Is Jesus God?

[nothead]

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

So now the simple and logical understanding of THE logos, is THE Word of God, semitically used. God's commands, which made our world IN THE BEGINNING.

 

[nothead]

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.

First thing you said I agree with. But Judaic POV would naturally have put everything to rest.

 

[outhouse]

But Judaic POV would naturally have put everything to rest.

How so?

The Jews looked at Jesus as a failed messiah.

 

[nothead]

How so?

The Jews looked at Jesus as a failed messiah.

The dummy ones, yeah. See how your definite article is awry? Who are THE JEWS, sir? Some were good. Some were bad. The bad ones got a whippin.'

 

[outhouse]

Who are THE JEWS, sir?

Good question. I could write a book on it, and still not have an accurate description. The diversity most people cannot fathom.

But I will let you in a something.

Bad or good depends on a reference point. And this mistake many make.


The people who wrote about Jesus were Hellenistic Jews and proselytes and gentiles outside of Israel. These are the only people who viewed him as a messiah, not real Jews, but want to be Jews. These are also like the people Jesus would have hated. Like Antipas in Sepphoris who was his Hellenistic overlord puppet ruler under the romans thumb. The Hellenistic rulers that ran the temple placed in power by Pilate, Jesus would have hated. He did not cause trouble in the temple because the corrupt government was well loved oppressing the Aramaic Jews.

Now you have Jesus type of Jew, that were the Aramaic Galilean Jews. They wrote nothing and they would have viewed Jesus as a failed Messiah because he did not fit the OT Jewish bill on what a Messiah was supposed to do. Jesus died and the Romans were still in power.

Some were good. Some were bad, is very correct. But you may have had the good guys and bad guys mixed up a bit.

 

[nothead]

Good question. I could write a book on it, and still not have an accurate description. The diversity most people cannot fathom.

But I will let you in a something.

Bad or good depends on a reference point. And this mistake many make.


The people who wrote about Jesus were Hellenistic Jews and proselytes and gentiles outside of Israel. These are the only people who viewed him as a messiah, not real Jews, but want to be Jews. These are also like the people Jesus would have hated. Like Antipas in Sepphoris who was his Hellenistic overlord puppet ruler under the romans thumb. The Hellenistic rulers that ran the temple placed in power by Pilate, Jesus would have hated. He did not cause trouble in the temple because the corrupt government was well loved oppressing the Aramaic Jews.

Now you have Jesus type of Jew, that were the Aramaic Galilean Jews. They wrote nothing and they would have viewed Jesus as a failed Messiah because he did not fit the OT Jewish bill on what a Messiah was supposed to do. Jesus died and the Romans were still in power.

Some were good. Some were bad, is very correct. But you may have had the good guys and bad guys mixed up a bit.

Peter weren't no hellenistic Jew. No Greeks in his family I don't think. He ate unleavened bread, not pasta. Caught fish, didn't go to no Stoic School of Philosophy.

So too most or all of the disciples. Weren't worshiping no Philo the Jew God. Or Justin Martyr God either, with demi-gods galore, including the demi-urges and flesh urges either.

And for your info and for the sake of this convo, I DO know the good guys. They the ones with the white cowboy hats on. No wampum feathers either.

 

[outhouse]

Peter weren't no hellenistic Jew

Never wrote a word about Jesus

So too most or all of the disciples

Never wrote a word about Jesus

 

[nothead]

Never wrote a word about Jesus



Never wrote a word about Jesus

And donuts ain't got no holes neither, lessn you attribute donuts with holes. Holy Saint Peter! Blessed be his holy love for his lord.

Like you almost got me there. Then I remembered who I am and what I am doing. As Peter did. Guffaw. As in LOL.

How you be so smart, and so holey too? Peter never spoke of Jesus. Should I LIST all of his purple letter words from start to finish? Like that, eh? Like to give homework, eh? Well, I'm not that stupid. Won't do it. Nobody in the whole wide world believes this but you.

