Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Russel Gauthier Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Son or son? Holy Spirit or holy spirit? | Gen 1:26 | Russel Gauthier | 65507 | ||
ONLY BEGOTTEN: I haven’t the faintest idea what line of thought you are trying to follow in the argument I just read from you. Since I cannot comment on your overall argument because I have no idea what you are trying to show, I will comment on a few things that you said. First of all you defined the word, “Begotten” found in John 1:18, 3:16 as, “To cause to exist or occur; produce”, because that is the definition found in the Merriam Webster dictionary. NEVER use an English dictionary to define words in Scripture, because the Bible wasn’t written in English. Translations are inadequate, in that they cannot fully translate the true meaning of Scripture. They are translations of the Scripture, but they are not the Scripture themselves. So we need to look at the use of the word, “Only Begotten” and define it according to its usage in Greek, since the New Testament was written in Greek not English. The word used in John 1:18 and John 3:16 is monogenhs. This is defined as, “only…unique(in kind), etc.”, according to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature(Bauer). He gives example upon example of its use in the LXX and other Greek writings showing that this was the meaning of the word. The Oxford Greek-English Lexicon(Liddell and Scott) defines the term as, “1. Only, single. 2. Unique. 3. the only member of a kin or kind”. Because of this usage of the term in the Greek world many translations translate the term monogenhs as, “ONE AND ONLY”, because this was the sense meant by the term. Even when we go over and translate it as “BEGOTTEN” the implication is not of natural birth since that term was a lot of the times applied to situations where there wasn’t any family relation implied at all. Even if a family relation term was implied in John 1:18, 3:16, this can only be interpreted metaphorically ie. that Jesus is the Only Son--there is no other--He is one of a kind. This is evident, because if we were take it literally we would have to insist that there was a Mother God who with the Father God begot the Son. To be “begotten” in the literal sense means that someone has begotten you-- “to procreate as the father”[MW], and procreate means to, “beget or bring forth (offspring)”[MW]. But this is heresy. Rather, the terms, “Son” and “Father” are relational terms of family, which help us get some understanding of the nature of Jesus. But we cannot push these metaphors to their furthest extent ie. Jesus was created, or was brought forth through Divine sex, etc. You also said, “It appears as though you believe in Trinity as the Godhead. So let me ask you, if the Godhead is all separate but equal Gods”.Well, I don’t know how to respond to this question, because True Trinitarians will never say that the Godhead is composed of three equal Gods. The doctrine is that the Godhead is composed of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But never that they are three Gods. They are of one substance and cannot be divided in such a way that you would say Three Gods. This would be against Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”. This does not invalidate the trinity, because we still believe He is One God, of one substance, indivisible(such that you can’t say three Gods of equal Gods or GODS). Furthermore you are ignoring the fact that the Scriptures make it clear that Jesus is God, cf. John 1:1 and John 1:14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”. Now you cannot argue that Jesus ceased being God because it says that the Word WAS God. Because then you are implying a change in a perfect God. Look at Malachi 4:1, “For I, the LORD, do not change”. God cannot change in His being, such that something that was Him would cease being part of Him, because that would imply that God changed and therefore is imperfect. In John 20:28, Thomas called Jesus his Lord and GOD. Jesus didn’t rebuke him. In fact Jesus responded by saying, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."(v.29). Therefore we are Blessed when we believe that Jesus is both Lord and God. Furthermore just because Jesus was “forsaken” does not mean that He ceased to be Yahweh. It does not state that in the text. He was forsaken in another sense. It nowhere states in the text that He ceased being God. You would have to show a verse showing that Jesus ceased being God at that moment to validly bring up that objection. Because of the fact that He is God, we have to figure out a way of interpreting this text that will take that into consideration, since we cannot ignore verse proving His deity. |
||||||
2 | What does BC and AD mean? | 1 Cor 16:23 | Russel Gauthier | 65494 | ||
BC means BEFORE CHRIST. AD means ANNO DOMINI, or year of the Lord, which began with Jesus Christ being born...or more precisely when we think He was born. May the Lord bless you! And may the grace of the Lord Jesus be with you (1Corinthians 16:23). |
||||||
3 | why did the law change about unclean mea | Deut 12:15 | Russel Gauthier | 64892 | ||
The greater question here is not whether this specific law still applies, but whether or not the Mosaic Law is applicable to the Christian. The Law did not change, but it may not be applicable to us as it may have never been. Yahweh(the LORD) was in sacred covenant with Israel and this covenant did not apply to the Gentiles. If you read Ex 19:5-8 and many other passages in the Pentateuch they make it clear that the Covenant spoken of there and its laws were for God's chosen people Israel. So the laws that applied to the Jews under their covenant, since they were never applicable to us should not be applied to us. There were some Gentiles that became part of the covenant community(e.g. Ruth), but these were the exceptions more than the rule. There were and are proselytes(i.e. Gentiles who commit and are baptized and follow the Law) in Jewish tradition. But even at that all of these were people that made a covenant with God to be under the Law. Also if we are to decide to follow part of the Law, in an attempt to be "lawful" we must follow the fulness of the Law. We cannot pick and choose what parts we want to keep and the parts we don't want to keep. Furthermore following the Law does not bring about justification for, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;"(Romans 3:20). But out of faith in Jesus Christ we are justified, Romans 3:21-22. The Early Church dealt with the issue of clean/unclean and the applicability of the Old Covenant laws/regulations. In Acts 15 the issue was looked at head-on by the Church. Some people came preaching in Antioch where Barnabas and Paul were saying that the Gentile converts had to be circumcised to be saved(verse 1). Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to meet with the Church leaders to discuss the issue. Some stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them[i.e. the Gentiles] and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."(verse 5). After much debate Peter stood up and answered(this is part of it): "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are."(verse 10-11). So Peter made it very clear here that the LAW DID AND DOES NOT APPLY TO THE GENTILES. This does not mean that there is no "moral standard" for the Christian, it just means that this moral standard is not the Law. So where do we go for moral standards...because holiness is imperative in the New Testament?--the the New Testament itself, which has many sections dealing with morals/law for the New Testament believer--many of which are taken directly from the OT(not implying that the whole OT law is applicable though), though salvation does not come through following them. The issue of clean and unclean food is very abruptly dealt with in The New Covenant. Jesus in Matthew 15:11 states, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.". Paul states, "All things indeed are clean" (Romans 14:20) and, "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself;"(Romans 14:14). Lastly in Acts 11, Peter has a vision showing that God has made the food clean and that we should call what God has made clean unclean. This passage may be referring to the Gentiles though, as F.F.Bruce points out. But by any means there is no basis for us to continue to follow the clean/unclean food laws of the OT. I hope that this was helpful. |
||||||