Is Jesus God?

[jonathan180iq]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Christians will probably argue for why/how Jesus is God, while non-Christians will argue for why/how he's not...

I will not, however, bother reading the previous 107 pages worth of preconceived and/or regurgitated arguments.

(Does this never get tiring to you guys?)

 

[moorea944]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Christians will probably argue for why/how Jesus is God, while non-Christians will argue for why/how he's not...

I will not, however, bother reading the previous 107 pages worth of preconceived and/or regurgitated arguments.

(Does this never get tiring to you guys?)

Wow!!! First of all, I"m a Christian and I dont read the trinity anywhere in scripture. No where!! I feel that the trinity totally degrades our Creator!!! Show me anywhere there is a trinity? Plus, that actually comes from pagan ideas. The word "trinity" is not even in the bible.. Out of all of the words in scripture, people have to "make up" words to put it in your faith? Like trinity, God the son, God the Holy Spirit, incarnate, etc, etc..... Bible knows nothing of that!!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Wow!!! First of all, I"m a Christian and I dont read the trinity anywhere in scripture. No where!! I feel that the trinity totally degrades our Creator!!! Show me anywhere there is a trinity? Plus, that actually comes from pagan ideas. The word "trinity" is not even in the bible.. Out of all of the words in scripture, people have to "make up" words to put it in your faith? Like trinity, God the son, God the Holy Spirit, incarnate, etc, etc..... Bible knows nothing of that!!

Correction: Protestants

 

[Katzpur]

Ok, I just found it....but it's sort of an out-of-the-way site, not visited by too many -- there are only three thread topics! We could always post a link to it if questions should arise, I guess. I have posted on it, come to think about it.

Were you going to start the new thread, Cowboy?

 

[Notaclue]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Christians will probably argue for why/how Jesus is God, while non-Christians will argue for why/how he's not...

I will not, however, bother reading the previous 107 pages worth of preconceived and/or regurgitated arguments.

(Does this never get tiring to you guys?)

From a Catholic website:

The Holy Trinity - Three Persons in One God. How in the world can anyone explain that? The answer is that we in this world cannot. It is a mystery beyond our comprehension. How can there be three separate persons- The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost - but yet still all be the same God? This is truly a question that we take on faith as Catholics, because our limited human brains simply cannot understand it. And while we cannot fathom this mystery, as Catholics we know and love this fact of three persons in one God. And by the way, the word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible. Some of our protestant (one who protests against the Catholic Church) brothers and sisters use this strategy against Catholics concerning the word "purgatory", another word which doesn't appear in the Bible, but yet, the doctrine is. This doctrine of the Trinity was formulated over time,


Full Definition of agnostic

1. 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.
   
   
2. 2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

1. Can you please tell me the difference between a Catholic and a Agnostic?

Heb.11:1. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.


:6. And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God. must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him


Peace.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Were you going to start the new thread, Cowboy?

Please give me a couple days?

Best wishes!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hi Hockey,

Can you show to me what is the Greek format of John 1:1 for better understanding of the text?

If that would be the case based on your message above, then why John 1:6, 1;8a, 1:8b, 1:12 and 1:13 did not have an “a” before God—to be consistent with their grammar rules??

Thanks

Yoshua, my cousin....hope you are well!

I'm posting regarding John 1:1.... You'll see the sentence structure is different than vss.6,8,12, and 13.

In translating from one language to another, rarely can you render it word for word.

Case in point: Koine Greek grammar being what it was, it did not have the indefinite articles that we in English use (= a, an). All they had was the definite article, 'the.' With that in mind, translating John 1:1 word for word, it says this: " in beginning (notice, not even THE beginning) was THE word. And THE word was with THE god, and god (notice, not THE God) was THE word." See? 'The god' and 'god' are different. And in the last part of the sentence, the anarthrous predicate noun, 'god', comes before the subject, 'the word'. (If John had meant Jesus was God Almighty, he would've said, "....and THE god was THE word." Or better yet, "and THE word was THE God." [-- see previous post #2139, regarding Philip B. Harper and scholar John L. McKenzie.]) But the Apostle John did not write that. Besides, that would have contradicted the context ("the Word was with God"; and especially vs.18....... "No man has seen God at any time" . People saw Jesus). So, clearly, that is not what he was saying.

