Was Jesus "just a man" in your opinion

outhouse · Jul 22, 2014

Windwalker said:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,..... not on topic.

Quit repeating errors. Then you wont get called on it.

And your the one off topic. :facepalm:

firedragon · Jul 23, 2014

Windwalker said:
Why would that be the case? If John were trying to communicate with his audiences, he would use things familiar to them as a place of common ground, and then expand or build on top of it to make it unique to what he wished to convey. Why does this make it a 'later addition'? John's readers would have understood what Logos meant.

Why not? Yes, it's not identical to it, but John uses it as launching off point to talk about his views of Jesus. Don't tell me that John's use of Logos had nothing to do with Philo's. Here's a nice extract about Philo's Logos: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/dmf/logos/

If Johns Gospel has no divine inspiration, he would have used other uninspired concepts like Philos who was a philosopher. If he was inspired he would have followed through verbatim.

Yes he does. In the 3rd clause of verse 1. I reject your misuse of the lack of the definite article to mean anything. The Jehovah's Witness do this as well, and scholarship has shown it to be flawed translation. Back to this in a few.

Of course you will reject it, but thats not from the Koine Greek point of view. It is an English point of view.

Yes, I was recalling a translation which translated it that way. Most others say "He" was manifested in the flesh.

It is not some translations, it is the old manuscripts. Scholars largely agree that it was a human addition. In fact a fabrication.

The nature or essence of Logos is God. Yes.

This is what I'm saying. You are saying there is. You're saying they're different words. I'm saying they're different forms of the same word.

Dont write into my mouth. They are the same. I say again. I never said they are different in meaning.

You seem to have ignored what I posted that explained in detail what the definite article or lack therefore means in John 1. Let me post it again, quoting the entire section for your convenience. I hope you spend some time reading through it. It will help create a common ground, as this is why I reject your making an issue out of the lack of definite article or the use of Theos versus Theon:

The Apparent Difference in Spelling

First of all, 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 (1 Cor. 8:5) or Satan as the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4). 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. (See my page on Inflection and Cases on the Web site). 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.

The Lack of a Greek Definite Article

Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is no definite article in front of the word God (theos) in the phrase and the Word was God. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (the), but does not have an indefinite article (a or an). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words the and a. In many instances in which English would not include the word the, the Greek text includes it. (We dont see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (See Note 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (See Note 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, see an example of the use of the word God and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an indefinite article like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun tis.

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. 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. 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. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). 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.

(For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled The Article, Part I - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a Part II which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

I did not use an indefinite article. The whole explanation you posted doesnt have anything to do with what I posted. And who is the Greek scholar who said the above I would like to know anyway. You should understand what I said and then refute it.

firedragon · Jul 23, 2014

Windwalker said:
"In principle"? That's darned odd. Let's look at the context, shall we? What is John trying to establish? John is quoting from Genesis chapter 1, "In the beginning." If you don't believe that, then the rest of the entire passage makes no sense at all, since he is in fact directly speaking of all of creation being created through the Logos! "In principle" sounds like a theological dodge because of it's inconvenient truth.

Click to expand...

Damned odd? I told you it was a word for word translation that i posted. And if you dont know what Arche means then you are reading off someones interpretation and you havent understood the language. Not willing to either. I do understand why though.

So that out of the way, let me translate John 1:1 for you.

En Arche. "In the beginning" (referencing creation in Genesis 1.
En ho Logos - "Existed the Logos" (already existed)
Kai ho Logos - "And the Logos"
en pro ton theon - "Was with God". (The God, not a god).
kai theos en ho logos - And God was the essence and nature Logos".

Your translation is based on flawed scholarship and reasoning. Please read what I cited in the use of the definite articles above. You're interpretation has no legitimate scholarly support.

Click to expand...

What you pasted doesnt have anything to do with my explanation. I am not gonna explain why. You should go back and understand again.

You should also go to your scholars and understand small lords in languages.

Ditto, but I have scholarship to back it up.

Click to expand...

What scholarship brother. Greek? Alright show me who. Everybody like to learn.

If that's all it meant, then they wouldn't have tried to stone him! One would hope every good Jewish Rabbi would say that! They would have nodded their heads and said, "Yes, and so do we, Rabbi!" :yes:

Click to expand...

He calls his disciples also one with him and God. So they are all Gods. I get it.

It's not the most important pillar of Christianity. Why do you believe it is? I find the doctrine of the Trinity to be a tad too esoteric for the average church-goer. You're train of logic arguments here don't hold up very well at all.

Click to expand...

Oh thats what I hear a lot. Average people cant understand the trinity. The mystery.

Again, Jesus would have been explicit in his statements. He would have said he was God, if he was.

firedragon · Jul 23, 2014

Alright. I thought I will respond to you.

You have copied from an answer provided in the website NTGreek.org I believe with Tim Savage. Yes he is Cambridge material and he has studied epistolele pauline and Archaeology. No disrespect.

The question was this

Code:

Question: 
My name is Bethany, and recently I have been trying to learn Greek.  One reason is to be able to (hopefully) better understand the bible.  But also because of what it says at John 1:1.  There it says that the Word was with God and the word was God.  But a friend of mine, who is a devote Christian, pointed out the Greek there.  The spelling for God, in the sentence 'and the word was God' is different than the spelling of God else where.  I looked at this and saw it too.  This same spelling is seen when referring to 'other' gods.  My friend and I are wondering if maybe the translation wasn't done correctly.  Maybe it should say 'and the word was a god' or something of the sort.  Please look into this, with an open mind. 
Thank you for your help. May God guide you and protect you. 
Bethany.

Someone has told her that Theos means a God and she has understood it as theon and theos are two different things.

These two words are used all over the bible, of course. You will see the references to The God, our lord the almighty Matthew 3:9 telling something or doing something it is ho theos. When something is attributed to God it will be theos. e.g. Pneuma Theoi, spirit of God.

When the tempter tempts Jesus and tells him to change stones into bread he replies (in short) "people live on every utterance that comes from the mouth of God" where it is Theou.

And when it says your God its "ton theon sou". Lord your God is Kurios ton theon sou. But read the Greek when God says "I am God almighty". in Genesis 17, it is ho theos. And Genesis 35. Matthew 6:8 when God knows what you want its Ho Theos. I the God of Abraham in Mark 12:26 its Ho theos.

But when its Faith of God its Theos, Pistin Theos.

I dont say theos and theon are of two complete different connotations. Rather, the article and the placing of the word changes the meaning. What you copied from the website explains that theos without an article doesnt mean "A God". Again and again I say that that analysis doesnt negate my contention. Theos en o logo is giving a divine order to logo. The same as God gave Moses to pharaoh.

Word

You quoted Phile and you said that Logos is of no ordinary nature. Alright, I agree while thats the Islamic contention too.

But go to the bible see how logo is used. Confessing is exomologowmenoi. Jesus went and spread the word (logon), Jesus preached the word to people (Logo), Farmer sows the word and satan takes the word away, The demon possessed mothers word.

People get astonished and say what words are these in Luke 4:36. John 7:36 interprets Logos as mean. As in I mean. What did he "mean"?

This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? - John 12:38.

How could there be a word of Isiah if you go with your absolute theory? Do you see? Jesus says an ample time, the word from me, my word, you dont have room for my word. And Jesus says that the words (Logos) that I utter are not mine but of the father who sent me. Do you understand?

John 15:25 says word in the law mostly translated what is written in the law. The word is also used generically. Here also it is Ho Logos, same as John 1:1.

There is no point going any further. Greek is a language and the bible has these words too many times for us to simply take one verse, listen to one explanation and make a definitive judgement call.

Also those who assess that early Christians (e.g. John) would take Philo as inspiration for their literature, more importantly scripture, then they are not inspired, nor are they disciples of Jesus. For they must take his teachings, not someone who lived some half century before him. When it suits a doctrine, those who never spoke to God nor the Messiah nor a prophet will be taken as Gospel truth. That too, only the parts they like.

Windwalker · Jul 23, 2014

outhouse said:
Quit repeating errors. Then you wont get called on it.

And your the one off topic.

Oh my god, I finally got the joke! It's in the forum name you've chosen and play out on the site as your persona! That's fantastic! That's too funny. BTW, I'm not being insulting. I now get it that this is all just how you have fun, playing the trickster, the "stinker", etc. Well played.

Windwalker · Jul 23, 2014

firedragon said:
If Johns Gospel has no divine inspiration, he would have used other uninspired concepts like Philos who was a philosopher. If he was inspired he would have followed through verbatim.

Your line of reasoning here is flawed on many grounds. You start with a premise of what "inspired" means, then extrapolate what you would expect should follow from that, and if it doesn't exactly to your own standards, you reject it. I don't know where to begin to dismantle that whole approach, but hopefully it should just be obvious by my pointing it out.

I'll cut right through all this "divine inspiration" line of argument and simply say the point of this discussion is not to talk about what qualifies as 'authoritative' scriptures, but to examine that what the early Christians, such as what John was saying in his book, they in fact did view Jesus as God incarnate. Personally, I do not believe "inspiration" means dictation. Nor do I believe that even if it was the "dictation" interpretation of what "inspired" means, that that would preclude John borrowing from others to make his point. You see that all over the place in the New Testament, the Gospels, the Epistles, Acts, etc. If you want to use logic arguments, why wouldn't they wish to communicate truths by finding common ground as a starting point? John isn't "ripping off" Philo's teaching, he's simply using it to start of conversation.

I don't however believe inspiration equals infallibility. One could argue that John was wrong in believing Jesus was God, for all I care. But to use bad scholarship to try to make what he says the sorts of things I hear the Jehovah's Witnesses and subsequently the Muslims who find that teaching goes against their own theological premises, is to me is deeply flawed. It all stems down to the view that scripture is a dictation. I don't believe any of them are. My whole argument is simply this is what John was teaching. That's all. Not what you should or shouldn't believe about Jesus or about God. Whether John was inspired or not, it's irrelevant to him using Philo's Logos.

firedragon said:
Of course you will reject it, but thats not from the Koine Greek point of view. It is an English point of view.

No, I reject it because it's not Koine Greek point of view. It's a bad scholarship point of view. In that Greek site link I provided, he lists the scholars who back this up, who I am familiar with and have read myself. I'll quote that section here for your convenience:

Consulting with Other Well Respected Greek Scholars and Grammarians

For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics&#8217

, A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures&#8217

, R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament&#8217

, J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes&#8217

, B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).

Can you provide your list of well respected Greek Scholars who agree with your ideas about the Greek language? My guess is they will be translators from the Watchtower Society. I'd be curious to see a list that does not include that unique offshoot branch of modern restorationist Protestant movements begun at the beginning of the 20th century as part of a long parade of such other group, each with their own 'we have the restored truth' claims with their own "in-house" scholars that no one outside them accept.

firedragon said:
I did not use an indefinite article. The whole explanation you posted doesnt have anything to do with what I posted. And who is the Greek scholar who said the above I would like to know anyway. You should understand what I said and then refute it.

You made an entire argument centered around this distinction, and created your own translation based upon it. You said in your previous post,

"There is a difference between Ho, ton and words without an article.

You will see that the first reference is ton theon and the second is Kai Theos. Again I say that if you say Kai theos en ho logo means Logo is God, then Moses is also God. But you will ignore it."

And you then made up this translation based on this:

Ill furnish a direct word to word translation.
En Arche. In principle.
En ho Logo - was the word (Ho=Definitive Article)
Kai ho Logo - And the word (Ho=Definitive Article)
en pro ton theon - was to ton theon (Small God) (Ton is not a definitive article. It is akin to "a", a god)
kai theos en ho logo - and divine was the word (Definitive article for logos but theos is left with non. Which makes it a generic word for divinity)

[Emphasis mine]

Why are you saying Ton is not a definite article? Can you provide some scholarship to support this? I didn't catch it the first time around, but I can see you did something no other person I've ever heard of do, and make the second clause of John 1 say "a god". Ton actually is a definite article, and it means in its use as Ton Theon, "The God". The typical mistranslation is that of the Jehovah's Witness sect, in the 3rd clause with the lack of the definite article. Your's is just obviously wrong and even they don't miss that.

BTW, to address that you think I'm ignoring that Moses is God argument of yours, it's not that. I simply don't follow it. I'd be happy to address if it you can show me how you think that means anything to the above points.

I'll respond to the rest later.

firedragon · Jul 23, 2014

Windwalker said:
Your line of reasoning here is flawed on many grounds. You start with a premise of what "inspired" means, then extrapolate what you would expect should follow from that, and if it doesn't exactly to your own standards, you reject it. I don't know where to begin to dismantle that whole approach, but hopefully it should just be obvious by my pointing it out.

I'll cut right through all this "divine inspiration" line of argument and simply say the point of this discussion is not to talk about what qualifies as 'authoritative' scriptures, but to examine that what the early Christians, such as what John was saying in his book, they in fact did view Jesus as God incarnate. Personally, I do not believe "inspiration" means dictation. Nor do I believe that even if it was the "dictation" interpretation of what "inspired" means, that that would preclude John borrowing from others to make his point. You see that all over the place in the New Testament, the Gospels, the Epistles, Acts, etc. If you want to use logic arguments, why wouldn't they wish to communicate truths by finding common ground as a starting point? John isn't "ripping off" Philo's teaching, he's simply using it to start of conversation.

Click to expand...

If John was authoring a book based on Jesus's teachings then he would back to another persons book written before Jesus was born. Why would John need Philo's teachings when he had Jesus walking and talking, if he was there?

Anyway what do we know about Philo? Other than that he was from a wealthy family and of his brothers donations to Herod's grand son etc. Not much. And when you quote Jesus saying I am and that shows his divinity, Philo takes Ho on, not Eigo Aimi as John Cites. Analysing Philo cover to cover, his concepts have been taken by early Christians, yes. I believe that too, but that is one scholarly concept that goes to show John never wrote the Gospel of John, and whoever wrote it has taken concepts from the other three Gospels and put together one book which never claims to have been written by John.

I don't however believe inspiration equals infallibility. One could argue that John was wrong in believing Jesus was God, for all I care. But to use bad scholarship to try to make what he says the sorts of things I hear the Jehovah's Witnesses and subsequently the Muslims who find that teaching goes against their own theological premises, is to me is deeply flawed. It all stems down to the view that scripture is a dictation. I don't believe any of them are. My whole argument is simply this is what John was teaching. That's all. Not what you should or shouldn't believe about Jesus or about God. Whether John was inspired or not, it's irrelevant to him using Philo's Logos.

Click to expand...

So in other words you are vehemently establishing that it was Philos Logos that John is quoting? And why do you say it is irrelevant to him using Philo's Logos after you yourself bringing him up brother?

No, I reject it because it's not Koine Greek point of view. It's a bad scholarship point of view. In that Greek site link I provided, he lists the scholars who back this up, who I am familiar with and have read myself. I'll quote that section here for your convenience:

Consulting with Other Well Respected Greek Scholars and Grammarians

For a further explanation and clarification about these items, it is helpful to consult with many of the well respected Greek scholars and expositors. Personally I have never come across any objective, well respected Greek grammarian that has come up with different conclusions that what has been presented here. Many of them go into much more detail than I have in these few short paragraphs. See for instance the writings of Daniel Wallace (‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics&#8217, A.T. Robertson (both his ‘Grammar’ and ‘Word Pictures&#8217, R.C.H. Lenski (in his commentary on the Gospel of John), Henry Alford (‘Greek Testament&#8217, J.A. Bengel (‘Word Studies), Albert Barnes (‘Barnes’ Notes&#8217, B.F. Westcott, and F.L. Godet, (and many others).

Can you provide your list of well respected Greek Scholars who agree with your ideas about the Greek language? My guess is they will be translators from the Watchtower Society. I'd be curious to see a list that does not include that unique offshoot branch of modern restorationist Protestant movements begun at the beginning of the 20th century as part of a long parade of such other group, each with their own 'we have the restored truth' claims with their own "in-house" scholars that no one outside them accept.

You made an entire argument centered around this distinction, and created your own translation based upon it. You said in your previous post,

"There is a difference between Ho, ton and words without an article.

You will see that the first reference is ton theon and the second is Kai Theos. Again I say that if you say Kai theos en ho logo means Logo is God, then Moses is also God. But you will ignore it."

And you then made up this translation based on this:

Ill furnish a direct word to word translation.
En Arche. In principle.
En ho Logo - was the word (Ho=Definitive Article)
Kai ho Logo - And the word (Ho=Definitive Article)
en pro ton theon - was to ton theon (Small God) (Ton is not a definitive article. It is akin to "a", a god)
kai theos en ho logo - and divine was the word (Definitive article for logos but theos is left with non. Which makes it a generic word for divinity)

[Emphasis mine]

Why are you saying Ton is not a definite article? Can you provide some scholarship to support this? I didn't catch it the first time around, but I can see you did something no other person I've ever heard of do, and make the second clause of John 1 say "a god". Ton actually is a definite article, and it means in its use as Ton Theon, "The God". The typical mistranslation is that of the Jehovah's Witness sect, in the 3rd clause with the lack of the definite article. Your's is just obviously wrong and even they don't miss that.

BTW, to address that you think I'm ignoring that Moses is God argument of yours, it's not that. I simply don't follow it. I'd be happy to address if it you can show me how you think that means anything to the above points.

I'll respond to the rest later.

Click to expand...

Watchtower? I am no Christian.

The word "Word" is cited in the New testament alone hundreds of times. But you take it to another level only with the Gospel of John and especially John 1:1. That is a discriminator.

I have furnished a few occurrences of word in the bible. Do they all mean the same? I know that those who propose the Trinity vision do not have the verses they used to anymore because they have been shunned as concoctions. How about all the other occurrences? What do you say to them? Checkout all those scholars you quoted. They are all speaking of the trinity and John 1:1. Some even claim to be agnostic but driven by the divine hand of God. Logo is translated in the New testament in so many ways as I have already showed you.

If every one who is Theos is God, then Moses is God

Exodus 7:1

Greek - καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης

Phonetic - kaí eípen kýrios prós Mo̱ysí̱n légo̱n idoú dédo̱ká se theón Farao̱ kaí Aaro̱n o adelfós sou éstai sou profí̱ti̱s

English - And he said unto Moses, saying, Lord, behold I send you as God (Theon) of Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother will be your Prophet

Theos en ho logo doesnt mean Jesus is God. It means the word was given a divine nature. Direct translation would be more towards the word was of God or from God or the word was Godly. Theos is used for many Gods and lesser Gods as well in the NT. I studied Greek but not in English so I may not know how to explain properly in English.

If Logos is God, then the three hundred or so mentions of Logo in the New Testament must mean God who is also Jesus. Leaving the old testament. And if you say John was taking from Philo for the Gospel, then that truly brings more questions on the authority of that Gospel.

Windwalker · Jul 23, 2014

firedragon said:
Damned odd? I told you it was a word for word translation that i posted.

So is mine, but mine is a better translation than yours. What's odd is how of all the choices for the word Arche that you could use, you chose one that contextually makes no sense. If you rip the verses out of the entire passage of John 1:1-14, you can pretty much make twist and turn it however you want, such as saying "In principle was the Logos". But in context, it is a senseless translation.

firedragon said:
And if you dont know what Arche means then you are reading off someones interpretation and you havent understood the language. Not willing to either. I do understand why though.

It's helpful in discussions like this that you avoid ascribing motives to me such as "not willing". You have no idea what my personal beliefs or motivations are. Typically when I hear someone cast out accusations like this, I hear a projection of themselves on others. It casts doubt on their own willingness, when they accuse me of it.

I'm more than willing to consider your translation if you can support it where it makes sense, and since you're not a Greek scholar yourself, which is obvious by you stating Ton is not a definite article, then you have to rely on actual scholars. No scholar I'm aware of would chose "In principle" as a valid translation of John 1:1a. Can you show me where any legitimate Greek scholar has translated it this way?

firedragon said:
Oh thats what I hear a lot. Average people cant understand the trinity. The mystery.

Actually, anything relating to speaking of the Absolute, God, and so forth, is always, naturally going to be a mystery because all logic and reason breaks down at the Infinite. God is paradoxical in nature. So where I say the average Christian, in fact most Christians don't understand the Trinity, is because they reduce it to an object. They see it as a "construction" of parts, and so forth. Any literal understanding like this is of course not valid. The Trinity is really best understood as a description, a way to talk about the Divine. To make it a doctrine you "believe in", is nonsense.

That you hear that a lot doesn't necessarily mean they are speaking in the sense I am. Typically, it's just a cop out. But not in the way I'm saying it. What I'm saying applies to any and all descriptions of God, regardless of which religion its coming out of. If it can be understood by reason and logic, it's not God. It's that simple.

firedragon said:
Again, Jesus would have been explicit in his statements. He would have said he was God, if he was.

Again, you create the criteria out of your mind, and anything or anyone who does fit your preconceived, and biased, ideas, is therefore rejected. "It must fit how I understand the world, or it's not valid", is a completely invalid point of view.

And now to your latest reply as time permits here....

outhouse · Jul 23, 2014

Windwalker said:
God is paradoxical in nature.

...

The concept is not, if you study the literary evolution of the concept.

in fact most Christians don't understand the Trinity, is because they reduce it to an object. They see it as a "construction" of parts, and so forth. Any literal understanding like this is of course not valid.

YOU cannot understand the trinity, because it was an afterthought that had to be applied to maintain monotheism.

It is a product to a problem, of adding another deity to the monotheistic god. It is nothing more then people redefining god again.

And if you studied this, you would see how the trinity CONCEPT evolved at mans hands alone.

Ouroboros · Jul 23, 2014

disciple said:
Is Jesus 'just a man' in your opinion, or was He as He walked among us part God?

He was "just" a man, but we're all part of God, so he was in that sense part of God just he same way as we are. Ps 82:6, John 10:34.

(I'm not a Christian, but I was for 30 years.)

outhouse · Jul 23, 2014

firedragon said:
Theos

.

Was used in many different ways, and going back to Hebrew to see what they said of Noses would be more accurate then how the Greek authors interpreted Hebrew.

It is tough to translate because you need to put yourself in the multiple authors shoes, who wrote John. Cultural anthropology helps dramatically.

Part of the problem is since John was written in at least 3 parts, getting a date to when each part was actually wrote is tough.

But we do know John is very spiritual in nature, and even if there was a consensus on what the proper translation is/was. It could still be wrong.

There are many places in all biblical text we cannot place in context as we are far removed from customs and traditions that would give us insight to the exact meaning.

Sometimes there are no right or wrong answers in interpretation. Its OK to say we don't know, or they were being vague on purpose.

Windwalker · Jul 23, 2014

firedragon said:
If John was authoring a book based on Jesus's teachings then he would back to another persons book written before Jesus was born.

Why would he? I explained this already. He was trying to communicate a truth using a common frame of reference they they would understand. He didn't "need" to, he chose to as a tool to communicate the Christian message. He specifically chose the Logos concept because his audience would be able to relate to it. Again, it's not identical with Philo's logos, which is why he starts with it, starts with the familiar to bring the audience it, and then builds into something new, which Philo did not say.

Really, this is very simple to understand. It makes total sense. It's a technique used all the time. You criteria is completely artificial and forced, created to fit only how you see things.

firedragon said:
Why would John need Philo's teachings when he had Jesus walking and talking, if he was there?

First of all, Jesus wasn't there. Jesus died 70 years earlier. And secondly, again, he didn't "need" Philo's teachings. He borrowed Philo's concept as a means of communication. He did not teach Philo's Logos. You are mistaken assume that's what anyone believes. He started with Philo's Logos, and made it a Christian understanding of the Christ. Why? Because there was some truth in what Philo said that fit how John believed.

Paul did this all the time, starting with the Greek philosophers, and then teaching Christ. This is not hard to accept. I can point you to where Paul did this, if you like.

firedragon said:
Anyway what do we know about Philo? Other than that he was from a wealthy family and of his brothers donations to Herod's grand son etc. Not much.

We know what he taught. We know he teachings were part of the religious understandings of the day. Once again, I direct you to read this: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/otp/dmf/logos/

You can see in John 1:1 - 14 that in the context of the entire passage, John is referring to Philo's Logos as the mediator of creation. It's undeniable. He then has his Logos do what Philo's doesn't.

firedragon said:
And when you quote Jesus saying I am and that shows his divinity, Philo takes Ho on, not Eigo Aimi as John Cites. Analysing Philo cover to cover, his concepts have been taken by early Christians, yes. I believe that too, but that is one scholarly concept that goes to show John never wrote the Gospel of John, and whoever wrote it has taken concepts from the other three Gospels and put together one book which never claims to have been written by John.

Well, that's ridiculous. John never wrote John? Who did then, Bob?

Yes, the "author" of John, let's just call him John for convenience sake since the book never says the name of the author anyway, borrowed from the other narrative Gospels. But it reflects a unique tradition of it's own, which sees Jesus as divine, as opposed to the other Gospels which cast him in different terms for their audiences. It is doubtful it was the actual Apostle John, just as it's doubtful Matthew and Mark are the actual authors either. None of this is relevant of course to our discussion. Early Christians wrote the Gospel of John, and it reflects that author's view of Jesus. He viewed Jesus as Divine, and used Philo's Logos as a way to start the conversation to talk about who he saw Jesus as.

You cannot force fit your interpretation into the first chapter of John. It doesn't work. If you start with Philo's Logos and take off from there, it slides in like a hand in glove. Context man, context.

firedragon said:
So in other words you are vehemently establishing that it was Philos Logos that John is quoting? And why do you say it is irrelevant to him using Philo's Logos after you yourself bringing him up brother?

I thought I had explained in before. This post should make it clearer. If need be I'll explain it further. He didn't copy Philo's Logos, he used it as a familiar concept in order to teach about Jesus. John's Logos is not identical to Philo's. He did not "copy" it. He "used" it. Very different.

firedragon said:
Watchtower? I am no Christian.

I know that, but that's the only place I know of where any scholars of Greek would come close to agreeing with your translating of Greek. Again, where are they any legitimate Greek scholars that back up your way of translating the Greek? Cite them for me, please.

firedragon said:
The word "Word" is cited in the New testament alone hundreds of times. But you take it to another level only with the Gospel of John and especially John 1:1. That is a discriminator.

This is not how you translate a language. It takes a lot more than just saying it was used this way here, so if it means X here, it means X everywhere. It's the context, internally and externally. You can't exclude the audience. You can't exclude the culture. But you are.

firedragon said:
Checkout all those scholars you quoted. They are all speaking of the trinity and John 1:1. Some even claim to be agnostic but driven by the divine hand of God. Logo is translated in the New testament in so many ways as I have already showed you.

Yes, we use the same words lots of ways too. So do you believe these scholars are just abandoning their scholarship when it comes to John 1:1, like scientists abandon their science when it comes to Evolution, or something? And not all scholars with state, "This refers to the 2nd person of the Trinity", but if they do, it's not a translation but a religious commentary. Don't mistake doing that, with doing bad translation.

firedragon said:
Theos en ho logo doesnt mean Jesus is God. It means the word was given a divine nature.

Where do it say "given" a divine nature in those words. It does not at all. It says it translates literally as "And the Logos was Divinity". Not "given" the divine. That's totally made up by you.

firedragon said:
Direct translation would be more towards the word was of God or from God or the word was Godly.

Why? Support that. It literally says as it lacks the definite article that the Logos was Divinity, Divinity meaning the divine essence, nature, or being. Never "Godly".

So, again, if it's just means he was a good guy, and all that, then how is it you see him at the beginning of creation "with God"?????

Was Moses "In the beginning with God", and "all things were made through him"? Do I have to keep repeating all this? Can you address those points for me to show how your translation makes any sense at all in the context?

All the rest is you just showing you're not a Greek scholar by saying if it's translated this way here, it must be translated the same everywhere else. No scholar on earth would say that. I defer to their expertise with the language. You should too.

outhouse · Jul 23, 2014

Windwalker said:
Well, that's ridiculous. John never wrote John?
.

A Hellenistic Johannine community wrote it, over a long period of time, in at least 3 parts.

A new school of thought is that some of the early parts may carry more historicity then previously thought. It does not make it accurate though, just leaves open the possibility.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD

First of all, Jesus wasn't there. Jesus died 70 years earlier

Not quite true. That is the rough date ish, it was finished being compiled.

Some early composition has the possibility of being early.

But you would be correct that it is still far removed from Jesus actual life and teachings.

I direct you to read this:

Promote bias much???????????

kjw47 · Jul 23, 2014

steeltoes said:
According to gMark He was the Son of God so He could not have been just a man in my opinion, He must of been a god that walked among men as the story goes.

Mark1:1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,

Jesus is called--a god( small g) not God like in trinity translation error at John 1:1---means has godlike qualities---Why? Because Gods power went through Jesus--Acts 2:22)--he does not get worship( another trinity translation error) --the Messiah, Gods appointed king receives obeisance.
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John are all in 100% agreement--Jesus has a God just like we do--his Father=Jehovah John 20:17,Rev 3:12---2Cor 1:3,1Cor 8:6,1 cor 15:24-28---1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6--- either these 4 are in error or trinity teachers are in error--we all must choose who we believe.

outhouse · Jul 23, 2014

kjw47 said:
Jesus is called--a god( small g) not God like in trinity translation error at John 1:1---means has godlike qualities---Why? Because Gods power went through Jesus--Acts 2:22)--he does not get worship( another trinity translation error) --the Messiah, Gods appointed king receives obeisance.
Jesus, Paul, Peter, John are all in 100% agreement--Jesus has a God just like we do--his Father=Jehovah John 20:17,Rev 3:12---2Cor 1:3,1Cor 8:6,1 cor 15:24-28---1Peter 1:3---Rev 1:6--- either these 4 are in error or trinity teachers are in error--we all must choose who we believe.

Did you know more people worship Mary then Jesus according to poles done???

Mary was up at the top while jesus was like #6 or 7

The bishops voted and decided that jesus was the same substance as god, being one and the same. Not sure where that leaves your opinion.

Windwalker · Jul 23, 2014

outhouse said:
No he did not. Your statement is one from ignorance on the topic.

A Hellenistic Johannine community wrote it, over a long period of time, in at least 3 parts.

A new school of thought is that some of the early parts may carry more historicity then previously thought. It does not make it accurate though, just leaves open the possibility.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good god, kid. I know all this stuff. You really should learn how to read posts. I was being facetious. It's like when one person said to me once that Paul was a made up person. My response was similar to this. "Well, whoever that what who called himself Paul that wrote Paul's letters, doesn't really matter. We call him Paul, so he is the Paul we know.

I have asked you to stop following me around on this site and responded to any of my posts. Yet you persist. Now stop it, or I will report you to the moderation team.

outhouse · Jul 23, 2014

Windwalker said:
I will report you to the moderation team.

Go right ahead.

I was more on topic then you kid. And kid, you still made errors that needed correcting.

I was being facetious.

Not on all counts.

blueman · Jul 23, 2014

disciple said:
Is Jesus 'just a man' in your opinion, or was He as He walked among us part God?

This topic was raised in another thread, so I want to get various perspectives.

Christians only, or if you're not Christian, state as such to avoid confusion.

Jesus was the manifestation of God in the flesh. He is God is all aspects of deity and eternity. He had a purpose on earth (redemption of mankind) and to show us how to be obedient to God. This was manifested through the following:

(1) His authoritative Word
(2) His miracles
(3) His death (sacrifice)
(4) His resurrection

firedragon · Jul 24, 2014

Alright. If you say John used Philos concept, which he might have, thats alright with me.

Windwalker said:
Well, that's ridiculous. John never wrote John? Who did then, Bob?

It was you said that Jesus died 70 years earlier. Now you ask if Bob wrote the book named John. According to your own statement, how old was John when he wrote it then?

And who is Bob? Another philosopher?

Yes, the "author" of John, let's just call him John for convenience sake since the book never says the name of the author anyway, borrowed from the other narrative Gospels. But it reflects a unique tradition of it's own, which sees Jesus as divine, as opposed to the other Gospels which cast him in different terms for their audiences. It is doubtful it was the actual Apostle John, just as it's doubtful Matthew and Mark are the actual authors either. None of this is relevant of course to our discussion. Early Christians wrote the Gospel of John, and it reflects that author's view of Jesus. He viewed Jesus as Divine, and used Philo's Logos as a way to start the conversation to talk about who he saw Jesus as.

Of course. The concept of Jesus evolved through time.

You cannot force fit your interpretation into the first chapter of John. It doesn't work. If you start with Philo's Logos and take off from there, it slides in like a hand in glove. Context man, context.

You are probably right and scholars do agree to a certain extent for sure. But for me, if the Gospels were written by someone who inherited knowledge from those who walked with Jesus, they should not use old doctrines uttered by philosophers. Rather, stick to what Jesus taught. Thats just my position.

I know that, but that's the only place I know of where any scholars of Greek would come close to agreeing with your translating of Greek. Again, where are they any legitimate Greek scholars that back up your way of translating the Greek? Cite them for me, please.

P.D Murray. Bart Erhman. C. Cook. Prof Litchfield. They are not quoted by someone else. I quote them. But I am no Greek Scholar so I could be erroneous.

This is not how you translate a language. It takes a lot more than just saying it was used this way here, so if it means X here, it means X everywhere. It's the context, internally and externally. You can't exclude the audience. You can't exclude the culture. But you are.

Yes, we use the same words lots of ways too. So do you believe these scholars are just abandoning their scholarship when it comes to John 1:1, like scientists abandon their science when it comes to Evolution, or something? And not all scholars with state, "This refers to the 2nd person of the Trinity", but if they do, it's not a translation but a religious commentary. Don't mistake doing that, with doing bad translation.

Alright. I shall not delve on this too long. But dont just shrug off people. You dont know them ).

Peace bro.

Mycroft · Jul 24, 2014

blueman said:
Jesus was the manifestation of God in the flesh. He is God is all aspects of deity and eternity. He had a purpose on earth (redemption of mankind) and to show us how to be obedient to God. This was manifested through the following:

(1) His authoritative Word
(2) His miracles
(3) His death (sacrifice)
(4) His resurrection

Prove it.

Was Jesus "just a man" in your opinion

Atheistically

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Atheistically

Coincidentia oppositorum

Atheistically

Veteran Member

Atheistically

Well-Known Member

Atheistically

Veteran Member

Atheistically

God's Warrior

Veteran Member

Ministry of Serendipity