 

[outhouse]

and so holey too?

No not at all. Never been shot clean through.

I find value and beauty in the parables and teachings despite the unknown authors.


Remember if these were Aramaic Galilean Jew fishermen like Jesus, we would expect Aramaic gospels. We have none.

Peter never spoke of Jesus.

I personally think there was a Peter in his inner circle.

Just Peter was more then likely illiterate, and we know this guy definitely had no part in any book.

Gospel of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However scholars generally agree that Gospel of Peter is pseudepigraphical (bearing the name of an author who did not actually compose the text).[2]

The true author of the gospel remains a mystery

 

[nothead]

No not at all. Never been shot clean through.

I find value and beauty in the parables and teachings despite the unknown authors.


Remember if these were Aramaic Galilean Jew fishermen like Jesus, we would expect Aramaic gospels. We have none.

Like me, I know regional patois, and my own brand of, and English. Multi-lingual, so to speak.

I personally think there was a Peter in his inner circle.

Just Peter was more then likely illiterate, and we know this guy definitely had no part in any book.

Yeah, like he was good for catchin' fish only specially when God filled his nets. I would be, too. Nice take, and elitist.

Gospel of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I try to go where I am safe. No risk, no foul.

However scholars generally agree that Gospel of Peter is pseudepigraphical (bearing the name of an author who did not actually compose the text).[2]

Who cares what scholars GENERALLY agree upon...like do they know how a flower grows? Cat Stevens, circa 1972. So what do they know then? How to haggle with the millions in the pot? 2 million goes a long way for one. Howsomever, 2 million don't go so far for 5472.

The true author of the gospel remains a mystery

If a scribe wrote what a disciple dictated, am I gonna haggle with what comes out? Or say it is the gospel of the brother scribe? Where you come from? La la land? Go dissect frogs. Figgure out why they croak, to the end of you. Then croak yourself. You know it's gonna happen whether or not you know HOW it happens, yeah?

 

[nothead]

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.

Yayuh you like my religion profs at UofO. Liberal and elitist. They gloried in gettin' them fundies in a headlock. Good for 'em, to make 'em turn red and choke a bit.

Pride against pride. I'm proud and know it. Hopefully less proud of my knowin' as time goes on. Hard for them pentecostals, who got that old
pentecostal push. Like Richard Alpert, we think once God touched us, that is the END, baby. No it is just in fact the start.

 

[outhouse]

They gloried in gettin' them fundies in a headlock.

I still have a lot to learn.

Last thing I like doing is debating apologist. I don't learn as much that way, because im going over basics.

Its funny you get to a certain level, and the difference of opinions are welcome and respected. Below that and its war and pride and emotions lead the battle on a 3 legged horse race.

 

[katiemygirl]

That is your personal opinion, nothing more.

Actually, it's not my opinion. It's a Biblical fact, and my views are based on God's word. Your view is based outside of the Scriptures. This is why I said earlier that there is no common ground for a Scriptural debate.

Do you follow a literal interpretation for the OT as well?

Much of the Bible is historically accurate and should be interpreted literally. But some spiritual truths are revealed through allegory, parable, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and irony that were never intended to be taken literally. I try to apply common sense when I read the Bible.

No god was every written a word, by any credible account.

My God, the one true God did.

