PDA

View Full Version : Pop quiz



kwinters
May 22nd, 2004, 04:30 PM
How many times does Paul write that Jesus is God? (5 points)

Can you give the quotes? (5 points per quote)

Its a race to the finish line!

absoluttruth
May 22nd, 2004, 08:07 PM
Is this a trick question?

I could not find a reference where Paul stated that Jesus Christ is God. He said many times over that he was Lord, but this is not the same thing. Lord simply implies "ruler" whereas God implies that Paul accepted the Trinity. It seems, though, that this was not the main focus of his ministry. I suppose it was because he spoke to the Gentiles, and not the Jews who did not accept Christ as God or the son of God. Paul did not need to state that Jesus Christ was God, I suppose, because his audience was not rejecting of the concept of the Trinity, whereas those who wrote or spoke to the Jews always seemed to have to make this point.

I don't know Kwinters, is there a passage in which Paul states that Jesus Christ is God?

I had better get to bed. It is well past my time.

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 05:34 AM
Time's up and AT gets all the points.

Paul never writes that Jesus is God, the second part of a divine 'trinity', that Jesus is equal to God, or that he was divinely concieved.

Way to go AT!

chadn737
May 24th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Yes he does:

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Symantix
May 24th, 2004, 11:50 AM
Don't forget this one. :)

Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Yes he does:

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

Tsk, tsk chad, no fair altering the texts!

9:3 my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever.

Basically Paul is writing that Paul is an Israelite (according to the flesh) and that Jesus was was an Isrealite too (and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh).

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/romans-asv.html

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Don't forget this one. :)

Titus 2:13
while we wait for the blessed hope–the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

First, "Titus is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE."

Critical scholarship regards the pastorals as inauthentic.

Read full emperical basis for conclusion of Titus as inauthentic at

http://earlychristianwritings.com/titus.html


Second, you certainly like to play around with those commas!


Titus
2:13 looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/titus-asv.html

chadn737
May 24th, 2004, 12:04 PM
I have in no way altered the text. Your version says the same thing.

9:3 my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever.

Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God...: in reference to Christ.

Symantix
May 24th, 2004, 12:10 PM
I didn't get my interpretation from the English text:

Theou kai swteiros heimwn Insou Xpistou

This is a kai connective. In ancient Greek, it was specifically used to show that the two objects being compared were one and the same. "Theou" means "God", "swteiros" means "savior". "Insou Xpristou", "Jesus Christ", which, like the rest of the nouns, is in the genitive case, which makes it relative. Thus, all three references are intended to refer to one and the same object.

The rendition that I gave was correct, not yours. You can disagree with me all you want; this is basic koinh Greek grammar; ABC's. Only those with an agenda would deny it.

As for the opinions of your "critical scholarship", that site is very non-objective and unthorough/careless. Take my advice; stop going there for source material.

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 12:17 PM
I have in no way altered the text. Your version says the same thing.

9:3 my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever.

Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God...: in reference to Christ.

No. Have you actually read Paul? He writes repeatedly that Jesus, because of his faithfulness to God has attained a special place, an intercessionary role for humans to God- not that Jesus is God.

Jesus is blessed by God. Read the passage. How can God bless himself?

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 12:20 PM
I didn't get my interpretation from the English text:

Theou kai swteiros heimwn Insou Xpistou

This is a kai connective. In ancient Greek, it was specifically used to show that the two objects being compared were one and the same. "Theou" means "God", "swteiros" means "savior". "Insou Xpristou", "Jesus Christ", which, like the rest of the nouns, is in the genitive case, which makes it relative. Thus, all three references are intended to refer to one and the same object.

The rendition that I gave was correct, not yours. You can disagree with me all you want; this is basic koinh Greek grammar; ABC's. Only those with an agenda would deny it.

As for the opinions of your "critical scholarship", that site is very non-objective and unthorough/careless. Take my advice; stop going there for source material.

Have you even looked at the site?

Can you give me a line by line translation from an online source?

Assume I'm from Missouri....

Symantix
May 24th, 2004, 12:34 PM
A line by line translation? The English rendition that I gave you is from the NIV, which I happen to agree with in this instance. Do you want a link to the NIV somewhere online? Can't you do that yourself?


Have you actually read Paul? He writes repeatedly that Jesus, because of his faithfulness to God has attained a special place, an intercessionary role for humans to God- not that Jesus is God.

Jesus is blessed by God. Read the passage. How can God bless himself? Your failed understanding of the intricacies of the trinity shows like a leprous wound. This type of duality is plain to see in all NT writings.

Symantix
May 24th, 2004, 12:40 PM
Oh...
Have you even looked at the site? Yes, I have. I really appreciate some of the content that it offers, but the opinions that are yielded concerning that content is often careless. It's obvious that the authors of much of it have not spent the time. Lot's of good criticism that has already been done, as well as obvious issues concerning the materials in question, are often ignored and left unaddressed. I can't appreciate that at all.

But I will take a second look. I could be wrong.

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 01:49 PM
A line by line translation? The English rendition that I gave you is from the NIV, which I happen to agree with in this instance. Do you want a link to the NIV somewhere online? Can't you do that yourself?

No I want to see YOUR source so I can investigate it myself. As you see I often post my sources so people can read what I am citing so they can go to the site itself.



Your failed understanding of the intricacies of the trinity shows like a leprous wound. This type of duality is plain to see in all NT writings.

Like a leprous wound? Do you talk like in your RL or is this just something you put on for online debates?

Paul doesn't write Jesus is God, or the second part of a divine trinity or anything like it in his writings. If you come to the texts making all sorts of assumptions I'm sure you can impute lots of things as having dual meanings which don't really exist in the writing.

chadn737
May 24th, 2004, 03:20 PM
Symantix I am very impressed, do you have any background in greek?


No I want to see YOUR source so I can investigate it myself. As you see I often post my sources so people can read what I am citing so they can go to the site itself.

Some how I doubt he used a website as his source material. This is not the first time I've seen him quote the greek and he seems to have a knowledge of it.


Paul doesn't write Jesus is God, or the second part of a divine trinity or anything like it in his writings. If you come to the texts making all sorts of assumptions I'm sure you can impute lots of things as having dual meanings which don't really exist in the writing.

He just sat down, gave you the original greek and explained to you in detail the interpretation of that passage. He is not assuming anything, you are the one entering with preconcieved notions.

kwinters
May 24th, 2004, 03:32 PM
Some how I doubt he used a website as his source material. This is not the first time I've seen him quote the greek and he seems to have a knowledge of it.

He just sat down, gave you the original greek and explained to you in detail the interpretation of that passage. He is not assuming anything, you are the one entering with preconcieved notions.

Chad,

Whatever the source I would like to have it cited. Plus, here at university I have several Greek friends, so if I can get the full passage in Greek (online of off line) I will ask them if his interpretation is valid or apologetics.

KevinBrowning
May 24th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Chad,

Whatever the source I would like to have it cited. Plus, here at university I have several Greek friends, so if I can get the full passage in Greek (online of off line) I will ask them if his interpretation is valid or apologetics.
You're implying that all apologetics are invalid. That's not true. Apologetics is simply the practice of defending and explaining a religion, usually Christianity, to people who make claims against its veracity. It doesn't mean one is "apologizing" for some error in the religion. Apok can explain the concept better than I can.

Symantix
May 24th, 2004, 04:07 PM
No I want to see YOUR source so I can investigate it myself. As you see I often post my sources so people can read what I am citing so they can go to the site itself. What you asked me for was a line by line translation, so here you go... http://www.21cent.net/cf/cf-frame-nivonline.htm
just go there and look up Titus 2:13. If you want me to teach you how to use Google sometime, just let me know. :rolleyes:

As for teaching you Koinh Greek...I refuse to tutor someone who is dead bent upon tearing apart the gospel of Christ. Let the argument that I have put forth suffice. If you truly desire to understand these precious texts as the authors truly intended them, I'm sure that you'll find the answers that you seek.


Like a leprous wound? Do you talk like in your RL or is this just something you put on for online debates? Well, writing a response instead of speaking it spontaneously does give one plenty of time to be poetic. ;)


Paul doesn't write Jesus is God, or the second part of a divine trinity or anything like it in his writings. I'm afraid he does.

kwinters
May 25th, 2004, 06:19 AM
As for teaching you Koinh Greek...I refuse to tutor someone who is dead bent upon tearing apart the gospel of Christ. Let the argument that I have put forth suffice. If you truly desire to understand these precious texts as the authors truly intended them, I'm sure that you'll find the answers that you seek.

Never asked you to teach anything. As I said I have several Greek friends and I will check it out myself.