Not quite. That was just the type of confusion that some people felt when they read about Jesus being God incarnate. they just could not comprehend what God has done here.
All Claims of The Son's Deity
- Thread starter Johann
- Start date
Hmm. If I have not made it clear before, then let it be known that baptism in Jesus' name is fine because he is God that also is found in Matt 28:19-20 and John 1:1-18. He never is less than God, except in humbling himself without explicitly saying to the people in hyperliteralist words "I am God incarnate."
There are approximately 31,102 verses in the Bible - you'd need more than 500 to convince me.
The one on the throne is Jesus . . . . Again it seems there are several ways to translate this verse . . biblegateway has app. 64 different versions - 14x translated 'stand before God'; 50x translated 'stand before the throne'.
But whichever is meant - It does not mean Jesus is God - it is Jesus whom God has given authority to judge [John 5:22 for the Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son]; and but now he commands all people everywhere to repent because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”- [Acts 17:30b,31]
You always want to deny the scriptures pointing out the divinity of Christ directly such as John 1:1-18, especially the mention of him as God in the bosom of God.
This does not state that Jesus in his incarnation was not God. This passage refers to the time after his resurrection. So you really confuse the passage with unitarian thought. This verse indicates not explicitly the Holy Spirit but rather the promise coming from the Holy Spirit or having the ability to send the Holy Spirit into the lives his followers.
Indeed there is broad rejection of Origen's allegorical interpretation. People have tried to give different meaning to Old Testament passages. I have been "fighting" that by showing how the Old Testament passages referred to the oncoming judgment of Jews rather than to a worldwide schism. In this I have rejected places where people went too far to view mentions of Jerusalem (like in Zechariah) with the church. Albeit, there is a sense where the church became the New Jerusalem, as seen expressed with the Christian assemblies having the Jerusalem from above as their mother.Origen: The Father of Allegorical Interpretation
By Dr. James I. Fazio, Dean of Bible and Theology
The title of this Summer’s Community Course is How to Study God’s Word. There will be two classes: Biblical Interpretation and Inductive Bible Study. In light of that, I’d like to introduce you to an important figure in the area of biblical Interpretation. That figure’s name is Origen. Origen is regarded as the chief popularizer of allegorical interpretation. While the allegorical interpretation of Scripture is fraught with problems, every Bible student has to have some familiarity with it. Consider this an introduction on the topic for your reading pleasure.
Origen (A.D. 185 – c. 254) was one of the most influential figures in the early centuries of the Christian church. He is generally regarded as one of the chief theologians and scholars of the early church, however he is notably distinguished for his unorthodoxy, which has landed him somewhere outside the pale of mainstream Christianity. Centuries after his death, Origen was denounced by Pope Theophilus of Alexandria (A.D. 400), and he was labelled “the hydra of all heresies.”[1] Origen was later denounced as a heretic by Emperor Justinian I (A.D. 543) at which point many of his writings were destroyed. Nevertheless, historian Donald McKim has remarked concerning this controversial figure: “in the history of biblical interpretation, Origen deserves to be recognized as the father of biblical criticism.”[2] The other area in which Origen greatly impacted Christian thought, was in his distinctively allegorical method of interpretation, which later influenced St. Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430).
