1. 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!

Featured If Jesus is God why doesn't the Bible say so?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by SethZaddik, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. SethZaddik

    SethZaddik Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    687
    Ratings:
    +101
    Religion:
    Muslim Islamic Sufism
    That makes sense. Jesus p was authorized (key word) to speak what God said and would say.

    Like all Prophets, difference is he was created by the Word literally, of God.
     
  2. lostwanderingsoul

    lostwanderingsoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,445
    Ratings:
    +764
    Religion:
    seeking
    If yu can decide what words mean then you can make them mean anything you want.
     
  3. SethZaddik

    SethZaddik Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    687
    Ratings:
    +101
    Religion:
    Muslim Islamic Sufism
    If you know what they mean you can tell people too.

    What's your point?

    I didn't decide what Koine Greek words mean, Greeks did (I imagine) and they are translatable.

    My point is that the word ton theon is used for God but less honorific theos(which means divine) to the Word.

    What is with you and sophistry and denial of facts?

    Seems like you just refuse to accept what you learned. Not wise.
     
  4. SethZaddik

    SethZaddik Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    687
    Ratings:
    +101
    Religion:
    Muslim Islamic Sufism
    If I decided what words meant this would be a relevant statement (maybe).

    Who are you accusing of making words mean anything they want? The Catholic Church who mistranslated on purpose (obviously) John 1?

    Because I assure you those definitions are real. I certainly didn't make it up if you are accusing me of lying.
     
  5. RESOLUTION

    RESOLUTION Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    674
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    I am what I am
    I have told you that Jesus was not God he was the Son of God.
    No matter how you try to deny it, I told you from the beginning. ]
    Also he is the Son of God and his words were from God himself as all who speak Gods words by the power of the Holy Spirit.
    Deuteronomy 18 shows that the Messiah will come from Isaac descendants as Moses did. It also shows that God himself will put his words in his mouth.
    It shows that YOU and everyone no matter who they are have to obey the words of Christ.

    The Christian theology is the JEWISH theology the Gentiles included in the last covenant and confirmed in the Jewish Bible and Gods teachings of the Prophets.

    The Koran like it's author Mahomet are not mentioned anywhere in the bible. Not the Jewish and not the NT part of the bible.

    Even when Christ returns and before you have to live with the truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the ONLY Messiah is come from Isaac and Jacob through Abraham and Sarah.,
    Now the above truth of God is in the bible but none of your beliefs or the things you hold dear will ever come from the bible.
     
  6. RESOLUTION

    RESOLUTION Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    674
    Ratings:
    +104
    Religion:
    I am what I am
    Wasn't an issue... the bible says God himself put his own words in Christs mouth.

    And that Jesus p himself denied it.

    Anyone can SAY anything about anything.[/QUOTE]

    But! I already told you that God did not come down in flesh, Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
    Are you incapable of understanding that?
    You proved NOTHING,. the disciples did.
    It is a sign of dishonesty to move the goal post and make it about SOMETHING NOT BEING DISCUSSED.
    I am not Roman Catholic I am Jewish descent. As I have said the ONLY scripture, Christ and the disciples referred to was the OT.

    I have proved you haven't any arguments based on scriptures and that you have been trying to preach to the converted over Christ coming in the flesh and not God.

    The disciple John was a great teacher of truth on the subject you keep trying to push forward because your own beliefs are based on far less when it comes to the bible.
    It isn't mentioned in the bible, No PROPHET from Ishmael and not another scripture. In truth the NT is closer to the OT and the Koran has no basis in either.

    I have shown that the Messiah Jesus Christ was born of the line of Isaac the only Son of Abraham whom God made a covenant with.
    What more is there? God never changed his mind about that and every action and the people whom he guided were from Isaacs line from Abraham.

    Do you not find it strange that you who have nothing to reflect your beliefs in the OT are strangely trying to attack the faith of people based in the NT who have more truth than failures?

    If we take the word of God and measure the NT and the Koran against the OT. The Koran has 0 POINTS in it's favour but the NT has many points in it's favour.

    Christ came in the flesh..., King James Bible
    Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    Now we know Christ came in the flesh and all who are in Christ and born of the Spirit are all made one body in that Spirit.
    As you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God it is irrelevant what you do believe because according to the bible you have been judged.

