Originally posted by twhitehead I am well aware of your beliefs on the matter. Repeating them won't convince me they are not fictional.
[b]But please let us go back to the topic of discussion. It is still far from clear what the topic of discussion is supposed to be. Is the topic of discussion you telling everyone else you are right and they are wrong?
If you would like t ...[text shortened]... will make all of us to have common ground. Please. No, it won't make us have common ground.[/b]
I advice you to read Deep Thought 's post- it will give you a clear guide as to what the focus of discussion is. Do you ever read the Bible, twhitehead? I do'nt mean to offend you and if that question seem offensive, please accept my apology. I just wish you could read the Bible and see if it makes sense. Join a Bible study group and I am sure you will learn a lot.
Originally posted by Tshotsho Khalapa I advice you to read Deep Thought 's post- it will give you a clear guide as to what the focus of discussion is.
So you wish to discuss whether or not Jesus is God and whether or not the Bible supports such a claim. But you already stated that the claim can be proved from Bible FACTS. So what's to discuss? Are we to discuss whether or not you lied in the OP?
What is a Bible FACT? Clearly the Bible doesn't say Jesus is God, that is a doctrine that was introduced after the time of the Bible.
Do you ever read the Bible, twhitehead? Not recently.
I just wish you could read the Bible and see if it makes sense. It doesn't make a lot of sense. It is full of contradictions and fairy tales. There is also some boring history and some poetry. Overall I like Lord of the Rings better.
Originally posted by Tshotsho Khalapa I advice you to read Deep Thought 's post- it will give you a clear guide as to what the focus of discussion is. Do you ever read the Bible, twhitehead? I do'nt mean to offend you and if that question seem offensive, please accept my apology. I just wish you could read the Bible and see if it makes sense. Join a Bible study group and I am sure you will learn a lot.
Your exchanges with twhitehead seem to be based on you wanting to convince him that Jesus is God based on your perception of FACTS [sic] in the Bible.
As twhitehead is an atheist who does not accept the authority of the Bible nor that any of the key characters in the Bible ever existed, you insisting that he argue his position using only the Bible as a reference seems a little unfair, for want of a better adjective.
You could put out there a premise that the Bible supports the claim that the Jesus of the Bible is the God Jehovah of the Bible - agree/disagree? Or something similar. But insisting that something X is a FACT and then engaging on a discussion about a claim based on X being a FACT when your opponent doesn't even agree that X is a FACT is not going to get you far. Suggesting that they visit a Bible study in order understand more about alleged FACT X isn't going get much traction either.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I just wish you could read the Communist Manifesto and see if it makes sense. Join a Marxist study group and i am sure you will learn a lot.
There is absolutely zero reason why one cannot adhere to both the Communist Manifesto and to the Bible. You make it sound like one naysays the other.
Originally posted by DeepThought Learn some manners. It's clear that Suzi inadvertently omitted the words "origin of". I'd imagine she was referring to the cosmic microwave background, which is from 300,000 years after the end of the inflationary era. The LIGO breakthrough implies that we may soon (as in within our lifetimes) have access to the gravitational wave background and be ab ...[text shortened]... bservable through fossils. So your original point doesn't hold water. We can see these things.
Originally posted by DeepThought What is your biblical authority for claiming that Jesus is the same entity as God? Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 do not say that, Genesis 1:1 does not mention Jesus and neither does John 1:1, the first direct mention of Jesus in John's Gospel is in verse 17. I am certain that that claim is not explicitly made in the Gospels - they say Son of Man and Son of God, they do not explicitly say Jesus was God.
But John 1:1 DOES say this. It is a given that when John mentions "the Word", he is referring to the Son of God, known to us as Jesus Christ. This is also why the JWs go to great lengths to change the meaning of John 1:1, because it doesn't fit the dogma they made up long before they made their Bible, namely, that Jesus is not divine.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke But can the wind ever truly be understood by someone who has never experience it blowing against their skin? Surely the answer is that you 'have' to go outside, that wind (like truth) can not be held prisoner in a book, never fully contained.
No, I'm with you that words are a mere shadow of the actual experience, but that doesn't preclude the desirability to place the ideas in book form as well, for those who do not have a chance to experience them for themselves. Indeed, ideas in a book can be shared over vast distances and over time itself.
Originally posted by divegeester Oh well. It was funny to me.
Many things are funny to you that don't raise a giggle in others.