Would John really have written something so ambiguous, that the Word was with God, but yet He was God, though no one has "ever seen" God? No. this would only have served to confuse his readers.

Considering that many Christians were former Jews, who worshiped Yahweh alone....if God had changed, had included Jesus as part of a Trinity, those Christian Bible writers would have bent over backward, clearly stating throughout that Jesus was God. But they never did! They kept writing about Jesus' Lordship, about how "God" (rarely saying only "the Father") accomplished things through Jesus. Never about Jesus' Godship!

Furthermore, if this was a new teaching for Jews to accept -- a very drastic departure -- that Jesus was also God -- so many of them (3,000) wouldn't have gotten baptized "that day" (Acts of the Apostles 2:41); it would be too much to taken in! Rather, all they needed -- as Peter stated -- was to accept Jesus as the prophesied 'Messiah,' God's servant.....not as God.
(I hope you can understand this, it's not very hard....unless I wasn't clear.)

At John 20:17, John quoted Jesus as saying to Mary: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and YOUR GOD."

Yes, Jesus had a God he worshiped: Martha's God, Yahweh / Jehovah, was Jesus' God. As Christians instructed to 'follow Jesus' steps closely (1 Peter 2:21)', this should be our God!

Every verse that Trinitarians use to support their view, it all boils down to either syntax or semantics. But taking The Context into account will almost always show otherwise.

John 8:58 and Philippians 2:5-11 are prime examples of this.

Take care.

 

[Katzpur]

Please give me a couple days?

Best wishes!

No problem. Post a link to it here after you've done it, okay?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No problem. Post a link to it here after you've done it, okay?

OK, will do. (I've taken those statements from that website, and put it in my 'Notes'.)

I'll look for yours, too, ok?

 

[Muffled]

Nowhere??

Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said: "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, TILL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES YOUR FOOTSTOOL"?
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?
​

I believe that is a nice try. It does not appear to me that the context is that of saying what angels are in essence but what they are in ministry. I am a ministering spirit but I am also human and in the body.

 

[Muffled]

Mind is the image of GOD,
Soul is the image of the Mind,
Spirit is the image of the Soul and
Body is the image of the spirit

Matter is an illusion, so says modern science and all ancient cultures. A body can only form once the Mind has been birthed in Soul that then takes form as (for want of a better word) Spirit so that matter can be shaped for the spirit to inhabit. I am sure Jesus said the world is illusory and this is why.

Yet not all in in soul in spirit inhabit bodies for the universe is multi- dimensional and mind exists across all in infinite forms.

I believe this can be true if one is simply speaking of intelligence and not something physical. Not knowing what a Spirit is, we at least know He is intelligent.

I believe the Bible defines soul as the joining of body and spirit so the statement is incorrect since the soul is much more than mind.

I believe this does not necessarily follow. The body can be quite incongruous with its spirit. You can't judge a book by its cover.

 

[Muffled]

Although Jesus is usually assumed to be a God, it’s sometimes hard to know, when reading the New Testament, whether the authors thought Jesus was a man or a God. For instance, Mark portrays Jesus as a fallible prophet, not an almighty God, who is unable to perform miracles in his home town (see Mark 6:5). The prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane is another example of this. In the prayer, Jesus is a man in agony and terror about his fate, terrified of his place in God’s plan, and petitioning God to change His plan! You would need to go through complicated mental gymnastics to explain the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane from a Trinitarian point of view. In fact, it doesn’t really make sense to see Jesus as any kind of God here, since it seems silly that a God would be terrified of his atoning death, because that is the only reason he would be on earth in the first place. Does it make sense that in a story about a God who came to earth to die to wipe out the sin debt of mankind, that this God would beg to abandon his post? After all, Jesus knows he has nothing to fear because he will just suffer for a few hours and eventually be resurrected: Jesus says “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise (Mark 9:31).” You can picture a human Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, doubting that he will be resurrected (and terrified by that) – doubts that Jesus would not have if he was a God.

