Did Jesus sin? The value of Jesus' temptation - discuss.
-
An explanation of Crying to God by Jesus in accordance to Psalm 21 can be found here.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2004/Feature1.asp
By Michael D. Guinan, O.F.M., who is a professor of Old Testament, Semitic languages and biblical spirituality at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, California. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Actually 'Lord' does not mean God automatically.
Luke 1: 43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of[b] my Lord 14 should come to me?
If he was truly man or merely a man with a divine nature, he shalt not be called God for that is blasphemous and furthermore, she is under the influencing of Holy Spirit hence she must be speaking the truth.[/b]
For example, in Psalms, there is a verse that says "The Lord saith to my Lord .. "
You don't suppose it is God talking to God, do you?
If you are still unclear, read the original Hebrew. -
Given some leeway, any Scripture can be explained.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:An explanation of Crying to God by Jesus in accordance to Psalm 21 can be found here.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2004/Feature1.asp
For example, can you find a verse in the Holy Qu'ran that reads like terrorist manifesto to you and yet has not been explained by some Muslim scholar? -
Why not you explain *in your own words*?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:An explanation of Crying to God by Jesus in accordance to Psalm 21 can be found here.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Apr2004/Feature1.asp -
But the Gospel was written in greekOriginally posted by Icemoon:Actually 'Lord' does not mean God automatically.
For example, in Psalms, there is a verse that says "The Lord saith to my Lord .. "
You don't suppose it is God talking to God, do you?
If you are still unclear, read the original Hebrew.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GolgothaSkull.jpg
A pic of where Christ died....scary looking area.
[/img] -
Don't you get it? The gospel authors had poor understanding of the Hebrew Bible!Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:But the Gospel was written in greek
The gospel might be written in Greek .. BUT most of the conversations inside were definitely not in Greek. -
But as a Christian, naturally I will believe that it is inspired scripture.Originally posted by Icemoon:Don't you get it? The gospel authors had poor understanding of the Hebrew Bible!
The gospel might be written in Greek .. BUT most of the conversations inside were definitely not in Greek.
Most of the convo is in Aramaic is most certainly true.
But even the Hebrew term Adonai in that case, means God. -
Your head!Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:But as a Christian, naturally I will believe that it is inspired scripture.
Most of the convo is in Aramaic is most certainly true.
But even the Hebrew term Adonai in that case, means God.
Adonai need not mean God necessarily!
Don't malu yourself. Go and read the concordance first before replying. You didn't learn your lesson last time during the Petrine discussion? -
Goodness.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:But as a Christian, naturally I will believe that it is inspired scripture.
I thought you are Catholic first then Christian?
-
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
He is called lord because he succeeded, and thus regained his status as the God of heaven. If he died as a sinner you think Luke will still write about him as lord?
Luke 1: 43
And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord 14 should come to me?
If he was truly man or merely a man with a divine nature, he shalt not be called God for that is blasphemous and furthermore, she is under the influencing of Holy Spirit hence she must be speaking the truth. -
Catholicism is True Christianity hahaOriginally posted by Icemoon:Goodness.
I thought you are Catholic first then Christian? 
-
He succeeded before he was even borned...now i am confused???Originally posted by Skibi:He is called lord because he succeeded, and thus regained his status as the God of heaven. If he died as a sinner you think Luke will still write about him as lord?
She called him Lord even before he was borned. Jesus was God since conception. -
you are saying that Luke has the standardised standard and thus knows how to heng2 liang2 right and wrong, sinner and non-sinner, Jesus as lord or non-lord??Originally posted by Skibi:He is called lord because he succeeded, and thus regained his status as the God of heaven. If he died as a sinner you think Luke will still write about him as lord? -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
It seems you still do not understand.
He succeeded before he was even borned...now i am confused???
She called him Lord even before he was borned. Jesus was God since conception.
1. Jesus was God in heaven before he was reincarnated as a mortal.
2. Jesus sacrificed his powers to show us the way of righteousness.
3. Although Jesus had lost his powers when he was a human, don't you think that it is right and proper for Mary to remain loyal to her master still address him as Lord? -
Can you please illustrate those 3 points with scripturial evidence please.Originally posted by Skibi:It seems you still do not understand.
1. Jesus was God in heaven before he was reincarnated as a mortal.
2. Jesus sacrificed his powers to show us the way of righteousness.
3. Although Jesus had lost his powers when he was a human, don't you think that it is right and proper for Mary to remain loyal to her master still address him as Lord? -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
No. I have already quoted enough scriptural evidence earlier. You understand in your heart, but you have made the choice to reject the word of God and the teachings of Jesus.
Can you please illustrate those 3 points with scripturial evidence please. -
IF WHAT I SAY IS WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME AS THE POST WAS MY SOLE EFFORT. I REFERED TO NO SITE AS THIS 'DOCTRINE' IS CLEARLY ORIGINAL HAHA.
MY DEFENSE.Originally posted by Skibi:It seems you still do not understand.
1. Jesus was God in heaven before he was reincarnated as a mortal.
2. Jesus sacrificed his powers to show us the way of righteousness.
3. Although Jesus had lost his powers when he was a human, don't you think that it is right and proper for Mary to remain loyal to her master still address him as Lord?
