WITH, Koine: pros, at, to, toward or face-to-face with...as SOON as God determines His Word, it is extant in the universe and real. WHEN SPOKEN it manifests. Judaic POV, get it and be happy. Behoovin' to be groovin' as well.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus God?
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
WITH, Koine: pros, at, to, toward or face-to-face with...as SOON as God determines His Word, it is extant in the universe and real. WHEN SPOKEN it manifests. Judaic POV, get it and be happy. Behoovin' to be groovin' as well.
outhouse
Atheistically
Well its not
It has no NO telltale marks of a translation
And if you had studied this part, you would know how obvious these signs are. You cannot miss them.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Of course I know what you believe. It comes through your posts loud and clear. You are leaning on your own wisdom, knowledge and education to understand God's message to mankind. It's called pride!
True understanding of the Bible comes from God, not self.
You've offered nothing in this debate except to tell everyone how educated you think you are, and how everyone else is clueless. Talk about rude! Read your own condescending posts, for crying out loud! Sheesh!!
I studied at the University of Bible under its author, the Holy Spirit.
Apparently, your University neglected to inform you that those men who wrote the Bible, wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That's why the Bible is called GOD'S WORD. It's inspired.
The One and only true God!
.
Try reading the thread. Maybe you'll learn something your University forgot to mention. Read all Katiemygirl's posts. They're loaded with Scriptural evidence.
There is no common ground for debate when one party doesn't believe in God or His word. After all, this is the SCRIPTURAL DEBATES section of the forum.
I assure you, no one is impressed with your education, other than yourself. Now if you told me you'd been studying God's word your whole life, that'd be a whole other story.
I personally admire folks like JM2C, Kolibri, Katzpur, Clear and others who post here because they do demonstrate a knowledge of the Scriptures. We may not agree on interpretation, but at least we all debate from the Scriptures.
How you know so much been an atheist? Are you Bart Ehrman?
outhouse
Atheistically
Lol no.
Don't even follow much of him, we have our differences. All though I do respect his wisdom and what he teaches.
I have a passion for the real history and studied at Universities to learn the NT and Paul.
Years of research and constant reading. I also debate with professors and scholars and many authors on these topics.
I also fight for Jesus historicity against popular mythicist authors.
And I lecture at Sac city.
I can tell you I still have more to learn, then what I actually know.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
@outhouse First of all I need to apologize to you. I still take offense too easily. I need to apply the following verse to myself more consistently.
"Let him give his cheek to the one striking him; let him have his fill of insults." - Lamentations 3:30
I should not have called out about huberous.
However, you do tote theory as fact. And you humiliate anyone who does not accept your "facts."
I did read completely through your wiki link. I did not even bother with the other one after a first glace. Perhaps I was too tired and too aggravated. Regardless, you only have theories. Theories that I have looked at enough to consider them rejectable (evolution; marcian priority).
"Let him give his cheek to the one striking him; let him have his fill of insults." - Lamentations 3:30
I should not have called out about huberous.
However, you do tote theory as fact. And you humiliate anyone who does not accept your "facts."
I did read completely through your wiki link. I did not even bother with the other one after a first glace. Perhaps I was too tired and too aggravated. Regardless, you only have theories. Theories that I have looked at enough to consider them rejectable (evolution; marcian priority).
outhouse
Atheistically
No, I know better then to place history into a scientific category.
History is based on certainty of plausibility.
No, I am pointing out their lack of knowledge on topics they should study before posting personal opinion.
I also give everyone equal footing, and try to only dish out what is dished my way.
It may seem aggressive and for that I do apologize, but there is to much education out there and its so easy to obtain.
You consider all you want but Evolution is fact. It is not mythology or theology. It is fact.
Marcan priority however holds a quite certain, amount of plausibility. It is why the majority of educated people, believe such.
There are always those who apologetically disagree, but this is for the most part done from willful ignorance, and or personal bias.
No need brother. Its all good. I have thick skin.
But thank you.
outhouse
Atheistically
Good luck with that.
When you go to church and learn of these things, your learning from a man very much educated like how I am educated.
Generally speaking, no priest has ever used your personal method of education for him to become ordained.
So what your really saying is you have no real education, and focus on what is important to you without fully understanding the book you read???
Wow!!!!!
Why do you insult the holy spirit like that?
Why do you claim the holy sprit made so many errors that men would make writing and collecting and compiling important traditions?
