Text and Tradition

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Yes, I'm aware of that. Are you referring to the Masoretic texts? Also there are Prescott and Hort, who attempted the removal of anything alluding to divinity in Jesus. Considering what you've shared, far be it from me to state with assurance that human fallibility has created some discrepancy in the original texts. All the more essential the discern ...[text shortened]... hrough the Holy Ghost! Incomplete (EDIT: or inaccurate) texts don't infringe on the Truth...

So, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the NT canon, but then decided
to wait 1000 years before informing 'believers' that seven books ought to be excised?

There is nothing in the Bible which positively asserts the divinity of Jesus, and a fair bit to exclude it.


Nemesio

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Surely, then, there is some assurance for the believer?

What if I told you that the Holy Spirit told me that Jesus never existed? What would you say?

You'd say I was wrong. So, if I can be confident through something I interpret to be the Holy
Spirit's revelation and be completely wrong (naturally, I believe Jesus existed), then so, too, can
a so-called believer think that s/he is 'saved' and be totally wrong.

Nemesio

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Whether the text is rendered 'born again' or 'born from above', it is still referring to the same 'birth' through spirit and fire Jesus is referring to. I don't believe that whoever translated 'born from above' as 'born again' made the same mistake Nicodemus had. They are both rhetorical devices pointing to the same thing. I did not mean to insinuate ...[text shortened]... se to Jesus indicated anything essential to what Jesus was trying to explain to him.

We return, then, to the issue of translation. Born again means something different than
born from above. Even if the end result (fire and wind/spirit) is the same, how we come to
mean it influences our reading of it. The failure to appreciate the double entendre of the author
fails to appreciate its subtlety, and fails to connect the passage with 3:31ff. To perpetuate this
inferior translation is to obscure the beauty of the text and to minimize any revelation it might
contain.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]How is 'born again' exclusively 19th Century? Is it not used by Jesus in John 3:3? I understand it can also be translated as 'born from above', but Nicodemus' reply indicates that he and Jesus were talking about being 'born again' somehow.

Jesus says, 'Born from above.' Nicodemus dimly responds, 'Born aga ...[text shortened]... ation for the accepting of the gift given.

Nemesio[/b]

"Work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear. For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him" (Phillipians 2:12-13).

I think, perhaps, you have a certain prejudice for people who talk about being 'born again' as though all these people, including myself, were referring to an empty outward display without inward transformation. I'm sure there are plenty of Christians who do such, but not all. As Paul alludes to here, works are the results of salvation, not the leading up to salvation, as you claim. At some 'point' God's work begins in a believer, giving him or her the 'power to do what pleases him." This 'event' is what most refer to as being 'born again', or 'born from above'. Repentance, followed by a cleaving to, a reliance on, and a trusting in Jesus Christ. At some 'point' there is a heart change resulting from the prompting of the Holy Spirit.

"Yet now he has reconciled you to himself through the death of Christ in his physical body. As a result, he has brought you into his own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault. But you must continue to believe this truth and stand firmly in it. Don’t drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News" (Colossians 1:22-23).

On the contrary, having an assurance of one's salvation is essential to the Christian life. Of course, saying you are saved and not proving your faith by good works is a dead faith, but that does not mean we cannot have assurance of our salvation. The process of being sanctified holy is lifelong, but still the believer is already declared holy by their faith in Jesus Christ. Both aspects of salvation are essential and true.

"I tell you the truth, those who listen to my message and believe in God who sent me have eternal life. They will never be condemned for their sins, but they have already passed from death into life" (John 5:24).

Faith in the victory Jesus Christ won on the cross is what Christianity entails, and is the inspiration for the specific works God has in mind for the believer. It is already received in that the believer has already passed from death into life. Paul gives us the Christian's impetus to do good works -- it is not by obeying the law that we earn favor with God (through good works) but because of our faith, and it is because of faith that we do the good works God has predestined for us:

"God saved you by his grace when you believed. And you can’t take credit for this; it is a gift from God. Salvation is not a reward for the good things we have done, so none of us can boast about it. For we are God’s masterpiece. He has created us anew in Christ Jesus, so we can do the good things he planned for us long ago" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

So, I agree with your stress upon good works as it pertains to proving one's faith, but disagree with you wholeheartedly when you say that salvation is never, at any point, certainly attained.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit guided the formation of the NT canon, but then decided
to wait 1000 years before informing 'believers' that seven books ought to be excised?

No. What the heck are you talking about? I was agreeing with you. ?????????

Originally posted by Nemesio
There is nothing in the Bible which positively asserts the divinity of Jesus, and a fair bit to exclude it.

Alright, that's your own trip, buddy. I was with you for a bit there, but now you're on your own. John 1 positively asserts the divinity of Jesus. End of story. I could find others, but this really is a waste of time...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No. What the heck are you talking about? I was agreeing with you. ?????????

So, you're hip to the idea that 2 Maccabees is Scripture?

My bad, I thought you incorrectly said that the Bible had 66 books.

Nemesio

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Alright, that's your own trip, buddy. I was with you for a bit there, but now you're on your own. John 1 positively asserts the divinity of Jesus. End of story. I could find others, but this really is a waste of time...

I assume you are referring to the penultimate line of I John, right?

We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the
one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus. He is the true God
and eternal life. (5:20)

There is nothing to suggest that the 'he' here refers specifically to Jesus and not to 'the one'
in the previous sentence.

Compare, in the same letter, 5:1 -- Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is begotten
by God and everyone who loves the father loves the one begotten by him.

Note the clear distinction between God and the begotten. God begets himself? Hardly makes
any semantic sense.

Consider earlier yet, 4:15 -- Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains
in him and he in God. Again, it doesn't say 'Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God,' or
'Jesus is God,' or 'Son is co-equal to God, the Father.'

If we can believe that the author of the Gospel is the same as the author of the letters (possible,
if not probable), then Jesus is pretty clearly distinct from God: God grants Him the authority to
do miracles, or preach forgiveness (e.g., 6:27-29); Jesus acknowledges His important status as
being from God (e.g., 6:46 or 57, 8:40-42); that He was to return to God (13:3); that His
teaching is not His own, but God's (7:16-17); that His followers should know God through Jesus
(17:1-5).

Most significantly, in St Luke, Jesus rebukes a man who calls Him good, saying that 'No one is good
but God alone.' (18:19).

These are but a handful of dozens of clear references that the authors of these texts did
not regard Jesus as Divine, but of God, specially chosen, even from the beginning of
time. God is repeatedly set in exclusive juxtaposition with Jesus, in St Paul's letters, in the Gospels,
and elsewhere. To claim otherwise is to begin with the credal assertion that Jesus is
Divine and then force that interpretation by torturing these clear texts.

Now, don't get me wrong. That's fine with me. You can think Jesus is Divine or the local
handyman for all I care. Just don't make silly claims like 'the Bible says Jesus is Divine,' because
it doesn't. That's a second-century theological construct. If it were obvious, then you
wouldn't need a post script, like a creed, to assert it. After all, you don't see any credal references
to Jesus' being a miracle worker or healer -- that's because anyone who was even remotely a believer
believed that because there can be no equivocation on the issue. Divinity? Not conclusive, and
even questionable based on Scripture alone. Based on tradition? No doubt.

Nemesio

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Again, I don't disagree with you. Somewhere you've morphed your position from 'good works get you into heaven' to 'faith + good works get you into heaven'. I don't know what the heck we're arguing about anymore. And I'm getting tired of you ignoring everything I say: I never said all it takes is to say 'I believe in Jesus' to get into heaven--YOU HAVE ...[text shortened]... l no longer carry on this conversation with you until you answer that one question.

That question is unclear. In what sense? If you only want to carry on conversations with people who seem to have similar or identical belief systems as yours, you're on the wrong forum.

I haven't "morphed MY position" at all. I'm merely pointing out what the relevant portions of the Gospels say. Jesus was pretty explicit in Matthew 25 and vague at other times. No sure where in the Gospels it says "faith is a gift from God"; if that were so, Jesus wouldn't praise the "faith" of certain people in the Gospels.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I assume you are referring to the penultimate line of I John, right?

We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the
one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus. He is the true God
and eternal life. (5:20)

There is nothing to suggest that the 'he' here refers specifically to Jesus ...[text shortened]... sed on Scripture alone[/i]. Based on tradition? No doubt.

Nemesio

You sound exactly like some Jehovah's Witnesses I argued with in my living room last fall, when I shared this passage:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

Of course, their translation read, "...and the Word was a God," an addition found nowhere in the original greek. I don't even want to know your excuse (though something tells me I will).