Welcome to RF.

I believe there is always a problem when one assumes things instead of prove things. I believe Jesus is not a God because then there would be two Gods but He is God and God is one as the Bible states. I think some would like to diminish Jesus to a god like Zeus but there is no evidence to support that concept.

I don't believe their opinion matters much. The words of Jesus are what matter in this regard.

I believe this lack of ability is not the same thing as a lack of capability. God allows man to have free will and that is the limiting factor.

I believe this is the mind of the body speaking. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. In the end the Spirit of God wins out over the flesh.

I believe it is quite reasonable for God to let the flesh have its last attempt to save itself.

I don't see any way to infer that at all.

 

[james2ko]

I believe that is a nice try. It does not appear to me that the context is that of saying what angels are in essence but what they are in ministry. I am a ministering spirit but I am also human and in the body.

That's a strange twist but that's not what the grammar and context reflects. The Greek adjective "ministering" is in the neuter modifying the neuter, not masculine, noun "spirit". This suggests emphasis on the essence of the noun (spirit). Your reasoning suggests the adjective and its modifying noun should have been in the masculine or feminine, which it is not. Additionally, the context does reflect the spirit essence of angels in verse 7:

Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.​

Their essence and purpose are being emphasized in this verse and repeated in vs 14. You are free to believe what you want but the context and grammar of Heb 1:14 reflects essence.

 

[james2ko]

Hi James, Why put an “a” for God?

1. Why not? There are many instances where indefinite articles are inserted for clarity. No one complains about those because they are supported by the immediate and broader context of scripture. No different with Joh 1:1.

So you did not agree that the Word was God?

2. Yes. Jesus in His preincarnate state was "a" God as in one of the many Sons of God the Father. But He was also "the" God assigned to Israel.

It is accepted that Eve is the mother of all human race since she is created by God as the first woman.

3. So it stands to reason that it is accepted by many Christians that Christ was the creator of the human race, since He was created by The Father as the first spirit being.

It says she is the mother of all living, and yet you forced to change the meaning to become a mother of herself? Where did you get that notion of a mother of herself while you know that God created woman Eve?

4. Let see if we can mirror your reasoning: It says He (Christ) created all things and yet you are forced to change the meaning to become one that states He could not be the Creator of all things because it would mean He created Himself and that doesn't make sense. Where did you get the notion that Christ created Himself while the bible states in Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Isa 43:10-11 that God created Jesus?

Just to clarify again, based on your statement here, do you believe that Christ was the Creator of all things?

5. He was an agent utilized by the Father to create "all things". But what you don't realize is that the term "all" is a qualified statement often excluding others, as Paul Himself stated:

1 Corinthians 15:27 For the Scriptures say, "God has put all things under his authority." (Of course, when it says "all things are under his authority," that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) ( NLT)
​

When Paul said Christ created "all things" in Col 1:16, that obviously did not include Himself or The Father. Placing "other" between all and things merely qualifies the statement "all things" to include all things except Christ and the Father.

I don’t think that it is bec. of non-existence at that time, it is because the word “firstborn” has a special meaning to the Hebrews (or the Jews) and Christians alike. This is a very strong proof that it is nearest to the context.

1) A firstborn son, for example, enjoys certain special privileges (Gen. 25:23; 31, 34, 49:3; Deut. 21:17; 1 Chronicles 5:1)

2) "Firstborn of the poor" signifies the most miserable of the poor (Isa. 14:30)

3) It may also mean that it is of high price and value (Micah 6:7; Zech. 12:10)

4) An object of special love (Gen. 25:28; Jer. 31:9,20); Dignity of the Church (Heb. 12:23)

5) With respect to the most sacred official function (Num. 3:12,40-45; 8:16-18) and to mean the most terrible of diseases (Job 18:13)

6. Did you even look at the LXX reading and context of these verses? I don't think you did, because if you did, you would have discovered in every single instance, the term prototokos never loses its first created connotation:

Gen 25:31,34-- prototokia (Esau sold his firstborn birthright. Selling his birthright (prototokia) did not negate Esau from still being Isaac's firstborn (prototokos) son.

