Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 142

Thread: Is jesus god?

  1. #1  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Any study of the REAL Bible will show that Jesus claimed to be God on numerous occasions. For that he was tried, convicted and executed. So if Jesus was not God, then he was a liar and not worthy of anyone's reverence.

    A JW supporting Mormons is laughable. Sort of the pot claiming neither it nor the kettle are black.
    Actually, jesus stated he was the son of god many times in the bible. the NKJV, for example, aids in this as well as other translations (like the one the JW's use. Dynamic, but still holds a similar message).

    Example:
    JOHN 10:36 NKJ
    36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

    http://www.believers.org/whodid.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Jeremy, we discussed this issue earlier when you erroneously suggested that Jesus claimed only to be a king, not God. Jesus claimed far more than kingship or sonship. He claimed to be the Messiah and any Biblical definition of Messiah would necessarily include the claim to Godship. There are several places where Jesus claims to be the Messiah and I need merely copy what most of I wrote before with a couple of edits.

    For example in John 4:25-26 in His contact with the woman at the well: "The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, 'I that speak unto thee am he."

    Seems pretty plain to me that he claimed to be the Messiah on this occasion.

    Then you have the discussion with the Jews in John 8:57,58 in when he responds to their question as to apparent claim that Abraham had rejoiced to see his day. "Hast thou seen Abraham?" they chide Him. He replies, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am." This is a clear reference to when God answered Moses' question as to who should he say had sent time. God said, "Tell them I am sent you." The jews were so insensed at the obvious implication that they attempted to stone him right then and there.

    It was actually the Romans who called him the King of the Jews and did so in a pejorative manner.

    In one instance Jesus does not deny kingship when one of his disciples calls him King of Israel.

    An exchange on this subject takes place between Jesus and Pilate just before his execution and is found in John 18:33-37.

    Pilate asks Jesus if he is the King of the Jews. Jesus asks him back if he is asking this because he himself is wondering or if it is because he has heard this from others. Pilate answers to the effect, How would I know, I'm not a Jew. Just what is it you did that got you here?

    Jesus replies, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

    In this response, Jesus denies actual physical kingship but seems to imply a different kind of kingship prompting Pilate to ask, “Art thou a king then?”

    Jesus answers, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

    I am not certain if Jesus’ first sentence is the idiomatic affirmative agreement or an allusion to the pejorative nature of Pilates presumptiveness. But he follows up with the idea that his real job was to bear witness to the truth. It is not clear to me if he is thus denying kingship or suggesting that his job as king was to bear witness to the truth. But he then suggests that if Pilate knew the truth, he would also know the answer to his question. (By implication, it would be the same for all men.)

    To which Pilate replies, “What is truth.” This was not so much a question as a statement to the effect of who cares what the truth is. Sort of like the Tina Turner movie title, “What’s Love Got to do with it.” As far as Pilate was concerned, truth was not important to this situation.

    Overall, I would suggest that Jesus claims to Massiaship – and with it divinity – far outweigh his claims (if any) to kingship.

    However, jeremy, I cannot help but wonder if your statement here that Jesus claimed kingship is a repudiation of your earlier claim on another thread that you do not even believe there was an history character known as Jesus of Nazareth who was an itinerate Jewish preacher. There does seem to be a contradiction here.

    Perhaps jeremy can find some scripture which he thinks back his suggestion that Jesus recanted his claim to deity while actually claiming only kingship. While Jesus did claim to the be the son of God, his meaning was in the sense of Messiahship.


    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Overall, I would suggest that Jesus claims to Massiaship – and with it divinity – far outweigh his claims (if any) to kingship.
    That *ENTIRE* post there you made, I quoted only this section for the jist, only proved my point (I'll provide the killer statement at the very end, which ties this just quote into it). Jesus was not god. He stated his status to be at the right hand of god, son of god, etc, as well as other titles such as "massiah" or "king" (whichever), but I see not "god."

    Furthermore, you "corrected" me when I put forth the assumption then, but this is an entirely different discussion which need not your arrogant "corrections." Especially since you haven't "corrected" anything, and only furthered the lack of any quote which supports the "jesus is god" bit.

    However, jeremy, I cannot help but wonder if your statement here that Jesus claimed kingship is a repudiation of your earlier claim on another thread that you do not even believe there was an history character known as Jesus of Nazareth who was an itinerate Jewish preacher. There does seem to be a contradiction here.
    There does seem to be a lack of ability on your part to ponder the possibility that just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to stupid statements.

    While Jesus did claim to the be the son of God, his meaning was in the sense of Messiahship.
    The bible defines the "messiah" as the son of god. as such, there is no contradiction here nor an alternative meaning presented. You have, again, furthered my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Messiah = messiah, not God.

    Christ = christ, not God.

    King = king, not God.

    At no point does jesus say he is God. Ever or at anytime.

    The scriptures ive posted are a strong and clear case for this. There are many more scriptures i can post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Messiah = messiah, not God.

    Christ = christ, not God.

    King = king, not God.

    At no point does jesus say he is God. Ever or at anytime.

    The scriptures ive posted are a strong and clear case for this. There are many more scriptures i can post.
    Let me put more logic into your childish correlation there:

    Christ = messiah who the bible says will be the son of god.

    King = Christ's position to numerous things (metaphorical in some aspects as well), whereas god (having a title higher than him obviously) is higher.

    Jesus is most obviously not god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    It really gets tiring watch jeremy resort to name calling and screaming "Ad Hominem" or "Prove it" when someone is getting the best of him in a discussion.

    Just because you, jeremy, do not understand the meaning of Messiah, does not give you the right to revisionist interpretation of what that term has meant for 1,000s of years. Talk about arrogance!
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    It really gets tiring watch jeremy resort to name calling and screaming "Ad Hominem" or "Prove it" when someone is getting the best of him in a discussion.

    Just because you, jeremy, do not understand the meaning of Messiah, does not give you the right to revisionist interpretation of what that term has meant for 1,000s of years. Talk about arrogance!
    whee...what do I see in his reply...nothing that proves me wrong. I use an ad-hominem when I see fit, but I never use it to replace arguments in a discussion (unlike most).

    Plus, as I said, the meaning is defined in other areas of the bible. Since you (apparently) wont provide this supposed "correct" definition I have to assume you are just trying to save face.

    EDIT:

    I will now use a few websites to prove my point: http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=messiah&gwp=13
    He is commonly referred to as Jesus Christ, where "Christ" is a title derived from the Greek christós, meaning the "Anointed One", which corresponds to the Hebrew-derived "Messiah".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

    And no, that isn't out of context. Bite me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah

    and if you want to be a real prick I'll try and hunt up biblical scriptures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    whoa, ho, ho, ho, ha, ha, ha. You are sooooooooo funny, jeremy. Well, maybe not.

    Even if you don't believe the message of the Bible is true, reading it as compete and total fiction, a reasonably intelligent person should be able to understand that the Bible itself claims Jesus was God.

    I fully understand that many people do not believe Jesus was God. But when you suggest that Jesus claim to sonship is merely a claim to sonship, it indicates a lack of understanding of the full implication of what that claim meant to the people in Jesus time.

    John 1 is very explicit in every translation and paraphrase (except the bastardized version used by JWs) that Jesus and God are one and the same ("the Word was God"). Jesus several times says things such as the Father and I are one; if you have seen me, you have seen the father; I am the resurrection and the life (a job only God could have); thy sins are forgiven (a job only God can do); I am the Alpha and Omega (again a quality of God only).

    Twist the Bible whichever way you will, the bottom line remains that Jesus himself claimed to be God, the religious leaders of the day clearly understood those claims and they convicted and executed him for making those claims.

    Perhaps you can find a better Biblical explanation for His crucifixion. If He was not executed for the blasphemy of claiming to be God, why was He put to death?
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Guest
    Wow, you utterly fail with metaphoric interpretation. When jesus states "I and the father are one" it means equality in power and status. However, jesus also states numerous times about him being gods son.

    If you interpret it as "I am god," then there is a biblical contradiction. If you interpret it PROPERLY, ergo, "my status is equal with god" or "in the eyes of god I am equal with he" or something similar, there is no contradiction.
    You have to realize that the languages the bible was written in emphasized metaphorical writing during the times. If you interpret the bible literally, 100%, you'll end up with even more contradictions than if you interpret it metaphorically.

    However, you did NOT offer up the "proper" definition of messiah. In fact you have avoided it entirely.

    P.S: I'm not sure how you equate "and the word was god" to anything regarding jesus. Also, I am splitting these off-topic posts and creating a new thread.

    For your "ad hominem" mocking, I direct you to this thread: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...137&highlight=
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Any study of the REAL Bible will show that Jesus claimed to be God on numerous occasions. For that he was tried, convicted and executed. So if Jesus was not God, then he was a liar and not worthy of anyone's reverence.
    Looking up this question I found references to: John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16 and John 12:40-41 as examples of where Jesus is claimed to be God.

    However....

    Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64 only says the Son of God.