"Because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9).

"Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God" (Philippians 2:5-6).

"Because of this, then, were the Jews seeking the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the sabbath, but he also called God his own Father, making himself equal to God" (John 5:18).

"He (God) Saith . . . unto the Son, "Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign; thou didst love righteousness, and didst hate lawlessness; because of this did He anoint thee -- God, thy God -- with oil of gladness above thy partners;' and, `Thou, at the beginning, Lord, the earth didst found, and a work of thy hands are the heavens; these shall perish, and Thou dost remain, and all, as a garment, shall become old, and as a mantle Thou shall roll them together, and they shall be changed, and Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.' And unto which of the messengers said He ever, `Sit at My right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?' (Hebrews 1:6, 8-13).

Just like the JW's, you would relegate Jesus to mere angel, a messenger, of God, though the author of Hebrews clearly points out here that He is no mere angel, but God Himself? The scriptural evidence is clear, whether your 'church fathers' see it or not.

Do you want me to quote scriptures concerning the Holy Spirit, too? Are we going to get into a dispute over the Triune nature of God now?

I don't dispute your scripture references which piont to Christ as separate from the Father (Father and Son), for their is a clear difference between the two. That Jesus Christ is God's Son and also God is the mystery of the Godhead, and nothing I am capable of grasping. I am not denying the claims of any scripture, it is you who are denying the claims of scripture, in that you explain away all references to Christ' divinity to fit your own ends.

Do you think the actual nature of God is just going to make complete semantic sense to you? Ridiculous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That question is unclear. In what sense? If you only want to carry on conversations with people who seem to have similar or identical belief systems as yours, you're on the wrong forum.

I haven't "morphed MY position" at all. I'm merely pointing out what the relevant portions of the Gospels say. Jesus was pretty explicit in Matthew 25 and vag ...[text shortened]... ; if that were so, Jesus wouldn't praise the "faith" of certain people in the Gospels.

I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I just said I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore until you tell me whether or not you yourself believe in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
I assume you are referring to the penultimate line of I John, right?

We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the
one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus. He is the true God
and eternal life. (5:20)

There is nothing to suggest that the 'he' here refers specifically to Jesus and not to 'the one'
in the previous sentence.

"And we have known that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; this one is the true God and the life age-during!" (1 John 5:20, YLT).

The original greek literally reads, word for word: "...Jesus Christ this is the true God and life eternal." Young's Literal Translation says 'this one is the true God', because the greek word for 'this' is nominative singular masculine.

Of course Christ didn't come calling Himself God. His ministry was one of giving up His Godhood so that He may be the perfect example of obedience to God, as a pattern for all believers. Therefore, in all His words and actions He glorified His father in heaven.

Trying to explain away Christ's divinity through semantics is, frankly speaking, a spiritually unenlightened venture.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I assume you are referring to the penultimate line of I John, right?

We also know that the Son of God has come and has given us discernment to know the
one who is true. And we are in the one who is true, in his Son Jesus. He is the true God
and eternal life. (5:20)

There is nothing to suggest that the 'he' here refers specifically to Jesus ...[text shortened]... sed on Scripture alone[/i]. Based on tradition? No doubt.

Nemesio

Furthermore, consider Zechariah 12:10 -

"And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto Me whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born" (YLT).

The Jehovah's Witnesses 'bible' has erased the 'Me' intentionally in order to give the impression Jehovah was not talking about Himself when he spoke of being pierced.

I'm sorry, Nemesio, but the evidence is there.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm not saying you have to agree with me, I just said I'm not going to argue this point with you anymore until you tell me whether or not you yourself believe in Jesus Christ.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

And I repeat: the question is unclear. In what sense? Once you actually specify what you're asking, I can either A) Answer the question; B) Tell you I don't know the answer or C) Inform you it's NOYB. Any of the three might be an appropriate response to the question: "Do you believe in Jesus Christ" from my standpoint.

Originally posted by no1marauder
And I repeat: the question is unclear. In what sense? Once you actually specify what you're asking, I can either A) Answer the question; B) Tell you I don't know the answer or C) Inform you it's NOYB. Any of the three might be an appropriate response to the question: "Do you believe in Jesus Christ" from my standpoint.

I'm a Muslim and I belive in Jesus Christ, but I belive in him as a man and a prophet. I don't think this is the answer he expect.