Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Patrick on Revelation 20:10

Expand Messages
  • Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
    Patrick, I m sorry you didn t understand my first point. It assumed that you were arguing that the lake of fire was merely a symbol for the final extinction of
    Message 1 of 34 , May 20, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Patrick,

      I'm sorry you didn't understand my first point. It assumed that you
      were arguing that the lake of fire was merely a symbol for the final
      extinction of the wicked. Perhaps I don't understand your position.
      Is it your view that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet
      will be tormented for an extremely long period of time and then be
      annihilated?

      I didn't say that you claimed that Beale denied the traditional
      doctrine of eternal punishment. I said that you presented arguments
      against that doctrine that Beale answered and yet, despite quoting
      him more than once, you did not give any consideration to his
      arguments. My criticism stands.

      Yes, you did acknowledge that some traditionalists view eternal
      punishment as spiritual rather than physical in nature. That being
      admitted, you should address yourself to their arguments for that
      view. You did not do so.

      In Christ's service,
      Rob Bowman
    • tesfa_apologetics
      Patrick Navas, You wrote: In reference to Hebrews 1:8, I mean that the Son is, in all likelihood, called God …However, since the Son has one who is God to
      Message 34 of 34 , Oct 21, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Patrick Navas,
        You wrote:
        "In reference to Hebrews 1:8, I mean that the Son is, in all
        likelihood, called "God"…However, since the Son has one who is God
        to or above him (Heb. 1:9), then the Son cannot be the Most High or
        Almighty God, because there is no one greater/higher than, or God
        to, the Almighty/Most High. In harmony, Jesus is never described in
        Scripture as the "Almighty" or "Most High God." These descriptions
        only apply to the Father. I do not believe Jesus is the Almighty
        God, or a second person of a Triune being, but God's beloved Son. I
        believe that because that is what God said at Jesus' baptism
        (Matthew 3:17)."
        My answer:
        o How God grants, "Godhood" to His creature. Sine you said,
        God
        grants power and authority to Jesus? Why the angels worshiped Jesus
        (Heb. 1:6)? Why God the Father said to Jesus God (Heb. 1:8)?
        o His deity essence doesn't contradict with his Sonship. He
        is the son of God and also who is God (John 1:18).
        o To my knowledge, you mixed up ontological subordination to
        functional subordination. By nature Jesus is God as His Father BUT
        he subordinate himself to His father to became man and died for our
        sins (see Col 2:5-11). This does not mean that Jesus is not God. His
        subordination does not contradict to he is God by nature.
        o I know that you do not believe that Jesus is God. I am not
        asking you your confession of faith either but what are the reasons
        which induce you to come up with such conclusion.
        o If Jesus is the creator of the Universe (John 1:1,2; Heb
        1:2), the God who the angels worshiped him (John 1:6), Alpha and
        Omega (1:7-8, 17-18; 2:8; 22:13), eternal (John 1:1-3; Col 1:16-17;
        Heb. 1:2, 10-12), who sustains the universe (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3, 11-
        12), equal with God (Phil. 2:6) etc So without question he is
        Almighty God!
        o Even the word "Almighty" has directly applied to Jesus
        (Rev. 1:7 Jesus is the one who said, "I am coming quickly" in the
        book of Revelation. See Rev 2:16, 23; 3:11; 20:13; 22:7,20,12-13)
        too.
        You wrote:
        "In reference to Hebrews 1:8, I mean that the Son is, in all
        likelihood, called "God"…However, since the Son has one who is God
        to or above him (Heb. 1:9), then the Son cannot be the Most High or
        Almighty God, because there is no one greater/higher than, or God
        to, the Almighty/Most High."
        o I don't have any problem to Heb 1:9. Since Jesus is fully
        man and fully God (for example see Col. 2:9).
        You wrote:
        "I don't think these human judges were "ontologically/ by nature"
        gods but those who could properly be described as "gods" because of
        their God-appointed authority to administer justice among the people
        of Israel. I don't even think that the term "G/god" in Scripture
        means "ontological deity" or "supernatural being." I think that the
        term denotes one who has a certain kind of power/authority over
        another.
        My answer:
        o "The word God is not applied to them, "it is against them"
        (John 10:35 see NWT) It only applied to them in irony. But it
        directly applied to Jesus because "the Scripture cannot be
        nullified" (John 10:35).
        o Jesus is God by nature ("the Word was God" John 1:1; He is
        before the created binges (John 1:1A) He is a creator (John 1:2). As
        the Father is God the Son is also God (John 1:18).

