Jesus Claimed To Be God… Again

Since some time ago, one of my first posts on this blog was titled Jesus Claimed To Be God — where I provided a very lengthy post to show that Jesus did in fact put the claim of God upon Himself. However, upon further research, I realized that the debate on this issue was a lot deeper, and a lot further than my initial blog on this topic had entailed to discuss.  For example, I read Tim O’Neill’s objections to this idea (Tim is an atheist historian) as well as watched the debate between Bart Ehrman and Justin Bass (both have a PhD). I’ve already posted a full rebuttal to Tim’s post (and it can be found by scrolling under Tim’s answer), however it’s time for me to fully update this on my blog. This new post will serve as a further defending the claim that Jesus claimed to be God. We will respond to both the arguments of those who deny that Jesus claimed to be God.

Jesus as God in Paul’s epistles?

Believe it or not, some people actually believe Paul did not view Jesus as God. Scholars and textual critics only view seven of Paul’s letters as definitely authentic and were certainly written by Paul — the book of Romans, Galatians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon and Phillipians. Although the other six contain obvious references of Jesus as being divine (Titus 2:13, Colossians 2:9), they are argued to be pseudonymous by the majority of Scholars and thus not authentic to Paul’s name and thereby do not reflect Paul’s views. Although I disagree that they are pseudonymous, I will not reference them in discussion of Paul’s views. Here, we will see that Paul obviously viewed Jesus as God.

Let us see that Paul’s texts that clearly establish Jesus as God, and how those who deny this wish to respond are able to respond.

Phillipians 2:5–7: Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, being in very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

A very obvious reference to Jesus as God, correct? The dissidents argue otherwise. Here, they say that the Greek word for the word ‘nature’ is μορφῇ (which is correct) — but they also claim that this Greek term does not mean ‘nature’, it merely means ‘shape’. Thus, Paul says the following:

Phillipians 2:5-7: Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, being in the very shape of God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage, rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

Then, the claim is put forth that this does not mean Jesus is God, it really (somehow) means that Jesus is taking on human likeness in some pre-existing celestial form. Unfortunately for these people, although they wish to pertain to this rather fanciful interpretation of this obvious verse, they are wrong. The Greek word μορφῇ does not only mean shape, μορφῇ can mean both shape and form. 3444. μορφή (morphé) — form, shape — in other words, translations like the HCSB are correct when they translate Phillipians 2:5-7 to say the following:

Phillipians 2:5–7 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form,

Saying that the phrase “Jesus existed in the form of God” doesn’t actually mean “Jesus existed in the form of God” will always be a rather simple attempt to explain away this clear-cut phrase from Paul here. Paul here very clearly places Jesus as God. It only gets worse from here though. These people that attempt to completely re-interpret these straight forward statements will not like the fact that the Greek word μορφῇ is exercised elsewhere in the Biblical Greek literature, such as Mark 16:12.

Mark 16:12: After this, Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them as they walked along in the country.

The Greek word μορφῇ here is used very obviously, and we can see that this Greek word means taking on a physical form, so when Paul says “Jesus exists in the form of God”, he means that “Jesus literally exists in the physical form of God”. So it seems to me there is no possible way to put forth a plausible view where the text in Phillipians 2:5-7 does not amazingly clearly interpret Jesus as God. This itself can drive the position of these dissidents into the ground, but there is more.

[Romans 9:5] The ancestors are theirs, and from them, by physical descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, praised forever. Amen.

Another very clear verse, right? It says the Christ (Jesus) is “God over all”, right? Not to the deniers. The deniers rightfully point out that there is great debate over how this verse is to be translated and where the punctuation goes, as punctuation didn’t exist in the first century when Paul wrote Romans. Thus, it is up the modern Greek scholars to determine where the puncutation in Biblical verses are to be placed in light of the verses context. So these are the contending translations of the verse:

” … from their race… is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever”

” … from their race… is the Christ, who is over all. God forever be blessed!”

” … from their race… is the Christ. God who is over all be forever blessed!”

The deniers will tell you that only the first one views Jesus as God, but this is again false. As you can see, the second translation says “Christ, who is over all”. If Paul views Jesus as being over all things, or as being the highest being, then Paul views Jesus as God. So, two translations put Jesus as God and one doesn’t. But is the third translation really plausible? Notice, the translation has the unbearably long phrase “God who is over all be forever blessed!” — is this an accurate translation? No where else in Paul’s literature is such phraseology used, giving us good reason to believe that such a translation is false, it is in error. Therefore, all viable translations clearly put forth that Jesus is God.

