Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This is the "Other Christian Denominations" Forum. There are many "non-Baptist" doctrines that show up for this is the only place that they can post. The only question the administration has to decide is how far from "orthodoxy" is too far.
My understanding of the term “the Son of God” is most probably not the same as your assessments of this term. My understanding excludes the possibility that Jesus is also “God” (in the English sense of the word), or “God the Son”. In certain contexts the Hebrew words “Elohim” and “Yahweh” are used for Jesus.
My view of the term likeness may be different here. I believe he came in our sin-prone nature, but always overcame the lusts of the flesh, eye and pride of life. He is very much the same nature as us, but never sinned. A better translation is “sin’s flesh” or “flesh of sin” as the word “sinful” flesh can be misleading. .
My view of Genesis 1:26-27 and Psalm 8:5 included the Angels in the creation of man and Jesus. Yes, the creation of Jesus, hence the word “made”. I disagree with the JWs concerning Michael.
Martin, I was a bit disappointed with your response above. What I wrote was the following:
Even though I do not believe Jesus is God, you plucked the first phrase of my comment on John 10:30,36. You seem to ignore v36, which is Jesus’ answer to Jew’s accusing Jesus of making himself equal with God, and then you reaffirm their accusation by agreeing with the Jews. Yes they were hostile and bigoted, but you are agreeing with their wrong assessment. Please also note that v36 is also a summary of Jesus’ rebuttal of their accusation, when he speaks about the Judges being called Elohim, translated as "gods" in the KJV. I suggest you need to look carefully at ALL of John 10:30-36 before you use it as a Trinitarian proof-text.
I have no problem whatsoever with John 10:36. As I have pointed out, I fully believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and I fully understand that the Father sent Him into the world. I am pointing out to you that the Jews knew exactly what our Lord was driving at when He spoke John 8:58 and 10:30, but you don't. You see it again in Mark 14:62-3. 'Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Jesus said, I am [ego eimi]. And you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ".........blasphemy!"'
The reason why I linked John 10:30 with John 10:36 is that I believe the two statements are essentially the same. The Jews objected to both as well as objecting to ALL that Jesus stated in John 10:30-36. Also you continue to use John 10:30 almost in isolation to support your understanding of the Trinity. Also you insist on latching onto the Jews’ response as proof that Jesus is claiming to be God or part of the Trinity. I would be willing to go through John 10:30-36 looking at each word, phrase, verse and overall teaching and meaning.
The High Priest is here objecting to Jesus claiming to be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed = the Son of God, and fulfilling Psalm 110:1 and then coming in judgement. There is no Trinity claim in what Jesus has stated. Again “I am” is not alluding to or quoting Exodus 3:14.
Again you insist on reading more into the “I am” and “I am he” verses. The soldiers were certainly shocked by Jesus’ statement, but I do not believe it is connected with Exodus 3:14. I have given my explanation of Exodus 3:14 as “I will be”.
And you insist on ignoring the obvious. The Lord Jesus says "I AM" and the Jews pick up stones to kill Him. He says "I AM" and the soldiers fall back in dismay. He says "I AM" and the High Priest tears his garment and cries "Blasphemy!"
Not much of a recommendation steaver, but nevertheless I will simply mention that Jesus rejected the praise of the rich young ruler, as it was inappropriate and wrong. To create a syllogism with “Good Master” and “the good shepherd” does not prove that Jesus was claiming to be God or God the Son.
The KJV or Matthew’s parallel passage does not readily support your conjecture about the verb to be in its various forms:
Perhaps you forgot my Post where I listed a large number of the “I AM” passages in John in the heaven/hell at death thread. Predominantly there is a theme where Jesus is claiming “I am he”, that is “the Christ”. I also believe that Exodus 3:14 should be translated “I will be”. John 8:58 is not a direct quote or allusion to the LXX of Exodus 3:14. As you claim to have some Greek understanding (you keep on saying ego eimi etc), you should check the LXX of Exodus 3:14. The English translation of the LXX is significantly different to the English in the KJV of Exodus 3:14. I prefer Tyndale’s translation and the margins of the RV and RSV.
Your response Yeshua1 is a (rough) weaving together of a number of passages and Trinitarian concepts. I will not answer them one by one as steaver suggested. I have already responded to John 10:30, but as this is one of the most popular Trinitarian proof-texts, I will give a further brief response. To clarify, Jesus by claiming that God is His Father “my Father” is simply saying that he is the Son of God, and he also says that he is one with God his Father. The same type of unity is expressed between God the Father and Jesus, and Jesus and the disciples in John 17. It has nothing to do with the definition in the Trinitarian Athanasian Creed of the Apostate Church. Rather the Bible teaches that there is One God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ is The Son of God.