Background
Origen was a Hellenistic scholar who was thought to have been born in Egypt and educated in Alexandria around 185. In his early life he was educated primarily by his father, Leonides, who was martyred in 202 under the persecution of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211). It was Origen’s earnest desire to follow his father’s example of martyrdom to the point that “his mother had to prevent him forcibly from going out to seek martyrdom in the persecution in which his father was killed.”[3] In the year following his father’s death, Origen opened a school of rhetoric, during which period he was described as having “lived the life of a devoted ascetic, sleeping little and eating meager meals…perhaps his consummate (and possibly apocryphal) act was his self-castration, in response to Matthew 19:12”[4] Around 213, Origen became acquainted with Ambrose of Alexandria who committed to sponsoring Origen through publishing and promotion of his writings. In the following decades, Origen wrote extensively, “but because his teaching was later condemned, little survives in the original.”[5] However, McKim has noted that “nevertheless, modern scholarship has been able to reconstruct some of those writings, many of which focused on biblical interpretation.”[6] Origen was chiefly concerned with Scripture. “He devoted much of his life to establishing the definitive text of the Old Testament and to commentating or preaching on Scripture; his other works too are drenched in Scriptural quotes and imagery.”[7] The crowning academic work for which he is chiefly noted is a comparative study of various translations of the Old Testament into six columns called the Hexapla. “Also produced was an abbreviated version known as the Tetrapla, in which Origen placed only the translations in Greek parallels.”[8]
Besides being recognized as “the father of textual criticism,”[9] Origen is also remembered for his influence in popularizing the allegorical method of biblical interpretation. This interpretive method became more noticeable in his later years, and perhaps was an outgrowth of his failed attempt at living an aesthetic life. It has been suggested that “his later insistence that not all of the Bible is to be taken literally had some of its roots in his failed attempt to follow Jesus’ hard commands.”[10] Whereas his early days were characterized by his attempt to “follow the strict ethic of the Sermon on the Mount…Origen later wrote that the Sermon on the Mount represents an impossible ideal, one that no human being can hope to follow.”[11] Some have speculated that this may have been the result of “cutting himself” too deeply, in the manner which Paul spoke concerning the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12.
Origen’s Allegorical Interpretation
Origen has come to be popularly regarded as the father of allegorical interpretation; however, that is not properly the case. One author has noted “The school of Alexandria (in Egypt) embraced an allegorical approach…although this method was used by Clement of Alexandria, headmaster of the school (190-203), it was developed and popularized by Clement’s successor, Origen.”[12] Another has observed, “Origen did not invent his interpretive techniques but borrowed them from a complex hermeneutical environment that was already present in his day…allegorical interpretation was first developed in the Hellenism of ancient Greece. It attempted to bring ancient mythology and poetry into line with prevailing philosophical and moral opinions.”[13] Origen’s contribution to the Church’s view of biblical interpretation was not one of origination but of popularization. Concerning his influence, it has been said, “Origen, more than anyone else, became famous for making allegory the dominant approach to biblical interpretation down through the Middle Ages. It prevailed as the foremost method of exegesis in both theological and monastic literature, even though Origen’s theology was often opposed.”[14]
Conclusion
How then, should such a one be regarded by the church, today? It is the position of this writer that Origen’s contribution is both a bane and a boon to the Christian church. His high regard for the Bible is commendable and his commitment to textual criticism is exemplary. Unfortunately, the church of the Middle Ages chose to emulate his faulty interpretive method, rather than his appreciation for God’s Word. However, it would not be right to hold him responsible for the folly of others who succeeded him. Origen lived in a time when the church was seeking to establish herself within a Greco-Roman world. His misapprehension of normal-grammatical hermeneutical principles and the dispensational truth which it yields could not rightly be held against his account. However, the same cannot be said for those today who choose to follow in his steps, today.
https://www.socalsem.edu/origen-the-father-of-allegorical-interpretation/
Now, WHO you suppose would want to corrupt the inspired, preserved, infallible Word of God?
Nothing good ever came out of Egypt. You should see what God has to say on that topic.
101G
Active Member
The Father? question, "how are you using the term "Father". please explain"
second, while you're preparing, just one more thing, is the one whom you call "Father" do he have the TITLE ...... "LORD?" yes or no.
101G
101G
Active Member
by saying that he is the son of God, did not the people said he made himself to be God? supportive scriptures, John 10:29 "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." John 10:31 "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him." John 10:32 "Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" John 10:33 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" John 10:35 "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;" John 10:36 "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" John 10:37 "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not."
101G.
Victoria
Active Member
Can you show me scripture where the Body of Christ has become a spiritual Jew, the New Jerusalem in Paul's epistles?