Now, we will see other Pauline verses that make it extraordinarily obvious that Jesus is God. Firstly, we see Paul recording that people pray to Jesus.

[1 Corinthians 1:2] To God’s church at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus and called as saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord—both their Lord and ours.

I didn’t know Paul thought people could pray to someone other then God? Now, take a look at this verse which is an elephant in the room to anyone claiming Jesus isn’t viewed as God by Paul:

[Phillipians 2:10–11] so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow—
of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Paul tells us that at the return of Jesus, ALL PEOPLES IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH AND UNDER THE Earth will BOW down to Jesus, and will CONFESS that Jesus is Lord. It gets amazingly worse for these people when the word translated as ‘Lord’ is κύριος, which means one who exercises absolute ownership. 2962. κύριος (kurios) — lord, master — if Jesus wasn’t God, then why does the entire world bow down on the mark of His name? This becomes increasingly more troublesome when we see this phrase in Phillipians 2:10-11 correlate with the following Old Testament text.

[Isaiah 45:23-25] By Myself I have sworn; Truth has gone from My mouth, a word that will not be revoked: Every knee will bow to Me, every tongue will swear allegiance. It will be said to Me: Righteousness and strength is only in the Lord.” All who are enraged against Him will come to Him and be put to shame. All the descendants of Israel
will be justified and find glory through the Lord.

We now see that what Paul is actually doing in Phillipians 2 is literally correlating an Old Testament text on the almighty Yahweh where Yahweh receives divine homage DIRECTLY with Jesus. This is a type of evidence in the Pauline epistles for the defenders of the idea that Paul portrays Jesus as God fascinates even myself. Seriously. But the problems get much more enormous for anyone continuously denying this. Paul views Jesus and God as the same person. For example, did Paul preach the Gospel of God?

[Romans 15:16] “to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

Or did Paul preach the gospel of Christ?

[Galatians 1:6–7] I am astonished how quickly you are deserting the One who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is not even a gospel. Evidently some people are troubling you and trying to distort the gospel of Christ.

I can give many more examples, such as when Paul first says the churches belong to God (1 Corinthians 11:16) and then says the churches belong to Christ (Romans 16:16), or when Paul says the Spirit is of God in Romans 8:9 but then says the Spirit is of Christ in the exact same verse Romans 8:9. Paul even tells us the only way to be saved is to call on Jesus name (Romans 10:13) and to say that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:9) ! The Greek word used for ‘Lord’ is κύριος which is used multiple times to reference God the Father. The evidence shows it is amazingly obvious that Paul viewed Jesus is God. There is more to go through, but this should be pretty clear by now. The Pauline epistles do in fact portray Jesus as God, as this is what Paul believed as well as Jesus and the early Christians. Because Paul is the earliest author of any Christian writings we have, his view that Jesus is God says quite an enormous amount regarding the earliest belief of Christians and the earliest theology of Christianity.

Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, divine phrase or Messianic phrase?

Some of these people like Tim O’Neill argue that the phrases Christ, Son of God, and Son of Man being titles of Jesus does not make Jesus as God in any way. Tim says this in his answer:

“Christ”, “Son of God” and “Son of Man” are all titles of the Jewish Messiah and the Messiah was not considered to be God.

Though he is right about ‘Christ’, which simply means the ‘Messiah’ in Hebrew or ‘the anointed one’ in English, he is dead wrong about the other two. There is no evidence found in the Old Testament that the phrase Son of God or Son of Man are mere terms used upon the Messiah that do not invoke divinity or being God in any way. Both terms are used on Jesus, such as Jesus being called the Son of God in Mark 1:1 or being called the Son of Man in Matthew 20:28. Although there is no evidence these terms only refer to a being aside from God, there is undeniable evidence that the phrase Son of Man in the Old Testament refers to God.

[Daniel 7:13-14] I continued watching in the night visions, and I saw One like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him. He was given authority to rule, and glory, and a kingdom; so that those of every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will not be destroyed.

