BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: theMadJW on November 13, 2021, 01:30:25 PM
-
(https://i1.wp.com/i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm145/madentity/JesusSaid2.jpg)
-
Jesus was God, and he embraced God as both the origin of his revelation and his Father in heaven. Jesus was an expression of God's word. And that word was a portrait of who God is in the form of a man.
I wouldn't say that as a man he worshiped "a" God. I would say that he worshiped "the" one and only God, from whom he had emerged as His revealed Son.
It is a worship of His own Deity, but only in the sense of God's word submitting to the God who issued that word.
-
"Jesus was God"= Jesus said OTHERWISE (John 17:3)
"HI wouldn't say that as a man he worshiped "a" God. I would say that he worshiped "the" one and only God. He worshiped his one only only God. Not Three.
"He embraced God as both the origin of his revelation and "His Father in heaven"- He did, >>> NOT <<< Himself, or Themselves (don't forget the Holy 'Ghost')
"It is a worship of His own Deity". - So NOW your changing that he didn't worship, but that he worshiped HIMSELF!
The easiest way to destroy a fake teaching of Churchianity is by trying to it! ;D
-
No, Trinitarian distinctions are not a matter of comparing one kind of physical element with another kind of physical element. Divine substance is transcendent and before creation. We cannot compare the Trinity except by comparing their positions relative to one another. They share the same divine substance, and the Son obtains the addition of his human physical substance. The Spirit is known by His appearances within the finite universe, even though He encompasses all of space. You can't speak, however, about things you don't actually experience. When you experience the Deity in Jesus, then you will understand. As Jesus said, "When you see me, you also see the Father."
John 1.18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
John 14.9 Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.
-
You sink into clergyman-speak, completely unrelated to the Bible.
-
Very good.
Please explain the following, in your own words, not in the clergy speak you learned two Saturday's ago at the Kingdom Hall.
1 ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
2 οὖτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν.
-
I don't speak Greek- and these words are from JESUS...
-
Ah, yeah.
Jesus didn't speak English. The language wasn't developed for a good 1000+ years later, and even then, neither you nor I could read Old English/Anglo-Saxon/Pict/Welsh/ etc very well.
So, Jesus didn't speak those words in the Watchtower Translation. He spoke koine greek or Aramaic, so, well. The words in your original post are not the words of Jesus, but the words of a translator working from the original Koine Greek.
So, yeah, the Greek is really important, there. That's John 1:1-2
-
So, you disregard his words, and read John 1:1 as "Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was Jesus"?
-
So, you disregard his words, and read John 1:1 as "Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was Jesus"?
Why are you translating λόγος and θεόν/θεὸς both as Jesus?
-
Why do you quote Greek?
To show onlookers how SMART you are?
-
Probably not, although he is very smart.
No, because he has spent the time to understand the language in which the New Testament was originally written so that he can point out the defects in attempts to turn Jesus into a created being who is less than co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.
There is nothing arrogant or condescending in that effort. Truth is the ultimate goal, wouldn't you agree?
I mean, if one wants to know God, all we can know of Him is that which He has condescended to reveal to us through His written Word, correct?
-
Correct!
But you need to re-phrase all the words of Christ to show a 'Trinity'.
-
No, one has to mistranslate all the words of Christ and the rest of the New Testament to lower Jesus to the status of a created being.
-
Such as the one God and Christ came up with tp help the Jews understand: "son"?
EVERY Jew knows what a "son" is!
Not churchoids.
-
Exactly. Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God.
Of course the Jews struggled with it, just as the Jehovah's Witness struggles with it, just as even evangelical Christian struggles with it.
Struggling with a concept doesn't make the concept incorrect. There is, however, no other explanation that satisfies all of Scripture.
Let me ask an easier question.
On what basis are people saved from their sin so that they do not have to suffer the wrath of God?
-
JWs and I have no problem understanding the term.
I fyou accept Christ as the Messiah- your "sins are forgiven".
-
JWs and I have no problem understanding the term.
