The Bible declares that Jesus is God

[Oeste]

Excuse me? You said, and I quote:

"I've always considered it wise to get God's view on things and to listen to what He has to say."

Would it not be at least a teensy contradiction to say "I listen to He has to say" and at the same time "I don't believe there's something He has to say?"

You would have to elaborate on the contradiction you are seeing. I never stated “I don’t believe there’s something He has to say”. I stated I don’t believe there is such a thing as something God “has to say”. The two statements are not contradictory.

Obviously God had "something to say" because He chose to say it and not because He had to say it.

I don't believe the confusion is mine, in this case.

Likewise

I’m not sure what you mean by “revelation to very few”. Are you a Jehovah Witness or similar, who believes only a chosen few are allowed to understand what they read in the bible?

No, I mean quite literally what I have said: God's revelation came to very few individuals -- Abraham, Moses, some prophets, some Apostles -- all in all, not very many people at all. And they -- and they alone -- are supposed to have transcribed those revelations perfectly, so that everybody else could put their faith in what is supposed to have been revealed.

Then the revelation is not to the few, but to the many, for anyone who “has an ear to listen” or a heart receptive to God’s word has access to the revelation.

In other words, not everyone learning the theory of gravity has to first sit under a tree.

It is my view that if God can reveal his will to Moses, or Samuel, or Peter or Saul of Tarsus -- then He can as easily reveal it to every person on earth and save us all the grief that has come from imperfect transmission which we humans are truly famous for.

God didn’t separate from us, we separated ourselves from God. This is how we experienced grief, but it’s also a topic far from thread theme.

Let me just say this: I think your idea was tried already, but after awhile no one really wanted to hear anymore "revelations":

Now when all the people saw the thunder and the flashes of lightning and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking, the people were afraid and trembled, and they stood far off “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” Moses said to the people, “Do not fear, for God has come to test you, that the fear of him may be before you, that you may not sin.” Exodus 2-:18-20​

After all, there are some 38,000 Christians sects among the major Christian denominations, and they most assuredly do not all agree with one another. For God to have chosen this method of "getting the truth out" seems pretty dumb.

Jesus clearly states he is “the truth” (John 14:6). I see no reason to substitute him for a particular religion nor do I see any reason why all 38,000 denominations should not be “getting the truth" (Christ) "out into the world". This is part of our great commission and perhaps the single most important reason Christianity composes the largest single religious body in the world today.

The “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12: 12-27) is no more a single organism than you are, yet for some reason folks continuously argue it should be. That to me "seems pretty dumb".

And for a God, it would be monumentally stupid

Aaahh...we're finally back to thread theme!

Yes, I agree with you. If we believed in “a God” that would be "monumentally stupid".

So how does one apply your assertion to everyday life?

Let’s say I have a teacher, voted best teacher in the world by peers and students. This teacher want me to know a lesson plan important to her and me. Can I now "trust I know it already" simply because its important to both of us?

Sorry, false comparison. You are putting this "teacher" in the place of God, suggesting that rather than "teach" me, he could somehow mystically "reveal." That's how God is supposed to work, not teachers. Nothing further to say on that.

Sorry, it’s not a false but apt comparison. First I did not "put the teacher in place of God". I’m not really sure where you got that from except to avoid answering my question directly. Nor did I suggest that "rather than ‘teach’ you He could somehow mystically ‘reveal’. That was your response, not mine, as shown right here:

If there is a god (as I understand the term) and if that god wants me to know something important to both that god and me -- then I trust that I know it already.

Specifically, I asked you how one applies the same spiritual concept you applied to scripture to everyday life and we're still left hanging without answer as the only response appears to be equivocation.

Look, this is no "stumper" of a question EH, and I'm not trying to "trip you up". It's easily answerable, but I'd rather get your thoughtful opinion than throw out possible responses.

You now state “That's how God is supposed to work, not teachers”. Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? Can you cite a source? Is it because God has nothing to teach us that we are supposed to “know it already”? If so, can you cite other examples in everyday life where important things are already known without an appeal to special pleading?

Lastly, since this is how God works and not teachers, can you explain the following verses? :

O God, You have taught me from my youth, And I still declare Your wondrous deeds. (Psalm 71:17)

He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? (Psalm 94:10)

"You are to speak to him and put the words in his mouth; and I, even I, will be with your mouth and his mouth, and I will teach you what you are to do. (Exodus 4:15)​

How, in your opinion, does God work differently than teachers here, or vice versa?

 

[Oeste]

You are muddying word meanings again. "Looking to" and "looking at" do not mean at all the same thing in English.

I never claimed "looking to" and "looking at" were the same. I stated look and belief can mean the same. This is more equivocation where you again mis-restate my assertion.