The Son of Man is a figure authority over all peoples of all nations of all languages, whom is forever served by all the world, and possesses an everlasting kingdom in His dominion that will never cease. This figure is obviously God. I have a feeling Tim might go wild about the verses saying that He is given this authority, but this is because God is the Father and Jesus is the Son, and thus authority belongs to the Father by nature. Since when does a regular human control absolute authority over all humanity for eternity? I can find no place in the Old Testament where this is said to be due to anyone but God Himself — but I did find Zechariah 14:9, which tells us that it is Yahweh that is king over all the Earth — so it seems that the Son of Man is… Yahweh? Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of Man, therefore Jesus proclaimed to be Yahweh?

The funny thing that I’ve come to notice is that Tim O’Neill is one of the very only people who seriously believe that the phrase Son of Man does not refer to God. Others like Bart Ehrman fully accept it — but now you may be asking yourself, if Bart Ehrman himself viewed Jesus as not claiming to be God, what does Bart Ehrman do with Jesus’ claims to be the Son of Man if he views it is a term for God? Well, easy! He simply says that the Gospel authors made up every single phrase in the New Testament of Jesus (more than 80) where Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man. More on this later. In fact, if anyone is still denying that Jesus clearly claimed to be God such as in the Synoptic Gospels, perhaps they can take a look at the following few verses:

[Mark 14:60–64] Then the high priest stood up before them all and questioned Jesus, “Don’t You have an answer to what these men are testifying against You?” But He kept silent and did not answer anything. Again the high priest questioned Him, “Are You the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus, “and all of you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What is your decision?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

Jesus affirms He is the Messiah, Son of the Blessed One and the Son of Man all at once, and in response the High Priest rips off his robes and declares that Jesus must be put to death because He committed blasphemy. In Jewish Law, you can only commit blasphemy in this context by claiming to be God.

Let’s go back to the term Christ — Jesus claimed to be the Christ, or the Messiah. These people will sometimes say that the Messiah was never to be a God figure according to the Old Testament… But the Old Testament will now challenge them on this.

[Isaiah 9:6–7] For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, And the government will rest on his shoulders; And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. The dominion will be vast, and its prosperity will never end. He will reign on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish and sustain it with justice and righteousness from now on and forever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this.

The Old Testament tells us that the figure who reigns on the throne of David, a son that will be persecuted and will establish an eternal kingdom (this sounds frighteningly like the Messiah) will also be called Mighty God and Eternal Father. So Jesus claiming to be the Messiah is Jesus claiming to be the one who is called Mighty God and Eternal Father, correct? It seems so. Thus, all three terms — Christ, Son of God and Son of Man establish that Jesus claimed to be God.

Jesus as God in the Synoptic Gospels of Luke, Mark, and Matthew

Remember, in the view of those who claim Jesus did not claim to be God, John’s Gospel when saying Jesus is God doesn’t count because it was written too late! Let’s ignore the fact that John the Elder wrote the Gospel of John, a man who directly knew Jesus. Let’s also ignore all the times Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels as well, as well as Mark 14:60-64 in which we’ve already made note of. Let’s also put aside Paul’s letters for now. Even aside from all this, Jesus is still clearly shown as God and declares to be God in all the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus says He will literally judge the world on His throne.

[Matthew 25:31–32] “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

Who, aside from God alone, is going to sit on their throne and judge the world? We also see the very nice term ‘Son of Man’ appear again. Needless to say, the Old Testament obviously says God judges the world (Amos 5:18–20, Psalm 9:7–8). Anyways, Jesus calls Himself the Lord of the Sabbath.

[Mark 2:27–28] Then Jesus told them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

Needless to say, the Old Testament proclaims that the Sabbath belongs to God only (Ezekiel 31:13, Ezekiel 20:12). Jesus says that He is the Lord of David.

[Matthew 22:41–45] While the Pharisees were together, Jesus questioned them, “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son is He?” “David’s,” they told Him. He asked them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls Him ‘Lord’: The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet’? “If David calls Him ‘Lord,’ how then can the Messiah be his Son?”

Jesus tells us only the Father knows Him, and only He knows the Father and to whom anyone Jesus wishes to reveal the Father to.

Matthew 11:27: All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son desires to reveal Him.

Jesus tells us He is wherever His followers gather, basically saying He can exist anywhere He pleases.

[Matthew 18:20] For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them.”

Peter tells Jesus He is literally God’s Son, and Jesus blessed him for it.

[Matthew 16:13-17] When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven.

Jesus is declared to be the “Holy One”, that is called Son of God.

[Luke 1:35] The angel replied to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy One to be born will be called the Son of God.

We can go forwards — Jesus further declares the Father hands Him authority over earth and heaven and so forth. The Gospels contain tens of references to Jesus as the Son of Man in all the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Jesus is obviously portrayed as God. All this and all these verses together make an overwhelmingly compelling case to Jesus being God as portrayed in the Synoptics. These are not the claims of a mere human being, a human Messiah, or even the mightiest prophet. These are the claims to be put forth onto God and God alone.

Book of Hebrews says Jesus is God?

In discussion on Jesus claim to be God, the Book of Hebrews always seems to be ignored. The Book of Hebrews is an amazingly early text of the New Testament (written 64 AD). This is a very great document in order to understand the earliest interpretation of Jesus amongst the Christians, and lo’ and behold, it says Jesus is God.

[Hebrews 1:7-8] And about the angels He says: He makes His angels winds, and His servants a fiery flame but to the Son: Your throne, God, is forever and ever, and the scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of justice.

Finally.. Let’s discuss the Son of Man again.

You’ll recall I said earlier that some people who deny Jesus claimed to be God simply think that Jesus proclaiming Himself to be the Son of Man was ‘made up’ by the Gospel authors. Not only is this the obvious dying breath of someone whom has a failing argument and has to come to terms with the facts that all the Gospels, Pauline letters and earliest Christian texts like the Book of Hebrews and the writings of Ignatius portray Jesus is God — also has absolutely no evidence in support of it. In fact, all the evidence seems to support that Jesus did claim to be the Son of Man based on these sayings. The idea that Jesus historically claimed this passes many historical criterions. For example, it passes the criterion of multiple attestation (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John say Jesus said Himself as the Son of Man), it passes the criterion of early attestation, and it also passes the criterion of dissimilarity. You’ll realize the term ‘Son of Man’ appears almost absolutely nowhere in the New testament apart from the sayings of Jesus — perhaps twice at best. This shows that it is not being made up, as the criterion of dissimilarity shows that this saying of Jesus is unique to Jesus’ quotations, and thus Jesus’ quotations are more likely to be His own (as a fictional quote from John would sound a lot like John’s own writing). All the historical evidence seems to clearly favor the authenticity of this saying, and thus we can have no doubt that Jesus claimed to be God.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Jesus Claimed To Be God… Again

  1. Pingback: Is Creationism biblical? My thoughts… | Faith, Philosophy, and Science

  2. Aloha Friend,
    I love your blog, and your patience to debate all the hopeless atheists! You have posted on several of them, and you seem to be a well studied Christian, with good answers to a lot of hardcore atheists, and muslims that I don’t have the patience to peacefully debate, because they are so set in their ways, and not willing to listen to anything that a Christian has to say! I admire you for that
    Anyway, with all the Biblical views you have that are right on, (and I thank God you are NOT a KJV Only person!) BUT, I have one question about your beliefs-
    How can you say that you think the Earth is billions of years old? You said in your “About Me” page that you don’t think the Earth is only about 6000 years old? Do you believe in evolution? Just wondering, because I am a Young Earth Creationist, and I really see no other options available in the Bible. The Hebrew word for Day is “Yom” and that is a literal 24 hour day every other time in the Bible it is used,
    Evolution is at war with God, because they invented evolution to remove God from our origins. Honestly, there is more solid, scientific evidence for God & Creation than there is for evolution. One can NOT believe in evolution and God at the same time, it is either one or the other, but NOT both!
    As far as God Creating everything in a 24 hour day, I would even say “Why did it take so long”?
    God would speak something into existence, and Boom! It was Done! God would have had at least 23 hours and 55 minutes left over after He created the things on Days 1-6!
    I would seriously challenge you to re-think your position on the age of the Earth! Because if they were anything other than 24 Hour days, then that would make God out to be a Liar! And we both know that’s not possible. Because when He said Adam lived to be 930 Years old, He would have been lying if the sixth and seventh day (All the Days) of Creation were anything other than literal 24 hour days, then that would have made Adam 930 Years old, PLUS however long the Day 6 & 7 were!
    How/ why did you come to that (wrongful) idea that the Earth was Millions or Billions of years old?
    Anyone that tries to fit billions of years is compromising the Word of God to make it “line up” with the flawed word of man, and that’s just wrong!
    Thanks for your reply……..Sailor Dale https://sailordale.wordpress.com/

    Like

    • Hello, and thanks a lot for your kind words about my argumentation, research, and presentation of my facts.

      It seems that you have a word or two for me about the age of the Earth. Listen dude, God gave us two ways to know the truth, and one of them is the Bible. The other one is nature, and the fact is that these two can’t contradict each other. If it is an objective fact that clouds exist in nature, then it must also be an objective fact that clouds exist in the Bible because these two sources cannot conradict each other, they both have the same source of course, God. Likewise, if it’s an objective fact that the universe is billions of years old in nature, then it’s an objective fact that the universe is billions of years old in the Bible, because these sources cannot contradict one another.

      On that note, I do think there is good reason to think the universe is billions of years old, and there are good reasons why the primordial history of Genesis (Genesis chapters 1-11) is non-literal. Firstly, the age of the universe. There are galaxies that are located billions of light years away from our own galaxy, and light from those galaxies has reached our own galaxy. So, light that is located, for example, three billion light years away from us has arrived to our galaxy, meaning that it took three billion years to do so (since light travels one year in a light year). In other words, as far as I know, there is good reason to believe that the age of the universe is rather large. If my scientific theory is true, then the same is true in the Bible regardless of how ‘clear’ a simple reading of scripture might be, since it is true in nature. So this is why I think the age of the universe is very large.

      Now, for my reasons for not interpreting Genesis 1-11 necessarily literally. It’s possible, and I’m always open to it. I’ve been a young-earth creationist in my life before. I’m simply trying to find the truth and I’ll leave old earth creationism in an instant if I don’t find it viable. But for now, I do. Let’s go to the flood story in Genesis. Specifically, the following passage;

      Genesis 7:1-2: Then the Lord said to Noah, “Enter the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you alone are righteous before me in this generation. You are to take with you seven pairs, a male and its female, of all the clean animals, and two of the animals that are not clean, a male and its female,

      God tells Noah to take seven pairs of every clean animal and two pairs of every unclean animal. However, God only revealed the list of clean animals in the Torah to Moses, meaning that the entire concept of clean and unclean animals was non-existent in Noah’s time — so how could God have told Noah to take pairs of clean and unclean animals? It makes no sense. I think it’s possible to make sense of Noah’s flood story in the following way: Jesus died for the sins of the world and took its punishment upon Himself, so that we don’t have to. On the other hand, God is showing us that, with Noah, what happens when humanity and the entire world pays for its own sins. God destroys the entire world and kills almost all of humanity, besides Noah, the one righteous man. God destroys the world for its sins, in effect. And what happens almost immediately after Noah gets off the Ark? According to the Bible, he got drunk (Genesis 9:21). So what happens now? Noah is destroyed and the world ceases to be. But that’s not what happens, as Noah’s keeps on having descendants. I think that Noah’s story presents a message, alongside the rest of the Genesis’ primordial history, about the coming of Christ and God’s plan for the world.

      God created all reality and everything in it. I don’t exactly accept evolution, and I do lean towards the idea that God started humanity with Adam and Eve. I can’t claim to know how God did it all, but I don’t think that God did it in the way that you think it happened. I’d like you to see this video:

      Liked by 1 person

      • Aloha Friend!
        Thanks for your reply. I do still think we agree on more than we disagree, but I will expound on your answer. I will say right off the top that the Bible is correct and true. If God said it, that settles it!
        Sometimes when anything in nature appears to contradict the Bible, I will go with God every time.
        The distance to some galaxies in light years is no problem at all. I believe that God Created the Universe with the appearance of age- as in making the stars so far away from us so some people would think about them, and just glorify God for them, and some would think they could come up with an answer on our own. I don’t know, and there is a LOT that we Don’t /Can’t know completely, because we were not there when He Created them. Whatever the answer is, that is no problem at all for our wonderful, all knowing, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Loving God! There is a lot of speculation involved, and I know that mankind would tend to speculate away from anything God related, because that’s how we are. (John 3:19-20) God created everything in six 24 hour days, so making stars appear to be light years away would be simple for God. Just kike when God created Adam & Eve, He did not create them as babies, but as full grown people. Same with all the animals, they probably were created full grown. There is just no possible way for the allowance for billions of years in the Bible, that is just compromising religionists trying to make the Bible fit with science’s billions of years! Kind of like man making God in man’s image, because we cant possibly completely understand God.