I fyou accept Christ as the Messiah- your "sins are forgiven".
OK.
And exactly what does that mean? I know a bunch of folks that can quote bumper stickers but have no idea what they mean.
What does it mean for one's sins to be forgiven, and why is that important?
Further, (a) who forgives one's sins and (b) based on what?
What payment satisfies God's righteous wrath against my sins?
-
Nice Diversion!
Make a Topic about it.
-
Why do you quote Greek?
To show onlookers how SMART you are?
Knowledge of Greek is required for proper exegesis, that's just bible study 101. Importantly, it lets us read Jesus' words in the language He spoke them.
Anyway, you cast the following allegation in another thread:
That why I call you people "churcoids"- for you listen to you Clergy rather than Jesus- whose words you probably haven't READ!
Well, I have read the words of Jesus and quoted them to you (as did RK). I don't take kindly too gaslighting, though.
But you need to re-phrase all the words of Christ to show a 'Trinity'.
We do not, and I would offer that trinitarian doctrine was millennia ahead of itself in positing an ontology of the godhead that wasn't limited to the confines of our present reality. You know, because a being who isn't native to our very reality just might not be explicable by our present reality. A bit like trying to describe a 4th-dimensional object in 3 dimensions. We just can't quite get there.
But you're free to disagree and present your case (in your own words, like, without the horribly misinformed YT videos). If you don't mind let's stick to the Greek because we'll only end up submerged in it anyway.
-
I familiar with the Greek tricks that Theologians use to fool people.
I was once one who BELIEVED then.
Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!
-
Nice Diversion!
Make a Topic about it.
No diversion. Central to this discussion.
And your response is?
-
I familiar with the Greek tricks that Theologians use to fool people.
I was once one who BELIEVED then.
Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!
Yes, those tricky hobbits...
Alright, you may proceed. In your own words.
-
Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!
-
I familiar with the Greek tricks that Theologians use to fool people.
I was once one who BELIEVED then.
Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!
OK, already out there. And it's not a "Greek trick." It's just good old fashioned scholarship, whether dealing with the Gospel of John or with any other ancient Greek text.
How to you square the inconsistent application of the definite article/indefinite article in John 1:1? Why the difference in the translation of "beginning" to include a definite article when one is not present in the text, but the insistence that "the" is not proper before Theos?
Here's the reason. It has to do with Greek grammar and syntax, and when a noun is used with a linking verb, the article is simply left out and we capitalize "God" instead of saying "the God."
This is why the Greek is important, not just relying on one aberrant translation that no Greek scholar agrees with.
-
I was talking to Athanasius.
All you have is church dogma , and you ignore Jesus' words!
-
I was talking to Athanasius.
All you have is church dogma , and you ignore Jesus' words!
Dude I'm called Athanasius for crying out loud. Let us defer to RK:
---
OK, already out there. And it's not a "Greek trick." It's just good old fashioned scholarship, whether dealing with the Gospel of John or with any other ancient Greek text.
How to you square the inconsistent application of the definite article/indefinite article in John 1:1? Why the difference in the translation of "beginning" to include a definite article when one is not present in the text, but the insistence that "the" is not proper before Theos?
Here's the reason. It has to do with Greek grammar and syntax, and when a noun is used with a linking verb, the article is simply left out and we capitalize "God" instead of saying "the God."
This is why the Greek is important, not just relying on one aberrant translation that no Greek scholar agrees with.
-
John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, (the Trinity- 3 Beings)
and the Word was God.(the Trinity- 3 Beings)
How do YOU explain this?
(We all know the Word was in reference to God's son, don't we?)
-
It's actually axiomatic.
The Word/Logos/Jesus was in the beginning. Sort of self-explanatory -- also demonstrates the eternality of Jesus
The Word/Logos/Jesus was with God. Demonstrates separateness of Jesus the Son from the persons of God the Father and God the Spirit.
The Word/Logos/Jesus was God. Demonstrates the unity of the Godhead, showing that Jesus is a co-equal in the Godhead.
Not too tough, really.
But again, doctrine is not made of one verse in isolation, but from all of Scripture taken together.
-
John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, (the Trinity- 3 Beings)
and the Word was God.(the Trinity- 3 Beings)
How do YOU explain this?
(We all know the Word was in reference to God's son, don't we?)
In addition to what RK noted, I'll add that:
- It's unclear what you're actually asking, and thus looking for.
- You're (still) confused over what the doctrine of the trinity teaches, which is not "3 Beings".
-
John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, (the Trinity- 3 Beings)
and the Word was God.(the Trinity- 3 Beings)
How do YOU explain this?
(We all know the Word was in reference to God's son, don't we?)
I'm just speaking for myself, and not in concert with anybody else here. But it is entirely logical to me to know that God is by definition transcendent, such that we cannot know Him as He is without His generating a revelation of Himself in terms that we can understand.
The thing that God uses to generate an understanding of Himself to us is His Word. When He speaks a Word to reveal His own Person it can take the form of a Man, Jesus. This then makes it entirely logical for Jesus, as a form of God's Person, to speak back to God in His infinite, original Personhood.
Having assumed the form of a Man, it is entirely consistent and even necessary to continue to see God as existing *before* His appearing as a man, as well! This also is a product of His Word, which expresses Himself as Father of Jesus.
And so, with this double revelation of God, as existing before Man and as a Man, we have grounds for a relationship between these two persons of God. I see no supposed "absurdity" in this?
It is, as others say here, impossible to get much beyond this, since as I said, God is, by definition, transcendent. How he can communicate as an infinite Being to His finite, human apparition (but concrete appearance) nobody can fathom. But it is logical.
No more can we understand how an infinite Spirit can appear within the finite universe in various places. An infinite omnipresent Being appearing in finite locations? How can we hope to explain it, since we are finite beings ourselves?
Beyond this, you're hung up, as others here have said, on the idea that Trinitarians view God as "3 beings." As they said, this is not true. The formula is "One Divine Being in 3 Persons." One divine substance expressed in 3 personalities. The unity of God is in His Being and in His Substance. He is not 3 separate substances, nor 3 separate beings.
So if you're going to attack Trinitarianism as illogical or inconsistent, you have to first address the real issues, instead of making up a false version of Trinitarianism to attack illegitimately. Okay?
One more thing. This is not just about doctrine--more importantly, it is about salvation. You will not experience genuine Christian salvation if you see Christ as less than God. A divine Christ is required to bring you a lasting experience with God, that produces eternal divine character in your own person. To connect with God on an eternal basis, you must connect through an intermediary who is himself divine!
-
Randy, Jesus said God SENT HIM.
(Not came Themselves!)
And Jesus said that it means Everlasting Life >>>> KNOWING <<<< Him. (John 17:3)
So your thoughts have been tied to church dogma...
-
Randy, Jesus said God SENT HIM.
(Not came Themselves!)
And Jesus said that it means Everlasting Life >>>> KNOWING <<<< Him. (John 17:3)
So your thoughts have been tied to church dogma...
Well, God wouldn't say that God 'came themselves' because this is the misunderstand the relations between the persons of the Godhead. It thus also makes sense for Jesus qua Son of God / Son of Man to talk about being sent, because that person of the Godhead was indeed sent.
I admit it's confusing as heck because we're attempting to describe a being who isn't native to our reality or bound by our idea that one substance must necessarily be expressed in one person. But just because it's confusing doesn't mean we ought not try.
Dogma was a pretty good game, too. Older, but good.
-
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
It's confusing because IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!
The "Holy Ghost" and "God-the-Father" were INDEWLLING in him- according to Churchianity!
That DEFINITLY be "Them">
-
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
It's confusing because IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!
The "Holy Ghost" and "God-the-Father" were INDEWLLING in him- according to Churchianity!
That DEFINITLY be "Them">
Oh, so you're saying there are no teachings in the bible that are confusing? That's odd. Clearly, the JWs think everyone else is confused about John 1, yet we'd not deny that the words of John 1 are indeed in the bible that contains the words of John 1.
It's confusing, even if it's in the Bible, because it's a doctrine that relies on the revelation of a supra-dimensional being who reveals himself to us, mere 3-dimensional creatures. We literally cannot grasp God, even with revelation. Attempts to reduce God to fit neatly into the ontological categories we're familiar with are inappropriate, Jean Luc.
-
EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!
In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)
-
EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!
In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)
Every Trinitarian would ask:
"Why are you translating λόγος and θεόν/θεὸς both as Jesus?"
-
EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!
In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)
Careful... you sure don't want to argue "context" when talking about John 1:1, because then you have to deal with the rest of the prologue.
-
EVERY Trinitarian quotes John 1:1- REFUSING to deal the the context, and Jesus' words!
In the begging was Jesus and Jesus was with Jesus and Jesus was God!
(Or use the 'Trinity' or one ore two other Gods)
As I view it, the Word *became* flesh and came to dwell among us as Jesus. That is, when he was with God from eternity he was not yet in the form of Jesus, the man. Rather, he was in the form of God's Word.
And so, when we talk about the eternity and the deity of Jesus, it becomes confusing for you, because you see Jesus, by definition, as limited in time. However, the Trinity explains how Jesus can be both eternal and defined, as a man, within time.
You'll never get past this because you deny the Trinity. It is your presupposition that prevents you from accepting a truth that is clearly laid out in Scriptures, that Jesus is God's Son and divine.
Jesus was the "firstborn" because he was the initial expression of God Himself in the form of man, indicating the image after which all men were created.
Gen 1.26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness...
-
"He was with God from eternity"- compared to Micah 5:2- But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. - RSV
-
Both are true
Yes
-
"He was with God from eternity"- compared to Micah 5:2- But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel,whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. - RSV
God's Word is as eternal as God Himself. And it was this eternal Word that produced a human being in time named Jesus. As such, Jesus emerged from the eternal Word and presented God in human flesh.
-
Both are true
Yes
It's something of a truism, to boot. Beings in history have history. Jesus qua Son of Man exists/existed in history, meaning His family line can be traced from Joseph and Mary backwards.
-
(https://themadjw.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/2/2/12223196/godtheson-carpoolclown_orig.jpg)
-
(https://themadjw.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/2/2/12223196/godtheson-carpoolclown_orig.jpg)
I think you mean "Father was really a Father". Otherwise, "no more that his Father was not really a Father" means that his Father was indeed a father.
By the way, why are there three seats at the front of the car and only two at the back?
Odd fellow you are. Are you even a fellow? Maybe you're a lady. Non-binary?
-
Who but Trinitarians are prone to Trixlexia?
And I have had many say Jesus was the Father- publicly as well on online.
"I and the Father are one" they quote!
-
Who but Trinitarians are prone to Trixlexia?
And I have had many say Jesus was the Father- publicly as well on online.
"I and the Father are one" they quote!
Imagine throwing dyslexics under the bus just to get a jibe in at Trinitarians. Cleary, your approach is reflective of a Christ-like attitude.
Got any other funny images I can correct?
-
And now insults!
-
And now insults!
Ah man, I told you I didn't take kindly to gaslighting and here you go with it. That's just not cool bro.
-
The one insulting.
I can take all the insults you have.
Anything but "Trinitarian"!
-
The one insulting.
I can take all the insults you have.
Anything but "Trinitarian"!
Oh, why, do you break out in boils if someone refers to you as a Trinitarian? I think that would be insulting every which way around given the lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity you've displayed thus far.
-
Lot of spuddle....
-
Lot of spuddle....
That's rich, coming from a Trinitarian. (Did I do that right?)
So what kind of music do you listen to? I've got Tame Impala playing at the moment and it's quite relaxing, especially their Deezer sessions.
The last three minutes are great:
-
The Ultimate insult....
Ambient, off Winamp radio.
-
Closing.