Here's what you stated:

I'm sorry you can't see it, but there is a very clear difference between "looking" (in Numbers) and "believing" (in John).

And here's my response:

Why insert differences when for all practical purposes there are none?

She looks to John for answers.

She believes John has answers.

Can you explain the “very clear difference” between “look” and “believe” here?

The comparison is one between look and belief, and not "looking to" and "looking at".

Nor do "cure" (for snake bite) and "answers" (to questions) have anything like the same meaning.

More muddying.

This appears to be something new you've introduced that no one discussed or asserted previously. I may or may not agree that "cure" (for snake bite) and "answers" (to questions) have "anything like the same meaning", but since no one here has proffered such an assertion, I thing we should leave this for later until we clear your former assertions up.

I repeat again and again and again -- those people who diddle their way around the words used in order to make them mean something that they really do not seem to mean are not adding clarity -- their adding supposition and guesswork, which only leads to confusion.

Absolutely, I couldn't agree with you more, but there's no need to point at scriptural misstatements when we can so easily point to misstatements of many of my assertions here.

Can you quote the post where someone alleged that '"cure" (for snake bite) and "answers" (to questions)' have anything like the same meaning?

 

[Magus]

This feeble attempt of a response to (Titus 2:13 "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ") and Granville-Sharp's Rule is simply nonsensical. Try addressing the text and it's relevance to the Granville-Sharp's Rule.

I easily addressed the Book of Titus and it's contradiction to real Roman history, θεός' was Julius Caesar, thus υἱός θεός was Augustus Caesar in the historical Roman context, the earliest
usage of 'Gospel' ( Good News of Military Victories), as used in the Priene Inscription ( 9 BCE)

9BCE - the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him which Asia resolved in Smyrna.
( Smyrna , one of the Seven Churches of Caesar / Christ. )

 

[Rick B]

I easily addressed the Book of Titus and it's contradiction to real Roman history, θεός' was Julius Caesar, thus υἱός θεός was Augustus Caesar in the historical Roman context, the earliest
usage of 'Gospel' ( Good News of Military Victories), as used in the Priene Inscription ( 9 BCE)

9BCE - the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him which Asia resolved in Smyrna.
( Smyrna , one of the Seven Churches of Caesar / Christ. )

So it is your contention that when Paul was referring to the great God and Savior Jesus Christ he really meant the divine Julius. And this has what to do with the Granville-Sharp's Rule?

 

[Magus]

So it is your contention that when Paul was referring to the great God and Savior Jesus Christ he really meant the divine Julius. And this has what to do with the Granville-Sharp's Rule?

The Greek gods have there own names, like Zeus, he was rarely titled 'The God Zeus'.

Throughout the Greek speaking parts of the Roman Empire, 'θεός' is a translation of 'Divvs' referring to Julius Caesar , as shown on 1st century coinage and this is after his death

Ovid - Julius Caesar transformed to a Star
The years are ended which he owed to life on earth. You with his son, who now as heir to his estate must bear the burden of that government, will cause him, as a deity, to reach the heavens, and to be worshipped in the temples here.

god-like Julius may look down in future from his heavenly residence upon our Forum and our Capitol

This is where Christian θεόlogy came from.

 

[kjw47]

Let me recommend that you don't quit your day job because predictions like this have been going on for almost 2000 years.

The 7 headed beast of Rev 13 had to be in place--the world has watched this occur for years now.

 

[kjw47]

Yes! Yes! That's what trinitarians believe!

No they do not. They are being mislead.

 

[Rick B]

The Greek gods have there own names, like Zeus, he was rarely titled 'The God Zeus'.

Throughout the Greek speaking parts of the Roman Empire, 'θεός' is a translation of 'Divvs' referring to Julius Caesar , as shown on 1st century coinage and this is after his death

Ovid - Julius Caesar transformed to a Star
The years are ended which he owed to life on earth. You with his son, who now as heir to his estate must bear the burden of that government, will cause him, as a deity, to reach the heavens, and to be worshipped in the temples here.

god-like Julius may look down in future from his heavenly residence upon our Forum and our Capitol

This is where Christian θεόlogy came from.

Your conclusion that because the Greek Theos and the Latin DIVVS both mean God therefore Christianity came from the Roman pagan worship of their rulers is absurd.

 

[Rick B]

No they do not. They are being mislead.

As a Trinitarian I think I can accurately define what we do believe and teach. There is one being of God that eternally exist as three co-equal and co-eternal Persons namely the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

 

[Rick B]

The Greek gods have there own names, like Zeus, he was rarely titled 'The God Zeus'.

Throughout the Greek speaking parts of the Roman Empire, 'θεός' is a translation of 'Divvs' referring to Julius Caesar , as shown on 1st century coinage and this is after his death

Ovid - Julius Caesar transformed to a Star
The years are ended which he owed to life on earth. You with his son, who now as heir to his estate must bear the burden of that government, will cause him, as a deity, to reach the heavens, and to be worshipped in the temples here.

god-like Julius may look down in future from his heavenly residence upon our Forum and our Capitol

This is where Christian θεόlogy came from.

BTW It is absurd thinking because the first five books of the Septuagint were written in the third century B.C.. For example in Genesis 1:1 the Greek word for God is Theos. Your proposition falls flattly on its face.

 

[Oeste]

The Greek gods have there own names, like Zeus, he was rarely titled 'The God Zeus'.

Throughout the Greek speaking parts of the Roman Empire, 'θεός' is a translation of 'Divvs' referring to Julius Caesar , as shown on 1st century coinage and this is after his death...

...This is where Christian θεόlogy came from.

Your conclusion that because the Greek Theos and the Latin DIVVS both mean God therefore Christianity came from the Roman pagan worship of their rulers is absurd.

Agreed.

I thought we were going to be presented with some hitherto unknown but recently discovered literary work that would place Granville-Sharp into question. Instead we see that since the Greek métér (μητρός) and Latin mater both mean "mom" then Christian mothers must be of Greco-Roman origin.

 

[Magus]

The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 is אֱלֹהִים (Elohim), the plural form of Eloah (אֱלָהּ) and it's obviously mistranslated.

Gen 1:1 ( rough translation)
In the Summit, Elohim filled the Skies and the Land.

The current Septuagint, is highly likely not written in the 3rd century BCE but a later forgery .

 

[Magus]

Your conclusion that because the Greek Theos and the Latin DIVVS both mean God therefore Christianity came from the Roman pagan worship of their rulers is absurd.

'God' is an English word, that didn't exist in the Roman Empire of the 1st century.

The physical evidence shows 'θεός', being used as a title for Julius Caesar, which coincides with Paul's letters being addressed to Greek speaking colonies of the Roman Empire that worshipped the Divine Julius.

Whom where Paul's target audience in Ephesus, for this is where the temple of Dea Roma & Divus Iulius are located, with the same philosophy ( Clemency, forgivness, resurrection) and symbols ( Crucifix and Star).

 

[Rick B]

The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 is אֱלֹהִים (Elohim), the plural form of Eloah (אֱלָהּ) and it's obviously mistranslated.

Gen 1:1 ( rough translation)
In the Summit, Elohim filled the Skies and the Land.

The current Septuagint, is highly likely not written in the 3rd century BCE but a later forgery .

Jesus obviously disagrees with you since He quoted the Septuagint as God's word.

 

[Magus]

Jesus obviously disagrees with you since He quoted the Septuagint as God's word.

Why would Jesus be quoting the Septuagint, which would be considered blasphemous in Judea.

 

[Rick B]

Why would Jesus be quoting the Septuagint, which would be considered blasphemous in Judea.

Good question, demonstrating that your assertion is fallacious.

 

[Rick B]

The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:1 is אֱלֹהִים (Elohim), the plural form of Eloah (אֱלָהּ) and it's obviously mistranslated.

Gen 1:1 ( rough translation)
In the Summit, Elohim filled the Skies and the Land.

The current Septuagint, is highly likely not written in the 3rd century BCE but a later forgery .

On what basis do you assert that the Septuagint is a forgery and mistranslates Genesis 1:1?

 

[metis]

Why would Jesus be quoting the Septuagint, which would be considered blasphemous in Judea.

At least some of the theologians that I have read on this believe that Jesus likely paraphrased from the Jerusalem text and that these were written decades later using the Septuagint because that was the scriptures of the diasporah. It's the same reasoning that points to why the N.T. was written in Koine Greek versus Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[metis]

'God' is an English word, that didn't exist in the Roman Empire of the 1st century.

"God" is from the German originally, and there are 17 names for God found in the Tanakh is my memory is correct.

BTW, "Jehovah" is not the correct pronunciation nor correct spelling for God.

 

[Rick B]

'God' is an English word, that didn't exist in the Roman Empire of the 1st century.

The physical evidence shows 'θεός', being used as a title for Julius Caesar, which coincides with Paul's letters being addressed to Greek speaking colonies of the Roman Empire that worshipped the Divine Julius.

Whom where Paul's target audience in Ephesus, for this is where the temple of Dea Roma & Divus Iulius are located, with the same philosophy ( Clemency, forgivness, resurrection) and symbols ( Crucifix and Star).

Again, the only correlation that can be derived from the historical facts is that both Theos, in Greek and Divvs in Latin mean divine or God in English. So what? You have no legitimate reason to assert any dependant relationship between the two religious groups.