1) I do agree that he was the Son of God before he came into this world. Genesis hinted at it. However no where in Scripture, does it say Christ was a mortal (and not God). Instead Scripture continue to literally proclaim that God walked among Man.
Verses to prove so:Catching sight of Jesus from a distance, he ran up and prostrated himself before him, crying out in a loud voice, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!"
The man with the unclean spirit worshipped Jesus and called him the Son of God. If he was truly mortal (and lost his divine powers and hence his title) he could not be called such. Can I call Lucifer an Archangel despite the fact he has lost all his powers? Clearly its NO as since he has lost all his powers, he naturally will have lost his title and the right to be called such. Clearly the principle of logic proves that to be addressed at any title, one must possese the power in the first place. If Jesus was truly Man, he (by that prinicple) cannot be called the Son of God since he has lost all his powers.
Mark 5:6In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. - John 1:1
We clearly see that Jesus is indeed the Word who in turn is God. We learn in verse 14 that the Word dwelled among us. Hence we can clearly see that God (the Word) dwelled among us. This clearly refute your position that Christ was a mere man. If he was Man, calling him the Word is blatant heresy. If Jesus was indeed God and had given up his powers, he too would have lost that title, hence making such a claim heretical.
And the Word became flesh 9 and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14
Word = God = Word = Jesus who dwelled among us. God hence dwelled among us.
2) I answer that Jesus did not sacrifice his divine powers AT ALL. On the contrary the Gospel clearly proves the manifestation of all his powers. I can easily point to the numerous miracles he has done and even the changing of bread into his own body as examples of his divine powers which you claim he has surrendered. I see no need to quote verses as I believe that you as a bible Christian should be able to find it yourself. If Jesus has indeed lost all his powers, how then could he perform so many miracles?
Furthermore, no where in Scripture does it say that Christ lost any of his powers?
3) It was Elizabeth who said that. This goes to show that even the Holy Spirit believes Christ was God before conception as Elizabeth was under the influence of the Spirit. This verse is devastating to your position.
4) Lastly, I wish to question the necessity of God becoming Man (losing his divine nature) to show us the path of righteousness.
a) God could easily sent a prophet to do so.
b) Christ did not come to show us the path of righteousness instead, he was sent to make peace with God by his divine blood. He alone is the perfect sacrifice as he is God. We see it clearly in Collosians 1and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross 11 (through him), whether those on earth or those in heaven
Christ Jesus was sent here to shed his blood for us and hence making is righteous. He was not send to SHOW us the path (and we in turn follow him and thus voiding the need of the passion) but rather to MAKE us righteous through his Passion. This is where your entire position fall for only God can bridge the gulf between Man and God and he alone can offer the perfect sacrifice to make us rightous. Man alone cannot undertake such an impossible task.
MY ATTACK ON HIS DOCTRINE
5) As a result, I hereby challenge you to clearly explain to me how indeed -
a) Does the act of 'showing us the path of righteousness' fulfil the need of the Passion of our Christ?
b) Assuming your doctrine is true, what role does the Church play, since virtually the path to salvation is an individual effort (that is to follow Christ livestyle) rather then to accept his sacrifice made us rightoues and we get that via the church?
c) What exactly is this 'path to righteousness' then? Is it to follow Christ exactly or to believe that he is saviour?
d) What is your understanding of salvation then?
6) I too disagree the notion that God can give up his 'God-status'. But is it possible for God to do so? Clearly not as if an substance loses its orignal form, it ceases to be it permanently and the new form hence takes a new identity. For example, if a metal is welded into a piece of wire, it ceases to be metal sheet but instead takes up a new form, that is the wire. In context, if God gave up the title, he ceases to be God immediately and permanently.
i) Immediately - The transformation is immediate. He will no longer be God. We are in agreement to this.
ii) Permanently - While in the case of my analogy, it is possible to change the new substance back to its oringal form, in context here, this is impossible. God being omnipotent, will be able to cease being Himself and hence become human. However the reverse is not possible. No man, no matter how rightoues or how divine his origin might be, can ever become God. God being unchanging cannot be renewed by having a 'new god (who was borned mortal). This clearly shows that it is impossible for Man Jesus to ever become God as no mortal can ever assume that title. Such an understanding only exist in the paganic religion which is what you are expousing uninentionally.
IN short, God can cease being God and become MAN however MAN cannot become rightoues enough to be God.
IF WHAT I SAY IS WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME AS THE POST WAS MY SOLE EFFORT. I REFERED TO NO SITE AS THIS 'DOCTRINE' IS CLEARLY ORIGINAL HAHA. -
crazy .. type in CAPS still can laugh.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:IF WHAT I SAY IS WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME AS THE POST WAS MY SOLE EFFORT. I REFERED TO NO SITE AS THIS 'DOCTRINE' IS CLEARLY ORIGINAL HAHA.
