
No wonder this guy enthusiastically defends the heretic/creators of Modern "translations" (actually, interpretations), Wescott & Hort.
Jesus Christ is no longer the "God-man." That was only temporal. He is now fully God without the flesh, which was destroyed on the cross.
Craig heretically believes that Christ continues "through eternity" with an "attached human nature/flesh." THIS IS A CLEAR diminishing of Christ's DEITY! AGAIN, when Christ was "manifested in the flesh," he purposely, and TEMPORARILY LOWERED himself "lower than the angels" in order to accomplish his predetermined sacrificial task.
I am just blown away at how bad this guy really is, but not totally surprised. I have run into many of these "intellectual," higher critic, religious types that have to have everything rationalized and explained in accordance to THEIR own comfort zone. They love to seek out what the "scholars" have to say, because it makes them feel "scholarly" themselves.
Notice how Craig has virtually nothing to say about Wescott & Horts' heresies that were posted here. Why? No doubt, because he agrees with their "higher critic" conclusions!
Yes, RayB, keep digging.
You’ve just proven yourself to be both ignorant of the Scriptures and a bona fide heretic. You’ve just denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and thus, as Paul states in 1 Cor 15:17, your faith is in vain. You may want to more carefully study the Scriptures, and it wouldn’t hurt to read the early Church Councils either.
Riddle me this: If God does not die—as you stated above (and I don’t disagree)—then what exactly was raised from the dead in the Person of Christ?
RayB,
When Jesus stated "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" to what was He referring; that is, what does "temple" mean in this context? (Hint: look up John 2:21.)
RayB,
You may want to practice a bit of self-reflection. Not in the manner of Narcissus, though.
Craig,
"You’ve just proven yourself to be both ignorant of the Scriptures and a bona fide heretic. You’ve just denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and thus, as Paul states in 1 Cor 15:17, your faith is in vain."
WHERE ON EARTH do you get that I "denied the bodily resurrection" ???
I fear that you have gone off the very, very deep end.
QUIT READING the HERETIC Wescott's commentary on John. You are extremely delusional.
Again Craig, tell us what your opinion is on the literal Creation account in Genesis.
Also, tell us what you believe about Darwin??
Easy questions to answer .... why the silence Craig?
RayB (@ 2:08 PM),
You wrote to me: WHERE ON EARTH do you get that I "denied the bodily resurrection" ???
@ 12:09 PM, you wrote:
The only purpose of his "humanity" was to offer a PERFECT sacrifice, which died on the cross. His MANIFESTATION in the FLESH ON EARTH was TEMPORARY.
And @ 12:27 PM you wrote:
Jesus Christ is no longer the "God-man." That was only temporal. He is now fully God without the flesh, which was destroyed on the cross.
So, either Christ’s body was not raised—which you claim (@ 2:08) you didn’t say/imply—or Christ’s body was raised…and then??? What happened to Christ’s resurrected body if it is no longer attached to His Divine nature? Where is it? Given your position that “His MANIFESTATION in the FLESH ON EARTH was TEMPORARY”, at what point did Jesus shed His human nature? Or are you referring to the resurrection of a non-human, Divine body?!
Article by R. C. Sproul entitled: Did God Die on the Cross?
The famous hymn of the church “And Can it Be?” contains a line that asks a very poignant question: “How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?” Is it accurate to say that God died on the cross?
This kind of expression is popular in hymnody and in grassroots conversation. So although I have this scruple about the hymn and it bothers me that the expression is there, I think I understand it, and there’s a way to give an indulgence for it.
We believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate. We also believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross. If we say that God died on the cross, and if by that we mean that the divine nature perished, we have stepped over the edge into serious heresy. In fact, two such heresies related to this problem arose in the early centuries of the church: theopassianism and patripassianism. The first of these, theopassianism, teaches that God Himself suffered death on the cross. Patripassianism indicates that the Father suffered vicariously through the suffering of His Son. Both of these heresies were roundly rejected by the church for the very reason that they categorically deny the very character and nature of God, including His immutability. There is no change in the substantive nature or character of God at any time.
(continued)
God not only created the universe, He sustains it by the very power of His being. As Paul said, “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). If the being of God ceased for one second, the universe would disappear. It would pass out of existence, because nothing can exist apart from the sustaining power of God. If God dies, everything dies with Him. Obviously, then, God could not have perished on the cross.
Some say, “It was the second person of the Trinity Who died.” That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being. Death is something that would involve a change in one’s being.
(continued)
We should shrink in horror from the idea that God actually died on the cross. The atonement was made by the human nature of Christ. Somehow people tend to think that this lessens the dignity or the value of the substitutionary act, as if we were somehow implicitly denying the deity of Christ. God forbid. It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.
RayB,
You've not addressed the substance of my questions. Who/what was raised? When did Jesus Christ supposedly shed His human nature?
How apt that you quote R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/human-nature-christ/
...The divine nature did not become human and the human nature did not become divine. Neither were the natures mixed together such that Christ was a strange human-divine hybrid, neither truly human nor truly divine. No, Christ was and remains the God-man. This is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend, but we must affirm it...
https://www.christologystatement.com/affirmations
Article 3
We affirm, with the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds, that Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly man, two natures united in one person forever.
We deny that the Son was created. We deny that there was ever a time when the Son was not divine. We deny that the human body and soul of Jesus Christ existed prior to the incarnation of the Son in history.
Article 13
We affirm that on the third day Jesus Christ rose from the dead and that He was seen in the flesh by many.
We deny that Jesus Christ merely seemed to die, or that only His spirit survived, or that His resurrection took place merely in the hearts of His followers.
----------
The position that Jesus Christ remains the God-man forevermore is a historically orthodox Christian doctrine since at least the 4th century. It is affirmed by the RCC, EO, and mainline Protestantism. Why do you deny it?
RayB,
The R. C. Sproul article you just referenced makes a statement that you must somehow harmonize with your earlier statements:
It’s the God-man Who dies, but death is something that is experienced only by the human nature, because the divine nature isn’t capable of experiencing death.
Thus, since the God-man dies on the Cross--and the Divine nature didn't die, though the human nature did--the Resurrection must refer to the resurrection of the God-man, which necessarily includes the human nature. So, given this, again, at what specific point did Jesus supposedly shed His human nature?
I may have not made my position clear, but, this accurately states what I believe:
...The divine nature did not become human and the human nature did not become divine. Neither were the natures mixed together such that Christ was a strange human-divine hybrid, neither truly human nor truly divine. No, Christ was and remains the God-man. This is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend, but we must affirm it...
RayB,
Within the portion you cite is a statement that explicitly affirms what I've been stating all along in this regard--and you've been persistently deriding here to the point of ad hominem:
...No, Christ was and remains the God-man...
Perhaps it's time you explicitly concede you were wrong?
Craig,
In he heat of writing the post, I misspoke and did not write in a manner that reflected my beliefs.
I did not make my position clear.
Does that satisfy you Craig?
Craig,
Now that we have that all cleared up, perhaps you would like to tell us your beliefs on the literal account of Creation in Genesis?
AND, what your beliefs are as far as Darwin?
Thanks.
Craig @ 9:04 PM.
Thanks for the reply to my 6:00 Pm post.
We really do not disagree. Your words to clarify helped me see that better, though I was not in a deep disagreement to begin with..just getting somewhat tangled in the wordiness and complexity in some statements. If not careful we can read in more to confuse issues and ideas put forth, so if RayB was being more careful with what you have said he might find more to agree with than not. Should give us more to ponder over than argue over, if humble about it.
Really we will all get our true "education" about the Lord when we see His face. Knowing from eternity's perspective will erase the profound comlexities we can't help but experience now in our finite, time-limited capacity for such.
RayB,
You’ve just argued yourself into a Christological paper bag from which you cannot extract yourself.
Regarding your post @ 5:58 PM: In he heat of writing the post, I misspoke and did not write in a manner that reflected my beliefs.
I did not make my position clear.
Does that satisfy you Craig?
No, not even close. You’ve still failed to adequately define your position, which, as it stands, defies logic. Moreover, you continued on and on, making a big deal about my orthodox Christian stance, comparing this position to the heretical ‘Jesus Died Spiritually’ doctrine (Meyers’ words below are part of it):
@ 12:09 PM: This strange position of Craig's very similar to that of the heretic "Dr." Joyce Meyers claiming that (paraphrase) "Jesus had to go to hell for 3 days where his humanity needed to be born again."
This is one of the weirdest things I have ever read.
Craig is desperately twisting the obvious meanings of the Scriptures in order to justify his equally twisted points.
Really Craig, You should be ashamed of yourself !!
@ 12:27 PM Craig heretically believes that Christ continues "through eternity" with an "attached human nature/flesh." THIS IS A CLEAR diminishing of Christ's DEITY!...
I am just blown away at how bad this guy really is, but not totally surprised. I have run into many of these "intellectual," higher critic, religious types that have to have everything rationalized and explained in accordance to THEIR own comfort zone. They love to seek out what the "scholars" have to say, because it makes them feel "scholarly" themselves.
Yeah, not even close.
"I think you are wrapped up self absorbed in smug posturing and display of lilnguistic skill, and are blinded by your pride."
MCE, You wrote that to Craig, but in reality very pointedly described...yourself.
And attempt to use the Bible text to justify your own fleshly thinking and doing.
That's a no-no.
And just more failed "reasoning" from you.
Anon 6:13 PM,
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad the additional comment was of assistance.
You wrote: ...If not careful we can read in more to confuse issues and ideas put forth...
This is VERY easy to do! We are all prone to misreading things, which can lead to a bit of cognitive dissonance at times, which then leads to a bit of anxiety, confusion, and the likelihood of further misinterpretation. And, I don't think I was entirely clear at times, which may not have helped. I try to be precise, but I don't always succeed.
Honestly Craig, you posted so much error, and then totally ignored virtually all of my questions regarding the heresies of Wescott & Hort (and continue to do so), it put me in a very frustrated state of mind, which contributed to me not making myself clear.
As I STATED EMPHATICALLY before, and will do so again, GOD DID NOT DIE ON THE CROSS !
I agree 100% with R. C. Sproul's article. Does that make my position clear enough for you???
Craig,
The literal Creation account as found in Genesis .... Darwin .... did you forget that I requested your positions on these?
And by the way, just for fun, do you believe Jonah actually spent 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the great fish?
RayB,
Your attempts at clarification would be laughable if they weren't so pitiful. If you agree with Sproul's article 100%, then you've just made a 180 degree turn, now agreeing with my stance that God the Son continues on forevermore with human nature/flesh hypostatically attached--a position you viciously attacked above, along with my character.
RayB,
In your zeal to denigrate not only my stances but my character, you’ve now revealed your very faulty and heretical (in its strict definition, for your views violate multiple ecumenical Councils/Creeds) Christology (necessarily impacting the Trinity), which appears to lead to a deficient Atonement. This sort of thing, I’ve found, is endemic to King James Onlyists, for most are also “solo” Scripturists (a play/pun on the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura; see here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/mathison.html), believing ‘all I need is me, the Spirit, and my Bible’, shunning early Church Councils, etc.
Earlier in our discussions I distinguished between God the Son (unbounded eternality) and Jesus Christ (eternality bounded at the Incarnation), while you consistently confused or conflated the two. This is predominately where your errors emanated. Perhaps now you (and other readers) can see, among other things, why I commented the way I did regarding Heb 13:8—and you can see why you were in error. [Just in case anyone is still confused: Since Jesus Christ is the God-man and doesn’t exist prior to the Incarnation (that is, the human nature didn’t exist till then), the “yesterday” portion refers to the point of Incarnation (and not before) and/or His ministry; the “today” likely means the time of the writer of Hebrews; and “forever” refers to the eternal existence of the God-man.]
You followed this up by stating you “misspoke”, and that Sproul’s words above reflect your true beliefs. You are not being completely honest with this, for you had been making your views known, which, in this regard, are in complete contradiction with Sproul’s, while Sproul agreed with mine—the very views you took extreme umbrage with. And since you fail to admit your multitudinous errors, correct them for the record here, etc. let me just recap and explain them.
[cont]
[cont]
In the comments above you’ve exposed your heretical (again, by strict definition) position that Jesus shed His human nature (His MANIFESTATION in the FLESH ON EARTH was TEMPORARY), and the manner in which you did so seems to have revealed your faulty view of the Atonement. Specifically, by comparing my completely orthodox position that the God-man remains forever as a Divine-human with Joyce Meyers’ heretical and blasphemous statement that Jesus was ‘born again’ in hell, and coupling this with your statements below (bold added for emphasis), we can discern the point at which you likely believe(d) Jesus shed His human nature, which also seems to lead to your view of the Atonement:
The only purpose of his "humanity" was to offer a PERFECT sacrifice, which died on the cross.
AGAIN, when Christ was "manifested in the flesh," he purposely, and TEMPORARILY LOWERED himself "lower than the angels" in order to accomplish his predetermined sacrificial task.
He [Jesus] is now fully God without the flesh, which was destroyed on the cross.
In view of the above, it appears your (now former?) belief is that Jesus shed His human nature when it “was destroyed on the cross”. Taking all three statements together (and the comment re: Joyce Meyers), this seems to also be your view of the Atonement; that is, Jesus’ human death made the perfect sacrifice—His humanity destroyed on the cross, not resurrected—leading me to the only conclusion that in your (former?) view, it was God the Son who was ‘resurrected’, sans human nature. This then implicitly denies the (human) bodily resurrection. It is readily apparent that it was only because of our ensuing discussions and my probing comments and questions that you were persuaded to backpedal.
RayB, feel free to correct anything I have wrong regarding your (former?) beliefs by fully explaining what you meant. Responses like “I fear that you have gone off the very, very deep end”, “where did you get that?” or “you are extremely delusional” (as you’ve used above) will not suffice here, for you made very specific theological statements (to “correct” mine) that demand further elaborations and harmonization, for, if not, you are potentially leading others astray. If my interpretations of your (former?) beliefs are wrong, I’ll stand corrected—once they are, indeed, corrected.