    But...

    Hebrews 1:10 and Colossians 1:16 like John 1:3 says that He is the creator of heaven and earth.

    Furthermore Hebrews 1:8 gives him the title of God and Colossians 1:19-20 explains that in Jesus all the fulness of God dwells so that in Jesus all things of Heaven and Earth are reconciled to Him. Then of course there is the gospel of John chapter 1 where it says that the "Word" was God and in the beginning with God, and then in verse 14 that the "Word" became flesh and dwelt among us.

    In John 10:30-38, "I and My Father are one", in John 12:45, "And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me", and finally in John 14:7-10, "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him. Phillip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Phillip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you, I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."

    The closest thing to this in the gospel of Matthew is 11:27 "All things have been delievered unto Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him", which does not say quite the same thing, or at the very least, is no where near as clear.

    My conclusion therefore is that although there is no clear declaration that Jesus is God in the first three gospels, it is the clear position of the gospel of John that He is indeed God, and likewise that the apostle Paul acknowledges and embraces this teaching in His letters. So whether you argue or not that this idea that Jesus is God came later, you cannot hold the gospel of John and the letters of Paul to be authoritative and also repudiate this doctrine that Jesus is God.

    There is no doubt that this has been a source of trouble in the understanding of Christian doctrine and scripture from the earliest days of the church and the eccumenical councils reached the compromise that embraces all of the canon in the doctrine that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Make of that what you will. But for me it means that the categories of man and God are not incompatable but in God's unlimited power He is quite capable of reconciling the two in the person of Jesus. I believe that this means that in becoming Jesus inside of time and space God shed all of his infinite power and knowledge (humbled himself) to become an innocent and helpless infant to grow up as one of us and die as all human beings die, so that in the resurrection He could show us once and for all that far from being the end, this is only beginning.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    Mitch, unless I misread, you also agree that Jesus is god?

    Can I ask you to refute my post where I offer the interpretation along the lines of jesus being equal to god in status (ergo, not the same person).

    P.S: daytonturner your post was deleted for a few reasons: 1. off topic 2. it offers no further points to either the logic part of the discussion nor the theological part, and 3....one of these days I need to think of a "3"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Mitch, unless I misread, you also agree that Jesus is god?

    Can I ask you to refute my post where I offer the interpretation along the lines of jesus being equal to god in status (ergo, not the same person).

    P.S: daytonturner your post was deleted for a few reasons: 1. off topic 2. it offers no further points to either the logic part of the discussion nor the theological part, and 3....one of these days I need to think of a "3"
    But Christians don't believe that Jesus is the same person. That would be heresy. The Trinitarian belief is that there is one God but three persons. But frankly I don't know that I would refute anyone's interpretation. I don't believe that anyone can force their interpretation on anyone else.

    I find your participation in this argument to be very interesting for it reveals even further my contention about how deeply and lasting are the effects on our thinking by those religions which we have left behind. You can, perhaps, see the impact of my membership in the Uniification church (moonies), in my own reluctance (however minute at this time) to accept this idea that Jesus is God. The moonies are not only non-Trinitarian and reject the idea that Jesus is God, but they even reject the claim that Jesus existed at the beginning with God and created the heavens and earth. Instead they would interpret all this as the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of the purpose of creation. Thus they would identify the "Word" with this "purpose of creation" saying that the heavens and earth were all created according to this purpose and that Jesus is the the final realization of that purpose.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Mitch, your post is fine and all (actually it isn't, but I don't want to drag this off topic further by voicing my disagreements with your assumptions regarding my behavior above), but does absolutely nothing to suggest my interpretation is wrong.

    While my interpretation IS in fact based slightly on my former religion, I think it's illogical to take a metaphorical text, turn it into something which contradicts other parts of the text, and claim consistency.

    Now, kindly, provide an example of why the alternative interpretation is not accurate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Mitch, your post is fine and all (actually it isn't, but I don't want to drag this off topic further by voicing my disagreements with your assumptions regarding my behavior above), but does absolutely nothing to suggest my interpretation is wrong.

    While my interpretation IS in fact based slightly on my former religion, I think it's illogical to take a metaphorical text, turn it into something which contradicts other parts of the text, and claim consistency.

    Now, kindly, provide an example of why the alternative interpretation is not accurate.
    Perhaps I do not assume as much as you think. For I think the relevant fact is that at one point in time, our point of view did largely concide with the religion in which we participated. This does not mean that they caused us to think that way or that our previous affilliation is the only reason that we continue to hold a similar viewpoint. I would not dream of implying that you have any remaining loyalty to the JWs.

    I think you will see that I amended my previous post to indicate that refuting other people's interpretation of scripture is not something to which I feel greatly inclined. However I see very little room in the gospel of John (and the epistles of Paul which draw from it) to squirm out of this doctrine that Jesus is God. It is true that Jesus did not say something like "bow down and worship me for I am God". But is this because Jesus was not God or because that would be contrary to God purpose? I recall that instead, Jesus said, the greatest in Heaven are those who serve one another, and so Jesus washed the feet of His diciples to show that God is the greatest in Heaven because He is the the most dilligent and humble servant of all.

    I have already said that this doctrine that Jesus is God, is not one that is central to my faith. I defend it because I see sufficient scriptural justification for it and because I see no logical contradiction in it either. I think it is wrong to make such a big deal out of this issue, and think it is symptomatic of a human tendency to be distracted by the superficial.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Guest
    I see. My mistake then. :/ I suppose I'm making the assumptions today..bah, damn posting got me wound up. Apologies. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    I see. My mistake then. :/ I suppose I'm making the assumptions today..bah, damn posting got me wound up. Apologies. :P
    Been there. Done that. No apology needed, for no offense was taken. It seems to me that misunderstanding tends to be the rule rather than the exception in any discussion. Communication is a difficult thing to acheive that requires a lot of work and persistence.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jeremy wrote...

    Let me put more logic into your childish correlation there:
    Simply make your post jeremy, its not a play ground.

    However you were wrong.


    Jesus will be the king of gods kingdom. At present jesus is king in heaven. That kingdom, gods kingdomwith jesus as king, will shortly take over the governing of the earth.

    Jesus will rules for righteousness itself. Ruling in total justice unlike man made leaders who thrive on injustice.

    When jesus said he was a king but his kingdom wasnt part of this world. He here is showing that his kingdom is not yet ruling the earth. But soon it will.

    So jesus is a king. He is the messiah and the christ. He is also the son of god. The one whom god sent forth into the world.

    In conclusion...

    Jesus made his Father's superiority clear when the mother of two disciples asked that her sons sit one at the right and one at the left of Jesus when he came into his Kingdom. Jesus answered: "As for seats at my right hand and my left, these are not mine to grant; they belong to those to whom they have been allotted by my Father," that is, God. (Matthew 20:23)

    Had Jesus been Almighty God, those positions would have been his to give. But Jesus could not give them, for they were God's to give, and Jesus was not God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Jesus will be the king of gods kingdom. At present jesus is king in heaven. That kingdom, gods kingdomwith jesus as king, will shortly take over the governing of the earth.
    I am quite familiar with the JW interpretation of the scripture. and I can say this is worse than saying jesus is god in my opinion. The scripture quite bluntly indicates that jesus is king in heaven.

    It does *NOT* say, from the scriptures mentioned so far, that jesus will soon rule over the earth. What it DOES say is that jesus is king in heaven (or so the scriptures regarding "not of this world" an "king" imply). Aside from our disagreement there, I don't see how my post was wrong it any way.
    although it's possible I did not make myself clear enough regarding the interpretation that his position is king in heaven. Which is what the scriptures indicate.

    When jesus said he was a king but his kingdom wasnt part of this world. He here is showing that his kingdom is not yet ruling the earth. But soon it will.
    Umm..how? It only means he's king in heaven. I see no possible way that could mean "soon over earth." You are adding to what isn't there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    . When he was on earth, Jesus taught his followers to pray for God's Kingdom. A kingdom is a government that is headed by a king. God's Kingdom is a special government.

    It is set up in heaven and will rule over this earth. It will sanctify, or make holy, God's name. It will cause God's will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven.—Matthew 6:9, 10.


    God promised that Jesus would become the King of His Kingdom. (Luke 1:30-33) When Jesus was on earth, he proved that he would be a kind, just, and perfect Ruler. When he returned to heaven, he was not enthroned as King of God's Kingdom right away. (Hebrews 10:12, 13)

    In 1914, Jehovah gave Jesus the authority He had promised him. Since then, Jesus has ruled in heaven as Jehovah's appointed King.—Daniel 7:13, 14.

    Jehovahs kingdom will have jesus as king. Jesus will rule from heaven over the whole earth.

    ie. As a king may rule from a castle over his country.

    Castle = Heavens.