        I strongly believe against not taking Genesis 1-11 literally for several reasons. The first & foremost one being that people will say “Well, if you can’t take (trust) the first 11 chapters of the Bible literally, then WHEN CAN you stare trusting the Bible?” That gives the atheists/skeptics too much reason to discount the whole Bible, and God didn’t leave any options for people to decide what parts of the Bible they can & can’t trust on their own accord. I will go with trusting all of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. God never said to believe parts of the Bible. The whole Bible or none of the Bible…I believe to trust all of it, especially the first 11 chapters.
        Also, a VERY good reason we Must take Gen. 1-11 as literal truth (including for a young Earth) is because of the Genealogies of / to Christ that God put right in the middle of them, in Chapter 5!
        The genealogies are very important to us and God , and they also make for a rewarding Bible study!
        So, since the genealogies are there, we must regard them as gospel facts, because God does!

        As for the actual lists of animals, they are not that important, because God told Noah to take seven pairs of clean & 2 pairs of unclean, so that’s what he did. And Noah did not have to go hunt the animals, God brought them to Noah. So, God would have known which animals were clean & unclean, because He (God) designated them as such. So, again that was not a problem for God, at all!

        God does NOT give Christians the option to take or leave the first 11 chapters of the Bible, or ANY of it, for that matter. We are to take the whole Bible as the word of God, no picking and choosing allowed!
        I personally see no other option for the Christian to believe but the Young Earth Creationist! There really is no other alternatives available.But i also will add that I would not go so far as to say that one’s salvation rests upon this issue, I still see it as just the way the Bible is written.

        Have a Jesus day! Sailor Dale….

        Like

      • Aloha to you too!

        “Thanks for your reply. I do still think we agree on more than we disagree, but I will expound on your answer.”

        That is correct, without a doubt. It seems to me that our only disagreement regarding theology is how we treat the primordial history of Genesis (chapters 1-11).

        Another thing I agree with you is the principle that if God said it, it’s true. However, we need to be able to understand between literalism and non-literalism in the Bible as well. Non-literalist portions of the Bible undoubtedly exist, such as when Jesus refers to Himself as the ‘vine’ — Jesus isn’t actually a vine, of course. The only trouble is determining where the Bible is literal and where it isn’t. This is important because if the author of Genesis intended chapters 1-11 to be non-literal, but we take it as literal, then we have a skewed understanding of the Bible on our hands that needs to be corrected. Secondly, we need to weigh our understanding of the Bible with our understanding of nature, because both these things are equally a testimony from God.

        So, when you say that God created the universe with an “appearance of age”, I am troubled. Why? Did God intend to trick us? Saying that God created the galaxies billions of light years apart is not troubling, but the thing is that the light from those galaxies actually traveled to our galaxy, and light can’t travel a distance of three billion light years in any less than three billion light years. I think both testimonies of God, scripture and nature, are clear, because God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). However, your claims about what God did with nature are nothing less than confusing to me.