 

[kepha31]

Never wrote a word about Jesus
Never wrote a word about Jesus

Suppose Peter didn't. I would speculate Peter had some level of literacy. He owned 2 boats and had to pay his employees. But I admit to guessing. Peter had a scribe, possibly Silvanus, who was associated with Peter and the Jerusalem church; cf. Acts 15:22, 27, 32), so if Peter didn't personally write 1st & 2nd Peter, or pseudepigraphic 10 or 20 years after his death, I don't see how this discredits 1st & 2nd Peter as infallible encyclicals. Or any letter or gospel for that matter.
Today, we view pseudepigraphic as forgery.
Back then, it was viewed as honoring the original writer with what may be viewed today as a false autograph. This somehow "disproves" biblical intent. It doesn't.
"Jesus became God at his incarnation" is a heresy.
"Jesus became God at his birth" is a heresy.
"Jesus became God at his ascension" is a heresy.
"Jesus became God at his resurrection" is a heresy, these and many other heresies were addressed by the Church centuries ago. But you find traces of them in Protestantism, and to a greater degree or blending thereof in the post-Enlightenment cults we have today (all founded by Protestant pastors).
I use wikipedia only when it is a source that a person will accept. It's loaded with revisionism and is not a reliable source on Christianity, especially Catholicism.

A paradigm is the lens through which we have our world view, our reality, and we all have them. I think it's a matter of clarity. Liberalism and skepticism has filtered its way down, beginning with the Protestant revolt, to what we have now, an obscurity of vision to see the truth.
The Christian reaches for his Bible to prove Jesus is God.
The skeptic reaches for modern scholarship to disprove the Christian.
The Christian reaches for his concordance and Greek lexicon to disprove the skeptic.
The skeptic has a a hey day with the intellectual suicide of "Bible alone" Christians.
The Christian reaches for his Bible to prove Jesus is God.
'round and 'round we go.

It is a grave error to uphold the Bible apart from the Tradition from which it was formed, especially the Gospels. People who knew Jesus were profoundly affected. People who accepted the Gospel message in later generations were also profoundly affected. Hundreds, maybe thousands, chose death over infidelity with God. Nobody in their right mind does this over legends.

Arguing who wrote what, where and when can go on for ever. That's the nature of the beast, and Jesus knew this. That's why He established a mechanism where would know truth from error. Individualism with all it's spin-offs has failed miserably.
If a person wants to argue that the Apostles didn't personally write this or that or when it was written doesn't concern me. BREAKING NEWS! The Bible is written in HUMAN LANGUAGE with a divine author, and human language has it's limitations.

As an analogy, anyone can READ the Constitution, but it requires a Supreme Court to say what it MEANS. As some would admit, the Supreme Court can make some stupid rulings, because it doesn't come with a warranty.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus is not God the Almighty.He is the Son of God.God the Almighty cannot have a God.Jesus calls his Father his God.

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

I believe you can repeat this until you are blue in the face but your evidence will still not stand up.

I don't believe I ever read in the Bible where you have the right to make up the rules as to what God can have and not have. This is not evidence that Jesus is not God in the flesh.

 

[JM2C]

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.

Trinitarian’s POV in the 2nd clause is “and the Word was with God” meaning the Word cannot be the God in the 3rd clause, as the Unitarians’ POV, but “the Word was God” the Trinitarian POV.

 

[JM2C]

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

That’s why we have to read the preceding clauses, i.e., 1st and 2nd clauses, to determine if “the Word was God” should have a definite or indefinite article.

 

[JM2C]

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.

The reason why John did not place a DEFINITE ARTICLE in front of “GOD” in the 3rd clause is to indicate that “THE WORD” was NOT “THE GOD” in the 2nd clause where it says “AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD”. Your interpretation “And the Word was the God -3rd clause” will contradict the 2nd clause “and the Word was with the God”.

 

[outhouse]

Back then, it was viewed as honoring the original writer with what may be viewed today as a false autograph. This somehow "disproves" biblical intent. It doesn't.

Agreed.

My only point is no eyewitnesses ever wrote a word about the man. Reason is. The legends developed in the Diaspora, not Israel or Galilee, where he would have been viewed as a failed Messiah.

 

[outhouse]

The skeptic reaches for modern scholarship to disprove the Christian.

This is factually false. In my case Im going for the ultimate truth in history to find out exactly what happened.

Im not trying to disprove all the Christians who interpret the bible thousands of different ways.