IF WHAT I SAY IS WRONG, PLEASE CORRECT ME AS THE POST WAS MY SOLE EFFORT. I REFERED TO NO SITE AS THIS 'DOCTRINE' IS CLEARLY ORIGINAL HAHA. -
But your explanation is not convincing because Jesus is called the Son of God here. This 'Son' might not be the second person of the Trinity because in Genesis we have the Sons of God copulating with the daughters of men.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The man with the unclean spirit worshipped Jesus and called him the Son of God. If he was truly mortal (and lost his divine powers and hence his title) he could not be called such. Can I call Lucifer an Archangel despite the fact he has lost all his powers? Clearly its NO as since he has lost all his powers, he naturally will have lost his title and the right to be called such. Clearly the principle of logic proves that to be addressed at any title, one must possese the power in the first place. If Jesus was truly Man, he (by that prinicple) cannot be called the Son of God since he has lost all his powers.Catching sight of Jesus from a distance, he ran up and prostrated himself before him, crying out in a loud voice, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me!"
Furthermore read the words in bold above. The man prostrating himself before Jesus (you read this as worshipping?) does not mean anything! Because clearly the man also refers to another source of authority - God.
Mark 5:6
If you are still unclear, read the rest of the bible. The pattern is always the same .. when you have miracle workers you will have people who worship them. Read the priests of Baal in the OT; in the NT we have Simon Magnus.
By the way, I don't think Lucifer lost his powers. In fact, Lucifer became more powerful as he can seduce people to the dark side. -
But you see he was called the son of God. If had lost all his powers and become totally Man, he will not be called so.Originally posted by Icemoon:Furthermore read the words in bold above. The man prostrating himself before Jesus (you read this as worshipping?) does not mean anything! Because clearly the man also refers to another source of authority - God.
If you are still unclear, read the rest of the bible. The pattern is always the same .. when you have miracle workers you will have people who worship them. Read the priests of Baal in the OT; in the NT we have Simon Magnus.
By the way, I don't think Lucifer lost his powers. In fact, Lucifer became more powerful as he can seduce people to the dark side.
The analogy is simple. Lucifer lost all his powers as an ARCHANGEL. As such he possesed non such power, does it mean he is still an archangel. Clearly the answer is NO. As a result, we cannot call him an archangel anymore as he has taken on a new form. This is similiar to Jesus case. If he has taken on a new form, he caease to be the orginal form and will not be called as such.
On my last point, I did point out its impossible for man jesus to ever become god jesus. -
Why cannot? What powers did he lose? He could still perform miracles right?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:But you see he was called the son of God. If had lost all his powers and become totally Man, he will not be called so.
The analogy is simple. Lucifer lost all his powers as an ARCHANGEL. As such he possesed non such power, does it mean he is still an archangel. Clearly the answer is NO. As a result, we cannot call him an archangel anymore as he has taken on a new form. This is similiar to Jesus case. If he has taken on a new form, he caease to be the orginal form and will not be called as such.
On my last point, I did point out its impossible for man jesus to ever become god jesus.
Why cannot call Lucifer archangel? Are you sure he has lost his archangel powers? What powers do archangels have? -
Ezekiel chapter 28, which contains a lament over an "anointed cherub" who was in the "holy mountain of God". He is described as "perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." The passage goes on to describe this being's expulsion from the "mount of God", apparently because his "heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness."Originally posted by Icemoon:Why cannot? What powers did he lose? He could still perform miracles right?
Why cannot call Lucifer archangel? Are you sure he has lost his archangel powers? What powers do archangels have?
Afterwards the passage describes the eventual fate of this corrupted cherub: "therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more."
We clearly see that Satan was cast out of heaven and lost his role as a MESSENGER of god and as such no longer is called an Arch Angel. Similairly if Christ has lost his divine powers, he will no longer be called God but rather Man.6) I too disagree the notion that God can give up his 'God-status'. But is it possible for God to do so? Clearly not as if an substance loses its orignal form, it ceases to be it permanently and the new form hence takes a new identity. For example, if a metal is welded into a piece of wire, it ceases to be metal sheet but instead takes up a new form, that is the wire. In context, if God gave up the title, he ceases to be God immediately and permanently.
i) Immediately - The transformation is immediate. He will no longer be God. We are in agreement to this.
ii) Permanently - While in the case of my analogy, it is possible to change the new substance back to its oringal form, in context here, this is impossible. God being omnipotent, will be able to cease being Himself and hence become human. However the reverse is not possible. No man, no matter how rightoues or how divine his origin might be, can ever become God. God being unchanging cannot be renewed by having a 'new god (who was borned mortal). This clearly shows that it is impossible for Man Jesus to ever become God as no mortal can ever assume that title. Such an understanding only exist in the paganic religion which is what you are expousing uninentionally.
IN short, God can cease being God and become MAN however MAN cannot become rightoues enough to be God. -
what does this have to do with your cherub example?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:We clearly see that Satan was cast out of heaven and lost his role as a MESSENGER of god and as such no longer is called an Arch Angel. Similairly if Christ has lost his divine powers, he will no longer be called God but rather Man. -
why is it impossible?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:On my last point, I did point out its impossible for man jesus to ever become god jesus.