    Country = Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    original bible

    God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are one God
    jw's bible

    Only the Father (Jehovah) is God

    original bible

    Jesus (the Son) is God in the flesh. During his life on earth he was both fully God and fully human. He is eternal and equal in power to God
    jw's bible

    Jesus is God's Son, but not God
    original bible

    Jesus is God's Son. He is God in the flesh

    jw's bible

    Jesus is God's Son, and is a god, but not God Himself. Jesus is also the archangel Michael in his prehuman existence
    original bible

    Jesus was crucified on a cross
    jw's bible

    Jesus was nailed to a torture stake


    Captaincaveman, please keep the intolerant comments to a minimum. You have a good list here, kindly don't screw it up by making stupid comments. Think of something smarter to say - Jeremyhfht
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    It is set up in heaven and will rule over this earth. It will sanctify, or make holy, God's name. It will cause God's will to be done on earth as it is done in heaven.—Matthew 6:9, 10.
    Wait wait wait WTF? Holy jesus I cannot believe that your translation is THAT bad.

    The NKJV: In this manner, therefore, pray:

    Our Father in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done
    On earth as it is in heaven.

    Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven does *definitely* not say jesus will rule over the earth. It says his "will" will be done on earth as it is in heaven. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as "jesus will rule over the earth"

    God promised that Jesus would become the King of His Kingdom. (Luke 1:30-33) When Jesus was on earth, he proved that he would be a kind, just, and perfect Ruler. When he returned to heaven, he was not enthroned as King of God's Kingdom right away. (Hebrews 10:12, 13)
    ungh...here are the relavent quotes from the scriptures you mentioned (not taken too far out of context to appear vastly different as far as I know)
    And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

    12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
    His kingdom, as mentioned in another scripture, is the kingdom of heaven. Not earth.

    And the second scripture has nothing to do with anything.

    In 1914, Jehovah gave Jesus the authority He had promised him. Since then, Jesus has ruled in heaven as Jehovah's appointed King.—Daniel 7:13, 14.
    umm...again, that has nothing to do with 1914, nor does it state jesus will rule over the earth.

    13 “ I was watching in the night visions,
    And behold, One like the Son of Man,
    Coming with the clouds of heaven!
    He came to the Ancient of Days,
    And they brought Him near before Him.
    14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
    That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
    His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
    Which shall not pass away,
    And His kingdom the one
    Which shall not be destroyed.
    13 isn't really relevant.

    14, however, does mention nations people and languages as well as servitude. Does it mention jesus will rule over them? Yes, to him dominion is given and glory and a kingdom.

    While this is quite obvious to suggest there that yes, jesus would be ruler over the earth, try to take it in an abstract sense. The writer, daniel, is giving praise to the one "like the son of man" and elevating him to ruler over all the earth (assuming you interpret it as "earth").

    But, take that metaphorically. He is not mentioning an old kingdom (ergo, the kingdom of man), but a new one (one which shall not be destroyed). This does little to suggest he will be given dominion over the earth, but his dominion will be that over a new and all powerful kingdom (like gods kingdom in heaven).

    However, my interpretation here is spotty at best. So bleh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    When jesus said he was a king but his kingdom wasnt part of this world. He here is showing that his kingdom is not yet ruling the earth. But soon it will.
    Umm..how? It only means he's king in heaven. I see no possible way that could mean "soon over earth." You are adding to what isn't there.
    Yes, but it would be a mistake to say there is no justification for this point of view in the Bible. I may fault the Jehova Witnesses in usurping the right to interpret the scriptures for everyone, but I will give it to the Jehova Witnesses that there is little that they claim that they do not justify with scripture. The book of Revelations has Jesus returning to the earth to reign over the earth for a thousand years. Of course, there are few books in the Bible whose meaning is as obscure and difficult to interpret as the book of Revelations. I certainly make no confident interpretations of its content.

    Personally I do not indulge in eschatology at all. I read the "Left Behind" books, but mostly in the same spirit that I read science fiction and fantasy. I just do not see much point in even forming an opinion about what is going to happen in the future. I feel it wiser to live our lives reponsibly considering that we may have to live on this planet and in the mess we make of it for a long time to come.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jeremy those werent bible quotes. If it was a bible quote it would have " at the beginning and " at the end. I was telling you what what gods plan was and giving you scriptures to compare.


    Matthew 6:9-13...

    “YOU must pray, then, this way:

    “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10. Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth. 11. Give us today our bread for this day; 12. and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one."

    Here jeremy read this and then explain how you can say that this kingdom of god with jesus as king will NOT rule over the earth.

    "Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth. "

    Ill repeat " also upon earth. "
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    what was wrong with what i said. I believe as an athiest the jesus is a ficticious character(or atleast in the sense of the son of a supernatural being)
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    original bible
    God has revealed himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are one God
    jw's bible
    Only the Father (Jehovah) is God
    original bible
    Jesus (the Son) is God in the flesh. During his life on earth he was both fully God and fully human. He is eternal and equal in power to God
    jw's bible
    Jesus is God's Son, but not God
    original bible
    Jesus is God's Son. He is God in the flesh
    jw's bible
    Jesus is God's Son, and is a god, but not God Himself. Jesus is also the archangel Michael in his prehuman existence
    What is this "original bible" that you are quoting, if you are quoting? I would like to see what translation you are using, and the chapter and verse of the scriptures you are refering to. Because no matter how you intepret the Bible, I prefer to be clear about what it actually says.

    Or is this contrast you are making just off the top of your head and meant to be kind of summary observation of the situation?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    When caveman said original bible he was lieing. He meant hispersonal view of what he wanted the bible to say.

    The new world translation of the bible is a superb modern bible. We have many scholars who recognise this. The scholars against our version are sadly ,like caveman, anti christ who simply hate jehovahs wiotnesses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    no this is purely from a wiki page as i dont possess a bible

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controv...%27s_Witnesses

    Its referring to Mainstream Christian teaching (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches)
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    When caveman said original bible he was lieing. He meant hispersonal view of what he wanted the bible to say.

    The new world translation of the bible is a superb modern bible. We have many scholars who recognise this. The scholars against our version are sadly ,like caveman, anti christ who simply hate jehovahs wiotnesses.

    oops i was lying . dont get personal truth. if you'd waited a second you would have seen my source.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    So when you said original bible you meant [what wikipedia says] ...

    Mainstream Christian teaching (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches)

    The above religions have fought in wars, and often celebrate 25 of dec as the birth of jesus. Both these teachings are against the bible.

    It hard to take you seriously when you diliberately missquote caveman. Then after this you post a link to a website that youve diliberately missquoted from.

    I find it hard to take your opinions seriously caveman. Maybe pm me and explain why you hate jehovahs witnesses. Others on here dislike us and try to give reason, always contradictory, but with you it does seem a personal thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    So when you said original bible you meant [what wikipedia says] ...

    Mainstream Christian teaching (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches)

    The above religions have fought in wars, and often celebrate 25 of dec as the birth of jesus. Both these teachings are against the bible.

    It hard to take you seriously when you diliberately missquote caveman. Then after this you post a link to a website that youve diliberately missquoted from.

    I find it hard to take your opinions seriously caveman. Maybe pm me and explain why you hate jehovahs witnesses. Others on here dislike us and try to give reason, always contradictory, but with you it does seem a personal thing.
    I think you'll find that this forum regularly uses wiki's as sources(look back over previous posts) and i did not diliberately mis-quote anything. i copy and pasted on the original post. the source was requested and i link to it. Hows that deliberate mis-quoting

    Are you saying because catholics and protestants have been fighting for many years that they dont use the same bible? I think thats wrong


    I find it hard to take your opinions seriously caveman. Maybe pm me and explain why you hate jehovahs witnesses. Others on here dislike us and try to give reason, always contradictory, but with you it does seem a personal thing
    explain how i see it as personal.This is what i'd call being personal

    truth1010 wrote:

    The scholars against our version are sadly ,like caveman, anti christ who simply hate jehovahs wiotnesses
    When caveman said original bible he was lieing. He meant hispersonal view of what he wanted the bible to say
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    When caveman said original bible he was lieing. He meant hispersonal view of what he wanted the bible to say.

    The new world translation of the bible is a superb modern bible. We have many scholars who recognise this. The scholars against our version are sadly ,like caveman, anti christ who simply hate jehovahs wiotnesses.
    Coming from someone whose religion says everyone who disagrees with them is completely Satanic, I don't think your judgement of scholars holds any weight at all.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Can someone explain what i did wrong, cause im confused about it?

    I copyed and pasted small parts(so hopefully avoid plagerism(sp))

    i then got asked to show source

    I linked to a wiki(which has been used on nererous occasions)

    I then got told that i was misquoting

    did i miss something? was it the use of the word ordinary bible(which i assume is the one most widely used)

    Can someone explain?
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    Stay *ON TOPIC*. If the next post is off topic, it will be deleted. Further off topic posts will be as well. The title is "is jesus god" not "are the JW's translation horribly incorrect"

    and no, caveman, you did not misquote. It's just that religious people hate it when they are accused of being wrong in any way shape of form. Then again, so does everybody. so this should not be a surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by captaincaveman
    Can someone explain what i did wrong, cause im confused about it?

    I copyed and pasted small parts(so hopefully avoid plagerism(sp))

    i then got asked to show source

    I linked to a wiki(which has been used on nererous occasions)

    I then got told that i was misquoting

    did i miss something? was it the use of the word ordinary bible(which i assume is the one most widely used)

    Can someone explain?
    What you did wrong was to add the words, "original bible" and "JW bible" to label a summary of beliefs which are interpretations of the Bible and not the contents of the Bible's themsleves. There are a lot of people who are not JWs and do not use their Bible but do not share the interpretation that you pasted off that Wiki site.

    The question we are dealing with is more complex than just the contrast between fundamentalist Christian opinion with that of the JWs.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    oh, that's what he did. I didn't see that post...

    Anyway, is there anything else missed regarding this debate about jesus and god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Caveman where on that link did it say "original bible". The fact that it didnt is your answer.

    As for the scholars that apparently jehovahs witnesses dont respect, well they respect our bible.

    If jesus was God then jesus would have said he was god. I cant be any clearer.

    Can those who believe jesus is god show a quote of jesus saying he is god from the bible?

    I have shown many that prove jesus was indeed the son of god. Also that jesus is a king of gods kingdom that will shortly rule the earth. Again backing up jehovahs witnesses belifs with bible evidence. Not man made opinions on the bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Guest
    Jesus has said "I and the father are one" (something like that), which is what was cited as evidence, but that can be taken a few different ways. And as I hypothesized, in status.

    However since there is a lack of people FOR "jesus is god" presently, allow me to offer the following interpretation:

    The "son" of god is metaphorical for a part of god which was "Created" before the birth of man (the bible indicates that jesus was the first angel), which doesn't exactly mean he is a separate entity. If he and the father (god) are "one" in the sense that they are the same person, but different (since jesus is a king, whereas the "father" is god).

    I'd go further, but I see no use.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jesus said he was in union [love] with god and his disciples. He said he was at one with god on matters. But not at one as a person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    [quote="Truth1010"]Caveman where on that link did it say "original bible". The fact that it didnt is your answer.

    quote]


    i meant in repect to the common knowledge that as far as im aware the jw's had re-written aspects of the bible. Think its called the new world translation. knowing that and not being a jw myself and using wiki's often on this forum, i assumed this to be correct on a wiki page mentioning Corresponding Jehovah’s Witnesses teachings

    Also the fact that it was potentially relevant to the topiuc in question
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Caveman wrote...

    i meant in repect to the common knowledge that as far as im aware
    Then maybe say this is what you meant.

    However the wiki page showed clearly it was traditional religions views versus jehovahs witneses views.

    Those traditional views have not been supported in their own bible, let alone the opriginal one. Our views have, in both.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Guest
    Truth: yes they have. Different bibles, different interpretations. :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jeremy they do not have evidence to support their views in any bible.

    Catholics, protestants have fought in wars, can you show me the scripture that allows this please?

    You may use the king james version if you choose. Please only refer to the laws for christian.

    If you can do this then ill post more teachings of christendom and show how they are NOT in the bible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Catholics, protestants have fought in wars, can you show me the scripture that allows this please?
    Its probably not in there but thats what confessions was designed for.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Saying sorry should then be followed by accepting the truth. But these apostates keep teaching lies.

    Maybe they werent really sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Jeremy they do not have evidence to support their views in any bible.

    Catholics, protestants have fought in wars, can you show me the scripture that allows this please?
    http://biblia.com/jesusbible/joshua3.htm

    I don't really *want* to go finding random scriptures that support views, so go to a link that holds a host of them. The bible condones war time and again.

    Anyway, on to the next one.

    Note about the link: It also describes why it isn't allowed anymore. However, most of the wars were well within the time period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    I had written...

    Please only refer to the laws for christian.
    All wars by catholics and protestants were commited after christianity was formed.

    So you are wrong to say...

    However, most of the wars were well within the time period.
    NON of there wars were before christianity was formed as they werent formed until after christianity was formed.

    Anyway im finding another foum as youve resorted to deleting posts you "dislike".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Anyway im finding another foum as youve resorted to deleting posts you "dislike".
    Umm...no I have not. If you view my reasoning as wrong with deleting posts (and this is a serious allegation) take it up with the administrator. I ENCOURAGE it. If I step over the boundary, then I should know about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    If my post was off topic [video link] Then please make a case for it.

    Innocent until proven guilty. Thats the normal process.

    PS. youre above post is off topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    All wars by catholics and protestants were commited after christianity was formed.

    So you are wrong to say...

    However, most of the wars were well within the time period.
    NON of there wars were before christianity was formed as they werent formed until after christianity was formed.
    No...I refer to the laws of war. God said numerous times (as the quotes on that website show) to kill "infidels" (the qur'an says that, but you get the idea).

    as for murder: http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    No jeremy you are back tracking. Christendom was created after christianity and ALL there wars were commited after these laws.

    The laws that you wrote were old testamant law. NOT the set of laws for christians. Which jehovahs witnesses follow and christendom doesnt.

    This christendom are the ones who claim jesus is god. Well they are wrong about that and wrong about their conduct in politics, wars and morals.

    So when the bible says jesus is the son of god and jehovahs witnesses accept that we further show ourselves to be gods people and not a man made off shoot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    No jeremy you are back tracking. Christendom was created after christianity and ALL there wars were commited after these laws.
    ? After what laws? The laws I listed?

    The laws that you wrote were old testamant law. NOT the set of laws for christians. Which jehovahs witnesses follow and christendom doesnt.
    You didn't read that link too well. A good portion of them are in the new testament.

    This christendom are the ones who claim jesus is god. Well they are wrong about that and wrong about their conduct in politics, wars and morals.
    No, it's a matter of interpretation. Interpretation wise, they are as likely to be correct as I am regarding the matter, since the scriptures listed can be interpreted both ways.

    So when the bible says jesus is the son of god and jehovahs witnesses accept that we further show ourselves to be gods people and not a man made off shoot.
    truth, the bible does not directly say (save for one scripture that I know of) that jesus is the son of god. Furthermore, as my hypothetical interpretation shows, even that does not mean a literal "son."

    Remember, the bible was written in a time and language where metaphorical speaking was king.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    jeremy wrote...

    You didn't read that link too well. A good portion of them are in the new testament.
    No, non of those scriptures were new testament.

    Jeremy are you aware of what the new testament actually means?

    So, in deed jehovahs witnesses have held close to the biobles laws. This and the acceptance that jesus is indeed gods son shows that jehovahs people are faithfull to god. We choose god over man made teachings.

    jeremy wrote...

    No, it's a matter of interpretation. Interpretation wise, they are as likely to be correct as I am regarding the matter, since the scriptures listed can be interpreted both ways
    Jesus said " If you love me youll obey my commandments, i command you thou shall not kill."

    How many ways can you interpret that?

    Of course the bible is not vague but clear on our conduct. Therefore its clear to see who are gods peopl.e are. They are the ones who follow the bible.

    jeremy wrote...


    truth, the bible does not directly say (save for one scripture that I know of) that jesus is the son of god.
    Jesus does say he is gods son. Jesus calls his god his father. He is therefore the son of the father. The bible is very clear about this.

    jeremy wrote...

    Remember, the bible was written in a time and language where metaphorical speaking was king.
    No, the bible is clear as ive shown above. Jesus didnt go around killing people, he instead commanded his followers to not kill.

    Jesus instead preached about the truth. As modern day christians, jehovahs wiotnesses do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    jeremy wrote...

    You didn't read that link too well. A good portion of them are in the new testament.
    No, non of those scriptures were new testament.

    Jeremy are you aware of what the new testament actually means?
    well aware.
    The New Testament (Greek: Καινὴ Διαθήκη), sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures, and sometimes also New Covenant which is the literal translation of the Greek, is the name given to the final portion of the Christian Bible.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

    of them:
    * Matthew
    * Mark
    * Luke
    * John
    * Acts
    * Romans
    * 1 Corinthians
    * 2 Corinthians
    * Galatians
    * Ephesians
    * Philippians
    * Colossians
    * 1 Thessalonians
    * 2 Thessalonians
    * 1 Timothy
    * 2 Timothy
    * Titus
    * Philemon
    * Hebrews
    * James
    * 1 Peter
    * 2 Peter
    * 1 John
    * 2 John
    * 3 John
    * Jude
    * Revelation

    surprise surprise, I easily find a number of them of the new testament books. Example of two: (use the find feature in your browser)

    "Infidels and Gays Should Die"
    "Peter Kills Two People"

    I thought lying was a bad thing? :?



    Jesus said " If you love me youll obey my commandments, i command you thou shall not kill."

    How many ways can you interpret that?
    umm...what? I was speaking of jesus being god. This has absolutely nothing to do with that


    Jesus does say he is gods son. Jesus calls his god his father. He is therefore the son of the father. The bible is very clear about this.
    My alternative interpretation disagrees. You have to prove that one incorrect if you wish to proceed.

    No, the bible is clear as ive shown above. Jesus didnt go around killing people, he instead commanded his followers to not kill.
    No, you have not shown anything. Did I say the entire bible was metaphorical? No. However, jesus also said he came to deliver a sword. :? that's not very non-violent if you ask me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    240
    Jesus came with a sword. NOT his followers. He command sus to NOT kill.

    "Infidels and Gays Should Die"
    It does not say this in the bible.

    There is indeed no commands to christians [new testament] to go out and kill.

    The great problem with the view that the bible encourages killing is this...

    Catholics killed catholics in world war 2. Muslims killed muslims in the iraq iran war. They dont just kill their enemies. Total hippocrasy.

    As jehovahs witnesses we are sincere followers of the bible. We are proud to be called gods people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Truth1010
    Jesus came with a sword. NOT his followers. He command sus to NOT kill.

    "Infidels and Gays Should Die"
    It does not say this in the bible.
    No, go to the website, use the "Find" feature in your browser, and find the title by copy and pasting it. That's why I *GAVE* you the title and told you to do so. Then read the bible quote under it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    There is no doubt that this has been a source of trouble in the understanding of Christian doctrine and scripture from the earliest days of the church and the eccumenical councils reached the compromise that embraces all of the canon in the doctrine that Jesus is fully God and fully man. Make of that what you will. But for me it means that the categories of man and God are not incompatable but in God's unlimited power He is quite capable of reconciling the two in the person of Jesus. I believe that this means that in becoming Jesus inside of time and space God shed all of his infinite power and knowledge (humbled himself) to become an innocent and helpless infant to grow up as one of us and die as all human beings die, so that in the resurrection He could show us once and for all that far from being the end, this is only beginning.
    I am disappointed that daytonturner did not respond to this post on the first page of this thread. He might have called me out on this interpretation because in looking over seventeen of the major heresies in Christian history recently, I discovered one that sounds a lot like the intepretation I just described.

    Kenosis is the name of the heresy and it comes from the Greek word meaning "to empty" as used in Phillipians 2:5-8 "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross,"

    This was declared a heresy because it was thought that if Jesus was not fully divine, then His atoning work would not be sufficient to atone for the sins of the world, even though this decision was in clear contradiction of other parts of scripture (for example Mark 13:32, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.") I do not really see the logic in this agument, but more importantly, I do not consider power and knowledge to be essential to the divinity of God. I deny that God is defined by power and knowledge and thereby restricted in His actions such that He cannot do anything that compromises His integrity as omniscient and omnipotent. I feel that such a view of God restricts God according to the definitions of men, which is blasphemous.

    If God is defined by anything it is goodness and love. This is not a human definition, for goodness and love is not defined by men but by God. All understanding of goodness and love by human beings are a shadow and distortion of what is truly good and loving, which is found only in God. There are some things that are worth any sacrifice and which justify defying even a god of knowledge and power. I think that such a circumstances would "strip God of His divinity" (so to speak) more surely than any lack of power and knowledge. Therefore it seems to me that God cannot be opposed to any cause that is truly founded in compassion and justice. Any opposition to God must ultimately derive from some fault of our own that calls some selfish conceit of ours, love or justice merely for own convenience and self-justification.

    So I believe that I uphold "hypostatic union" (fully God and fully man) when I say that "in becoming a human being inside of time and space God shed all of his infinite power and knowledge (humbled himself) to become an innocent and helpless infant". For I say nevertheless, this infant remained fully God and fully man because being helpless does not preclude divinity, no more than losing an arm or a leg deprives a man of his humanity. This makes much more sense than the traditional interpretation for I find it impossible to understand how Jesus could be said to be fully man if He retained infinite power and knowledge, for even though I deny that infinite power and knowledge is necessary to God's identity, I do think that our finitude is very much a definitive part of the circumstance of being human. For God to take the form of human being without sharing in our finitude, would be nothing more than play acting.

    But without infinite power and knowledge, how was it that Jesus was God? God is not a human definition but a person. Power and knowledge are accessories not our identity. If we were to lose power or knowledge in any form or by what ever means, it does not change who we are! Likewise, Jesus was the same person who created the heavens and the earth, and being a helpless infant could not change this. Mark 13:32 shows how this interpretation is much more in keeping with scriptures than the decsion which declared Kenosis a heresy. However, I will say that this is only my opinion and my interpretation, and I would not dream of saying that anyone must agee with me. I take no authority upon myself in regards to the truth or in regards to the interpretation of scripture. The Bible is the word of God and in it is the only authoritative statement of truth for everyone to understand as best they can.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    I did not find anything particularly objectionable in that explanation. Your explanation as to how Jesus can be both human and God is reasonable.

    About the only thing you have said on this thread with which I would disagree is when you apparently suggested that the doctrine of Jesus being God is a minor issue.

    Mitchell said:
    I have already said that this doctrine that Jesus is God, is not one that is central to my faith. I defend it because I see sufficient scriptural justification for it and because I see no logical contradiction in it either. I think it is wrong to make such a big deal out of this issue, and think it is symptomatic of a human tendency to be distracted by the superficial.

    It does not seem to me that the deity of Jesus is a superficial issue that is a mere distraction. I think it is the core of Paul's theolgy and you have said something to the effect that you are a heavy believer in Pauline theology. Seems to me it is a basic tenet of most of Christendom. It is the main issue which separates mainstream Chistianity from Mormons and JWs. So I would not agree that it is a superficial issue.

    I am hopeful this post will pass the scrutiny of the censor.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    I did not find anything particularly objectionable in that explanation. Your explanation as to how Jesus can be both human and God is reasonable.

    About the only thing you have said on this thread with which I would disagree is when you apparently suggested that the doctrine of Jesus being God is a minor issue.

    Mitchell said:
    I have already said that this doctrine that Jesus is God, is not one that is central to my faith. I defend it because I see sufficient scriptural justification for it and because I see no logical contradiction in it either. I think it is wrong to make such a big deal out of this issue, and think it is symptomatic of a human tendency to be distracted by the superficial.

    It does not seem to me that the deity of Jesus is a superficial issue that is a mere distraction. I think it is the core of Paul's theolgy and you have said something to the effect that you are a heavy believer in Pauline theology. Seems to me it is a basic tenet of most of Christendom. It is the main issue which separates mainstream Chistianity from Mormons and JWs. So I would not agree that it is a superficial issue.

    I am hopeful this post will pass the scrutiny of the censor.
    You misunderstand me very much. I would never say that an issue which so many people feel strongly about is a minor issue. I am saying only that I myself have difficulty sharing that feeling of importance which they attach to it. It is not central to my faith. It is not part of the experience of desperation which drove me ask Jesus into my life. It does not jump out at me from the scriptures as something that either Jesus or Paul for that matter was preoccupied with. Therefore I am left to wonder why so many people feel passionately about it and get upset about it. I do see a tendency in human beings to focus on trivialities and upon issues of authority and power, like when the apostles argued about who of them was most important.

    I have agreed that Paul affirmed the divinity of Christ. This is clear to me. But I do not see that this issue occupied a substantial portion of his writings. I do not see Paul identifying Christians primarily as those who believe in the divinity of Christ, but as those call upon Christ in repentance to deliver them from sin and death. Paul certainly makes a big deal of the question of the law versus faith. He makes a big deal about the resurrection of Christ. Please show me where, if I am wrong, that Paul makes a big deal out of the divinity of Christ rather than merely mentioning it in passing.

    Personally, I think that if it was such a big deal, then the word of God would have made this issue much more clear and would have saved Christendom from such ordeals of conflict over the issue. It seems only reasonable to me to think that these conflicts are a products of human failure rather than a failure of the Word of God.

    Don't get me wrong. I am not challenging the judgement of the Christian consensus which makes this decide that Mormons and Jehova Witneses among other are not Christian. I simply see the fact that these groups make such a big deal out of their own interpretation as being the more important reason for why they are heretics than simply the fact their opinion does not conform to the eccumenical councils.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Your position, Mitchell, is not particularly unreasonable in one sense. I do not recall many Christian bull sessions where the topic of discussion was the divinity of Jesus. It is something that I think mainstream Christianity merely takes for granted. So I would agree that it is not something that is particulary emphasized in the Bible or by Paul. It is, perhaps, so axiomatic among Christians that it is not an issue until someone questions it.

    On the other hand, I think it is an essential belief. Jeremy keeps asking for proof that it is necessary for Messiah to be God. And like many things in Christianity, there is no "proof." But it is what Christians believe. The Bible does not provide much in the way of proof of the trinity, but we believe that. And the triune God is another fundamental belief in Christianity.

    While these doctrines are not spelled out word for word in the Bible, there are verses from which we draw those beliefs. When Jesus says go and baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, we give egual significance to each of those essenses. Our picture of God is not complete in only the Father or any two of the three. And all three aspects of God's personality (or essence) are mentioned in various places.

    When it comes to the idea that Messiah must be God, it is because we are told that Messiah will save His people, but we understand that only God has the ability to save. And there is David saying, "And the Lord (yhwh) said unto my Lord (adoni) . . ." which again puts them on equal footing with each other. I could be wrong on this, but it is my belief that yhwh is the same part of God we call Jesus while adoni, is that part of God we call God the Father.

    And I would agree with you that Paul's major emphasis is on the importance of Jesus death and resurrection. As he tells the Corinthians, "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain."

    I keep trying to think of a good analogy. This is not great, but -- it is as if I told you that I painted my house blue. The big issue here would be the painting of my house. There would be no big to-do about whether I owned a house until someone questioned it. Otherwise, it would be accepted and understood and any discussion about my painting the house would revolve around the painting. In much the same way, the divinity of Jesus is not an issue until someone challenges that belief.

    I would agree there are areas of Christianity which are far more worthy of discussion, but, generally, we do not pick the battle field. If the divinity of Jesus is the battle field, that is the one we must address.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    daytonturner,

    If get your point despite the poor analogy. However, I think your argument only really works to deny that Jesus could be only human. For I do think that the denial that any human work or agency could save us is indeed a central part of Christianity. However I am not so sure that the precise nature of the divinity in Christ is quite so central.

    However, I have been puzzling over that argument against Kenosis, and I think I am beginning to understand a little (although not in a way that invalidates my previous argument). I begin to see that the saving power of the crucifixion does lie in the fact that because of our sins we human beings tortured and murdered God Himself, the one who gave us life, for it is in only in this do we see the devastating consequences of our sin, and that God loves us more than anything we can possible imagine, willing to take the consequences of our sin upon Himself. This is what makes the divinity of Christ so central.

    But again the precise nature of the divinity in Christ and the natue of the Trinity are not a part of this either. .... From this point of view I still can only find fault in the Mormons and JWs on this issue in the way that they have made too much of their own interpretation. The moonies, however, fall much farther short of Christianity in denying that Jesus created the world. From my study of heresies today I can identify these groups with a few of these heresies: Jehova Witnesses with Arianism, and the moonies with Adoptionism, while the Mormons are practically polytheistic. Ahk..., this Christology really is a pretty confounded mess.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    I begin to see that the saving power of the crucifixion does lie in the fact that because of our sins we human beings tortured and murdered God Himself, the one who gave us life, for it is in only in this do we see the devastating consequences of our sin, and that God loves us more than anything we can possible imagine, willing to take the consequences of our sin upon Himself. This is what makes the divinity of Christ so central.
    !!!! But the fact that this was God is precisely what make this a reconcilliation with God!!!!

    I am still learning.... for my thoughts in this direction have brought about a reversal of my opinion.

    If you take away the divinity of Christ then what is left of this? We have a man who would reconcile us to God and whose best intention brought him into conflict with an evil world. We may love and admire this person, but no matter how innocent, loving and good He is, He is still just another victim of evil. Yes, His spirit triumphs in the end as we believe all such victims do. But how shall this make us see God except to lay another injustice like this at His feet. I see no reconciliation with God in this at all.

    It seems to me that the only other theory that makes sense is the adoptionist one of the moonies and other dynamic monarchians, that the man Jesus reconciled us to God by being the first human being to become all that God hoped that man should become. I think this works logically but I also think that the result is not even remotely Christian, for in this case we are not saved by the power of God but by our own effort. This theology gives religious organizations the task of showing us how this may be done. Telling us what we must do for eternal life, is a rather great deal of power to give over to a human organization, isn't it?

    In conclusion I must say that I was wrong and daytonturner was absolutely right. The divinity of Christ is indeed central to the faith of any Christian (whether He know it or not).
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    As is often the case, Mitchell, you have said what I was trying to say in much clearer terms.

    If Jesus was man only, and lived a perfect life, it would suggest that it is humanly possible to do so. And if that is the case, we have no need of God, we can earn our way to heaven. In that case, we have no hope, having already broken the law.

    Your explanation that Jesus could shed his Godliness but remain God while becoming human was very interesting when explained in the terms that a man who loses an arm is no less of a man nor any less of the person he was before. He is also able some of the things he was able to do with two arms which might complete the analogy as to how Jesus was able to do what would appear to have been somewhat supernatural things -- like turning water to wine and feeding the 5,000.

    We do not often think of the entirety of what happened on the cross when God the Father withdrew as Jesus died. Not only did he experience physical death on the cross, but between then and the resurrection he was in hell where each of us deserves to go. Without the resurrection, there is no chance for us to escape hell. As Paul says, we are risen with Him, a thought that moves me deeply.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Your explanation that Jesus could shed his Godliness but remain God while becoming human was very interesting when explained in the terms that a man who loses an arm is no less of a man nor any less of the person he was before. He is also able some of the things he was able to do with two arms which might complete the analogy as to how Jesus was able to do what would appear to have been somewhat supernatural things -- like turning water to wine and feeding the 5,000.
    Actually you may not like this, and I am sure many other Christians will not like it either, but I think that in some sense Jesus did not do anything that a human being could not do. Sure the miracles were acts of God, but I think perhaps that rather than doing them himself, He asked the Father to do these things. The point is that the power of God is accessible to all human beings with a little faith. Jesus said that if we but had the faith of a mustard seed, then we could command the mountains to move. Jesus sent out His disciples to do everything that He Himself had done, and they could do it because God answered their prayers. The point is that Jesus, although He was God, was also fully human with all of their physical limitations. It is just that if we subject ourselves to the will of God, as Jesus did, there aren't any limitations.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Actually you may not like this, and I am sure many other Christians will not like it either, but I think that in some sense Jesus did not do anything that a human being could not do. Sure the miracles were acts of God, but I think perhaps that rather than doing them himself, He asked the Father to do these things. The point is that the power of God is accessible to all human beings with a little faith. Jesus said that if we but had the faith of a mustard seed, then we could command the mountains to move. Jesus sent out His disciples to do everything that He Himself had done, and they could do it because God answered their prayers. The point is that Jesus, although He was God, was also fully human with all of their physical limitations. It is just that if we subject ourselves to the will of God, as Jesus did, there aren't any limitations.
    Mitch, I have to say it before megabrain does in a far worse way: When you do so, let us know. :/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65 well....... 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Well........it is my belief that we are all sons and daughters of "god" and as we all come from the same place and the same bit of energy anyone can claim this.....

    .....but i dont for one second believe that the bible or the koran or any other religious text is the word of "god".....its not !

    There were hundereds of gospels written about Jesus, but the council of Nicea in rome just chose the ones that it wanted to.......presumably getting rid of ones that served no purpouse for its cause (religious and econimical dominance)

    and dont EVEN get my started on Islam !!

    But its a best seller isnt it !?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66 Church of the latter day saints.......... 
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Whats the name of that christian religion that allows you to marry more than one wife ?

    Aah, thats it, ! - Its the Morons isnt it ?

    Sometimes I wish that I was a Moron.

    lol
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67 Re: Church of the latter day saints.......... 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    Whats the name of that christian religion that allows you to marry more than one wife ?

    Aah, thats it, ! - Its the Morons isnt it ?

    Sometimes I wish that I was a Moron.

    lol
    That's bollocks!
    I'm surprised, you do not normally seem so gullible in what you believe, anyway, a small group of mormons 'broke off' from the mother church and decided polygamy was ok. I'm not an expert on the mormons, so that too could also be bollocks! - I suspect Mitch has more knowledge of polygamy with respect to the mormon church. [Pls don't take that the wrong way mitch].

    Remember also the churches are in effect 'competing' against each other for your money, so most rumours about religious groups start there, - notice how I, and other atheists, 'sought the truth' in the 'Are mormons a satanic cult?" - or similar named thread. We did not support this even though we do not support religion, we sought the truth and generally decided they don't 'boil babies' as it were.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68 Re: Church of the latter day saints.......... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    That's bollocks!
    I'm surprised, you do not normally seem so gullible in what you believe, anyway, a small group of mormons 'broke off' from the mother church and decided polygamy was ok. I'm not an expert on the mormons, so that too could also be bollocks! - I suspect Mitch has more knowledge of polygamy with respect to the mormon church. [Pls don't take that the wrong way mitch].
    You are right. Born, grew up and lived most of my life in Utah has given me far more information than the usual non-Mormon. So here is the deal. The Mormons had their "apostle Paul" who wrought major changes in their religion. This was Brigham Young. He is the one who started the practice of polygamy and brought a large portion of the members out west to settle in Utah. Had a sizable empire out in the west until the U.S. government decided that this was not such a good thing and sent in the army. Well there was no battle. The Mormons capitulated to terms which included the banning of the practice of polygamy. However there are extremists who have reinstituted the practice in small groups. Thus we have the original church that never went to Utah that never practiced polygamy, we have the biggest church centered in Utah that no longer practices polygamy, and we have lots of little splinter groups, some of which do practice polygamy.

    Does that clear things up?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    Leohopkins wrote:
    There were hundereds of gospels written about Jesus, but the council of Nicea in rome just chose the ones that it wanted to.......presumably getting rid of ones that served no purpouse for its cause (religious and econimical dominance)
    Well that is certainly one way to look at it, especially if you don't know what your are talking about and it is your goal to discredit the Council of Nicea. The best way to discredit something is to suggest that there was a preconceived agenda on the table.

    However, the attendees at the council of Nicea were not all like minded and had several individual agendas they were advancing. Ultimately, however, their final decisions were the result of considerable compromise. I would suspect that very few of the final votes on any of the considered writings were unanimous. In fact, many of the writings they rejected are included in some versions of the Bible and others remain available for reading, often with notations of speculation as to why the Council of Nicea may have rejected them.

    However, your lack of information about this council is quite abundant. The first council of Nicea was held in the city of Nicea in Bythnia (which is located in present-day Turkey), not in Rome. The purpose of the council had nothing to do with religious or ecumenical dominance, but to settle arguments among various enclaves of Christians as to which writings could be considered authoritative. Their rule of thumb appears to have been, “When in doubt, throw it out.”

    I am sure there were not “hundreds of gospels.” There were, indeed, hundreds of writings, but not all of them would have been considered gospels. Gospels in this meaning would refer to books which purport to follow the life of Jesus and quote things which he reportedly said. Wikipedia (thescienceforum’s Bible) lists 29 known rejected “gospels.” While this may be a substantial amount, it is closer to scores rather than 100s. There were also numerous other writings considered which were not gospels.

    If you are really interested in this topic, might I kindly advise that you research it a little bit before just shooting from the hip by blindly stating something you think you may have heard someone else say?
    MOd Edit off topic deleted. Megabrain.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman The One Who Knows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Any study of the REAL Bible will show that Jesus claimed to be God on numerous occasions. For that he was tried, convicted and executed. So if Jesus was not God, then he was a liar and not worthy of anyone's reverence.

    A JW supporting Mormons is laughable. Sort of the pot claiming neither it nor the kettle are black.
    Actually, jesus stated he was the son of god many times in the bible. the NKJV, for example, aids in this as well as other translations (like the one the JW's use. Dynamic, but still holds a similar message).

    Example:
    JOHN 10:36 NKJ
    36 "do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'?

    http://www.believers.org/whodid.htm


    It is hard for us to understand. When people try to think of a triune God, they tend to think of three things in one, like a bag with an apple, orange, and pear. Instead of this, it is one thing in three, such as an apple cut into three parts.
    I desire mercy, not sacrifice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by The One Who Knows
    It is hard for us to understand. When people try to think of a triune God, they tend to think of three things in one, like a bag with an apple, orange, and pear. Instead of this, it is one thing in three, such as an apple cut into three parts.
    That's how it's viewed. The same things apply. You've offered nothing new to the table.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by The One Who Knows
    It is hard for us to understand. When people try to think of a triune God, they tend to think of three things in one, like a bag with an apple, orange, and pear. Instead of this, it is one thing in three, such as an apple cut into three parts.
    The Trinity is indeed a difficult concept which is not found in scripture itself but is considered by traditional Christians like myself to be the concept of God which is most compatable with the totality of scripture. A skeptic might say it our way of transfering "contradictions" in scripture to a contradictory concept of God.

    I am tempted but wary of comparing it to split personality disorder. I am not saying that God is crazy but merely pointing out that even human being can have something of a three in one type of existence. A lot of other metaphorical explanations of the Trinity (such as seeing the three persons as modes, aspects or incarnations of one God) have been rejected as heresy which contributes to making understanding the Trinity an extremely difficult proposition. At the risk of getting myself into trouble with other Christian I will mention one piece of literature which embraces this idea of being more than one person, but for human beings rather than God. This is found in a book called "Seth Speaks" which is supposedly messages passed to a medium about the nature of things. This idea of trans-personhood then explains the concept of reincarnation, where we our true identity is one that embraces multiple persons of our various lives.

    I actually think of the trinity as a aspect of God's infinite nature. In mathematics we say that infinity plus infinity equals infinity, and I think this concept might help. I think that the infinite nature of God has room within it for multiple persons who partake of the same infinite nature individually as seperate persons and yet still just parts of a single infinite God. Christians like myself will often object to non-personal concepts of God as a universal mind, force, intellect or law, because these limit God to something less than a person. But I guess we would have say that Christians rather than simply believing in a personal God, must be more accurately said to believe in a trans-personal God, that is a God which transcends personhood. At least we could say that God transcends the limits of personhood as we experience them.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman The One Who Knows's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht
    Quote Originally Posted by The One Who Knows
    It is hard for us to understand. When people try to think of a triune God, they tend to think of three things in one, like a bag with an apple, orange, and pear. Instead of this, it is one thing in three, such as an apple cut into three parts.
    That's how it's viewed. The same things apply. You've offered nothing new to the table.



    The question is "Is Jesus God?"

    This understanding is fundemental to seeing how it could happen.
    I desire mercy, not sacrifice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Bachelors Degree charles brough's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    joplin MO USA
    Posts
    425
    So, there are Biblical passages that say Christ is "God" and ones which say he is NOT "God." Typical! The "Sacred Text" is riddled with such inconsistencies.

    ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

    God created animals before Man.
    Gen. 1:25-26
    25. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
    26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    No. God created Man before animals.
    Gen. 2:18-22
    18. And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
    19. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
    20. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    21. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    22. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    How can these both be correct?

    THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE 'THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD" and be the thinking behind our religious President and his cohorts. Is it any wonder that they believe in the Revelations End Times doctrine and are proudly bringing us closer to it?

    Next stop: Iran . . .

    charles, http://humanpurpose.simplent.com (430 hits PER DAY in January!)
    Brough,
    civilization-overview (dot) com

    --------------------
    There are no accidents, just someone taking too much risk. . . (CB)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Guest
    Shouldn't the question be was jesus good? after all he got 'banged up' about 1975 years ago, and hasn't been seen since!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Jesus is not the GOD
    there is no single verse in the bible in which jesus himself says 'i am GOD worship me'
    Jesus is a messenger of GOD sent to human beings
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    Jesus is not the GOD
    there is no single verse in the bible in which jesus himself says 'i am GOD worship me'
    Jesus is a messenger of GOD sent to human beings
    are you sure, look again.
    using those exactly word then you maybe right, but he does say he and god are one therefore if god has said "I am god worship me", so has jesus.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    what he ment is in perpose they are one.
    like we all in this forum are one, it doesnt mean that we are one person.
    our aim and our purpose is one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Guest
    Jesus and god are one and the same in that they are both imaginary characters in your world, unlike santa clause and the others though, people refuse to let them go when become more aware of reality. Truly religious people can see themselves as 'God's children'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    what he meant is in purpose they are one.
    how is your idea as to what he meant anymore viable than mine, mine being the generalised view.
    and anyway if he's purpose is the same, he would expect to be idolised.
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    like we all in this forum are one, it doesnt mean that we are one person.
    our aims and our purpose are one.
    are they, I dont thinks so.
    else why would there be so many opposing views.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Jesus and god are one and the same in that they are both imaginary characters in your world, unlike santa clause and the others though, people refuse to let them go when become more aware of reality. Truly religious people can see themselves as 'God's children'.
    God is one and only. every thing is in need of him, but he doesnt need anythings help. he is not begotten niether he has children. there is nothing like him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore basim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    maldives
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    what he meant is in purpose they are one.
    how is your idea as to what he meant anymore viable than mine, mine being the generalised view.
    no, God's purpose was to make people in his path, the right path. and Jesus purpose was also that.
    you have to do how Jesus has done but not worship him. God is one, dont admit any one as partner.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    Are you speaking English?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    geezer,

    how is your idea as to what he meant anymore viable than mine, mine being the generalised view.
    from encarta;

    one
    - unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic
    - used to distinguish something: distinct from others of its kind
    - at nonspecific time: relating to an unspecified time in the past or future
    - used for emphasis: used instead of "a" and "an" to emphasize a following adjective...
    Being "one" with something does NOT mean being the same thing.
    And your idea is concocted to discredit spirituality and real religion.

    ...our aims and our purpose are one.
    are they, I dont thinks so. or else why would there be so many opposing views.
    Think beyond your bias, my dear sir.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by basim
    there is nothing like him.
    I couldn't have said it better myself, there is NOTHING like god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Jesus is refered to as 'the son of God' now if he was his own father that would be worrying and have a slight paradox on it

    I think that it's all a load of **** any way, i'm just waiting fo the page that says
    "To my wife Jane, i have written this book as a sign of my love to you, please note that all characters in this book are fictional and should be taken so..."
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    geezer,

    how is your idea as to what he meant anymore viable than mine, mine being the generalised view.
    from encarta;

    one
    - unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic
    - used to distinguish something: distinct from others of its kind
    - at nonspecific time: relating to an unspecified time in the past or future
    - used for emphasis: used instead of "a" and "an" to emphasize a following adjective...
    Being "one" with something does NOT mean being the same thing.
    your own dictionary link contradicts you here
    "unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic
    - used to distinguish something: distinct from others of its kind"

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    And your idea is concocted to discredit spirituality and real religion.
    if by stating a fact, it means something gets discredited then so be it, it obviously was'nt credible in the first place.

    ...our aims and our purpose are one.
    are they, I dont thinks so. or else why would there be so many opposing views.
    Think beyond your bias, my dear sir.
    what bias just stating facts.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    Jesus is refered to as 'the son of God' now if he was his own father that would be worrying and have a slight paradox on it

    I think that it's all a load of **** any way, i'm just waiting fo the page that says
    "To my wife Jane, i have written this book as a sign of my love to you, please note that all characters in this book are fictional and should be taken so..."
    Maybe he had a time machine, that could account for the paradox?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    Jesus is refered to as 'the son of God' now if he was his own father that would be worrying and have a slight paradox on it

    I think that it's all a load of **** any way, i'm just waiting fo the page that says
    "To my wife Jane, i have written this book as a sign of my love to you, please note that all characters in this book are fictional and should be taken so..."
    Maybe he had a time machine, that could account for the paradox?

    Sounds good eh "Jesus and the time machine"

    Still waiting for the sequel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Quote Originally Posted by Nevyn
    Jesus is refered to as 'the son of God' now if he was his own father that would be worrying and have a slight paradox on it

    I think that it's all a load of **** any way, i'm just waiting fo the page that says
    "To my wife Jane, i have written this book as a sign of my love to you, please note that all characters in this book are fictional and should be taken so..."
    Maybe he had a time machine, that could account for the paradox?

    Sounds good eh "Jesus and the time machine"

    Still waiting for the sequel.
    then you have the next paradox of 'who was the "first" Jesus?'
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Guest
    Oh that's easy, he was!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    881
    and where did the first one come from?
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Guest
    I think this gone off topic, so to get it back, I suggest Jesus was not the son of God, otherwise he would have had similar DNA, God having DNA is incongruous to any notion of him being immortal, also I understand that God is supposed to have indicated man was in his image, THere's your real paradox,

    If we are in god's image then we are equal and have the same DNA. - ergo anyone can claim to be 'god' (as many do).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    geezer,

    how is your idea as to what he meant anymore viable than mine, mine being the generalised view.
    from encarta;

    one
    - unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic
    - used to distinguish something: distinct from others of its kind
    - at nonspecific time: relating to an unspecified time in the past or future
    - used for emphasis: used instead of "a" and "an" to emphasize a following adjective...
    Being "one" with something does NOT mean being the same thing.
    your own dictionary link contradicts you here
    "unique: used to indicate the only thing or person with a specific characteristic
    - used to distinguish something: distinct from others of its kind"

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    And your idea is concocted to discredit spirituality and real religion.
    if by stating a fact, it means something gets discredited then so be it, it obviously was'nt credible in the first place.

    ...our aims and our purpose are one.
    are they, I dont thinks so. or else why would there be so many opposing views.
    Think beyond your bias, my dear sir.
    what bias just stating facts.
    Nice try.
    Jesus' description was that of a "unique" individual, in that particular time and place. It, in no way suggests he was God, further more, he in no way suggests he is God, as he speaks of God as his father. The bible (to my knowledge) does not suggest Jesus is God. Jesus' "specific characteristic" is that he qualitatively the same as God, not quatititively.

    Please provide one fact which you have stated?

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Nice try.
    Jesus' description was that of a "unique" individual, in that particular time and place. It, in no way suggests he was God, further more, he in no way suggests he is God, as he speaks of God as his father. The bible (to my knowledge) does not suggest Jesus is God. Jesus' "specific characteristic" is that he qualitatively the same as God, not quatititively.
    then you cant have read it properly
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Please provide one fact which you have stated? Jan.
    I dont have to but I'll humour you.
    all from the KJV
    "...they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US."
    MATTHEW 1:23

    and jesus said "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
    JOHN 8:24


    god said
    "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" ISAIAH 44:24

    and for jesus
    "By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth...all things were created by him, and for him" COLOSSIANS 1:16



    god is the word
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" JOHN 1:1

    jesus was the word
    "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" JOHN 1:14



    god is the alpha and omega
    "I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he" ISAIAH 41:4

    jesus is the alpha and omega
    "Fear not; I am the first and the last:" REVELATIONS 1:17


    there are literally hundreds more.

    and a few to finish of with

    "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED ON in the world, RECEIVED UP into glory."
    1 Timothy 3:16

    "feed the church of GOD, which he hath purchased with his OWN BLOOD."
    Acts 20:28
    ,
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    geezer,


    Quote Originally Posted by Jan
    provide one fact which you have stated?
    "...they shall call his name EMMANUEL, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US."
    MATTHEW 1:23
    So?

    ... jesus said "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
    JOHN 8:24
    You're really serious aren't you? Did you not read the chapter? Did you not see this verse;

    "And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 8:17


    god said
    "I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" ISAIAH 44:24
    ???

    and for jesus
    "By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth...all things were created by him, and for him" COLOSSIANS 1:16
    Did you not read the preceding verse?:

    Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
    1:15
    image
    - actual or mental picture: a picture or likeness of somebody or something,
    god is the word
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" JOHN 1:1

    jesus was the word
    "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" JOHN 1:14
    Didn't you notice the simultaneos oness and difference, the word is God, and is also with
    God? God is everything. The word was made flesh, meaning it was God in a form, an incarnation you may say. But God is also different.
    At least try and understand who and what God is.

    ... there
    are literally hundreds more.
    As far as you're concerned there may as well be trillions more. All you have demonstrated is your anti-God zeal.

    and a few to finish of with
    "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD was manifest in the FLESH, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, BELIEVED ON in the world, RECEIVED UP into glory."
    1 Timothy 3:16
    I don't doubt that God manifests himself in the flesh, and that he manifested himself in Jesus, but that doesn't mean that Jesus WAS God. Apart from that, it is very clear that he is separate from God. You simple don't have a case.

    manifest
    - obvious: clear to see or understand
    - show something clearly: to make something evident by showing or demonstrating it very clearly
    - appear: to appear or be revealed


    Like I said, nice try.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    jan's understanding of these Bible verses is about as good as my understanding of a long math or physics formula filled with letters and codes with which I am not familiar. The formula has no significance or meaning to me.

    And no matter how much I try to explain them in my own frame of reference, the meaning I attach to the symbols and letters will only show my total ignorance on the matters.

    Within the religious community, the terms and reference which Jesus and other writers of the Bible used are obvious references to His diety.

    There were a number of these posted earlier in this thread by Mitchell and me. Maybe it would be beneficial for jan to go back and look at them.

    Jan's claim that such verses are not indicative of Jesus' and the Bible's claim that he is God, is sort of like someone unfamiliar with Relativity claiming the formula E=MC2 has no relevance to the atomic bomb.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    jan's understanding of these Bible verses is about as good as my understanding of a long math or physics formula filled with letters and codes with which I am not familiar. The formula has no significance or meaning to me.

    And no matter how much I try to explain them in my own frame of reference, the meaning I attach to the symbols and letters will only show my total ignorance on the matters.

    Within the religious community, the terms and reference which Jesus and other writers of the Bible used are obvious references to His diety.

    There were a number of these posted earlier in this thread by Mitchell and me. Maybe it would be beneficial for jan to go back and look at them.

    Jan's claim that such verses are not indicative of Jesus' and the Bible's claim that he is God, is sort of like someone unfamiliar with Relativity claiming the formula E=MC2 has no relevance to the atomic bomb.
    Hi,

    I think I have made a fairly substantial claim, from the biblical perspective, and see no reason view earlier threads.
    However, your disdain, albeit very polite, leaves me somewhat confused, and my curiousity has got the better of me.
    Could you explain what you mean, using my points.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    daytonturner,

    Within the religious community, the terms and reference which Jesus and other writers of the Bible used are obvious references to His diety.

    I did say this to geezer;

    I don't doubt that God manifests himself in the flesh, and that he manifested himself in Jesus, but that doesn't mean that Jesus WAS God.
    This does not discount him as a diety.

    Jan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,095
    No, jan, I am not going to rewrite what has already been written on this topic earlier in this very thread, which writings may or may not have actually directly addressed your points.

    To continue my earlier use of extended math and physics formulas, I should add that if I really wanted to know what all those strange symbols and letters in the formula meant, I would go to a mathematician or physicist who understood them.

    Mitchell and I have both put down basic perspectives with which Christians view verses that Christians believe show that Jesus claimed to be God Himself.

    If you have a different take on these verses in and effort to deny that Jesus is God, you are not alone. Some religions on the fringes of Christianity such as Mormons and Jehova Witnesses also do not teach that Jesus was God Himself.

    It is well settled within mainstream Christinity that Jesus is God.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •