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!

Is Jesus God?

Discussion in 'Scriptural Debates' started by Orbit, Feb 7, 2015.

  1. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,487
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    Jesus was "first-born from the dead," in that he was the first one resurrected to spirit life.

    All the other prior resurrections, people were brought back to human life.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,093
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thanks Hockeycowbowy. I can see how this would appear to be a reasonable conclusion if one actually believes people are raised as spirit creatures.

    However it still sounds more like a haunting than a resurrection to me, and I can't help think of the pagan concept that spirits of deceased inhabited the areas of their demise...especially when they died violently.

    Also, it makes me wonder why Jesus would bother to move the stone seal from the entrance to his tomb, and what he did with his body afterwards. It seems to me that if he arose a spirit creature his body would stay exactly where it was.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. james2ko

    james2ko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,024
    Ratings:
    +182
    Religion:
    Christian
    1. I don't see where I attempted to show eternal and everlasting were interchangeable using synonyms. You were the one illogically proposing they were equivalent, but not similar. I went on to demonstrate in point 1 how equivalent is a synonym of similar source. You get your facts confused more often than not. Case in point--- discussing Rev 3:14 on another thread, in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong, you erroneously quoted Daniel Wallace's objective genitive definition, when we were discussing the subjective genitive. see point 8 here

    2. I dug up post 1757 to prove how you have a knack for creating false arguments. I don't have time to dig for more posts. Next time please post a link to the actual post(s).

    3. No. Actually one scriptural example should be suffice.

    4. Imposing theoretical, standard English definitions on a Greek word will eventually lead to doctrinal confusion. That is precisely what you are doing.

    5. Neither does it mean that we redefine the source (Greek or Hebrew) language's definition by creating a doctrinal position based on the target (English) language's definition, which is what you are doing.

    6. We need to define words in their source language's context before assigning a target language definition. If an accurate target definition cannot be found, I believe it should be left untranslated. This will encourage more diligent study. But the majority of the time, the closest target language term is inserted, which can and has led to doctrinal confusion. Case in point--there are three different Greek terms translated "hell" (tartaroo, hades, gehenna) even though the three Greek terms have totally different meanings.

    7. Sorry but I don't have the time to dig and find all of your posts. Nevertheless, it really doesn't matter which biblical source language you choose, neither one of these two English terms correctly define the source language definition from which they were translated.

    8. But those English words are used to translate a Greek term that is missing the "forever in the past" connotation . That connotation was contrived and assigned to the English terms by philosophers and scholars.
    9. You posted a theologian/philosopher's definition of eternal and everlasting. And now you are denying it?

    10. The English definition of everlasting and eternal do not correctly reflect the Greek or Hebrew term's definition. Hence the English terms are theoretical representations of the Greek term

    11. The problem here is the two English words (everlasting, eternal) do not correctly reflect the Greek term's definition. Yet you insist the two words are distinctly accurate representations of the Greek term.

    12. No leap in logic here. The original contextual definition of the Greek and Hebrew term does not connote eternity in the past.

    13. The Greek term aionos has only one definition in Greek referring to time, which you are comparing to an English term (gay) with two definitions. You're comparing apples to oranges.

    14. The problem is not the origin. It is their inexact representation of their corresponding Greek and Hebrew terms

    15. And I demonstrated how "similar and equivalent" are synonyms. Thus the unanswered question remains: "If you agree that we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use of the original language and not the English, why do you insist on inserting a theoretical definition of two English words, derived from Latin, into the Greek text??

    16. Not sure how you come up to that bizarre conclusion, when I've been claiming all along the Greek term does not accurately depict the two English terms.Your logic would suggest the bible was originally written in English.[/quote]
     
  4. J_Quriashy

    J_Quriashy New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2016
    Messages:
    10
    Ratings:
    +2
    Religion:
    Islam
    Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it.


    As we all know, God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. james2ko

    james2ko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,024
    Ratings:
    +182
    Religion:
    Christian
    Angels are created spirit creatures (Heb 1:14), yet they can also appear as a fleshly human (Gen 19:15-16). Why couldn't a resurrected Jesus have the same form?
     
    #1985 james2ko, May 22, 2016
    Last edited: May 22, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Jabar

    Jabar “Strive always to excel in virtue and truth.”

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2016
    Messages:
    1,610
    Ratings:
    +140
    Religion:
    Islam أَسْلَمُوا
    True.

    :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Jonathan Ainsley Bain

    Jonathan Ainsley Bain Logical Positivist

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,311
    Ratings:
    +253
    Religion:
    Mystic Christian
    At which point in the genealogy do you think the fabrication was made?
    Note that the genealogy is recorded very clearly from Adam through Solomon, and Jesus right up to Heile Selassie.
     
  8. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,487
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    You're welcome, Oeste!

    And you're right, those are Pagan ideas.....hence, not truth.

    As the Bible says, the dead "are conscious of nothing at all", or as versions say, the dead are "aware of nothing." (Ecclesiastes 9:5; compare Psalms 146:3-4; Genesis 3:19) I mean, it really has to be this way: if the dead are alive somewhere else, then the term 'resurrection' isn't what it is, a standing back to life.

    Keep in mind, the body of Jesus had to be made to disappear, so those Jewish leaders couldn't present it as proof that he was dead. Resurrected as a spirit, as 1 Peter 3:18 states, allowed Him to appear and disappear as He did, even materializing in different bodies, where His own disciples didn't recognize him.

    Take care.
     
  9. Notaclue

    Notaclue Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    99
    Ratings:
    +7
    Religion:
    Christian


    Rev.5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
    6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts,(lives) and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

    The Lamb is of the four beasts(lives).


    What are your thoughts on the Lamb being of the four beasts?


    Peace.
     
  10. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,487
    Ratings:
    +3,147
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hey, notaclue, peace to you also, my friend!

    I believe the account is saying that the Lamb is "in the midst of" the four beasts, taking the context at what it says.

    Take care.
     
  11. Yoshua

    Yoshua Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,307
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    Hi Jabar,

    I did not see any connection about the tomb (as spacious), and Jonah in relation—to prove that Jesus was alive. Maybe, this has been your Islamic thinking about Jesus. I already showed to you the scriptures that proved Jesus was truly crucified, died and resurrected (alive again). We believed the Bible as the true accounts of Jesus. Any additional information like the one you are implying would lead to false biblical narratives. You may continue to ask questions, and answer my question to my recent post reply if you may.

    Thanks
     
  12. Yoshua

    Yoshua Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,307
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    Hi Moorea,

    Please see attached. May this bring you an understanding that there is heaven as eternal dwelling place.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-heaven.html

    Thanks
     
  13. moorea944

    moorea944 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,085
    Ratings:
    +250
    Sorry, but I thought your website was absolutely awful! And it contradicts God's plan and purpose with us and the earth. Your making the bible fit your beliefs.

    I totally agree with you on this one. We will have eternal life. Christ says that he will give us our rewards and promises "when he comes back".

    The bible knows nothing about afterlifes. Scripture tells us that you are dead until the resurrection. Show me a verse that says, when you die you go to heaven. Still waiting for that one....

    False doctrine right there. God did not become a man. God does not come down to our level!!! Scripture tells us that He had a son. "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" Does this sound like God changed into a man to you? No, God was using His son to reconcile the world unto Himself. Jesus was bringing back man to God.

    John says that no one has ever gone to heaven. YOU say that they do. Hebrews tells us that no one has gotten their promises yet. Jesus says in John 7, 8 and 13, when he's talking about heaven, that no one will ever follow him there.

    If we really did go to Heaven, the law of Moses would be written differently. Look at the book Leviticus where is talks about the High Priest going into the Most Holy place once a year, by himself, to make atonement for the children of Israel.

    Now look at Hebrews 9. It's an analogy between the two. Christ is now our High Priest who went into a better tabernacle made without hands, by himself.... IF, we do go to heaven, it would have said in Leviticus that the children of Israel followed the High Priest into the Most Holy place, but it doesnt. He goes into the tabernacle by "himself". Same with Jesus. by himself. We do not go to heaven when we die. We are dead until the resurrection.

    Plus, your saying that we are judged at death? Heaven or hell? Bible says that we will be judged at his coming. Big difference!!
     
  14. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,887
    Ratings:
    +711
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why not? God became a burning bush to appear to Moses....
     
  15. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,668
    Ratings:
    +5,546
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    God never "became" a burning bush. His voice was heard coming from such a bush. Big difference.
     
  16. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    29,668
    Ratings:
    +5,546
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    He could, I'm sure, but why would it make sense for Him to do so? Why would He have intentionally deceived people by telling them that He was not merely a spirit but had a body of flesh and bones?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. moorea944

    moorea944 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,085
    Ratings:
    +250
    Actually, He didnt. That was an angel in the bush that God was speaking through. God manifests Himself in angels. They speak for God and as if God was speaking. Same with the children of Israel. The cloud by day and fire by night. We know that an angel was in the cloud, yet the Lord looked out of the cloud. Same thing. God wasnt in the cloud, His angel was.
     
  18. Yoshua

    Yoshua Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2015
    Messages:
    1,307
    Ratings:
    +176
    Religion:
    Evangelical Christian
    Hi James,

    Exactly! The basis is still the truth that lies inside the word of God—the Bible. Therefore we have to check if the belief adheres to the true word of God.
    Can you summarize what is my interpretation that you think is incorrect?o_O
    So how come that you believed in the statement of an evangelical Trinitarian comments or message but not agree with his doctrinal beliefs?:rolleyes:

    Thanks
     
  19. james2ko

    james2ko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,024
    Ratings:
    +182
    Religion:
    Christian
    1. Your answer implicates the Christian religion as the true religion. But it does not address my question.--Why are there so many different Christian denominations claiming the full truth while utilizing the same Bible---word of God---yet having different doctrines?

    2. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Wallace's interpretation of Php 2:5-6 or not?

    3. You keep repeating your questions, even after I've giving you an answer. Seriously, are you ok?. I'll repeat my answer--for the same reason you do not believe every single thing that comes out of your teachers' mouths. And if you do believe everything that comes out of their mouth, you are not proving things to yourself, as the scriptures admonish.
     
  20. james2ko

    james2ko Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    3,024
    Ratings:
    +182
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why do you think a sinless Jesus was being deceptive at all? He instantly appeared to them in a room from thin air (Joh 20:19,26). A clear indication of his spirit form. He also appeared to them in the form of flesh and bone. The logical conclusion is he had the power to transform himself from spirit to flesh and bone and vice versa.
     
    #2000 james2ko, May 27, 2016
    Last edited: May 27, 2016
Loading...