        Tesfaye Robele

        --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas
        <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
        >
        > Tesfaye,
        >  
        > Thank you for the questions. You wrote:
        >
        > 1) Do you mean that Jesus is the "mighty god" and the Father
        is "Almighty God"? Would you explain what the difference between
        them, if any? Would you cite some scriptural evidence to your claim?
        >  
        > In reference to Hebrews 1:8, I mean that the Son is, in all
        likelihood, called "God"--"your throne, O God, is forever and ever
        and ever." The term "God" carries with it the connotation of power,
        might or authority. It is fitting to call the Son "God" because the
        Son has been exalted to a position of supreme authority at the right
        hand of God (Heb. 1:13). However, since the Son has one who is God
        to or above him (Heb. 1:9), then the Son cannot be the Most High or
        Almighty God, because there is no one greater/higher than, or God
        to, the Almighty/Most High. In harmony, Jesus is never described in
        Scripture as the "Almighty" or "Most High God." These descriptions
        only apply to the Father. I do not believe Jesus is the Almighty
        God, or a second person of a Triune being, but God's beloved Son. I
        believe that because that is what God said at Jesus' baptism
        (Matthew 3:17).
        >  
        > 2) Do you mean that the ancient judges of Israel were
        ontologically (by nature) God OR they have a mandate to act us a
        god?
        >  
        > What I know for sure is that God himself called the judges "gods"
        because that is what Psalm 82 says and that is what Jesus said. I
        don't think these human judges were "ontologically/by nature" gods
        but those who could properly be described as "gods" because of their
        God-appointed authority to administer justice among the people of
        Israel. I don't even think that the term "G/god" in Scripture
        means "ontological deity" or "supernatural being." I think that the
        term denotes one who has a certain kind of power/authority over
        another. For example, Satan is described as "the god of this age." I
        think this is so because, according to John, the "whole world"
        lies under his "power."
        >  
        > 3) As you said, "They were called gods, evidently, because of the
        authority/power given to them by God to administer justice among the
        people of Israel?". But how do you reconcile that the scriptural
        passages which clearly teaches us Jesus is ontologically God (even
        in the same gospel John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28)?
        >  
        > I don't have to, since the scriptural passages you cited don't say
        or teach that Jesus is "ontologically" God. The
        word/qualification "ontological" doesn't appear in any of these
        texts. John 1:1 clearly calls "the word" God or a god. John 1:18
        describes the Son as "an only-begotten/unique god." Although this
        reading is supported by the most ancient manuscripts (and I think it
        is probably the original reading), we really can't say for certain.
        Other manuscripts read "only-begotten/unique son." But if Jesus is
        called "unique/only-begotten god," this contradicts Trinitarianism.
        Trinitarianism does not teach that Jesus is a certain kind
        of "God/god" that dwells in the bosom of the Father. In John 20:28
        Thomas calls Jesus, "My Lord and my God," but nothing is said
        about "ontology." I see two possible ways of understanding this
        text. (1) Thomas called Jesus "Lord" and "God" because he
        honored/recognized
        > Jesus' authority and power over him, the power and position that
        God gave to him as the Messiah. But the Father is the God of Jesus
        so Thomas address of Jesus as "God" must be accepted and understood
        within that framework. Or (2) the passage should be understood in
        light of Thomas' earlier discussion with Jesus, when Thomas told
        Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us." (John
        14:8). To which Jesus responded, "Have I been with you so long, and
        yet you have [still] not known Me, Philip? He who has seen me has
        seen the Father; so how can you say, "Show us the Father"? Do you
        not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words
        that I speak to you I do not speak on my own (authority); but the
        Father who dwells in me does the works." (John 14:9-10) Since,
        according to Jesus, the Father, God, actually dwelt in him, I
        believe Thomas' calling Jesus' "My Lord and my God" very well could
        have been a
        > case of Thomas' perceiving and finally recognizing in Jesus his
        Lord and his God, the Father, the one who dwelt in him, a point that
        Thomas did not originally seem to comprehend in John 14.
        >  
        > 4) Do you believe that God grants "godhood" to his creatures? If
        not why for Jesus?
        >  
        > I believe that God can make a person "God" to someone else, since
        Scripture explicitly establishes this as a fact. Jehovah made Moses
        God to Pharaoh, according to Exodus 7:1.
        >  
        > What does "those against whom the word of God came" (John 10:35)
        mean?
        >  
        > I think it just means "to whom the word of God came." But I'd have
        to look closer at the original Greek or perhaps consult some
        commentaries to find out for sure. The ESV, NASB and NET just
        say "to whom the word of God came." Psalm 82 indicates that God
        called the judges "gods" but that they would die like men. I take
        that to mean that although God had given them an
        exalted/authoritative status as judges of his people, and hence they
        were properly called "gods" in this regard, they would, nevertheless
        die (prematurely) like ordinary men because of their failure to
        properly administer justice to those who needed it--God's judgment
        against them.
        >  
        > 5) Why the Bible said these wicked men Elohim or God in this
        particular incident? 6) Why Asaph said, "I called you gods, but in
        fact you will all die like the men that you really are."
        >  
        > As I said, as far as I can tell, they were given the status of
        judges/gods by God, but they failed to live up to their duty in the
        administration of justice. That is whey they are renounced in Psalm
        82.
        >  
        > Best wishes,
        >  
        > Patrick Navas
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.