    Deuteronomy 18:
    18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

    19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

    Black and white from the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob comes the Messiah and God putting the words into his mouth.

    We can debate all day but we have to debate with truth not made up stories and false beliefs which have nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism.
    So as I said I know and the disciples knew Christ came in the flesh. But those who do as Christ did, worship one God YHWH and there none other and no other scriptures.
    So when debating we have to use what is accepted as the truth.
     
  7. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,014
    Ratings:
    +889
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe it does say so.
     
  8. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,014
    Ratings:
    +889
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe the Jesus as wisdom theory is baloney. It has no substance to it at all.
     
  9. Muffled

    Muffled Jesus in me

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,014
    Ratings:
    +889
    Religion:
    Christian
    I believe your interpretation is bogus
     
  10. Servant_of_the_One1

    Servant_of_the_One1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    2,510
    Ratings:
    +705
    Religion:
    Islam
    Those who ascribe divinity to Jesus are biggest disbelievers in his message.
     
  11. URAVIP2ME

    URAVIP2ME Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    11,785
    Ratings:
    +1,576
    To me, Jesus is divine because the pre-human Jesus came from heaven when God sent Jesus from heaven to earth.
    However, Jesus is Not God, but still thinks he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12.
    And as gospel writer John wrote about Jesus at Revelation 1:5 that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God according to Revelation 3:14 b. Only God had No beginning according to Psalms 90:2. So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
     
  12. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,784
    Ratings:
    +250
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi SethZaddik :

    I wanted to first agree with your basic point you made in post #62 regarding translation as a tool of deception. While I agree with this base point, I do not think all scholars/translators consciously attempt deception, rather many of their errors of translation originate with their own pre-conceptions and this taints their translation and causes errors. (I also agree that many translators DO make conscious errors)

    I also like your example of John 1:1 since it is a simple example that has been a point of argument for hundreds of years. I also agree with you that the lack of the article should be translated “…and the Word was a GodIF one does not carry any contextual baggage into the translation. However, ALL of us have "contextual baggage" which affects our personal translation and assignment of meaning.

    IF one translator believes Jesus is "THE" God, and another translator believes Jesus is “A” God and a third translator believe Jesus is merely “DIVINE” but not “a God”, then all three of these translators may translate this simple, phrase differently while all believing they are rendering correct meaning.

    Lastly, though I do not want to enter the debate on any side, I simply wanted to point out a very discrete error in your description of word meaning as an example of this type of translational error.

    In post #104 you mentioned : “I just wanted to point out it is ton theon, not ton theoS, that is a spelling error. Everything else is exactly the same as before, it is ton theon for "God" and theos ( much less honorific) for the Word(Logos) which was "theos" or "divine"(or A lesser god than ton theon aka God). (emphasis is mine)

    This is incorrect.

    Θεος (theos) θεον (theon) θεου θεοι θεους θεοις θεων ALL refer to the noun “God” in either singular or plural form. These are simply different cases (nominative, Accusative, Genitive, etc.)

    θεος is NOT “much less honorific” than θεον since they are EXACTLY the same noun (merely a different case). Also, θεοσ is NOT the word for “divine”. "Divine" is an ADJECTIVE and will appear in the form of a greek ADJECTIVE (e.g. "θεικοσ", etc), while θεος is a NOUN and is not an adjective for “divine”.


    My point is NOT to disagree or to agree with any other points you are making, but to point out this specific translational error while using it as an example of how translators (yourself in this case) sometimes offer incorrect information, NOT because they are trying to deceive, but because their own biases affect their translation. And, we all have biases.


    SethZaddik, I am NOT trying to comment on whether any other premise you made is correct or not, (I also believe early Judeo-Christian worldviews and interpretations do not portray Jesus as his own Father...) but am only commenting on the point made in post # 104. I hope your spiritual journey in this life is good.


    Clear
    εισεδρτζω

    P.S. Seth, I attempted to PM you regarding some early Judeo-Christian-Islamic cross-roads textual traditions I thought you might be interested in, but could not. Is there a block on receiving PMs? See you Seth
     
    #172 Clear, Apr 16, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
  13. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,784
    Ratings:
    +250
    Religion:
    Christian
    I said that I did not want to enter the discussion other than to make the point regarding a prior mistranslation. However, I almost can’t help but make another point. Though the OP refers to the lack of reference to Jesus being a God, and in context of the recent use of John 1:1, I should point out that John 1:18 in greekN 4 (a critical NA-27) reads :


    Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.
    (Greek GN-4)

    No one has seen God ever, [the] only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the father, he [explained/related/declared] him. (eng)

    Also, the greek reading is a category “B” in GN-4. This means that this text of “only begotten God” is almost certainly the most original reading of all greek texts as opposed to the later text reading “only begotten son” according to the Nestle-Alland textual critics.


    Only Begotten God” is the reading of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, L syr, geor, Origen, Didymus Cyril, etc. “THE only begotten God” is the reading of P75, Sianaticus (2), 33, cop(bo) Clement (2/3) Clement (from Theodotus), Origen (gr 2/4), Eusebius (3/7) Basil (1/2) Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Serapion (1/2) and Cyril (2/4). It is typically the later and less important codices that read μονογενες Υιος (“only begotten” or Unique son”).

    If the greek biblical texts are correct, one can certainly surmise that the writer was referring to a begotten God who was in the bosom of the Father, especially since I do not think any early Christian worldviews thought that God the Father was Begotten (but only the son falls into this category).

    I will leave the thread participants to discuss what that might mean to their various theological models.

    I wish you all well.

    Clear
    εισιτζφιω

    I added a picture of the phrase we are discussing from Codex Sinaiticus below. It is simply a cut and paste of the phrase from their web site. The second line clearly says ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΕΣ ΘΣ (with a line above the symbol for Theos. It was later Christianity that did not know what to do with this early teaching and thus, in later translations, "only begotten SON" became the more popular version.


    [​IMG]
     
    #173 Clear, Apr 17, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2017
  14. MJFlores

    MJFlores Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,875
    Ratings:
    +251
    Religion:
    Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ)
    I think the bible should answer that:

    1 Corinthians 8:5-6
    New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

    Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

    Acts 2:36
    New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

    Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,808
    Ratings:
    +2,755
    Religion:
    Christian
    That's a good question.

    "Elohim," as a plural noun, can also denote 'excellence to a superlative degree.' Note Judges 16:23, where the Philistines were calling their god Dagon, "Elohim". He wasn't a multiple god; they just thought that Dagon was the best.

    Further evidence that "Elohim" doesn't always refer to multiple gods, is the fact that, many times, a singular verb follows its use (always when used in reference to an action of the God of Israel, Yahweh). These facts are usually overlooked (ignored?) by the 'Jesus is God' crowd.

    Best wishes.
     
  16. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    4,808
    Ratings:
    +2,755
    Religion:
    Christian
    @lostwanderingsoul, are you aware that Koine Greek had no indefinite articles = a, an? There was no phrase like "an elephant", or "a god." So, what they had to do, if there were two elephants in the sentence... put the definite article -- "THE" -- in front of one, and leave the other without. Same syntax here. There is no "the god was the word"; only "god was the word."
    Big difference! Plus, the anarthrous predicate noun comes before the subject, indicating a quality the subject has.

    In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” Harner suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) [Italics are mine.] Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. It's interesting that translators which insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

    Acclaimed Roman Catholic priest and scholar John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his 'Dictionary of the Bible', says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

    That's why these versions render John 1:1 these particular ways --

    AT: “the Word was divine”;
    Mo, “the Logos was divine”;
    NTIV, “the word was a god.”
    In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.”
     
    #176 Hockeycowboy, Apr 24, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  17. Evie

    Evie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +25
    Religion:
    BaHai
    The word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Evie

    Evie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +25
    Religion:
    BaHai
    Very well put.
     
  19. Evie

    Evie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +25
    Religion:
    BaHai
    could it be that Jesus was born with a 'virginal mind'? did not have the mind of original man via inheritance like all of humanity down through the generations. the first man succumbed to seductive suggestion causing an action against the command of God. Jesus did not succumb to 'seductive suggestions' such as turning the stones to bread when He was hungry in the wilderness. His mind remained in a 'virginal state'.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  20. Evie

    Evie Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    582
    Ratings:
    +25
    Religion:
    BaHai
    the word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. In God's Written Word. where did it come from? the Church.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...