Jesus Being The Source Of Wisdom Is Evidence Of His Divinity

        The Old Testament affirms that God is the source of all wisdom and understanding:

        "With Him are wisdom and might; to Him belong counsel and understanding." (Job 12:13)

        "Daniel said, “Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him. “It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men and knowledge to men of understanding. “It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him. “To You, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for You have given me wisdom and power; even now You have made known to me what we requested of You, for You have made known to us the king’s matter.” (Daniel 2:20-23)

        The New Testament affirms that all knowledge and wisdom come from Christ Himself:

        "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3)

        Therefore, it is reasonable for us to conclude that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh. He is fully human and fully divine.

        If the Lord Jesus Christ is only a created being, and He is the wisdom and power of God (1 Corinthians 1:24), then would that also mean that God had no wisdom and power prior to Him creating His Son (which is absurd in the highest degree)?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Ridisculous post. You cannot say that Jesus is god because he has wisdom.

Pix
Anonymous said…
You argument is based on the assumption that the Bible is true - specifically Colossians 2:3.

If you start from that assumption, then of course it is trivially easy to show Christianity is true.

The big question then is: Is the Bible true in every particular?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Ridisculous post. You cannot say that Jesus is god because he has wisdom.

Pix

He does not say it is because he has wisdom. I have wisdom, Even you have some wisdom although not so much. Ni because he is he sourceof wisdom.
You argument is based on the assumption that the Bible is true - specifically Colossians 2:3.

If you start from that assumption, then of course it is trivially easy to show Christianity is true.

The big question then is: Is the Bible true in every particular?


This argument is a textbook case of begging the question. Of course he believes Christianity is true that's the nature of apologetic. We do not have to go back and start with foundational assumption every time we speak. If we have to why don't you have to do that? Let's see you justify lack of belief when you question the Bible. Moreover, You missed the point of the argument
It's not merely saying Christianity is true that the foundational assumption. It's saying Jesus is divine. Not all who wear the label "Christian" have said that.
Anonymous said…
Joe: This argument is a textbook case of begging the question.

Well we both agree on that (even if we disagree on which argument!).

Joe: Of course he believes Christianity is true that's the nature of apologetic.

Right. Apologetics is the business of reassuring Christians they are right, so it is fine if your argument that Christianity is true is based on the assumption that Christianity is true. It is just preaching to the converted.
Anonymous said…
According to Islam, Islam is true.

Therefore Islam is true.
According to Islam, Islam is true.

Therefore Islam is true.

you have not proven there is no God,since you don;t allow anyone to leave as assumption basic corner stones of their thought you must prove there is no God before you can say anything else. read this, line by line when you understand the whole thing you will see why your idea is stupid.

This argument is a textbook case of begging the question. Of course he believes Christianity is true that's the nature of apologetic. We do not have to go back and start with foundational assumption every time we speak. If we have to why don't you have to do that? Let's see you justify lack of belief when you question the Bible. Moreover, You missed the point of the argument
It's not merely saying Christianity is true that the foundational assumption. It's saying Jesus is divine. Not all who wear the label "Christian" have said that.
Anonymous said...
Joe: This argument is a textbook case of begging the question.

Well we both agree on that (even if we disagree on which argument!).

you clearly don;t know what that term means, You are begging the question because you trying to assume your basic assumption as prove of their validity.

Joe: Of course he believes Christianity is true that's the nature of apologetic.

Right. Apologetics is the business of reassuring Christians they are right, so it is fine if your argument that Christianity is true is based on the assumption that Christianity is true. It is just preaching to the converted.

The atheist cannot stand that people think different then he does.He had to re brand the basic ideas because he risk any validity be attached to real Christian ideas,

apologetic is an intellectual defense of the faith but he can;t accept the possibility of any validity to something he disagrees with thus he must fimd a sinister definition.


If Christians make no defense of the faith the faith is indefensible. If they do make a defense it shows how biased we are to try and prove something that is obviously wrong on its face.Thus an intellectual defense is begging the questioning this this convolution atheists think is logic.
Anonymous said…
Joe: you have not proven there is no God,since you don;t allow anyone to leave as assumption basic corner stones of their thought you must prove there is no God before you can say anything else. read this, line by line when you understand the whole thing you will see why your idea is stupid.

So your argument is that it is fine to assume Christianity is true, and that the burden of proof lies with anyone who dares to say otherwise.

You are compounding your circular argument with a shifting the burden of proof fallacy!

Joe: you clearly don;t know what that term means, You are begging the question because you trying to assume your basic assumption as prove of their validity.

Clearly I do know what the term means, given that is exactly what I accused Jesse of doing ("You argument is based on the assumption that the Bible is true").

Joe: The atheist cannot stand that people think different then he does.

No, I cannot stand that people do not think.

When Christians show they can actually offer real arguments, rather than question begging and shifting the burden of proof, I might pay attention to it. When all they have is Christianity is true because Christianity is true I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Joe: apologetic is an intellectual defense of the faith but he can;t accept the possibility of any validity to something he disagrees with thus he must fimd a sinister definition.

You are clearly arguing that any argument for Christianity that assumes Christians is true is fine, so I have to ask: Why are you saying it is sinister to point that out?

Joe: If Christians make no defense of the faith the faith is indefensible.

If the only defences they can make are question begging or shifting the burden of proof, it is still indefensible. All you are doing is giving it a facade; sure to a casual glance your apologetics looks worthy, but look behind the facade, and we seen there is nothing actually there.

Do Christians dare look behind the facade? I guess not.

Joe: If they do make a defense it shows how biased we are to try and prove something that is obviously wrong on its face.Thus an intellectual defense is begging the questioning this this convolution atheists think is logic.

If you make a defence that is founded on the assumption that Christianity is true, then of course you will be accused of bias!

Here is the situation: If you make no defence of Christianity, I will call you on it. If you make flawed defence of Christianity, I will call you on that too. That does NOT make you a victim and it does NOT make me guilty of convoluted thinking, no matter how much you might want to pretend that to yourself.

So what is the solution?

Make a good argument.
Here is the situation: If you make no defence of Christianity, I will call you on it. If you make flawed defence of Christianity, I will call you on that too. That does NOT make you a victim and it does NOT make me guilty of convoluted thinking, no matter how much you might want to pretend that to yourself.

so I've never defended Christianity have i? did you amnesia? you forgot all those tines I kicked your ass on this board over God arguments?

Popular posts from this blog

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

The Meaning of the Manger

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Scientifically Documented Miracles

Morriston refutes Craig over deriving Personal God from Kalam