Discussion thread: Tosca1 vs. RGacky3

[digsbe]

This thread will be used to discuss the debate between Tosca1 and RGacky3 here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/true-debates/188030-true-debate-tosca1-vs-rgacky3.html

There will be 1 introductory post, 3 posts of debate and 1 concluding post.

 

[phattonez]

I hope that Tosca is saving the best arguments for last:

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

In Philippians 2:6, Paul tells us that Christ Jesus "[w]ho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be g.asped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

There is no doubt that the Bible portrays Jesus as God. None.

 

[phattonez]

In RGacky's introductory post, he has already conceded the debate. Take a look at this:

One, every Jew EVER understood this as being a Unitarian monotheist statement. Jesus Agreed With that statement in the Jewish form, he wasn't lieing, he wasn't decieving the scribe, he was a Unitarian monotheist.

There is only one God. God is Yahweh. There is only one God.

The God of Jesus is OUR GOD, and Our God is yahweh.

Got that? There is only one God, and God is Yahweh.

Now is it true that Jesus is called "God" in the NT ... absolutely, does that mean that he is Yahweh NO ...

Perhaps RGacky would like to answer the question of just who then Jesus is.

There is only one God.
God is Yahweh.
Jesus is God.

The only logical possibility is that God is Yahweh. RGacky has provided all of the evidence.

 

[RGacky3]

In RGacky's introductory post, he has already conceded the debate. Take a look at this:

There is only one God. God is Yahweh. There is only one God.

Got that? There is only one God, and God is Yahweh.

Perhaps RGacky would like to answer the question of just who then Jesus is.

There is only one God.
God is Yahweh.
Jesus is God.

The only logical possibility is that God is Yahweh. RGacky has provided all of the evidence.

The Shema is "hear o Israel Yahweh our God Yahweh is one." this doesn't preclude there existing anything else that can be called "god" (such as angels, moses, judges and even false gods)

Words can be used in different senses. Using you're logic Moses is God, and so are the angels, and so are judges.

Here is another example.

John 8
39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing[j] what Abraham did, 40 but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one father, God himself.”

First they say Abraham is our father, then they say later we have one father, God himself.

Were they saying that Abraham is God? No of coarse not, that's rediculous and no bible scholar would think that, why? Becsause the term father can be used in different ways and the same with the word God.

trying to do little word play tricks with the text is not serious exegesis, and it doens't help your case at all.

 

[tosca1]

RGacky has provided all of the evidence.

Indeed.

 

[phattonez]

The Shema is "hear o Israel Yahweh our God Yahweh is one." this doesn't preclude there existing anything else that can be called "god" (such as angels, moses, judges and even false gods)

You said "God", not "god."

 

[RGacky3]

You said "God", not "god."

There are no capital letters in Hebrew or Greek.

 

[phattonez]

You mean to tell me that you find John 1 unclear about whether it is talking about God or some god?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[a] 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness,[c] and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

[RGacky3]

You mean to tell me that you find John 1 unclear about whether it is talking about God or some god?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[a] 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness,[c] and the darkness has not overcome it.

I mean to tell you that John make a purposeful distinction between the first use of "theos" with the article and the second of it without the article, this only ONCE in the entire bible and that is in John 1:1.

Which is why in english it sounds gramatically strange (how can you be with yourself), but in greek the use of the article makes a clear distinction, and it makes sense.

So yes, Jesus was NOT the God that he was with, John makes that difference with the use of the article and this differentiation ONLY ever appears here in John 1:1.

 

[phattonez]

I mean to tell you that John make a purposeful distinction between the first use of "theos" with the article and the second of it without the article, this only ONCE in the entire bible and that is in John 1:1.

Which is why in english it sounds gramatically strange (how can you be with yourself), but in greek the use of the article makes a clear distinction, and it makes sense.

So yes, Jesus was NOT the God that he was with, John makes that difference with the use of the article and this differentiation ONLY ever appears here in John 1:1.

Is Jesus the Word? Yes or no.

 

[RGacky3]

Is Jesus the Word? Yes or no.

It isn't germane to the argument at all, even if he is, he is not the God he was With, that's simply how the greek grammer Works.

 

[phattonez]

It isn't germane to the argument at all, even if he is, he is not the God he was With, that's simply how the greek grammer Works.

It absolutely is. "The Word was God . . . all things were made through Him." If Jesus is the Word then we're done here. Now answer the question. Is Jesus the Word?

 

[RGacky3]

It absolutely is. "The Word was God . . . all things were made through Him." If Jesus is the Word then we're done here. Now answer the question. Is Jesus the Word?

Actually "through him" is different than "by him".

I've heard 2 plausable explanations for what the word is, one it could be the "wisdom" of God like in Proverbs 8, the will of God, or it could be the pre-existant Christ. Even if it IS the latter, it doesn't prove that he is Yahweh.

Especially given that John 1:1 makes the absolute distinction.

 

[phattonez]

Actually "through him" is different than "by him".

I've heard 2 plausable explanations for what the word is, one it could be the "wisdom" of God like in Proverbs 8, the will of God, or it could be the pre-existant Christ. Even if it IS the latter, it doesn't prove that he is Yahweh.

Especially given that John 1:1 makes the absolute distinction.

John 1:14a "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"

The wisdom of God cannot become flesh. What is the "pre-existant" [sic] Christ?

And please elaborate on how "through him" is different than "by him".

 

[RGacky3]

John 1:14a "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"

The wisdom of God cannot become flesh. What is the "pre-existant" [sic] Christ?

And please elaborate on how "through him" is different than "by him".

Of coarse it can, not everything in the bible is literal, Gods "will" or "wisdom" can become flesh, it can go from an idea, or a plan to reality.

Pre-existant Christ is Christ as a heavenly creature existing before him being begotten on earth.

Yahweh saved Israel THROUGH judges, and he spoke THROUGH prophets.

 

[tosca1]

Of coarse it can, not everything in the bible is literal, Gods "will" or "wisdom" can become flesh, it can go from an idea, or a plan to reality.

So can His Word - in the person of Christ.

God's will or wisdom becoming flesh - what kind of flesh do you envision? :lol:

If - as you admit - God's will or wisdom can become flesh, why do you balk at believing His Word can be personified in Jesus?

 

[phattonez]

Of coarse it can, not everything in the bible is literal, Gods "will" or "wisdom" can become flesh, it can go from an idea, or a plan to reality.

Pre-existant Christ is Christ as a heavenly creature existing before him being begotten on earth.

Yahweh saved Israel THROUGH judges, and he spoke THROUGH prophets.

Begotten before all ages. The point is that the Word is God, God is one, God is Yahweh, and since Jesus is the Word, Jesus is equal with Yahweh.

 

[RGacky3]

Begotten before all ages. The point is that the Word is God, God is one, God is Yahweh, and since Jesus is the Word, Jesus is equal with Yahweh.

Begotten means "brought into existance" ....

 

[phattonez]

It's not a sufficient definition. I'll let C.S. Lewis handle it:

We don't use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed. But, of course, it is not a real man; it only looks like one. It cannot breathe or think. It is not alive.

Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man creates is not man.

From Mere Christianity