Similarly, you seem to take great offense that others don't see things exactly as you see them. So much so that you must denigrate those that disagree. Actually, it often goes far beyond mere denigration, but I suppose here and now is neither the time nor the place for that discussion.
Originally posted by Suzianne No, I'm with you that words are a mere shadow of the actual experience, but that doesn't preclude the desirability to place the ideas in book form as well, for those who do not have a chance to experience them for themselves. Indeed, ideas in a book can be shared over vast distances and over time itself.
Yes, I see sense in that.
A book is indeed a great carrier of wisdom and can be a useful guide and educator. When it comes to the Bible however, 'some' Christians will present it as the source of 'all' knowledge and as a barrier to 'new' knowledge. (Hinds is a good example of this and will dispute 'new science' that he believes contradicts the all encompassing truth, contained in his chosen book). It also leads 'some' Christians, as in the OP, to speak of biblical facts, which apparently are not open for dispute.
Originally posted by Suzianne But John 1:1 DOES say this. It is a given that when John mentions "the Word", he is referring to the Son of God, known to us as Jesus Christ. This is also why the JWs go to great lengths to change the meaning of John 1:1, because it doesn't fit the dogma they made up long before they made their Bible, namely, that Jesus is not divine.
Thank you, Suzianne. We are indeed getting somewhere in this discussion.
Originally posted by Suzianne Many things are funny to you that don't raise a giggle in others.
Similarly, you seem to take great offense that others don't see things exactly as you see them. So much so that you must denigrate those that disagree. Actually, it often goes far beyond mere denigration, but I suppose here and now is neither the time nor the place for that discussion.
Wow!
All I said was that I found something funny and this triggers this harassment. Hypocrite much suzianne..?
Originally posted by Suzianne But John 1:1 DOES say this. It is a given that when John mentions "the Word", he is referring to the Son of God, known to us as Jesus Christ. This is also why the JWs go to great lengths to change the meaning of John 1:1, because it doesn't fit the dogma they made up long before they made their Bible, namely, that Jesus is not divine.
I'm sorry if we're debating this on the basis of the text of John chapter 1 I'm not accepting an external "given". It'll probably help if we have the text available here:
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men. (5) And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
(6) There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. (7) The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. (8) He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. (9) That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. (10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. (11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (13) which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(15) John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (16) And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. (17) For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (18) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
John 1:1-18 Authorized King James Version
The line which seems to justify KT's claim is verse 14 which I've italicised to highlight it. Now you're relying on two equalities: first "Word equals God" and then "Word made flesh equals Jesus". Based on this KT is right, but there's a degree of fuzziness about it all.
I think KT has a point that John, in his preamble, has described Jesus as part of God. John seems to be a Trinitarian. So I'm going to have to shift my position somewhat. John makes a claim in his preamble, that God sent part of himself into the World to live amongst us. The rest of his Gospel exists to justify that claim. So what parts of his Gospel go on to justify this?
Originally posted by DeepThought I'm sorry if we're debating this on the basis of the text of John chapter 1 I'm not accepting an external "given". It'll probably help if we have the text available here:[quote](1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) The same was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made by him; and with ...[text shortened]... of his Gospel exists to justify that claim. So what parts of his Gospel go on to justify this?
have you thought of looking at the verse in its original language rather than basing your reasoning on a translation that may be inaccurate? Also logically its not possible to be with someone and be them at the same time. Furthermore the context states that no one has seen God. This cannot be applicable to Jesus because many people saw him.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie have you thought of looking at the verse in its original language rather than basing your reasoning on a translation that may be inaccurate? Also logically its not possible to be with someone and be them at the same time. Furthermore the context states that no one has seen God. This cannot be applicable to Jesus because many people saw him.
I don't speak Greek so looking at it in the original will be of no help to me. I'm always going to have to rely on someone else's translation. I wouldn't bother with logic in these opening verses, both for Genesis and John poetic metre mattered more than literal precision. My current position is that John appears to make the claim in his preamble. So does the rest of his Gospel justify the claim that Jesus and God are one being?
At the moment the question we're asking is whether the claim that Jesus and God are one entity based only on the Gospel according to John is viable. I think the translation issue is a reasonable point, but it makes the whole thing a little esoteric and I suggest we restrict ourselves to already translated versions of the Gospel available on www.biblegateway.com and other internet resources. We could widen it to include the other Gospels, but that would make the scope of the discussion too big.
Genesis 1:1 , John 1:1
18 Feb '16 04:59
Back to Top