Hello Craig,
Much of what you have said I agree with, however, I am concerned that you maybe miss the fact that although Jesus Christ has two natures, unmixed, one fully human and the other fully Divine, He is remains one person. The fact He remains one person, the Word made flesh, through his Divine Nature, He is still the Word. Jesus or Yeshua means Deliverer / Saviour, Christ (Messiah) means the Anointed One. So, of course the human nature of Jesus Christ was not the Word through Whom all things were made but the Divine Nature, God the Son, always be so and remained so even during Jesus Christ's thirty three years on Earth. The Word took on flesh yet remained the Word. You yourself have acknowledged that at times Jesus Christ spoke from his [uniquely sinless] human nature [as the second Adam] and at other times from his Divine Nature.
When Jesus Christ spoke, ' before Abraham was, I Am', He was speaking from His Divine Nature, declaring Himself to be God. The words here, and the wider context in which they were spoken, bare this out. When His birth is predicted in Isaiah, it states,'He will be called ... Everlasting Father', i.e., God. This is then reaffirmed by Jesus Christ Himself (His Divine Nature proclaiming) when Philip asks Jesus to show him (Philip) the Father. Jesus Christ replies (Good News Translation): "For a long time I have been with you all; yet you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. Why, then, do you say, 'Show us the Father'?".
From Wikipedia:
Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, "sediment, foundation, substance, subsistence") is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.[3]
The most basic explanation for the hypostatic union is Jesus Christ being both God and man. He is both perfectly divine and perfectly human.
The Athanasian Creed recognized this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that "He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and he is human from the essence of his mother, born in time; completely God, completely human, with a rational soul and human flesh; equal to the Father as regards divinity, less than the Father as regards humanity. Although he is God and human, yet Christ is not two, but one. He is one, however, not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to himself. He is one, certainly not by the blending of his essence, but by the unity of his person. For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh, so too the one Christ is both God and human."
I reiterate, Jesus Christ is one person, with two complete yet distinct natures, one nature is fully human and the other nature is fully divine. Therefore, Jesus Christ is the Word, the Word made flesh yes, and as the Word indwelt flesh, the Divine nature of the one person of Jesus Christ remained the Word from before time, throughout history and will remain so for eternity.
Anon 12:22 PM,
We largely agree, but let me explain our differences and why the need for distinctions. First, see my earlier illustration using the time-line analogy. When speaking about Christology we must be careful to not implicitly convey either Nestorianism (Christ was two separate persons, one Divine and one human) or Eutychianism (Christ was a Divine/human mixed hybrid), while retaining the unity/singularity of His Person.
This all must be parsed out carefully.
To put this into formulas, understanding God the Son = The Word:
Before the Incarnation:
The Word, God the Son ≠ Jesus Christ
At and during the Incarnation (which includes into eternity):
Jesus Christ = the Word (God the Son) + flesh, aka the God-man
Because of the hypostatic union and what some traditions call “the communication of attributes”, we can say the following in regards to the Incarnation:
Jesus Christ ≠ the Word, for this necessarily excludes His humanity and compromises the integrity of His Person. However, we can say “Jesus is God” via the communication of attributes, due to His Divine nature. This qualification is important, for without it, it can lead to one believing that The Word, the Divine nature, is separate, or separable, from His human nature.
Jesus Christ ≠ the human nature, for this necessarily excludes His Divinity and compromises the integrity of His Person. However, we can say “Jesus is human” via the communication of attributes, for He is so in His human nature. This qualification is important, for without it, it can lead to one believing that the human nature is separate, or separable, from His Divine nature.
At the Cross, we can say “God died”, by understanding that it’s the God-man who died, but only in His human nature. At the same time, we can say “God did not die”, by understanding that it’s the God-man who died, but the Divine nature does not die.
----
With your statement “When Jesus Christ spoke, ' before Abraham was, I Am', He was speaking from His Divine Nature, declaring Himself to be God” I’d change it to “When Jesus Christ spoke, ' before Abraham was, I Am', He was speaking from His Divine Nature as the one Person of Christ, declaring his preexistence as God the Son, aka The Word, and implicitly referring to Himself as God (the Son).
I need to add: When Jesus Christ speaks and acts He does so at all times as the God-man. When He spoke from His Divine nature, He spoke as the God-man. When He spoke from His humanity, He spoke as the God-man.
In addition to TD & the ever-so-charming MCE, the ever-so-charming RayB should ALSO be given over to a parallel blog along with them, in addition to THIS charmer:
Anonymous 5:32 AM
"Ray B.,
"The stench of Craig's hubris in not admitting when he is wrong is no doubt foul in the nostrils of the Lord Himself."
