Trinity DebateWHAT DOES THE BIBLE THINK OF JESUSman! my apologies again. i keep assuming things. i'm making a fool of myself here. the reason i thought that is because you seem so orthodox ("orthodox" being defined by me in this case as a Trinitarian) in all your views that i've seen so far. i didn't realize that you believed what you're saying you do. i hadn't even considered it. and i agree with this (somewhat), which is why i didn't try this line of reasoning. although, we have to admit, it can clearly be demonstrated that Jesus is called Lord in a far different way than Saul or anyone else is in the OT. this is firmly supported by the fact that nobody lived a sinless life except Christ. so the other people who may have been called "Lord" ipso facto become excluded from being called "Lord" in the same sense in which we're talking about. Christ didn't sin, and therefore isn't excluded from being God in human flesh (since this is a charactaristic that we would expect from God should He present Himself humanly). now of course, that doesn't mean that He actually IS God in human flesh, it just means that He's not excluded like the others are, so He can't be referred to as "Lord" in the same sense they are, that's all. and even God refers to other "gods" in the OT, but that doesn't mean that He really is saying that there are other actual "gods" existing as He does. we can see from context and proper hermeneutics that He was utilizing language that we could understand. so attempting to demonstrate that since Jesus is called Lord in the NT; and others are referred to as "Lord" in the OT but they were just men; that therefore calling Jesus Lord in the NT is the same as the examples in the OT is to commit a fallacy in logic. in plain language: "Just because two things have one thing in common, therefore they have everything in common." so i would say that your argument doesn't work. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame