Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The text is the Text.....asking that it conform to what we all of the sudden want it to conform to is rather silly of us.
The Bible does not have to say it's truth in ways we want it too!
The Bible was not inspired by men's minds, so why would we think for one moment that unless it makes use of the wording we demand from it, that it is worthless to teach from?
We have not a sentence in the bible that suggests Jesus ever went to the bathroom.
Shall we say that unless if clearly says word-for-word, "and then did Jesus go to the bathroom" that he never had to?
That would be silly.....
Demanding that a believer in any Bible teaching support their faith with a word-for-word phrase you pull out of thin air is silly
A better question to ask any believer in any teaching is "Show me why you believe that?"
The text is the Text.....asking that it conform to what we all of the sudden want it to conform to is rather silly of us.
The Bible does not have to say it's truth in ways we want it too!
The Bible was not inspired by men's minds, so why would we think for one moment that unless it makes use of the wording we demand from it, that it is worthless to teach from?
We have not a sentence in the bible that suggests Jesus ever went to the bathroom.
Shall we say that unless if clearly says word-for-word, "and then did Jesus go to the bathroom" that he never had to?
That would be silly.....
Demanding that a believer in any Bible teaching support their faith with a word-for-word phrase you pull out of thin air is silly
A better question to ask any believer in any teaching is "Show me why you believe that?"
You forgot to comment on the most important part of my post:
While Christ was the Son of man and Son of God, He was not the disciple's God. After Christ ascended into heaven He continued not being the disciples God (see Revelation 3:2,12 . . . )
Rev 3:12 '"The one who is conquering, him will I be making a pillar in the temple of My God, and he may be coming out nevermore, and I will be writing on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which is descending out of heaven from My God, and My new name."
Rev 3:2 Become watchful, and establish the rest who were about to be dying; for I have not found your acts completed in the sight of My God."
You forgot to comment on the most important part of my post:
"Forgot"?
I dont think so...
However my post is aimed at anyone who would turn to a Christian and ask them to find a verse that reads, Word-for-word, something...
The Bible is not like that, it was not written with some so-in-so "Joe Blow" 2000 years later in mind.
So it would be rather silly for a Joe Blow to demand a Christian show him a word-for-word verse that he just picks out of the thin air.
It's silly to tell a Christian, that unless that Christian can find a word-for-word verse that is demanded that the non-believer says he will never believe the Christian teachings about Christ.
The Bible comes to us with it's own wordings and it's own means to teach us what it has to teach us. Its silly for us to demand from it that unless it says things in a manner we want that we will not believe it.
You can debate with a Christian "over" the Text, and tell the Christian, "You misquoted that verse"
But you can't debate "with" the Text and tell the Bible, "You said that in the wrong way"
Is the Bible true?
While we Christians believe that the Bible was truly inspired from Heaven, the truth is that the bible also shows the hand of many writers of different skill levels and it is very true that some writers of the New Testament have written about central core teachings in a very round about manner.
Everyone has their own style.
You read the book of Luke and notice right away the John is very different in style.
Luke and John go at the task of writing with different styles, they each put more effort into different aspects.
So knowing all this, does it not seem rather silly for a Joe Blow today to demand that both Luke and John say things in a manner that he would have written them in?
Last edited by alanMolstad; 10-30-2009 at 06:53 AM..
LOL, you are trying to squirm your way out of providing scripture and asking to see Scripture that you only want to see that Jesus is saying that He is God.
I didn't say I only want to see as in putting you under conditions, but only as in that should be easy to provide. You know that because I ask for the exact wording (notice the quotes) "Jesus is God" and to give you some leeway I even say just show with Christ's words that he says he is God. You have nothing to show that Jesus said he is God. or any phrase saying the exact word "Jesus is God."
Quote:
You know that scripture points to Jesus being God, yet you fight with it. LOL.
Whoa! YOU know that Jesus is not called God yet you continue to believe it. I don't have that problem in the least. If I knew scripture said that I wouldn't say the opposite. I have no problem admitting Jesus is God if you can show he is. All you have shown is that you don't understand how to derive the meaning of sentences by simple contextual analysis. You can't even seem to get that I don't see that Jesus is God in the text cuz it isn't there.