Let them vent their venoms over there amongst themselves to their heart's content and let THIS blog be used for CIVIL discourse and discussions!
Disney's New Bedtime Hotline for Kids Will Creep Them the Hell Out Before Sleeping
...
If you want to give your child the ominous message that should they close their eyes and go to bed tonight, a...goblin...will watch them in their deepest subconscious, you can call up the Disney Bedtime Hotline
...
https://io9.gizmodo.com/disneys-new-bedtime-hotline-for-kids-lets-yoda-creep-yo-1838159734/
Craig,
I see no distinction between what we have both just said. I entirely agree with your posts at 1:33 PM and 2:07 PM.
Moreover, (in reiterating my total agreement here expressly) I recognise and accept your clarification (so as to avoid any misinterpretation): 'With your statement “When Jesus Christ spoke, ' before Abraham was, I Am', He was speaking from His Divine Nature, declaring Himself to be God” I’d change it to “When Jesus Christ spoke, ' before Abraham was, I Am', He was speaking from His Divine Nature as the one Person of Christ, declaring his preexistence as God the Son, aka The Word, and implicitly referring to Himself as God (the Son).'
These topics can be emotionally challenging for some sometimes, where misunderstanding unfortunately occurs and pride is a difficult thing to swallow over such issues. I am sorry Ray B. and others took it upon themselves to become unpleasant in the passions of their discourse and believe they treated you unfairly, rather than seek the matter out fully and cordially with you. I ask you forgive them.
Smiles, and may God bless you richly, in Jesus' name.
Dear Craig,
Just in case it isn't apparent, I, the author of the both the 9:16 AM post, am also the author of the 12:22 PM post above.
Anon 9:16/11:03 AM,
Thanks for the well-wishings, and may the same blessings come to you.
This isn’t a matter of forgiving or not forgiving. I was not really offended (I’ve been doing apologetics on my own blog for quite some time, so I’m used to this sort of thing), for I was quite confident I was correct, having studied Christology intently over the years, and I knew it was a matter of time for RayB to expose himself for his under-education in this matter. I have to admit, though, that I probably took too much pleasure in watching him reveal his own heretical beliefs in the process of trying to ‘prove’ mine wrong.
Individuals like RayB cannot be educated; they have to educate themselves. I knew he would realize he’d hung himself, so to speak, as soon as he posted the article by R. C. Sproul. The two links I provided by Sproul/Ligonier Ministries following his Sproul post were in-the-ready for the right opportunity; but I was quite surprised that he himself posted that particular Sproul article! I was on the road quite a bit in a previous job, and I used that time to listen to local Christian radio (KDRY: which had and has some excellent programming—along with some not-so-excellent), listening to Sproul (and others) quite a bit. I KNEW Ligonier was Christologically orthodox, and I knew if RayB began to study Sproul’s work, he’d realize he was very wrong.
I feel pretty confident that since our discussion he’s been reading more about the hypostatic union and Christology, as well as the Atonement, which is certainly a good thing. I’m also hopeful other readers of this blog are doing the same.
RayB couldn’t see how his thinking about Westcott & Hort was fallacious—on a number of levels. I’m not unaware that there were some beliefs they adhered to that raise my eyebrows, but this fact does not invalidate their contributions to the discipline of NT textual criticism. In fact, by RayB’s own imposed standards, we should not listen to anything HE says. At least W & H had correct Christology!
I’m pretty certain RayB was(/is?) influenced by the very shoddy work of Gail Riplinger:
www.amazon.com/New-Age-Bible-Versions-Documentation/product-reviews/0963584502/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
The following link to a radio ‘debate’ between Riplinger and James White (just the first 4.5 minutes will suffice) reveals how she deceptively misquoted someone, then refused to admit her dishonesty in this regard, as well as her error in understanding fairly basic Christian doctrine attending this misquoting, by attempting to shift the conversation to something else (sound familiar?):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuEm62KSRxg
Another problem with this demonization of W & H in order to ‘prove’ modern Bible versions wrong is that the Greek underlying the modern versions is substantially different from the 1881 W & H text. This is due to additional work in NT textual criticism and the discovery of more manuscripts (two of which confirmed a few of W & H’s initially questionable positions, including the variant in John 1:18, which evidences a more highly exalted Christology than the Textus Receptus/KJV). Moreover, it was von Tischendorf who initially proposed using the methods W & H employed, predating them by over a decade.
RayB is so far out his depth in these sorts of discussions that it’s not worth the energy to attempt to refute them all.
Which Bible Translation Should I Use?
https://youtu.be/cKJlgxeq1AM
https://www.ucg.org/beyond-today/beyond-today-television-program/which-bible-translation-should-i-use?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Warning: RayB does not approve of your viewing things that he does not approve of...
https://biblehub.com/galatians/1-10.htm
I was not going to answer Craig further, but I see he just won't let this go, and feel that I need to defend myself against his vicious attacks on my character.
I find it pretty amazing that I am labeled a heretic because I didn't make myself quite clear. People that have known me for the last 35+ years would find that charge to be amazingly inept.
In order to clarify again, In effect, I thought I was responding to Craig's erroneous view that there was a time when Jesus was NOT the Word, as he emphatically stated in his dissertation on John 1:1. As far as Jesus remaining the "God/Man" throughout eternity, R. C. Sproul also finds such a notion to be very difficult to understand and comprehend. What I was responding to was that my PERCEPTION was that Craig was saying Christ would continue to be "part Human" and not, therefore, FULLY GOD throughout eternity. After all, Craig did say the there was a time when "Jesus was NOT the Word," which is TOTALLY FALSE. It was in that vain that I did not make myself clear.
(more)
In contrast to Craig's statement that there was a time when Jesus was NOT the word, John 1:1 CLEARLY states that the WORD IS GOD. By claiming that there was a time when Jesus WAS NOT the Word, Craig is declaring that there was a time when Jesus was NOT GOD !!
Talk about HERESY !
Furthermore, our resident "scholar" has not responded to any of Wescott & Hort's heresies other than the one where Wescott claims that "After all, Jesus never claimed to be God," to which Craig immediately responded on this blog to defend.
In an absolutely incredible attempt to minimize Christ's claim to being God when He proclaimed to be "I AM," Craig used an illustration of someone else using "I am," in a completely different context, as an example of someone else declaring themselves to be "God." Utterly, completely, absolutely absurd. Deny Christ's claim to Deity if the end result is to be proven "right" seems to be Craig's selfish motivation.
Note as well that Craig still refuses to answer simply questions such as:
1) What is your belief regarding the LITERAL account of Creation in Genesis?
2) What is your belief regarding Darwin?
WHY would he not provide us with answers as to where he stands? What is he trying to hide? Does Craig deny what the Bible clearly teaches regarding Creation??
He also deflects away from ALL (except ONE) of the numerous HERESIES of both Wescott & Hort that I enumerated SEVERAL times on this blog. His only response to their documented heresies has been "you just don't understand nuance." LOL !
Craig has also REFUSED to comment on his beliefs regarding the LITERAL account of Jonah being in the belly of the great fish for 3 days and 3 nights. WHY IS THAT CRAIG? Could it possibly be that you don't really believe (as was true for Wescott & Hort) in the miracles of Scripture??
As is typical of the "higher critic," "scholarly" ilk, they love to believe that anyone and everyone that disagrees with them means they simply are "not educated." They don't even have the capacity to study and learn without THEIR aid.
How much these "scholars" must hate this verse:
"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26
(more)
Craig also claims that, in order to properly believe, we need adhere to "confessions" of faith. The Roman Catholic Church has a very precise"confession of faith" as stated in their official catechism. Yet, most of what they claim is in direct opposition to the Word of God. But hey, it's a "confession of faith," Perhaps Craig thinks that is a good thing as well?
Craig belongs to that "Wescott & Hort Only" group that loftily claims that everyone that PREFERS the KJV to be of low intellect. We're "out of depth" because we have the audacity to believe that the KJV, after much analysis, is superior to their Modern, New Age interpretations. Yes, interpretations, because they are not translations at all, because Wescott & Hort literally removed, changed, edited thousands of words and numerous passages that did not comport personal "beliefs."
Today, the KJV stands out as ONE against ALL of the other modern bibles. It differs GREATLY with them, including the fraudulent New King James "bible." If you don't believe that, go through a "verse by verse" comparison, and you will see for yourselves the numerous IMPORTANT words and passages have been either watered down, eliminated, changed, etc.
When I was "young in the Lord," I used a modern bible and I was challenged to do a verse by verse comparison. My future wife & I did just that and were convinced in less than one day that the KJV is FAR SUPERIOR in accuracy!
Re: "Furthermore, our resident 'scholar' has not responded..."
RayB, here is a list of Craig's questions to you this thread...
#1) Can you provide something more concrete to substantiate your claim that Westcott & Hort are “deceiving agents of Satan”?
#2) What is heretical with this statement: "He never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him."
(Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297)?
#3) Which Scriptures are there in which Jesus expressly and specifically calls Himself “God”?
#4) Thomas calling Jesus "my Lord and my God." (John 20:28) is NOT Jesus making an explicit claim of Deity, is it?
Anon @ 4:24 PM ...
I have answered every single one of these questions, in depth. Please scroll up and you will find that is true.
