Is Jesus God?

[outhouse]

Actually, it's not my opinion. It's a Biblical fact,

Then it should be easy for you to prove if it is fact. BUT you cannot, I is not fact.

It is your biased apologetic unsubstantiated personal opinion. NOTHING more.

This is why I said earlier that there is no common ground for a Scriptural debate.

That is fanaticism to think your historically uneducated opinion has more knowledge then professors. You don't .

Much of the Bible is historically accurate and should be interpreted literally

Much of it factually is not historical and not up for debate with biased apologist who refuse education and credible knowledge.

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.

That is debatable.

My God, the one true God did.

What ever, you have no evidence.

factually only man put pen to paper/papyrus.

Start bringing something credible to the table besides biased opinion.

 

[outhouse]

people who knew Jesus were profoundly affected

There is not one eyewitnesses in all the NT. So I ask, how would you know?

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.

No mythology effects people today. Biblical mythology effects many.

All of the NT was written by people far removed from his life. The longer the traditions existed before being written down, the more they grew.

The text grew for 35 years before the community that wrote Mark compiled many different written and oral traditions that community COLLECTED for decades.

What you may fail to grasp is how this knowledge of Jesus started, and how it progressed. Yearly people would go back to Passover and share information and traditions they collected orally and written. Each year this grew. What exited a years after his death is factually not what we have in our gospels today.

main reason for Marks gospel and the others following is that with the fall of the temple, information was no longer being shared yearly. So it was important to write these traditions down to save them, and share then in a written form, because they could not gather together like they used to.

 

[nothead]

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”.

Problem, the Word is THE TRINITARIAN GOD in Trinitarian Theology. Most HE'S in the singular is this same TRINITARIAN GOD. Although some HE'S are the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, God en whole is three HE'S. All three are still the ONE HE, (being).

Yeah I know it sounds contradictory. It is.

Being wholly God without division, except prosopon, still is THE WORD WAS THE GOD. "God" is being interpreted as BEING and the Word, is being interpreted as Christ the prosopon of the Being.

 

[katiemygirl]

What ever, you have no evidence.

Start bringing something credible to the table besides biased opinion.

I have all the evidence I need for me to believe in the existence of God, and His inspired word. I don't feel the need to prove these things to anyone.

As for bringing something credible to the table, you seem to forget one thing. This thread is not about the existence of God or the credibility of His word. This forum is called SCRIPTURAL DEBATES. That strongly suggests that debates should be within the confines of the Scriptures. So unless you've got Scriptures which show Jesus is or is not God, you have no business being here. All you're doing is taking up space, cluttering the pages and burying the posts of people who really have something to contribute to the conversation.

With that said, I believe it's time to put you on the IGNORE list. Byeee!

 

[nothead]

There is not one eyewitnesses in all the NT. So I ask, how would you know?

Speculation.

All of the NT was written by people far removed from his life. The longer the traditions existed before being written down, the more they grew.

Does not matter except in accuracy. You are ASSUMING a theoretical oral tradition was inaccurate due to the accuracies of stories in general, over time. However you ASSUME the testimonies in NT are INACCURATE since the named one may or may not be the one who writes down the oral tradition of Matthew or Mark or Luke.

The text grew for 35 years before the community that wrote Mark compiled many different written and oral traditions that community COLLECTED for decades.

...and? Even if true, Mark is still from Mark and Matthew is still from Matthew. Or from the congregation Matthew started.

What you may fail to grasp is how this knowledge of Jesus started, and how it progressed. Yearly people would go back to Passover and share information and traditions they collected orally and written. Each year this grew. What exited a years after his death is factually not what we have in our gospels today.

...or...someone ELSE's testimony was added since he testified and his testimony was not considered before.

main reason for Marks gospel and the others following is that with the fall of the temple, information was no longer being shared yearly. So it was important to write these traditions down to save them, and share then in a written form, because they could not gather together like they used to.

But unless stories contradict in major import, they are still for Christians for all intents and purposes given the benefit of the doubt as to factuality.

 

[outhouse]

Nothead, please learn how to use the quote function. I cannot reply to individual quotes properly when you put your reply, into my quoted lines.

 

[outhouse]

Speculation.

No it Is not speculation. A consensus of credible professors and scholar state this.

Its not up for debate.


You are ASSUMING a theoretical oral tradition was inaccurate due to the accuracies of stories in general, over time. However you ASSUME the testimonies in NT are INACCURATE since the named one may or may not be the one who writes down the oral tradition of Matthew or Mark or Luke.

I don't assume anything so stop right there.

Just because we don't know who the authors are does not mean they are inaccurate. Each sentence and paragraph is looked at, in context, to determine what may or may not be historical.

The problem lies in that the communities that wrote these had no ties to the original apostles in any way.

The real followers were Jews, not Hellenist perverting Judaism.

Even if true, Mark is still from Mark and Matthew is still from Matthew. Or from the congregation Matthew started.

False.

This was attributed later by people far removed from composition. There are no ties at all. Take any credible class and you will learn this.


But unless stories contradict in major import, they are still for Christians for all intents and purposes given the benefit of the doubt as to factuality.

So you want as to assume for you, but not for credible history?

The stories do contradict reality though, it is rhetorical pseudo history, the whole NT was written that way. EVERY community was trained to write in Rhetoric. That means to the untrained, they wrote to persuade you to their thinking, and what was important to them.

These were not history books, nor meant for a history that you understand. They were theological pieces with blatant contradictions the communities did not care about.

They were not written to be accurate, in context they were not taken literal by the people who originally read them.

 

[Kolibri]

A consensus of credible professors and scholar state this.

This is what you define as fact. I still have issue not with the idea that there is a consensus, but that the conclusion is presented as fact when it is in truth theory.

 

[outhouse]

This is what you define as fact.

Sorry but I did not define that as fact. It is highly plausible to a high degree of certainty by those educated on the topic.

, but that the conclusion is presented as fact when it is in truth theory.

I did not state it as fact or theory. It Is neither. But it is a certainty.

There is however a consensus and its straight from my professors lips at one of the best universities there is. Actually two different top rates universities and professors have told me this.

 

[Kolibri]

I did not state it as fact or theory. It Is neither. But it is a certainty.

So, in your words, is "certainty" still "opinion"?

 

[lovemuffin]

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

When I was writing this I had this sort of pesky feeling I was being stupid about something, and since I later realized what it was, I might as well correct myself, I guess. In the genitive it would be "logos tou theou" (word of God), not logou That is, theos in the genitive, not logos. derp derp. It doesn't really matter but the mistake bugs me

 

[Kolibri]

When I was writing this I had this sort of pesky feeling I was being stupid about something, and since I later realized what it was, I might as well correct myself, I guess. In the genitive it would be "logos tou theou" (word of God), not logou That is, theos in the genitive, not logos. derp derp. It doesn't really matter but the mistake bugs me

Your being conscientious in this way does you honor.

 

[outhouse]

So, in your words, is "certainty" still "opinion"?

No,

It is a consensus of the most educated people on the topic. It is a certainty that the authors are unknown communities

 

[OneThatGotAway]

The majority of reputable Greek scholars do not translate "a god" in John 1:1. Only those with a bias do, those who refuse to accept that Jesus is God. I choose to go with the majority.

These same Greek scholars are bias against their very own eyes. They basically chose to ignore the Greek word "TON" (The) making no distinction between The God and a god. However, other Greek scholars made a distinction between "The God" (TON THEON) and "god" (THEOS) by correctly translating the Greek manuscript as it is written:

1. Koine Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος.
2. Greek transliteration: En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.
3. Greek to English: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word.
   
4. Sahidic Coptic to English: In the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word
5. Jubilee Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

In fact you don't have to be a Greek scholar to read word-for-word the actual Greek words in John 1:1; you simply need a pair of eyes. Bias exist when you add to or leave out words from the Greek manuscript thus lending truth the ancient truths:

• "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of YAHWEH your God which I command you." (Deuteronomy 4:2)
• "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deuteronomy 12:32)
• "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." (Proverbs 30:6)
• "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelations 22:18)

And when you follow an ancient Jewish Talmudic tradition instead of YAHWEH Almighty God's commandment you will find yourself violating the third commandment of the Ten Commandments. Take for example of how the KJV translators and their later lemmings translate New Testament scriptures like Matthew 3:3 as:

"For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord [YAHWEH], make his paths straight." (Matthew 3:3)

Every honest and true Biblical scholars know that this verse originated from Isaiah 40:3 and YAHWEH's name is the only name that deliberately not translated but substituted unlike other names of people, places, and things throughout the Bible.

"For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." (Matthew 13:15)

 

[OneThatGotAway]

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and [that] no man can say that Jesus is the Lord [kurion], but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Corinthians 12:3)

"And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord [kurios], to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:11)

Jesus is not YAHWEH (and he never said he was). Jesus is not THE GOD (and he never said he was). Jesus did said that he is the Son of God or a god (like Moses was).
No holy men from Adam to Paul the Apostle ever claim that Jesus is The God, that is YAHWEH.
It is safe to address Jesus as simply the Son of God; and he will accept that honor. However, he will forbid you to address him as The God or YAHWEH; because that would violate the Number One commandment in the Ten Commandments.
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)
"I [am] YAHWEH: that [is] my name: and my glory will I not give to another" (Isaiah 42:8)

The sons of Yishrael knew this truth that Jesus never claimed to be The God.
Jesus' disciples knew this truth that Jesus Christ never claimed to be The God.
The Pharisees and other Jews tried to kill Jesus several times because he claimed to be the Son of God; but never The God. Claiming a title as the Son of God denotes some divine power from God and that troubled the Pharisees. Besides, Jesus could not be the sinless savior if he had taught his disciples that he is The God, that he is Yahweh. In fact, none of his disciples would have followed him; they would have been righteous in stoning Jesus to death for blasphemy. The Apostle Paul never, ever taught or addressed Jesus Christ as The God Almighty or Yahweh. He taught that Jesus is the Lord, the Son of God, and not The LORD (Ton Theon). Paul taught a mono-theistic religion the same as Moses and the other Biblical prophets of Yahweh taught.

Jesus was a god, Moses was a god; but neither of them shared the same glory and title as Yahweh, The GOD (aka The LORD, The Kurios). Jesus the Messiah's divinity (deity) ended and was limited to the power of only the Son of God; and not to the all powerful and all knowing of Yahweh, that is, The Almighty God.

This understanding is so easy that even cave man can understand the relationship between the Son of God and The God Father of Souls, YAHWEH (pun intended). Believers of the Trinity have to jump through hoops and use smoking mirrors to twist a 5,000 year old truth:

"Hear, O Israel: YAHWEH our God! YAHWEH [is] one." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Take note of this future prophecy:
"Thus saith YAHWEH of hosts; In those days [it shall come to pass], that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a YAHUDY, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard [that] God [is] with you." (Zechariah 8:23)

Now do you think these Sons of Yishrael will teach you the Trinity or the Shema? Do you think they will teach you the name of Yahweh, or Kurios, HaShem, the LORD, Jimmy, Frank, Hey You, Jesus, Curious, Whatever, etc.? Trust me, the Trinity teaching is straight from Satan himself in order to get you to break the first three commandments of the Ten Commandments; and he is batting almost a 1,000 so far and were in the ninth inning. Anyone hungry for pie?

Shabbath Shalom!

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was a god,

Unsubstantiated, this thread requires more then opinion.

Jesus did said that he is the Son of God or a god

They also called the emperor son of god, before jesus was even born.

Its also unlikely Jesus ever uttered that phrase. But the same Hellenist who used to worship the Emperor, as "son of god" are the same people that called Jesus "son of god" as only Hellenist were the authors of all of the NT

 

[Kolibri]

No,

It is a consensus of the most educated people on the topic. It is a certainty that the authors are unknown communities

So "certainty" means "fact". The following then seems like double talk.

I did not state it as fact or theory. It Is neither. But it is a certainty.

 

[outhouse]

So "certainty" means "fact".

Go read the definitions they are not the same.

firm conviction that something is the case

a thing that is indisputably the case



Im sorry you have NO grasp of the language.

 

[outhouse]

Trinity teaching is straight from Satan himself

Only if you have a very narrow view of early Christianity and lack of education on most of the early church fathers.

 

[Kolibri]

Go read the definitions they are not the same.

firm conviction that something is the case

a thing that is indisputably the case



Im sorry you have NO grasp of the language.

Regardless, you certainly have said evolution is a fact, when it is merely a consensus and theory that is still debated. And you have presented your other arguments as if there is no possible credibility to accept an alternate explanation.
It is not that I do not know the dictionary definitions of these words. I certainly do know them.