Quote:
I will leave you with this, Kat, you refuse to see scripture, or you just don't want to admit that you are wrong.
I have no problem being wrong as that would mean that I am then doing what is right. I have repeatedly ignored your "pot shots" and deceptions, while continuing on topic to prove that I am open to being proven wrong. To my logical mind and repentant spirit filled being... there hasn't been proof that Jesus is God. Obviously you see it differently.
Quote:
Jesus used the very words that He used in the OT, His name, I am. Only God used this name. This is the same name that God used in Hebrew as He used again in Greek.
No not the same words, God's are recorded as I am who I am. Jesus says, I am. And you would have to agree that some versions include I am he which makes more sense in light of the topic being discussed. He also says I am (he) to the woman who asks if he is the Christ/Messiah, yet you don't cite that verse or the many others where he says I am. No one asks him what his name is then he says I am.. that would at least be similar to God's claim of the name I am who I am.
Quote:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same Greek word is used in both occurrences of the word God in John 1:1. This same word is used in many contexts, whether it refers to the Only True God or whether it is referring to a false god - such as a man-made god or Satan as the god of this age. The apparent differences in spelling between the word God in the phrase and the Word was God (theos) and in other places, even in the previous phrase, and the Word was with God (theon) is due to inflection in the Greek language.
Each Greek noun normally has 8 or 9 forms cases & number in which it can appear. In the first instance in John 1:1 it is the object of preposition and thus is in the accusative case. In the phrase in question, it is in the nominative case, indicating the subject or predicate nominative - equal to the subject.
But it is the same word for God, and in both phrases here indicates the One and Only True God. So the apparent difference is spelling is not because theos is a different word than theon, but is a different form of the identical word.
I have no problem with the God mentioned in John 1:1-3 being the Almighty, the One and ONLY true God. You are creating a strawman by misrepresenting my position.
The word of God is God.. that is entirely true. He spoke and his word is him.
Quote:
In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word God in the phrase, and the Word was God. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word God is meant to be indefinite, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation.
We see elsewhere that the word of God is spoken and it is the truth. Again you are trying to clarify something I agree with. This is not the argument.
Quote:
Because the first use of the word God in John 1:1 the Word was with God clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase and the Word was God to refer to a lesser god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned.
Again, I agree. The word of God was indeed the True and ONLY God. I have no objection to that and never did.
Quote:
If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this indefinite pronoun tis as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was a certain god, but not the one he was just referring to.
My objection is in verse 14 where you say John is creating confusion by saying "flesh" rather than "Jesus." Using your own method here why doesn't John just say Jesus. Why say flesh. Perhaps because the word is made flesh in other cases besides Jesus as is the case with all true prophets of God. They spoke the word of God yet they were not God.
You seem to think that "the Word became flesh" = "the word became Jesus" but the text doesn't say that. It doesn't use flesh as a particular flesh only a general flesh. This is my objection, not the verses 1-3. Jesus is implied in the second part of the verse and I beleive it speaks of him. But there is no reason to say "flesh" = "Jesus" if so we must take every instance where the word flesh is used and equate it with Jesus and that is absurd.
Quote:
There are several verses, I will just use Luke 18:27, where the same word is being used.
1 John 5:20, Jesus is called the true God, the true theos.
So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
It is also necessary to see this statement in context of the rest of John’s writings. When comparing this with other statements about who the person and nature of Jesus Christ really is, it adds to what is already made clear by the Greek grammar.
See for instance: John 8:56-59, with comparing to this verse- Exo. 3:13-14).
Again you are saying that I disagree that God in John 1:1-3 is the One and ONLY true God. I don't disagree with that at all....This is a waste of your time to try to dispute something we both believe is true. Why don't you use you skills in the original languages to show that the vastness of God can be contained in a human form. That would be refuting a claim I actually made.
Quote:
Philippian 2:7
who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
Christ made Himself in the form of man, but as you see before He has the form of God. He is God.
Philippians 2:6-7 is, first of all, an interpretation of a man who had never been with Jesus. Remember he converted after Jesus died. So using him is like using second hand information and man's interpretation. I can get over that though by looking at the context and other translations.
The word "morphe" used in the passage as FORM means (according to Thayer) “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance.” of likeness.. yet likeness is not being God. It is not "robbery" to be like God. And we see that they did not know God so could not recognize God in him as shown throughout the gospels by Jesus' own words.
Quote:
These verses also indicate that, in John’s understanding and thus the Bible’s clear statements, Jesus Christ is the same essence and nature as God the Father, but distinct in their person-hood. All the verses except philippian, so you don't ge confused even more.
I am not confused. You say same essence and nature.. The same essence means "the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features" according to Webster's and an example is Freedom is the very essence of our democracy. Yet democracy is much more than simple freedom and the two are not the same even though one is contained in the other. Nature is the same way and defined as "the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct." Having the nature of someone is not indicative of being someone which is what you are trying to say. That is changing the meaning of the word to fit your interpretation.
Quote:
The same greek word that is used for Jesus is the same word used when talking about God. UMMM, looks like you are the one who need to do your research. Scriptures never lie.
Yes, they had the same nature, purpose.. because God gave Jesus his nature, his purpose, his glory.. none of this was Jesus' to give as is shown in the verses I posted.
Quote:
It was nice with this little chat, but I have other things to do and work. Keep up what ever you are doing and you will continue going down the wrong road. I have other things to do.
You feel sorry for me, not as much as I feel sorry for you. I must say that this chat was not one that was really worth it or much of a challenge, but I must say, you give me much laughter. Only a fool would deny Jesus to be God.
I say only a fool would believe that Jesus is God. We differ in this but it is clear to me that if you believe this it should be clear. As clear as it is that God is only ONE.
However my post is aimed at anyone who would turn to a Christian and ask them to find a verse that reads, Word-for-word, something...
The Bible is not like that, it was not written with some so-in-so "Joe Blow" 2000 years later in mind.
So it would be rather silly for a Joe Blow to demand a Christian show him a word-for-word verse that he just picks out of the thin air.
It's silly to tell a Christian, that unless that Christian can find a word-for-word verse that is demanded that the non-believer says he will never believe the Christian teachings about Christ.
The Bible comes to us with it's own wordings and it's own means to teach us what it has to teach us. Its silly for us to demand from it that unless it says things in a manner we want that we will not believe it.
You can debate with a Christian "over" the Text, and tell the Christian, "You misquoted that verse"
But you can't debate "with" the Text and tell the Bible, "You said that in the wrong way"
Is the Bible true?
While we Christians believe that the Bible was truly inspired from Heaven, the truth is that the bible also shows the hand of many writers of different skill levels and it is very true that some writers of the New Testament have written about central core teachings in a very round about manner.
Everyone has their own style.
You read the book of Luke and notice right away the John is very different in style.
Luke and John go at the task of writing with different styles, they each put more effort into different aspects.
So knowing all this, does it not seem rather silly for a Joe Blow today to demand that both Luke and John say things in a manner that he would have written them in?
In reference to both you posts: If Jesus urinating was an essential doctrine then you would be making a point...However, Jesus' being God is to Christians an essential Doctrine therefore it should be addressed specifically in the bible. It is not addressed specifically so the absence denotes it is not true and it must be proven or discarded.
If I make a claim that in order to be saved you must believe that Jesus urinated I should be prepared to show it clearly...However Trinitarians cannot show that Jesus is taught by anyone as being 100% God yet they still say it is necessary to believe it in order to be saved.
Usually when theologians cannot back prove something from Scriptures they have to invent smoke screens such as "hypostatic union" in order to hoodwink their audience.
Since "hypostatic" is not in the Scriptures it should not be any part of a revelation about God or Christ.
While Christ was the Son of man and Son of God, He was not the disciple's God. After Christ ascended into heaven He continued not being the disciples God (see Revelation 3:2,12 . . . )
Rev 3:12 '"The one who is conquering, him will I be making a pillar in the temple of My God, and he may be coming out nevermore, and I will be writing on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which is descending out of heaven from My God, and My new name."
Rev 3:2 Become watchful, and establish the rest who were about to be dying; for I have not found your acts completed in the sight of My God."
Technical terms are used in every area of life. A Physician uses technicial terms. A law inforcement officer uses technical terms. A chemist, a physicist, a biologist uses technical terms. An OTR trucker uses technical terms- ''look out for that 'gator' in the road.'' What's a gator? It's a piece of shredded tire from a blowout that is laying in the road. A prostitute uses technical terms. ''Gotta go turn a 'trick' tonight.'' Critics use technical terms such as --smokescreen. Every area of life uses technical terms. And it is no different with Theology. One word of technical volcabulary saves a thousand words of explanation.
'Hypostatic union' is a technical term that means that in the Person of Christ are two natures- deity and humanity- which are inseparably united, without mixture or loss of separate identity, without loss or transfer of properties or attributes, the union being personal and eternal. John 1:1(deity); John 1:14(humanity).
John 19:28 ''I thirst'' Humanity. (deity cannot thirst)
Matthew 4:3 ''If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.'' Deity. ( humanity cannot turn stones to bread)
Technical terms are used in every area of life. A Physician uses technicial terms. A law inforcement officer uses technical terms. A chemist, a physicist, a biologist uses technical terms. An OTR trucker uses technical terms- ''look out for that 'gator' in the road.'' What's a gator? It's a piece of shredded tire from a blowout that is laying in the road. A prostitute uses technical terms. ''Gotta go turn a 'trick' tonight.'' Critics use technical terms such as --smokescreen. Every area of life uses technical terms. And it is no different with Theology. One word of technical volcabulary saves a thousand words of explanation.
'Hypostatic union' is a technical term that means that in the Person of Christ are two natures- deity and humanity- which are inseparably united, without mixture or loss of separate identity, without loss or transfer of properties or attributes, the union being personal and eternal. John 1:1(deity); John 1:14(humanity).
John 19:28 ''I thirst'' Humanity. (deity cannot thirst)
Matthew 4:3 ''If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.'' Deity. ( humanity cannot turn stones to bread)
Hypostatic union- Jesus Christ as the God-Man.
When did Jesus cease being the "God-Man" (another unscriptural term)?
When did Jesus cease being the "God-Man" (another unscriptural term)?
He didn't. He remains the unique person of the universe forever. He is from the point of His first incarnation, the God-Man through out all eternity future. Jesus Christ is both eternal and infinite God, and true humanity in one person forever. Both one hundred percent God, and one hundred percent human.
Technical terms are used in every area of life. A Physician uses technicial terms. A law inforcement officer uses technical terms. A chemist, a physicist, a biologist uses technical terms. An OTR trucker uses technical terms- ''look out for that 'gator' in the road.'' What's a gator? It's a piece of shredded tire from a blowout that is laying in the road. A prostitute uses technical terms. ''Gotta go turn a 'trick' tonight.'' Critics use technical terms such as --smokescreen. Every area of life uses technical terms. And it is no different with Theology. One word of technical volcabulary saves a thousand words of explanation.
'Hypostatic union' is a technical term that means that in the Person of Christ are two natures- deity and humanity- which are inseparably united, without mixture or loss of separate identity, without loss or transfer of properties or attributes, the union being personal and eternal. John 1:1(deity); John 1:14(humanity).
John 19:28 ''I thirst'' Humanity. (deity cannot thirst)
Matthew 4:3 ''If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.'' Deity. ( humanity cannot turn stones to bread)
Hypostatic union- Jesus Christ as the God-Man.
Yet through the power of God which God gave him (not of himself), Jesus raised men from the dead... so why not -through the power given to him- turn stones to bread? This doesn't say that Jesus must be God.. If Jesus asked God to provide bread for him using the stones.. do you believe it would have been done?
John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
It is God that gives to Jesus. Jesus only gives what the Father has given to him....
If I am correct then your argument is that satan would not have asked a human to turn stone to bread yet you say that Jesus was 100% human So when he raised from the dead and healed the sick, he was 100% human, right? So is he ONLY human on earth or was he God on earth?
I didn't say I only want to see as in putting you under conditions, but only as in that should be easy to provide. You know that because I ask for the exact wording (notice the quotes) "Jesus is God" and to give you some leeway I even say just show with Christ's words that he says he is God. You have nothing to show that Jesus said he is God. or any phrase saying the exact word "Jesus is God."
Whoa! YOU know that Jesus is not called God yet you continue to believe it. I don't have that problem in the least. If I knew scripture said that I wouldn't say the opposite. I have no problem admitting Jesus is God if you can show he is. All you have shown is that you don't understand how to derive the meaning of sentences by simple contextual analysis. You can't even seem to get that I don't see that Jesus is God in the text cuz it isn't there.
I have no problem being wrong as that would mean that I am then doing what is right. I have repeatedly ignored your "pot shots" and deceptions, while continuing on topic to prove that I am open to being proven wrong. To my logical mind and repentant spirit filled being... there hasn't been proof that Jesus is God. Obviously you see it differently.
No not the same words, God's are recorded as I am who I am. Jesus says, I am. And you would have to agree that some versions include I am he which makes more sense in light of the topic being discussed. He also says I am (he) to the woman who asks if he is the Christ/Messiah, yet you don't cite that verse or the many others where he says I am. No one asks him what his name is then he says I am.. that would at least be similar to God's claim of the name I am who I am.
I have no problem with the God mentioned in John 1:1-3 being the Almighty, the One and ONLY true God. You are creating a strawman by misrepresenting my position.
The word of God is God.. that is entirely true. He spoke and his word is him.
We see elsewhere that the word of God is spoken and it is the truth. Again you are trying to clarify something I agree with. This is not the argument.
Again, I agree. The word of God was indeed the True and ONLY God. I have no objection to that and never did.
My objection is in verse 14 where you say John is creating confusion by saying "flesh" rather than "Jesus." Using your own method here why doesn't John just say Jesus. Why say flesh. Perhaps because the word is made flesh in other cases besides Jesus as is the case with all true prophets of God. They spoke the word of God yet they were not God.
You seem to think that "the Word became flesh" = "the word became Jesus" but the text doesn't say that. It doesn't use flesh as a particular flesh only a general flesh. This is my objection, not the verses 1-3. Jesus is implied in the second part of the verse and I beleive it speaks of him. But there is no reason to say "flesh" = "Jesus" if so we must take every instance where the word flesh is used and equate it with Jesus and that is absurd.
Again you are saying that I disagree that God in John 1:1-3 is the One and ONLY true God. I don't disagree with that at all....This is a waste of your time to try to dispute something we both believe is true. Why don't you use you skills in the original languages to show that the vastness of God can be contained in a human form. That would be refuting a claim I actually made.
Philippians 2:6-7 is, first of all, an interpretation of a man who had never been with Jesus. Remember he converted after Jesus died. So using him is like using second hand information and man's interpretation. I can get over that though by looking at the context and other translations.
The word "morphe" used in the passage as FORM means (according to Thayer) “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance.” of likeness.. yet likeness is not being God. It is not "robbery" to be like God. And we see that they did not know God so could not recognize God in him as shown throughout the gospels by Jesus' own words.
I am not confused. You say same essence and nature.. The same essence means "the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features" according to Webster's and an example is Freedom is the very essence of our democracy. Yet democracy is much more than simple freedom and the two are not the same even though one is contained in the other. Nature is the same way and defined as "the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct." Having the nature of someone is not indicative of being someone which is what you are trying to say. That is changing the meaning of the word to fit your interpretation.
Yes, they had the same nature, purpose.. because God gave Jesus his nature, his purpose, his glory.. none of this was Jesus' to give as is shown in the verses I posted.
I say only a fool would believe that Jesus is God. We differ in this but it is clear to me that if you believe this it should be clear. As clear as it is that God is only ONE.
It is sad that you are blinded by the truth. Anyway, carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