For lovers of truth that want to learn about Wescott & Hort, read this very well written, and in depth analysis of Wescott & Hort. Keep in mind, if you are reading a modern translation, it rests upon the foundation that was built by Wescott & Hort.
http://www.christiandoctrine.com/christian-doctrine/the-bible/1011-westcott-and-hort-unbelievers-who-influence-millions
Though Jesus did not say the actual words "I am God", He sure did not reprimand Thomas in his declaration, "my Lord and my God" (with scars on His glorified body that He let Thomas touch) nor previous to that, the indirect affirmation about Himself that "only One is good and that is God" when speaking to the rich young ruler, who coming to the understanding of just exactly Who he was talking to, knowing Jesus was speaking with all the authority of God so those are affirmations that He did present Himself to men as God (basically without having to directly say it), but let them arrive at that understanding on their own. How beautifully kind He is (brings James 1:5 to mind) that He does not berate people as they show their ignorance, instead He is looking (lovingly) intently at them watching for signs of believing faith as He did with that rich young ruler. The Lord Jesus is so gracious to let us find out WHO He is...and what He has done to remedy our deficit before Almighty God. He was kind and loving dealing with Judas right to the very moment of His garden arrest. He was all at once approachable, identifying with us, yet sinless, and we are taken aback at Him, as only God could and would be.
So...my question is, can we all just come to that agreeable place that Jesus Christ is Lord of all time and eternity, and stop this round robin conversation?
Have heard it said and I believe it, that the only One with any scars in heaven will be Jesus Christ..scars that will remain for us to view when we see Him in glory. That those in heaven with Him will no longer bear any marks (of sin and imperfection) of their humanity, while it will be He Who will bear the marks of His time on earth as the Son of Man, so we will know the cost it took to bring us into the Beloved, as He lovingly remembers the Love that brought Him down to us to begin with.
This, to me, is a profound thought for us to give some thought.
RayB, to be honest, you are the one with the pronounced toxic tone. Craig has been making valid points too, in his questions posed to you, but is mainly you who needs to guard yourself then, as we can be right as rain and be wrong as hell, in misrepresenting the Spirit of Christ in our discourse. We can all go there, and to our shame.
Let's agree to disagree for now, and let the Lord one day show us what we missed or may have gotten wrong in our finite knowledge in the here and now.
When we see those scars we will all be on our faces.......
Anon. said (in part) @ 5:54 PM ...
How beautifully kind He is (brings James 1:5 to mind) that He does not berate people as they show their ignorance, instead He is looking (lovingly) intently at them watching for signs of believing faith as He did with that rich young ruler."
Anon,
While your statement above is full of sentimentality, it is not Biblical in the slightest. Jesus knew the hearts of those that he dealt with, so he certainly was not "watching for signs of believing faith." Furthermore, it is HE that is "the author and finisher" of faith, not us. In fact, faith itself is a gift from the Sovereign God (see Ephesians 2: 8,9), and does not originate with US. We cannot even "come" to Jesus without God the Father drawing us. (see John 6:44)
As to how exactly Jesus addressed those that were "ignorant" of Him, and opposed Him (and the Father), read the entire 8th. Chapter of John. Keep in mind, as you hopefully read that chapter, that Jesus is addressing Jews that professed to believe in Him !
You accuse me of a "toxic tone." Yet, it was Craig that immediately tagged me with being a member of the "King James Only CULT." He has also repeatedly accused me of being a heretic, a denier of Christ's deity, ignorant, incapable of learning, uneducated, cannot be educated, etc., etc. He has also refused to answer most of my direct questions to him, while I have answered his questions without hesitation. His refusal to answer direct, simple questions is a sign of disrespect and arrogance. Yet, somehow, with all of this, I am the one that is "toxic"?
Anon, you sound very civil and kind. I think you have your heart in the right place. I just wish you would be a little more objective while reading Craig's posts.
I agree, RayB, as God He knew, but....in His humanity, we was loving and patient and kind to respond to faith. He led as a shepherd. He still does, by way of His Spirit, even now, with us. We can all be very difficult sheep at times. I was showing His Way with people, all the while He knew their very hearts.
Jesus was the humble servant of God His Father, so He stooped low to win hearts and minds. The Spirit of God in Jesus was winsome and long-suffering, and never missed an opportunity to speak the truth. What did He say to His "sons of thunder"? Loved them He did...but rebuked them with a "ye know what manner of spirit ye are of". Even in His sterner answers there was mercy to give. All I'm saying is we do better to respond as He did and let things sort out. The Spirit can educate us better than any attempts here, though I have no problem with discourse even in disagreeing, just that for His sake we should not, ourselves, be disagreeable. Refrain from it......
RayB, I find many times I agree with you here, but not always how you present yourself.
So back to Jesus, all that said above however, when He, the Lord Christ, returns He will not be that Way with the unbelieving. There will no longer be mercy. They will have blown every single chance He gave them to turn from their wickedness and sin and wrong, wrong hearts, the self righteous religious, will answer. The time of judgment (and it will be timely) will be brutal, but justified, because God is GOD.
Meanwhile, in this time beforehand, we, His sheep, would do well to find the humble and kind way to reach out where there is trouble, sin, or misunderstanding, even hate, in dealing with all human weakness. Loving the unlovable is His way with us, and we are to do likewise. In this statement I am nailing myself, as well, RayB, because I forget that also. Is convicting to say the least.
And forgive my words where they can and likely will, fall short in some way. God knows my heart.
And God help us.
How beautiful!
RayB,
Your comment @ 3:56 PM makes a statement that does not and has never reflected my actual statement. (And I would never imply or state that Jesus Christ was “part human” at any time!) You claim I said ‘there was a time when Jesus was NOT the Word’—a statement I never made explicitly or implicitly. My views can be expressed quite simply and Biblically: In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1), then the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), the latter meaning the Word took on human nature at the Incarnation. This indicates a temporal sequence:
The Word >> Word-made-flesh
That’s it! In this illustration the arrows signify the moment of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is the point at which Jesus Christ was born—His Deity, His Divine nature preexisting His birth. To the left of arrow the Word was without humanity; to the right of the arrow the Word was hypostatically conjoined with humanity (the two natures unmixed, unconfused, etc. as per Chalcedon) in the Person of Christ.
Existence: An entity either exists or it doesn’t exist. At the point of the Incarnation began the existence of the Divine-human God-man (Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:11; and consider the distinctions between BC [“Before Christ”] and AD), Word-made-flesh, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ pre-existed AS the Word—the prefix pre meaning “before”. To say or think Jesus Christ preexisted as Jesus Christ is illogical.
----
As regards your claims that you didn’t make yourself clear and you thought you were responding to this other supposed statement of mine, your own words betray you, for here is your explicit statement @ 12:27 PM:
Jesus Christ is no longer the "God-man." That was only temporal. He is now fully God without the flesh, which was destroyed on the cross.
This can in no way be understood to be a response to the statement you claim I made that I didn’t actually make: “there was a time when Jesus was NOT the Word”.
Thus, in view of your explicit statements above @ 12:09 PM and 12:27 PM, unless and until I receive some sort of clarification from you in response to my 10:26 AM post regarding those 12:09 PM and 12:27 PM statements, I will believe my 10:26 AM interpretations of your explicitly expressed views to be correct.
[As an aside, I’d already mentioned this once above: it is improper to refer to Jesus Christ as the “God/man” as you continue to do, that is, by using a forward slash. The mythological Minotaur was a hybrid man/bull, part man and part bull. In contrast, Jesus is 100% God and 100% man: the God-man--with a dash, not a forward slash.]
Craig says (in part) to RayB @ 9:43 AM:
"
You claim I said ‘there was a time when Jesus was NOT the Word’—a statement I never made explicitly or implicitly."
Craig answers this question @ 9:14 AM :
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
"No."
Unfortunately for you Craig, YOUR ANSWER to this direct question was answered by YOU.
By the way, while I have your attention, will you EVER answer the numerous other questions that I posed to you?? EVER???
RayB @ 10:52 AM,
You are confusing one statement with an entirely different question! Moreover, you are VERY dishonest in your selective quotations of me. You've edited out my complete answer and statement, which was
No. See above and my answer to 3.
3. Did Jesus Christ have a beginning, or, has He ALWAYS existed as God?
Jesus Christ, the God-man, was born in Bethlehem, but He preexisted as the uncreated, eternal “Word”.
I’ve qualified my answer adequately. If you cannot understand the distinctions made—especially given the amount of verbiage used to explain it and rephrase it, then that’s on YOU.
My direct question to Craig @ 9:43 AM:
2. Has Jesus Christ ALWAYS been the Word of God?
Craig's answer: "NO"
Craig's clear position that there was a time when Jesus Christ was NOT the Word of God, is EXTREMELY important.
John 1:1 reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Even the Jehovah Witnesses cult admit that the "Word" refers to Jesus Christ. Because they don't believe He is God, they simply changed it to read "..."and the Word was A God."
By Craig proudly proclaiming that there was a time when Jesus WAS NOT THE WORD ...
Craig is emphatically stating that THERE WAS A TIME WHEN JESUS WAS NOT GOD !!!
Craig's clear answer to a direct question represents HERESY of the highest level.
Your questions were poorly worded, as well.
Jesus Christ ALWAYS existS as God (the Son); but, Jesus Christ, the God-MAN had a beginning: at the Incarnation. God the Son always existS; but He did not always exist with a human nature, in other words, as Jesus Christ.
Does THAT clear things up for you?
Your 'analysis' at 11:15 PM illustrates that you are very confused, and you have no capacity to see proper distinctions.
Post a Comment