Messiah != Son of God

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by Bernard Muller »

to rakovsky,
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
The phrase describing God is highlighted.
"whom are all things" is not the same as "through whom are all things".
They indicate God as owner of all things and (just as Philo of Alexandria had for the Word) the Lord Jesus as the master builder of all things.
That does not make pre-existent Lord Jesus being God.
That does not sound right. It must not be meant in some kind if excusionary sense, ie
One God the Father not Jesus
One Lord Jesus not the Father

That sounds right to me (from the perspective of Paul).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by spin »

rakovsky wrote:
spin wrote:
Ps 110:1 The Lord says to my lord....

The first κυριος clearly refers to God. It is used instead of ha-shem. The second is a person of rank, like a master or a captain. There is no problem with this:

There is one god, the father, and one lord, Jesus.

One lord is an indication of a person with rank and there is only one.
That does not sound right. It must not be meant in some kind if excusionary sense, ie
One God the Father not Jesus
One Lord Jesus not the Father

....
Sorry, this seems like you just don't understand the verse.
I think Paul would not deny that God the Father was also his Lord or "master".
In the gospel, Jesus says You cannot serve two masters. Doesn't Jesus also say I and the father are one?
Sometimes religions having distinctions for things that overlap.
For example, who is the Creator, singular, who Paul demands we worship in Romans 1?
Isn't that God?
But Paul also names Jesus as Creator of all.
So sometimes things that seem distinct actually overlap.
You're working to hard to blur things that Paul is so clear about:

One god, the father, and one lord, Jesus.

You have to be perverse to disagrer with Paul here.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by rakovsky »

Bernard Muller wrote:to rakovsky,
"yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live."
The phrase describing God is highlighted.
"whom are all things" is not the same as "through whom are all things".
They indicate God as owner of all things and (just as Philo of Alexandria had for the Word) the Lord Jesus as the master builder of all things.
That does not make pre-existent Lord Jesus being God.
Paul also considers all things to be through God,
" one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
(Ephesians 4:6).

In Isaiah 44, God is the one and only master builder.

As a Jew, Lord is a normal title for God by Paul.
I understand you. You don't think Jesus is God, and so you prefer to detrinitize the verses as much as possible.

Here is another example:
"we look forward with hope to that wonderful day when the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be revealed ."
Titus 2:13

The ideas of Jesus being God, the Creator, the Lord over all, existing before any other being besides the Father are all over the NT and Paul.

It's mind blowing, so some people like Arianism and JWs prefer to down play this stuff as much as possible.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by rakovsky »

spin wrote: You're working to hard to blur things that Paul is so clear about:

One god, the father, and one lord, Jesus.

You have to be perverse to disagrer with Paul here.
HI Spin.
Considering the way the NT overlaps ideas of singular things like "I and the father are one", and the fact that Lord is a normal term for God, it is not perverse to see the overlap.

I welcome you to provide a scholarly detailed discussion showing that your translation of Rom 9 :5 is definitely grammatically the only right one.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by spin »

rakovsky wrote:The Trinity Delusion webpage says that three alternate translations are possible grammatically for this verse.
http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospe ... om9_5.html

It also says "Blessed" is a term always referring to God being the blessed one. Ironically this backs up the Trinitarian view, since earlier you said Jesus was the one being blessed.
The anti Trinitarian article also quotes Ephesians 4 saying God is over all.
"one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
(Ephesians 4:6).

Yet we also know Paul elsewhere calls Jesus "potentate over all". So if Paul thinks the one over all is God and Jesus is over all..... that is a hint of trinitarianism.

And we also remember that Paul specified that while all are of the father, all are "through" Jesus.
But in Ephesians 4, it says all are through God the Father.
Looks like more equating Jesus was God in Ephesians.
Ephesians is a Pseudo-Pauline, ie Paul did not write it.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by spin »

rakovsky wrote:
spin wrote: You're working to hard to blur things that Paul is so clear about:

One god, the father, and one lord, Jesus.

You have to be perverse to disagrer with Paul here.
HI Spin.
Considering the way the NT overlaps ideas of singular things like "I and the father are one", and the fact that Lord is a normal term for God, it is not perverse to see the overlap.

I welcome you to provide a scholarly detailed discussion showing that your translation of Rom 9 :5 is definitely grammatically the only right one.
Please try to concentrate: we are talking about Paul, not the NT in general. Stick to Paul and those works recognized as his.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by rakovsky »

spin wrote:
rakovsky wrote:
spin wrote: You're working to hard to blur things that Paul is so clear about:

One god, the father, and one lord, Jesus.

You have to be perverse to disagrer with Paul here.
HI Spin.
Considering the way the NT overlaps ideas of singular things like "I and the father are one", and the fact that Lord is a normal term for God, it is not perverse to see the overlap.

I welcome you to provide a scholarly detailed discussion showing that your translation of Rom 9 :5 is definitely grammatically the only right one.
Please try to concentrate: we are talking about Paul, not the NT in general. Stick to Paul and those works recognized as his.
I was making a general point.
Peter K said in the OP
" earliest Christian writings (presumably Paul)".
Peter K also wrote he considers 1 Peter and Revelation to be among the earliest iirc. Revelation says Jesus is the alpha and omega.
Alot of this stuff could be downgraded to arianism, but I think the writers are actually hinting at trinitarianism with all this stuff like calling him what Bernard wrote was as the Master Builder.

Master Builder stuff hooks so well into the descriptions of God being The Creator, Genesis 1, Isaiah 44, and many other places.

Anyway, I am sincerely interested if you can produce detailed scholarship saying your translation of Rom 9 5 is the only right one grammatically, because it's an interesting issue for me.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by spin »

rakovsky wrote:
spin wrote: You're working to hard to blur things that Paul is so clear about:

One god, the father, and one lord, Jesus.

You have to be perverse to disagrer with Paul here.
rakovsky wrote:HI Spin.
Considering the way the NT overlaps ideas of singular things like "I and the father are one", and the fact that Lord is a normal term for God, it is not perverse to see the overlap.

I welcome you to provide a scholarly detailed discussion showing that your translation of Rom 9 :5 is definitely grammatically the only right one.
spin wrote: Please try to concentrate: we are talking about Paul, not the NT in general. Stick to Paul and those works recognized as his.
I was making a general point.
You were changing the topic as you have so frequently done.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
User avatar
rakovsky
Posts: 1310
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:07 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by rakovsky »

spin wrote: You were changing the topic as you have so frequently done.
Main point on the OP topic is that the early writings see Messiah as divine son of God, with at least cryptic references to Jesus as God too.

More narrowly on Rom 9 5 what you and I were discussing, I would love to see some scholarship saying grammatically your translation is the only one.

My research on the prophecies of the Messiah's resurrection: http://rakovskii.livejournal.com
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Messiah != Son of God

Post by iskander »

iskander wrote:Context:
Romans 9:4-5, these verses explain the background of the New Testament : the story in the NT is a development of the religion of the Israelites who are sons of God and used to the presence of God in their midst as partner , overseer , maestro and Santa.
From this people by sexual intercourse [ kata sarka , natural descent] a Messiah was born .This Messiah is a precious gift of the one who is above all.
NT verses chosen:
Romans 9:4They are descendants of Israel, chosen to be God's sons; theirs is the glory of the divine presence, theirs the covenants, the law, the temple worship, and the promises.
Romans 9:5 The patriarchs are theirs, and from them by natural descent came the Messiah. May God, supreme above all , be blessed forever! Amen.
The Oxford Study Bible
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop/books/ref ... 7QodT5QCOg
Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Oxford-Study-B ... 0195290003

Romans 9:4-5 makes the existence of a historical claimant to the post of messiah very likely. Does Romans 9:4-5 still make it so?
In his affidavit, the lead gabbai, Rabbi Zalman Lipskier, wrote that “the real issue in dispute involves conflicting views on how our faith views the passing of the Grand Rebbe Schneerson and whether or not at this time he may be referred to publicly as the Messiah.”
http://forward.com/news/10348/lawsuit-o ... z48jd3YFwM
Re: Probability about Jesus (Christ) existence on earth
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2753&start=60
Last edited by iskander on Mon Dec 26, 2016 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply