Quote:
Originally Posted by Trapped
There is no nefarious intent behind the translations I chose. The Greek word in the bolded portions is "Theos" which does not mean "Son" but means "God", so I went with the translations that were truer to the Greek. I don't know how much more to say clearly that I'm not looking for a fight or argument or potshots, but to have a conversation.
I realize I may not have explained the point I'm trying to make. I am not arguing for a Trinity. I am not arguing that Jesus is God the Father. Jesus cannot be in His own bosom. He cannot be sent by Himself. He cannot have forsaken Himself. He cannot have prayed to Himself. All that is ludicrous and nonsensical.
Jesus and the Father are two separate, distinct entities, just as a father and son in human life are two different human beings.
What I'm "gunning for" with BJB is just on the divinity of Jesus only. I'm not trying to show that Jesus is God the Father. I am only trying to grapple with Jesus obviously being more than just a man. Jesus is God, but He's not God the Father. If you want to say "little g" god, that's fine with me, since I think that falls in line with the C.S. Lewis quote I posted earlier about "God-kind". Jesus, as the only begotten Son of God the Father, must, by simple human logic be God-kind, just as a man having a son did not have a baby raccoon, but a baby man. They are both men but are not the same man. So Jesus is God (or god, or God-kind, or of the "race of God") but is not God the Father. To me all this makes sense.
BJB didn't address my question related to Christ's death, but kind of dismissed it. If Jesus was only a man, and not divine, then his death could only substitute for one other person. This is obvious. It's precisely because He's of the God-kind (with it's divine, eternal, infinite, all-encompassing attributes that humans just don't have) that His death was sufficient for all of mankind.
|
Trapped, great post, spelling out so many truths. What makes conversations with
BJB so frustrating are his constant fall backs, saying we are stuck with Lee-isms or old church-isms about trinitarian-isms.
I went so far as to "compromise" with BJB and concede with a "two-person" God, the Father and the Son, in a loving and eternal relationship. But
BJB won't acknowledge or identify what he believes about Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the living God. Is He God or not? If not God, based on what? How then can He be eternal, much better than the angels, the Creator of all things, all-knowing, and how could He be sinless. How could He always do God's will, always know what the Father was speaking, always do what pleases Him, always be in the Father's presence? Until those few hours on the cross.
If it wasn't for the same errors inflicting the JW's and other cults throughout church history, identifying biblical truths concerning Jesus Christ, I would have stepped away from this unending discussion long ago.