• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus is God.

A

anonymous9887

bible reader
syncretic said:
We should note that there are different versions of the Bible. This 'matters', because, as I brought up earlier, the Deific titles are subjectively differentiated in certain Bibles, as opposed to being actually or traditionally differentiated /in many instances
Click to expand...
This is not a problem for me (although it does take some research)
1. The majority text I rule out because the manuscripts are of later dates.
2. the Papyri fragments and manuscripts are the oldest and closest to the originals, so what ever those fragments contain is final authority.
3. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus ar also very old complete manuscripts of the new testament ( so these are definitely final authority for me.
4. So a critical text that includes the papyri, sinaiticus, Vaticanus would be my final authority.
5. I would use the translations based on the oldest manuscripts.
6. the translations though are not my final authority, I use the greek text analysis of bible hub to see the original greek and its meaning.

bottom line, its a process but you can rationally accept it if you study it enough.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
syncretic said:
We should note that there are different versions of the Bible. This 'matters', because, as I brought up earlier, the Deific titles are subjectively differentiated in certain Bibles, as opposed to, not being actually or traditionally differentiated /in many instances
Click to expand...
I also forgot a slightly Later manuscript that Erasmus used to compile the received text which is the Alexandrunis manuscript
 
U

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Paul Chavez said:
not exactly.
The bible says there is one savior
but yet the bible says there are other saviors
These men are saviors, but not in the same sense as god is savior
Father, God, Savior are used in a different senses throughout scripture, but many people dont see that.
For example you can say a person is strong and you can say god is strong, but obviously they are in a different sense. that is my point. Just to clarify the gods mentioned in the OT claimed some type of equality with god, like if they were the same as Yahweh.
John 10:33-35 is an example Jesus uses of what I am talking about.
Again the different senses thing is not my only argument. My argument that god knows all things (1 John 3:20) and Matthew 24:36 is sufficient enough to prove that the holy spirit (if its a person) and Jesus do not know all things like the father does. The father is the one identified as the true god and the only one in the scriptures as eternal, all knowing, and all powerful all at once.
Click to expand...

Right, Jesus does Not know the day or the hour - Matthew 24:36 - for the great tribulation of Revelation 7:14

God's spirit - Psalms 104:30 - is Not a person according to Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25 but a neuter " it ".
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
syncretic said:
I think that there are too many other contradictions in the Bible, /that contradict that idea, to rationalize that idea. Yes, the idea can be rationalized, however, it does not match various other verses, /not to mention traditional Xian teaching.
Click to expand...
ok so here is where I go:
1. by what passages are you basing your claim
2. Have you tried to see the alternative interpretations of scripture to harmonize them?
3. Before taking this position have you done rigorous research?
4. have you gone there before " as in have you tried to answer those problematic questions?"
5. There are plenty of passages in the scriptures that have certain accurate claims in regards to the earth, universe, and so on. I cant dismiss the entire bible that is for sure. But what I asked another person on the forum was, ok if you dont accept it what criteria are you using to know what is true and what isnt? If you dismiss something you need valid strong reasons to do so.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
syncretic said:
Ok
I didn't state that the Bible is false. I usually won't use it in arguments, however, unless it's contextual/Scriptural

I tend to base claims on tradition/ logic, so forth. I use verses usually in contextual arguments, however there are some
ex.
Genesis 1:26 /plurality in singular Godhood
Hebrews 1:5-10 /again plurality in description/Godhood. These verses are very problematic for non-Deific Jesus churches


Yes, actually, that is pretty much how I 'read' the Bible. I don't read the Bible, in a 'church', sense, more academic etc

Sure, some research. The conclusions from research are also subjective, however; we can research the exact same subject, and reach different 'answers'

Yes, it's generally how I approach most /religious subjects, actually.

This is a fair point. I don't think we can necessarily know exactly what all verses in the Bible, are intentional of meaning. We make guesses at some, but even so, we have to have some sort of basis for our religious beliefs, in the first place. Even though the Bible is divine/ the divine chapters so forth, it isn't the theism itself. The bible is a tool, not an idol. The Bible 'parallels' my beliefs, yet it does not directly inform theology aside from an descriptive or literary, and 'religious ' sense. We don't call this religious sense, the actual basis of the 'theology/theism. And this is not unique, Judaism for example utilizes this concept in various ways. We can say that the 'theology' predates the Scripture, to simplify that concept.
Click to expand...
ok because I take the bible as a whole, we have a nice picture of what is going on in Genesis 1:26.

1. Yes I have come across that passage, but that does not necessitate that the answer is none of the angels. the answer could be pointing to The messenger of the YHWH. What I take from hebrews is that he is highlighting the messenger of the YHWH which is Jesus. He did not make it clear that not a single angel was chosen.
2. My take in Genesis is that YHWH is directing Jesus
3. So I am making a choice based on hebrews not being explicit enough. But I make a decision on Jesus not being god based on Jesus and the holy spirit not knowing the day or the hour and Jesus referring (even in heaven) to the father as his god Revelation 3:12. a couple other passages Ephesians 1:17, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Revelation 1:1 a revelation god gave Jesus. John 14:28, John 20:17, Luke 18:18, John 5:30
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
syncretic said:
Ok
I didn't state that the Bible is false. I usually won't use it in arguments, however, unless it's contextual/Scriptural

I tend to base claims on tradition/ logic, so forth. I use verses usually in contextual arguments, however there are some
ex.
Genesis 1:26 /plurality in singular Godhood
Hebrews 1:5-10 /again plurality in description/Godhood. These verses are very problematic for non-Deific Jesus churches


Yes, actually, that is pretty much how I 'read' the Bible. I don't read the Bible, in a 'church', sense, more academic etc

Sure, some research. The conclusions from research are also subjective, however; we can research the exact same subject, and reach different 'answers'

Yes, it's generally how I approach most /religious subjects, actually.

This is a fair point. I don't think we can necessarily know exactly what all verses in the Bible, are intentional of meaning. We make guesses at some, but even so, we have to have some sort of basis for our religious beliefs, in the first place. Even though the Bible is divine/ the divine chapters so forth, it isn't the theism itself. The bible is a tool, not an idol. The Bible 'parallels' my beliefs, yet it does not directly inform theology aside from an descriptive or literary, and 'religious ' sense. We don't call this religious sense, the actual basis of the 'theology/theism. And this is not unique, Judaism for example utilizes this concept in various ways. We can say that the 'theology' predates the Scripture, to simplify that concept.
Click to expand...
Consider the following:
1. What does it mean for Jesus to be "the son of God"?
2. Angels are called sons of god
3. Consider Psalm 8:5 in hebrew text analysis. Are angels called elohim?
4. Because Hebrews says but about "the son". Does the term the son signify anything? It does, Jesus is gods special messenger.
5. If Jesus is not the angel in the burning bush who wrestled with Jacob? Who was that special angel of the 3 who spoke to Abraham? Who was that in Joshua that Joshua prostrates to? And yet no one has seen god at any time?
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
JakofHearts said:
Isaiah 7:14
Messiah would be born of a virgin.

Isaiah 9:7
Messiah would be heir to King David's throne.

Isaiah 40:3-5
A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah

Isaiah 53:3
Messiah would be rejected by his own people.

Isaiah 11:1
Messiah would be called a Nazarene.

Isaiah 9:1-2
Messiah would bring light to Galilee.

Isaiah 61:1-2
Messiah would be sent to heal the brokenhearted.

Isaiah 53:7
Messiah would be silent before his accusers.

Isaiah 50:6
Messiah would be spat upon and struck.

Isaiah 53:12
Messiah would be crucified with criminals.

Isaiah 53:9
Messiah would be buried with the rich.

Isaiah 53:5-12
Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin.

When you read Isaiah 53 specifically you'll quickly notice who Isaiah was referring to. Read this to any non-believer and ask them who this was talking about, and more often than not they will say Jesus. Quite a remarkable chapter that gives us an insight into the passion of the Christ.
The book of Isaiah was dated to be written between 800-681 BC, and these are just the prophecies about Jesus in Isaiah.
Click to expand...
But again note that Jesus is never at all mentioned in Isaiah, plus the passages above rely on your interpretation. For example, "Jerome's Bible Commentary", a Christian source, admits that Isaiah isn't about Jesus but sets up a paradigm that they feel at the least does open the door for a figure like the Suffering Servant to eventually emerge. Even the scholar Thomas Aquinas believed that one could not attribute anything in the Tanakh to directly refer to Jesus if they interpreted the verses literally.

Also, let me just mention that if it was clear at all that Jesus fulfilled all messianic prophecies, Jesus would have had an overwhelming Jewish following, especially since the community was in such dire straits that such a figure would be extremely welcome. What prevented that was differing interpretations plus that Jesus they believe did not fulfill the more political aspects of messianic interpretations.

OTOH, I don't have a problem if you and others have such interpretations as you do, but it is and has been certainly open to disagreement, and that's my main thrust here.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
URAVIP2ME said:
The person who would be named Jesus in the first century is Not named by Isaiah, but what he wrote corresponds to the person named Jesus. What Isaiah wrote in chapter 53 scholars apply to Jesus.
John at Revelation 19:14-16 mentions Jesus' executional words and so does Isaiah 11:3-4 mention executional words
Click to expand...
Only by interpretation. See my previous post.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
metis said:
Only by interpretation. See my previous post.
Click to expand...
Another question to see where you stand "Do you believe the tanakh or the Torah is inspired of god?"
1. Step 1we have to prove its inspiration from god if you don't believe it.
2. Step 2 once it's proven inspired then we can see if Israel is waiting for the Messiah.
3. Step 3 if israel is waiting or was expecting the Messiah we have to look at the prophecies of the Messiah and decide wether he is or not.
4. Step 4 even if you do not believe he is the Messiah you can examine the prophecies and words he spoke to see if they lack inspiration of god.

5. This criteria would(or should) be used for anyone who claims to be the messiah
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Paul Chavez said:
Another question to see where you stand "Do you believe the tanakh or the Torah is inspired of god?"
1. Step 1we have to prove its inspiration from god if you don't believe it.
2. Step 2 once it's proven inspired then we can see if Israel is waiting for the Messiah.
3. Step 3 if israel is waiting or was expecting the Messiah we have to look at the prophecies of the Messiah and decide wether he is or not.
4. Step 4 even if you do not believe he is the Messiah you can examine the prophecies and words he spoke to see if they lack inspiration of god.

5. This criteria would(or should) be used for anyone who claims to be the messiah
Click to expand...
I prefer this instead:
1.Which are the actual "messianic prophecies", and can we be certain that this is actually what they're referring to?
2. Did "X", through his/her actions, fulfill all the messianic prophecies?
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
metis said:
But again note that Jesus is never at all mentioned in Isaiah, plus the passages above rely on your interpretation. For example, "Jerome's Bible Commentary", a Christian source, admits that Isaiah isn't about Jesus but sets up a paradigm that they feel at the least does open the door for a figure like the Suffering Servant to eventually emerge. Even the scholar Thomas Aquinas believed that one could not attribute anything in the Tanakh to directly refer to Jesus if they interpreted the verses literally.

Also, let me just mention that if it was clear at all that Jesus fulfilled all messianic prophecies, Jesus would have had an overwhelming Jewish following, especially since the community was in such dire straits that such a figure would be extremely welcome. What prevented that was differing interpretations plus that Jesus they believe did not fulfill the more political aspects of messianic interpretations.

OTOH, I don't have a problem if you and others have such interpretations as you do, but it is and has been certainly open to disagreement, and that's my main thrust here.
Click to expand...
Now the problem with the literal interpretation of man is that it is their own interpretation, god is the revealer of secrets according to the tanakh.

Now again we have to look again to the messianic prophecies and make a choice. The tanakh says that the Messiah would be rejected and killed, yes they were expecting a deliverer, but they didn't fully grasp the scriptures either. So when the Messiah came he would have to be killed. But he would also fulfill the remaining prophecies.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
metis said:
I prefer this instead:
1.Which are the actual "messianic prophecies", and can we be certain that this is actually what they're referring to?
2. Did "X", through his/her actions, fulfill all the messianic prophecies?
Click to expand...
Is the tanakh inspired in your opinion yes or no?
How about Zechariah 12:10
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Paul Chavez said:
Is the tanakh inspired in your opinion yes or no?
How about Zechariah 12:10
Click to expand...
I don't know, plus the concept of "divine inspiration" is not monolithic amongst theologians.

[btw, see my signature statement at the bottom of my posts in order to get my overall "drift"]
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
metis said:
I don't know, plus the concept of "divine inspiration" is not monolithic amongst theologians.

[btw, see my signature statement at the bottom of my posts in order to get my overall "drift"]
Click to expand...
yes but the point is the scriptures are either fact or fiction, it cant be both, so i believe the discussion we are having is to further the evidence of true Christianity. Well thats what im trying to do, which is defend.
 
A

anonymous9887

bible reader
metis said:
I don't know, plus the concept of "divine inspiration" is not monolithic amongst theologians.

[btw, see my signature statement at the bottom of my posts in order to get my overall "drift"]
Click to expand...
Not to mention if it is not inspired then their is no point in looking at the prophecies, since it is not true. We are wasting our time. If a man inspired the words, the prophecies won't come true.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Paul Chavez said:
yes but the point is the scriptures are either fact or fiction, it cant be both, so i believe the discussion we are having is to further the evidence of true Christianity. Well thats what im trying to do, which is defend.
Click to expand...
It need not be an either/or dichotomy. I have no doubt that there are truths found within the scriptures but also falsehoods and half-truths.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Paul Chavez said:
Not to mention if it is not inspired then their is no point in looking at the prophecies, since it is not true. We are wasting our time. If a man inspired the words, the prophecies won't come true.
Click to expand...
That only "works" if the interpretation of the supposed prophecies are correct, plus whether the subject in these supposed prophecies actually referred to a messianic leader or maybe someone else.

Like with real estate where it's location-location-location, with scriptural analysis it's interpretation-interpretation-interpretation. I assume you've been involved in biblical discussions, so how many times have you seen two or more people disagreeing on how a particular verse or narrative should be rendered?

Also, let me just ask to which extent do you believe that the scriptures were "divinely inspired", plus why do you take that position versus another? For example, is every word 100% accurate? or is it just the narratives? or is it some of the narratives? or is it that the only divine inspiration was that the authors were encouraged to write about what they believed? or...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top