Gen 49:3,1 Ch 5:1-- prototokos (Reuben was the actual first created son, who's birthright [prototokia] was transferred)

Deu 21:17-- prototokon (Ishmael was Abraham's first created son)

Job 18:13--(Bildad was referring to the first created signs or first symptoms of death.)

Isa 14:30-- the term prototokos does not appear in the LXX

Mic 6:7-- prototoka (context reflects first created sons)

Zec 12:10-- prototokos (context speaks of actual first created sons)

Jer 31:9-- prototokos (Ephraim is described as being God's firstborn not Joseph's (The nation of Israel , including the 10 tribes commonly referred to as Ephraim (Hos 11:8,12), was “brought into existence” as God’s first created “theocracy”.)

Heb 12:23-- protokon (church of the firstborn--first created group of resurrected human beings in heaven)​

Just as I've been saying, prototokos never loses its connotation of a beginning of existence of a person, place, or thing! This is a perfect example of how others, whether inadvertently or advertently, can lead you astray doctrinally. Seriously Yoshua, prove all things to yourself, don't let others do it for you.

Ps. 89:20 I have found David my servant; with my sacred oil I have

anointed him .Ps. 89:27-29 27And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth. 28 I will maintain my love to him forever, and my covenant with him will never fail. 29 I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure.

David, who was the last one born in his family. He was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence. The word “creation” does not fit with the appointment and anointing that God had given to David. Firstborn does not require a meaning of first created. I believed it is obviously out of the context here. It is not a creation of new position and created a first kind of relationship with David but the "higher than all the kings of the earth." Same with Jesus that He is the pre-eminent in all things.

7. The word creation and firstborn does fit the appointment and anointing of David. Read and consider the text carefully. David "will be" God's appointed, first created what? Based on the context and meaning of the term firstborn as the beginning of an existence, God created the first of its kind [prototokos) covenant relationship with King David and his descendants, which also gave David preeminence.

So you see the primary definition of prototokos as the first created is always present in the term and can include or exclude preeminence. Same with Jesus being the first created spirit being and after His incarnation and sacrifice, inheriting preeminence over all things. Just as Paul indicates in Col 1:15-18!

 

[Oeste]

The Greek word "firstborn" (prototokos) is used 130 times in the Bible and LXX. Its meaning is clearly stated in its literal translation. It always indicates a beginning or generation of something or someone that was not in existence before. Preeminence is a secondary definition that can be added to its primary meaning, but the term never implies preeminence exclusively.

Really? So how do you explain David?

Oh, wait…I see you addressed this in a post to Yoshua:

The word creation and firstborn does fit the appointment and anointing of David. Read and consider the text carefully. David "will be" God's appointed, first created what? Based on the context and meaning of the term firstborn as the beginning of an existence, God created the first of its kind [prototokos) covenant relationship with King David and his descendants, which also gave David preeminence

So now we have two “created firstborns”, Jesus is the "firstborn of creation", the other is David, the "firstborn of covenant relationships" of which Jesus is a descendant.

Additionally, the phrase"the firstborn of" occurs over 30 times in the Bible and in every instance the acceptation is the same-- the firstborn is the very first allotment of the group. The "firstborn of the sheep" is a sheep who was born or existed before the others from one sheep (Gen 4:4), the "firstborn of the animals" is an animal born or in essence first created before all the others, etc. (Neh.10:36). The firstborn of every creature means the first being created before any creatures.

I don’t think so James. You need sheep to have sheep. So the “firstborn of the sheep” would by necessity have to be born after sheep came in existence. The “firstborn of the animals” would have to born after animals came into existence, the “firstborn of every creature” would mean to be born after creatures came into existence, and the “firstborn of creation” means Jesus would have been born after creation came into existence, which is nonsensical.

1. This is yet another (how many is that four?) false analogy. First off, unacceptable and incorrect are synonymous. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/incorrect

It was James2ko who inserted the words “unacceptable” and “incorrect” into the mouth of Ellicott. The fact is, Ellicott said NOTHING about one response being “unacceptable” or the other “incorrect”, so it doesn’t really matter whether unacceptable and incorrect are synonyms. They are simply red herrings you picked up somewhere along the way.

Here’s what Ellicott said, once again, for the umpteenth time:

"Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."

Second, syntax would determine the use of the appropriate synonym. Mr. Ellicott's response is conceptual, warranting the conceptual synonym for "unacceptable" as incorrect. Which colored hat to wear is an object of preference, thus warranting preferential synonyms, like unsuitable, undesirable. Your false analogy mixes incontextual synonyms of preference with those associated with abstracts. Got it Oeste?

I think the only thing I got was a convolution par excellence that honestly deserves an award of some kind.

Look, our conversation on this point is going nowhere and I think it time to let you off your hook. Besides, you've stated so many things I find interesting that I'd really like to move on.

You're not reading my statements carefully causing you to misunderstand. Much like you do to statements of scripture. I said, "assuring them He, at the time, is not a ghost (spirit)". At that particular point in time, Christ statement was one of assurance. Similar to a father calming the fears of a child whom the child thought was a ghost entering their dark room by saying, "Look, feel my body, I'm no ghost, I'm daddy".

But if daddy were really a ghost he would be lying to his daughter. Likewise if Jesus was a spirit creature, he would be lying to his disciples.

How else would anyone know if His three days and three nights prophecy would come to pass, if the stone had not been rolled away to disclose His missing body? The rolling away had nothing to do with His body composition as you erroneously conclude because He appeared to the disciples in a room from thin air. The rolling away had everything to do with evidence of His resurrection.

If Jesus rose as a spirit creature his body would still be in the tomb, would it not? Why wouldn't the body be right where he left it?

7. It’s not a matter of having flesh and bone or spirit exclusively. It’s a matter of transformation between the two states at will. Here’s a question for you. If spirit creatures cannot transform themselves to flesh and bone, what do you call the angels, whom the bible calls spirits (Heb 1:14), who grabbed the hands of Lot and his family?

Obviously the angels had pneumatic bodies, and just as obviously these bodies were not "flesh and bones".

8. Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and [the Father] [the Spirit] I will raise it again in three days."

The Father very clearly raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24,30; 2Cor. 4;14; Eph. 1:20; Heb 11:19 and many more). John's use of the passive verb "raised or risen" in Joh 2:22 supports these passages. Is this a contradiction? No. Thus verse Joh 2:19 can be understood as The Father speaking prophetic words through His prophet--Christ. Thus my interpretation of 1 Co 15:45 stands.

It's clear that God (Jesus, Spirit, Father) raised Jesus.

If you would just learn how to rightly divide the scriptures, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

You couldn't rightly divide who raised Jesus from the dead , so I think our discussion needs to continue.

Any human, if they really make an effort, can exist in a sinless state for a short period of time, thus making them incapable of being deceptive for that specific period of time. But no human can exist in a sinless state for their whole life as Jesus did.

Jeepers James, I actually agree with you on this,but why does it take 3 or 4 attempts to get you to answer a question?
"No human can exist in sinless state for their whole life as Jesus did" which means Jesus was more than just man.

How can you say I “failed to address” a point when I addressed it in post 1845? First you tell us Jesus is a spirit creature with flesh and blood even though Jesus has just told his disciples spirit creature don’t have flesh and blood, and now you’re telling us I failed to address points when in actuality they were addressed. I’m sensing a pattern here.

Yes. I noticed a pattern myself-- one of calling out your consistent fallacious reasoning.

I see. So if you say I haven't responded, and I take the time to point out to you that I have, with a link to boot, it is "fallacious reasoning" on my part?

 

[moorea944]

Really? So how do you explain David?

Oh, wait…I see you addressed this in a post to Yoshua:



So now we have two “created firstborns”, Jesus is the "firstborn of creation", the other is David, the "firstborn of covenant relationships" of which Jesus is a descendant.



I don’t think so James. You need sheep to have sheep. So the “firstborn of the sheep” would by necessity have to be born after sheep came in existence. The “firstborn of the animals” would have to born after animals came into existence, the “firstborn of every creature” would mean to be born after creatures came into existence, and the “firstborn of creation” means Jesus would have been born after creation came into existence, which is nonsensical.



It was James2ko who inserted the words “unacceptable” and “incorrect” into the mouth of Ellicott. The fact is, Ellicott said NOTHING about one response being “unacceptable” or the other “incorrect”, so it doesn’t really matter whether unacceptable and incorrect are synonyms. They are simply red herrings you picked up somewhere along the way.

Here’s what Ellicott said, once again, for the umpteenth time:

"Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."




I think the only thing I got was a convolution par excellence that honestly deserves an award of some kind.

Look, our conversation on this point is going nowhere and I think it time to let you off your hook. Besides, you've stated so many things I find interesting that I'd really like to move on.




But if daddy were really a ghost he would be lying to his daughter. Likewise if Jesus was a spirit creature, he would be lying to his disciples.



If Jesus rose as a spirit creature his body would still be in the tomb, would it not? Why wouldn't the body be right where he left it?



Obviously the angels had pneumatic bodies, and just as obviously these bodies were not "flesh and bones".



Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and [the Father] [the Spirit] I will raise it again in three days."



It's clear that God (Jesus, Spirit, Father) raised Jesus.



You couldn't rightly divide who raised Jesus from the dead , so I think our discussion needs to continue.



Jeepers James, I actually agree with you on this,but why does it take 3 or 4 attempts to get you to answer a question?
"No human can exist in sinless state for their whole life as Jesus did" which means Jesus was more than just man.




I see. So if you say I haven't responded, and I take the time to point out to you that I have, with a link to boot, it is "fallacious reasoning" on my part?

"No human can exist in sinless state for their whole life as Jesus did"

Your absolutely right!

which means Jesus was more than just man.

I disagree. Jesus was a man. Yes, God was his father. But all through scripture we see that God was working or manifesting Himself in his son. Since Jesus is not God or incarnate (as some say....) he had to have had help in what he did. The son of God had to be a man and born of a woman to inherit Adam's nature. Jesus had to "overcome" sin in the flesh. He had to conquer it himself. That is why he had to die on the cross. He made God right. He made God right by showing us that sin nature had to be put to death. Jesus is also showing us that way too. But God doesnt want us to be nailed to the tree like his son, so it is symbolized in baptism. When we go down into the waters of baptism, we die with Christ, when we come up, we are raised with him. We are a new man. The old man is dead (symbolically). We now lead a new life "in Christ."

 

[Notaclue]

Your absolutely right!



I disagree. Jesus was a man. Yes, God was his father. But all through scripture we see that God was working or manifesting Himself in his son. Since Jesus is not God or incarnate (as some say....) he had to have had help in what he did. The son of God had to be a man and born of a woman to inherit Adam's nature. Jesus had to "overcome" sin in the flesh. He had to conquer it himself. That is why he had to die on the cross. He made God right. He made God right by showing us that sin nature had to be put to death. Jesus is also showing us that way too. But God doesnt want us to be nailed to the tree like his son, so it is symbolized in baptism. When we go down into the waters of baptism, we die with Christ, when we come up, we are raised with him. We are a new man. The old man is dead (symbolically). We now lead a new life "in Christ."

Good Post.


2Cor.5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Rom.8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.


:7because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.



For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.



Mk.10:17. And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.


27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.



Peace.

 

[Yoshua]

Yoshua, my cousin....hope you are well!

I'm posting regarding John 1:1.... You'll see the sentence structure is different than vss.6,8,12, and 13.

In translating from one language to another, rarely can you render it word for word.

Case in point: Koine Greek grammar being what it was, it did not have the indefinite articles that we in English use (= a, an). All they had was the definite article, 'the.' With that in mind, translating John 1:1 word for word, it says this: " in beginning (notice, not even THE beginning) was THE word. And THE word was with THE god, and god (notice, not THE God) was THE word." See? 'The god' and 'god' are different. And in the last part of the sentence, the anarthrous predicate noun, 'god', comes before the subject, 'the word'. (If John had meant Jesus was God Almighty, he would've said, "....and THE god was THE word." Or better yet, "and THE word was THE God." [-- see previous post #2139, regarding Philip B. Harper and scholar John L. McKenzie.]) But the Apostle John did not write that. Besides, that would have contradicted the context ("the Word was with God"; and especially vs.18....... "No man has seen God at any time" . People saw Jesus). So, clearly, that is not what he was saying.

Would John really have written something so ambiguous, that the Word was with God, but yet He was God, though no one has "ever seen" God? No. this would only have served to confuse his readers.

Considering that many Christians were former Jews, who worshiped Yahweh alone....if God had changed, had included Jesus as part of a Trinity, those Christian Bible writers would have bent over backward, clearly stating throughout that Jesus was God. But they never did! They kept writing about Jesus' Lordship, about how "God" (rarely saying only "the Father") accomplished things through Jesus. Never about Jesus' Godship!

Furthermore, if this was a new teaching for Jews to accept -- a very drastic departure -- that Jesus was also God -- so many of them (3,000) wouldn't have gotten baptized "that day" (Acts of the Apostles 2:41); it would be too much to taken in! Rather, all they needed -- as Peter stated -- was to accept Jesus as the prophesied 'Messiah,' God's servant.....not as God.
(I hope you can understand this, it's not very hard....unless I wasn't clear.)

At John 20:17, John quoted Jesus as saying to Mary: "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to MY GOD and YOUR GOD."

Yes, Jesus had a God he worshiped: Martha's God, Yahweh / Jehovah, was Jesus' God. As Christians instructed to 'follow Jesus' steps closely (1 Peter 2:21)', this should be our God!

Every verse that Trinitarians use to support their view, it all boils down to either syntax or semantics. But taking The Context into account will almost always show otherwise.

John 8:58 and Philippians 2:5-11 are prime examples of this.

Take care.

Hi Hockey,

Ok. Thanks for explaining it to me. Now, did you know any other Greek scholar who supported the translated "the Word was a god" (aside from this two)?

Thanks

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hi Hockey,

Ok. Thanks for explaining it to me. Now, did you know any other Greek scholar who supported the translated "the Word was a god" (aside from this two)?

Thanks

Yes, there are others.

But really, does it matter what some scholars believe? Jesus didn't use the educated men of His day, to lead His sheep; rather it was fishermen.....those who were humble, and had a love for others as Jesus had. His Father (not Jesus) puts His Spirit on, and 'reveals' His truth to, obedient and humble ones whether they're learned or not. (Luke 10:21) Obedience and humility are way more important!

But as you asked, here are some renderings in other translations:


1808
““and the word was a god””
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864
““and a god was the Word””
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935
““and the Word was divine””
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1975
““and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

1978
““and godlike sort was the Logos””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1979
““and a god was the Logos””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of some particular verses, but not the whole, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and those of other imperfect humans.

John 1:1-2 in the Revised Standard reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Douay, JB, NAB, etc., use similar wording.)
But as shown, the Emphatic Diaglott, the NTIV, etc., say "a god."
Which translations of John 1:1-2 agree with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” John 1:14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, vss.1 &2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Hebrews 1:3.

 

[james2ko]

So now we have two “created firstborns”, Jesus is the "firstborn of creation", the other is David, the "firstborn of covenant relationships" of which Jesus is a descendant.


1. Yes sir. The preincarnate Christ was a firstborn spirit being, while King David had a first of its kind (first created) relationship with God. This all proves that even when the term (firstborn) is used figuratively, it never loses its first of its kind and/or first created connotation. I think it's finally starting to sink in for you

I don’t think so James. You need sheep to have sheep. So the “firstborn of the sheep” would by necessity have to be born after sheep came in existence. The “firstborn of the animals” would have to born after animals came into existence, the “firstborn of every creature” would mean to be born after creatures came into existence, and the “firstborn of creation” means Jesus would have been born after creation came into existence, which is nonsensical.

2. You also need God (The Father) to have created other gods (angels) and one of them was created first -- The Word, Angel of His Presence, etc--who then created those sheep, apparently in pairs . That first pair was the firstborn (created before any of their kind), who in turn bore a firstborn sheep and so on .The preincarnate Christ was created before any other God-kind creature (angels) . Since angels were created before humans and animals, that makes him the firstborn of any creature ever created (Isa 43:10-11;Col 1:15; Rev 3:14).

It was James2ko who inserted the words “unacceptable” and “incorrect” into the mouth of Ellicott. The fact is, Ellicott said NOTHING about one response being “unacceptable” or the other “incorrect”, Here’s what Ellicott said, once again, for the umpteenth time: "Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."

3. And here is what he also said for the tenthteen time:"But the latter is to be preferred". Meaning your interpretation, which is the former, is not preferred.

so it doesn’t really matter whether unacceptable and incorrect are synonyms. They are simply red herrings you picked up somewhere along the way.

4. Sure it does. Especially when unacceptable and incorrect are also synonyms of the term Mr. Ellicot indicates as "not preferred". Not sure I see the diversionary red herring you are talking about.

I think the only thing I got was a convolution par excellence that honestly deserves an award of some kind.

5. That is probably the closest your pride will allow you to admit I'm correct.

Look, our conversation on this point is going nowhere and I think it time to let you off your hook. Besides, you've stated so many things I find interesting that I'd really like to move on.

6. Oh no, it's going somewhere . I'm systematically demonstrating the folly of this Father and son co-eternal existence fallacy that's no where found in scripture and I'm just getting warmed up . I wrote a 32 pg paper on the doctrine so I have a lot more to say.

But if daddy were really a ghost he would be lying to his daughter. Likewise if Jesus was a spirit creature, he would be lying to his disciples.

7. Daddy was not really a ghost (spirit) at that moment in time, so he wasn't lying to his daughter. His statement does not preclude Him from also transforming to spirit at another time. Hence, Jesus was not being deceptive .

If Jesus rose as a spirit creature his body would still be in the tomb, would it not? Why wouldn't the body be right where he left it?

8. We don't know what state His body was in immediately after it was resurrected. And it really doesn't matter. All scripture indicates is that His new body can transition back and forth between the two states (flesh and spirit).

Obviously the angels had pneumatic bodies, and just as obviously these bodies were not "flesh and bones".

9. You didn't answer the question. You merely rephrased your assertion. Here is the rephrased question again: So if their pneumatic bodies were not transformed to flesh and bone, how were they able to grab the flesh and bones of human beings???

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and [the Father] [the Spirit] I will raise it again in three days."

10. Simply repeating yourself will not make it right. There are very explicit, direct verses contradicting this statement. Here are just a few:

2Co 4:14 knowing that He [The Father] who raised up the Lord Jesus will also raise us up with Jesus, and will present us with you

Eph 1:20 which He worked in Christ when He [The Father] raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places,

Heb 11:19 concluding that God was able to raise him [Jesus] up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.​

The Father very clearly raised up Jesus from the dead. Thus verse Joh 2:19 can be understood as The Father speaking prophetic words through His prophet--Christ.

It's clear that God (Jesus, Spirit, Father) raised Jesus.

11. The only thing clear is your interpretation ignores the grammar and injects unscriptural trinitarian dogma. God the Father and Jesus are being presented as two separate individuals in those passages, Evidenced by the use of the singular (not plural) pronouns identifying each individual.

You couldn't rightly divide who raised Jesus from the dead

12. It's much more logical and rightly divided than your contradictory, grammar ignoring, dogma filled, explanation indicating Jesus raised Himself, when scripture explicitly states He did not.

so I think our discussion needs to continue

13. So much for your, "I am only hear [it's spelled 'here'] to learn".

Jeepers James, I actually agree with you on this,but why does it take 3 or 4 attempts to get you to answer a question?"No human can exist in sinless state for their whole life as Jesus did" which means Jesus was more than just man.

14. Not necessarily. No human has ever performed a more complex calculation in their head than the late Shakuntala Devi. Did that make her more than just an extraordinary human? Similarly, just because no human has existed in a sinless state does not make the incarnate Jesus any more than just an extraordinary human being with the most intimate relationship with The Father any human has ever had. He regained His spirit status with much greater God-like authority, after His resurrection.