There is little evidence that "son of God" was a title for the messiah in 1st century Judaism, and the attributes which Mark describes in Jesus are much more those of the Hellenistic miracle-working "divine man" than of the Jewish Davidic messiah
- Jesus became God's son at his resurrection, God "begetting" Jesus to a new life by raising him from the dead – this was the earliest understanding, preserved in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, 1:3–4, and in Acts 13:33;
- Jesus became God's son at his baptism, the coming of the Holy Spirit marking him as messiah, while "Son of God" refers to the relationship then established for him God – this is the understanding implied in Mark 1:9–11;
- Matthew and Luke present Jesus as "Son of God" from the moment of conception and birth, with God taking the place of a human father;
- John, the last of the gospels, presents the idea that the Christ was pre-existent and became flesh as Jesus – an idea also found in Paul.[43]
To denounce universities is to admit fanaticism.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
The greek article isn't identical to the english definite article, and the way greek grammar works it is absolutely not the same as the word "of" God, which would put logos in the genitive case (λογου vs. λογος). Instead it says "Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", the verb "was" is very present, and the ambiguity is only about the use of the article, for which there isn't really a simple english explanation, given the complicated way the article is used in greek. As far as I can tell there is no definitive way to determine the intent of the text purely as a matter of grammar
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
"declared" God's Son is different than "became" God's Son. Perhaps this will harmonize the discrepancy in your mind.
Adam as a perfect man was also God's Son. (Luke 3:38) Jesus would have became God's Son at the moment of his creation. But a declaration can come anytime thereafter and can come more than once.
well named said (post #509) " The greek article isn't identical to the english definite article, and the way greek grammar works it is absolutely not the same as the word "of" God, which would put logos in the genitive case (λογου vs. λογος). Instead it says "Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος", the verb "was" is very present, and the ambiguity is only about the use of the article, for which there isn't really a simple english explanation, given the complicated way the article is used in greek. As far as I can tell there is no definitive way to determine the intent of the text purely as a matter of grammar "
This is a very fine, logical, and well explained summary of the issue surrounding the article in the third phrase of John 1:1. Thank you for making this point.
Clear
This is a very fine, logical, and well explained summary of the issue surrounding the article in the third phrase of John 1:1. Thank you for making this point.
Clear
outhouse
Atheistically
You did not address why the authors all described Jesus acquiring divinity at different times.
I look at it as your excuse that fails to harmonize the accounts.
And he has zero historicity as existing outside mythology.
Not what Mark or Acts or Romans states.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I'm far from an expert, but that doesn't seem true to me. There are disagreements between the ante-nicene fathers about the exact nature of God, Jesus' relationship to the Father, and etc.
katiemygirl
CHRISTIAN
Salvation has nothing to do with luck. It has to do with believing and trusting in Jesus to save you.
Nope! My Christian education comes straight from God's word. I read and study daily, immersing myself into the Bible. I do, however, listen to others expound on the word, but always with an eye to the Scriptures to see if what is being said is true.
I'm sorry, but I don't think you understand that ALL Christians are priests, and ALL Christians are ordained. The apostle Paul wrote,
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. 2:15
Christians learn the truth when they study God's word, not mens' ideas and interpretations.
If you're asking if I have a college degree, yes I do.
It is you who grieves Him because you don't believe His word.
The Holy Spirit is God. He doesn't make mistakes
Though I find first century writings interesting, my faith is based on God's word alone.
Sorry, I will have to look at your four points later. On my way out the door. Hope to be back on later.
I don't denounce universities. I graduated from one. I just don't put the education I received above or in place of God's word.
outhouse
Atheistically
The majority of the debate was not if Jesus was divine, but how to define his divinity in relationship to god. There was no orthodoxy early on. Beliefs were all over the board on how to define him. People like Marcion claimed he was all sprit/god and was never really fully human. Ranges were all over the board. Some thought he was all man, others all god and every range between.
Constantine forced for unification, and got it.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
I follow you, and I agree. I misunderstood your point I think.
outhouse
Atheistically
Its all good brother. Never had an issue with your opinion
outhouse
Atheistically
That is your personal opinion, nothing more.
I would say though, something has to exist to make mistakes, so I agree the mythology has never made a mistake.
Now the men writing theology and mythology and pseudo history most certainly made plenty of mistakes.
Do you follow a literal interpretation for the OT as well?
No god was every written a word, by any credible account.
The definite article or lack thereof can be seen legitimately as either the JW presents, "a god," or qualitatively...or idiomatically. "Son of Adam," was said to Ezekiel, but "the Son of Adam" did not mean exactly the same thing. I do not think. You are right it isn't always like the English. But the article is an intensifier like the English. Pointing to different meaning, intensified. Either becoming more specific, or as idiom which is not usually the English use.