As for allegorical interpretations, Origen's story doesn't surprise me. It immediately reminds me of what Peter speaks of in 2 Peter 3:15-16... mentioning Paul specifically. Paul even says to mark & avoid those who teach contrary to his doctrine. Origen was placing himself in the Synoptic Gospels.
Victoria
Active Member
So what you're saying is you believe Jesus Christ is God Almighty in the flesh, but deny His eternal power & Godhead, correct?
If so, who then comes to reside within each believer once saved & sealed?
Jesus Christ isn't here presently, so how then are we ministered to when reading & studying His Word?
Victoria
Active Member
Did you know Westcott & Hort said such things?
And this is just a few
"I reject the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."
- Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 207
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise."
- Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. viii
"Hell is not the place of punishment of the guilty, it is the common abode of departed spirits."
- Westcott, History Faith, p. 77-78
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
- Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."
- Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. II, p. 49
And this is just a few
"I reject the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."
- Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 207
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise."
- Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. viii
"Hell is not the place of punishment of the guilty, it is the common abode of departed spirits."
- Westcott, History Faith, p. 77-78
"The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...nothing can be more unscriptural than the limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."
- Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 430
"I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."
- Hort to Westcott, Life and Letters, Vol. II, p. 49
uggghhh. Jews were being judged in the first century. Why would gentiles have seen themselves as have a race change?
The reality is that the transition from the judged Jerusalem in Isaiah 3 to the restored Jerusalem in Isaiah 4 is where the Christians (including Jewish ones) came to be the temple of God. The idea of Jerusalem is the location where God comes in contact with the world. This is more clearly shown in the designation of Mount Zion, which never is judged because it is a more pure sense that never is violated concerning God's contact with humanity. Again, I can mention the connection of the gentiles with the Jerusalem from above found in Gal 4:21-31. That obviously is not a Jerusalem on earth.
I'm not ready to determine Origen's significance in theology if excluding over-allegorizing stuff. That exercise can be left to those who are interested in the history of theology. The benefits of his aproaches can be celebrated while the problems reflective of navigating new territory. Though, I'm not sure if you are properly poised as a judge of God's servant in this situation.
Victoria
Active Member
Westcott & Hort denied the scriptures as well, even brought George Van Smith, a Unitarian, on the ERV translation committee. The Alexandrian Text attacks Christ's deity. Could you then blame Runningman for his confusion?
that guy thinks of God as one person who then is in Jesus while also being the Father who also the Holy Spirit.
Right. People in Christ become the temple of the living God rather than, as the unitarians think, something like electricity that is inside of people.
I'm not sure if I have read anything by 101 concerning this point. Maybe he will share something.
I suppose I could. Runningman does tend to follow the KJV
Victoria
Active Member
Romans & Galatians are excellent go-to epistles to show others, especially the legalistic, that believers today are not under the law, but saved by grace through faith. Therefore, if we're members of Christ's body, where there's neither Jew 'nor Gentile, how then can you say the church replaced Israel? No race change... there's neither male 'nor female, bond 'nor free either.
I'm not judging Origen, it was written that he removed his... uhhh... genitalia b/c he couldn't stop looking at women. This is what happens when you don't rightly divide.
"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." Galatians 3:23-24
Victoria
Active Member
Hmm, I once had a JW tell me something similar. She believes the Holy Spirit is a force, electricity.
Does he believe in the inspiration of scripture but recognize the textual scribal errors found in many places as making the text deserving of a project to arrive at the best Greek? We then see an affirmation of the divine authority of scripture in the quote below.Did you know Westcott & Hort said such things?
And this is just a few
"I reject the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly."
- Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p. 207
Here is the context of that.
His point actually rejects the idea that is presented in that short quote. I hope that misquote of Westcott was an accidental misconstruing by the person sharing it. The hope against the error of the Tubingen School was that that crowd should find in the various writing an explanation of the divisions. It sounds like Westcott seeks a positive purpose in the writings rather than a focus on the dividing nature. see #A general survey of the history of the canon of the New Testament
What was the argument he made behind this? Does he have a specific word in view here -- gehenna? sheol? outer darkness (Mark 8:12)?
The view of Hort seems to be that Christ's life is addressing our sins not only in his death but through his way of living. This seems a nuanced issue that is maybe unexpected but does not deny what Christ did through his death.
What does that mean? Does it mean that the way some people worship Mary follow concepts about her that Christians in general find for worship of Jesus?
The recommendation is that you review at least some of the quotes within the context of their writings -- of both the specific writing being quoted as well as the broader texts at times.
Victoria
Active Member
If you believe the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus were more in agreement w/ one another,
what comparisons w/ the Byzantine Text helped you to reach that conclusion?
A common theme I've noticed w/ the true men of God is martyrdom
[i.e. prophets, John the baptist, the crucifixion, apostles].
A timeline I put together of translations...
Jerome
Latin Translation
382 AD
Translated into 500 Languages
500 AD
5th Century - 15th Century
400-1400 AD
Dark Ages
Rome enacted a myriad of laws making it illegal for a common people
to obtain the Word of God & read it in their own language.
13th Century - 19th Century
1215 AD
Pope Inoccent III issued a law commanding anyone who translates the Bible
would be seized for trail & penalties. He stated:
"As by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death,
so simple & uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines."
1234 AD
"No one may possess the books of the Old & New Testaments in the Romance language, & if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, SO THAT THEY MAY BE BURNED lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he is suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion."
- De Lortsh, Histoire de la Bible en France, 1910, p. 14
John Wycliffe
First English Bible
1382 AD (Later Revisions 1388 & 1395)
I defy the pope & all his laws! If God spare my life, ere many years,
I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more
of the scripture than thou dost."
- William Tyndale
"The translation of the scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, & put away
out of the hands of the people. All manner of books of the Old & New Testament in English being of the
crafty, false, & untrue translation of Tyndale shall be clearly & utterly abolished, extinguished,
& forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."
- King Henry VIII
"First, he maintained that faith alone justifies. Second, he maintained that to believe in forgiveness of sins,
& to embrace the mercy offered in the Gospel, was enough for salvation. Third, avered that human
traditions cannot bind the conscience, except where their neglect might occasion scandal."
- List of Charges Against William Tyndale
"Lord, open the king of England's eyes."
- William Tyndale Burned at The Stake
"But above all, beware ye wrest not the word to your own appetite as over many do, making it like a bell to sound as you please to interpret. But by the contrary, frame all your affections to follow the rule there set down. When ye read the scripture, read it with a sanctified & chaste ear: Admire reverently such obscure place as ye understand not, blaming only your own incapacity."
- King James I
Guy Fawkes Night
November 5th
Gunpowder Plot of 1605
Last edited:
Jesus is a true God if you just answer the question honestly below;
1. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. (John 14:6)
2. God the Father's testimony, "eternal life is in His Son. (1John 5:11)
3. Do the Father's words expires 9 verses onward?
4. If no, then who is the eternal life in 1John 5:20?
The word "God" is not the personal name of the Father, it is a nature, see Romans 1:20 and Acts 17:29.
And "Godhead" (Col 2:9) in Greek "θεότης theotēs" defined by Bible lexicons (Thayer and Louw and Nida) as the state of being God, deity, the nature or state of being God, divine nature, divine being etc.
That proves that Jesus had the nature or state of being God.
And the Holy Spirit is not an integral part or as the name of the Father, cause the "blasphemes" against the Father and the Son can be forgiven but against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven.
That proves that the Holy Spirit is distinct and separate person from the Father and the Son.
Conclusively the three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct person from one another and one in the nature of being God.
Col 2:9 ForG3754 inG1722 himG846 dwellethG2730 allG3956 theG3588 fulnessG4138 of theG3588 GodheadG2320 bodily.G4985
G2320
θεότης theotēs
Thayer Definition:
1) deity
1a) the state of being God, Godhead
G2320
θεότης theotēs
(Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament)
the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)