        Back to the Bible. If we can establish what nature says about the universe, then we can establish that the Bible’s age of the universe is no less than some 13 billion years. Secondly, as I noted before, there are no reasons not to accept our understanding of the universes age, but there are reasons to consider the primordial history non-literal. For example, Genesis 7 has God commanding Noah to take specific sets of clean and unclean animals, even though God only revealed the list of clean and unclean animals with Moses and the Torah. You seek to explain this by saying “As for the actual lists of animals, they are not that important, because God told Noah to take seven pairs of clean & 2 pairs of unclean, so that’s what he did. And Noah did not have to go hunt the animals, God brought them to Noah. So, God would have known which animals were clean & unclean, because He (God) designated them as such. So, again that was not a problem for God, at all!” — except there is not any such notion of clean and unclean animals as designated by God in general. The entire point of the dietary restrictions and hundreds of other Old Testament laws was for them to be given to the nation of Israel and followed by the nation of Israel in specific, so that Israel was reminded that they were the chosen nation of God in whom the Messiah would come out of. The Law of Moses was unknown before Moses, and this is specifically told to us by Paul in Romans 5:13-14. So the law wasn’t available and no one knew what was clean and unclean because God hadn’t yet revealed this according to Paul until the time of Moses, and so Noah couldn’t have known the clean and unclean. The non-literal understanding of the primordial history, as far as I’m aware, has been recorded as early as the 3rd century AD. By the way, as far as my view goes, the genealogies in Genesis 5 wouldn’t prove literalism as Genesis 5 is part of the primordial history. Again, I’m open to all views and was once a young earth creationist — I simply have come to the conclusion that God’s testimony in nature is equally important to God’s testimony through scripture and we cannot weigh one over the other, the two are in harmony and cannot be perceived to have a contradiction. You construe my position as “leaving out” Genesis 1-11, which is totally incorrect. There is overwhelming importance of the six days, life of Adam and Eve, flood, etc, on my view without doubt. God gave us this for a reason. There is no such thing as “sciences billions of years” because science only affirms God’s Word, never challenges it.

        Have you seen the debate between Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross?

        Like

      • No, I have not, not yet. I have read of Mr. Ross, but it was a few years ago.
        I will look at what he believes in. Please send me a link to the debate you are referencing, in case I can’t find it.
        I read the Genesis account of God telling Noah about the clean & unclean animals, but I never gave it a second thought.
        I am curious about how you (or anyone else) could think that there is any room at all in the Bible for billions of years. I just don’t see it at all. I disagree with billions of years, because the long time period is the backbone or cornerstone of evolution! They simply MUST have billions & billions of years for their fairy tale to “come true” In a sense, the long time is the “god” of evolutionary beliefs. And, Yes, to the atheist, evolution IS their “religion” Because evolution is so scientifically Impossible, the billions of years is their only justification for their science fiction fairy tale! (Lol)

        <<<<<<<<<< So, when you say that God created the universe with an “appearance of age”, I am troubled. Why? Did God intend to trick us? Saying that God created the galaxies billions of light years apart is not troubling, but the thing is that the light from those galaxies actually traveled to our galaxy, and light can’t travel a distance of three billion light years in any less than three billion light years. I think both testimonies of God, scripture and nature, are clear, because God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). However, your claims about what God did with nature are nothing less than confusing to me.<<<<<<<<<<<<

        I have heard some Creation Scientists say that the Creation of the Universe with an "appearance of age" is just a possible explanation, but I am not sure. Maybe that's God's sense of humor, just to confuse the atheists! Lol…
        I believe that as far as the light traveling the distance between the galaxies, I don't know exactly how that God did that, I just rely on the fact that God is Sovereign, and we don't know how He did what He did. For anyone to guess how God did things is but pure speculation. There are far too many unknown variables involved for us to be definitively certain about how God Created everything. (Job Ch. 38-41)
        If the Bible says nothing about it, then I wouldn't either. So, I will just take Him at His Word, and I don't need to second guess Him. That's good enough for me. Our best scientific interpretation of nature has been corrupted by the atheistic, evolutionary dogma that their "religion" demands to make their anti-God agenda seem true!

        I will do some more homework and answer your other questions. Aloha, Brother!

        Like

      • Here’s the debate I’m referring to between Hovind and Ross:

        I’ve watched it about three times myself just because it’s so informative and intriguing on how both sides of the debate come together. Both are committed Christians debating with each other the old earth versus young earth views.

        “I read the Genesis account of God telling Noah about the clean & unclean animals, but I never gave it a second thought.”

        Neither did I, until I started reading more BioLogos stuff. I don’t read BioLogos anymore because they’re far too liberal for my taste, but their point about the clean and unclean animals stuck to me.

        “I am curious about how you (or anyone else) could think that there is any room at all in the Bible for billions of years. I just don’t see it at all.”

        I simply don’t think that the Bible gives us any date on the age of the universe, and so it’s really irrelevant to me as to whether or not it’s in the range of millions or billions or thousands. I also don’t accept evolution, but even if I did, I’d still find that the evidence favors God-driven evolution if it happened at all, hence the naturalist loses either way:

        So, evolution or not, God must be the source of life. A big fat egg on the face of the naturalist is that naturalism is a failure to simply understanding the intricacies, and specifically spiritual parts, of our universe. And to finalize my point, the age of the universe is not a concern to me because I see no theological take on it from my Christian worldview. It’s like telling me how I reconcile my belief in how rainbows work with Christianity. How does question even make sense? There’s no Christian teaching I know of that contradicts what we know about rainbows, neither is their one that contradicts our understanding of an old universe. So there’s no problem. Plus, it’s a waste of my time. I’d rather focus on Jesus and the reliability of the Bible in general than focusing on these sideline doctrines, and so that’s really what my blog is mostly about.

        Liked by 1 person

      • OK, thanks for the link, I will watch it, and the William Lane Craig video.
        Yes, there are a lot of atheists out there, and it seems like they are becoming more hardcore about their refusal to want anything to do with God. Very sad, but that was predicted in the Bible. This is definitely the last of the last days, we are still here by the Grace of God (2 Peter 3:9) God says it will not end well for them, and yet they think they are so smart, and they mock God and they are coming off as self righteous.
        I don’t usually reply on their blogs much, because they think they are so smart.I guess the best thing I can do for them is to pray for them, by name. If they want to repent & be saved, that’s great. If not, it’s out of my hands.
        If you are ever in Hawaii on vacation, please look me up! I would love to sit down & break bread and talk Jesus with you! Where do you fellowship at? I am at http://www.calvarychapelpearlharbor.com Aloha!

        Like

      • Great, I hope you find much interest in the videos. I agree we’re in the last days, I think that the mark might be some sort of chip but I’m not sure. I’m basically going to make sure nothing gets on my right hand or forehead, and that I continue to pray for discernment, wisdom and spirituality etc to keep myself awake, especially since so many people have fallen asleep in the time of the great calling.

        In a way, I basically respond to atheist comments, blogs and other stuff all the time. I also make sure to write really provocative thing against their ideologies to try to spur them into a frenzy (so I can catch them in their nonsense). In fact, the entire reason I started my blog was to be able to have quick links so I can just tell an atheist to “read this” instead of having to type up a thorough explanation for evrything I’m arguing about every time. Not only has the blog helped me a lot with that, but now it’s grown into something a lot more useful. I definitely hope you enjoy Craig’s video and the Hovind-Ross debate. If I ever decide to go to Hawaii on a vacation, God willing I’ll be able to break some bread with you! You seem like a great and genuine guy.

        This very recent archaeological news popped up about three days ago I think:
        http://www.timesofisrael.com/new-jerusalem-finds-shore-up-biblical-account-of-babylonian-conquest/

        I’m going to write a post about this in the next week or so but before that I think I’ll devote one to some thoughts I articulated in our discussion. God bless.

        Like

      • OK, Praise Jesus!
        I am sure we will meet again here in the “Blogosphere”
        And we must keep in mind that we will be the only Bible that some atheists will ever see!
        That thought helps me to keep some civility in some of the posts I make….Although, sometimes it gets very hard to not go off on some of these atheist clowns out there…..Know what I mean? Sailor Dale

        Like

  3. I loved this. Super well-written and informative. Keep up the good work, brother!

    Also, if I might add to your bit on Phillipians 2:10–11 …

    The passage reads:
    “… at the name of Jesus every knee will bow—of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth—and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

    Compare this to Isaiah 45:23-25:
    23 “I have sworn by Myself,
    The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
    And will not turn back,
    That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
    24 “They will say of Me, ‘Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.’
    Men will come to Him,
    And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame.
    25 “In the Lord all the offspring of Israel
    Will be justified and will glory.”

    Paul is clearly referencing Isaiah 45, only he replaces Yahweh with YESHUA! If Paul didn’t think Jesus was God, why on earth would he make such a blasphemous allusion to this passage? For me, this single reference alone is enough to seal the deal in regards to Paul’s view of Christ’s being Deity. Powerful stuff.

    Thank you for your ministry! Your posts have been a blessing and a breath of fresh air.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you my brother for your kind words! I was flabbergasted when I read your comment on Paul’s allusion to Isaiah 45 as I could not possibly believe I had missed such a thing! Thanks a lot, I will immediately add this to the post (or almost immediately). May the LORD’s blessings guide you.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s