Originally posted by knightmeisterummm, why would Jesus want to live inside a human, it doesn't make sense, he lives in heaven, as the scriptures say, at the 'right hand', of God.
Ok , we can discuss that if you like and we can also discuss why jesus said he was to live within us?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasTo look at a tree and ignore the forest and then say you're assessed the environment is a tad foolish.
Once again:
If Jesus is not God, then why did the apostle John say that Jesus was, "calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God" (John 5:18)?
The writer(s) of John create a witness that is much different from the Synoptic Gospels, and their agenda is to say that Jesus is God walking on the earth. Never mind that other Gospels and writings have a different take; those that are older than John (especially Mark). The Gospel of John was what Iranaeus used as the foundation of his canon, the New Testament. That John is included and relied upon as heavily as it is can only be described as a powerful political move on the part of Iranaeus, for in doing so he solidified the authority of the early orthodox church and successfully pushed aside all other interpretations of the divinity of Jesus (such as is found in the Gnostic writings).
All this ignores the obvious - that God would not have needed to invade the body of a human to save humanity. God had no problems acting on his/her own behalf directly with humans in the Old Testament. It is illogical to surmise that with Jesus he would suddenly need to be one with a human. For what reason would that be? Just because one Gospel writer on a mission thinks that is the case does not make it so. That's a slippery theological slope to be sliding on and I have no idea why so many get a thrill in careening down it uncontrollably.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThen you don't believe in a Trinity. You believe in an Infinity, where all
[b]===================================
By that logic, then all believers are (to become) God for Jesus also said:
=====================================
I agree.
Collectively and corporately the New Jerusalem is God manifest in a very large group of people for eternity....[text shortened]... y. Christ has the headship and the Godhead. The saved become the Body of this entity.[/b]
believers are the Sons and Daughters of God.
Jesus makes no distinction between what He is and what believers are
to be. He does make a distinction between what He is and what God is.
Nemesio
2 edits
Why is everyone here arguing about wordings of scripture and language? What difference does it make who said what about whatever. Jesus clearly taught that he was going to live is us via the Spirit and that we will know that he is in us and we are in him. He also asked his father that we should be one with him as he is one with the father.
There's a lot more he said but suffice it to say that there's some relationship going on between him , the holy spirit and the father. So what does it matter? Understanding what this means is more important than arguing about texts isn't it? Many here seem to be like people arguing about road signs when actually they need to get in a car and drive and think about what driving actually is.
Christ clearly also said that he would judge all of mankind so to me that makes him God like because only God can judge or stand at the seat of judgement. I personally would resent the idea of being judged by a mere spiritual being , but God , I can handle that because God knows everything about me and everything about the universe in which I live.
Whether one calls jesus "God" or a spirit being or whatever makes no difference , to all intents and purposes he talks as if he is omnispresent with all humans and able to judge all humans , so what's the point in arguing about mere words when the fact that he claimed these things is indisputable?
Jesus shouild either be revered and worshipped as God or slammed for placing himself so close to God that it was blasphemous.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterhave you never read in the book of acts chapter 17 verse 11 ,' These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so', - I would therefore suggest that one should follow their example and rather than dismiss the scholarly study of scripture, to embrace it as the Boreans did, and you know what, it just might have a chance of broadening your understanding.
Why is everyone here arguing about wordings of scripture and language? What difference does it make who said what about whatever. Jesus clearly taught that he was going to live is us via the Spirit and that we will know that he is in us and we are in him. He also asked his father that we should be one with him as he is one with the father.
There's worshipped as God or slammed for placing himself so close to God that it was blasphemous.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYoure arguing with youself. Its the Trinitarians that have taken the odd stance and attempting the prove something. The rest of us are going along with the Bible.
Why is everyone here arguing about wordings of scripture and language? What difference does it make who said what about whatever. Jesus clearly taught that he was going to live is us via the Spirit and that we will know that he is in us and we are in him. He also asked his father that we should be one with him as he is one with the father.
There's ...[text shortened]... worshipped as God or slammed for placing himself so close to God that it was blasphemous.
All the Biblical authorities, the Angel that came to Mary, John the Baptist, Paul, the disciples all called Christ the SON OF GOD. So we are on solid ground.
Christ is to be worshipped as whoever He said He is. He said He is the Son and God is the Father. We worship Him as such.
6 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no comment on that right now. The New Testament must have a hundred translations in many languages and there are thousands of extant fragments of ancient copies in many languages. It doesn't surprise me that if one goes searching through all of these he can find something that favors an atypical translation of John 1:1.
what about my sahidic coptic text regarding John 1:1, Ive posted it twice and nobody cares about it, i think its amazing :'(
I just have no comment except it doesn't surpise me. I think I have also heard of an ancient manuscript which says the "only begotten God" rather than the "only begotten Son."
As a reader of English I would find it adaquate to refer to, Darby, 1901 American Standard, possibly RSV, certainly RcV, Weymouth, Ryrie, KJV, NKJV, NASV, Youngs Literal Concordant, Dake's Annotated, Amplified, even the NIV Greek / English Interlinear and a few other translations to get the sense of concensus of opinion on the proper translation of the passage.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThat is not true Nemesio. He does make a distinction in the Gospels.
Then you don't believe in a Trinity. You believe in an Infinity, where all
believers are the Sons and Daughters of God.
Jesus makes no distinction between what He is and what believers are
to be. He does make a distinction between what He is and what God is.
Nemesio
For instance in the whole chapter of John 15. He is the True Vine and His Father is the Husbandman. The believers are the branches in the true vine.
Now altogether the Vine and the Branches make one organic organism. Yet the branches ABIDE in the Vine. They can do nothing apart from abiding in the Vine. Though both Vine and Branches are connected as one organic organism their functions are not exactly the same.
Vine is dependent upon the husbandman (the Father) . Branches (believers) are dependent upon the true vine (Christ).
Originally posted by jaywilllol, yes jaywill, but alas you miss one or two little details, the scriptures were not written in English, they were written in Hebrew and Greek, and in not a few instances great liberties have been taken with the text, therfore its important to establish, as closely as possible what the original texts indicate, and also the Coptic text has more 'fragments', actually more complete texts than any other known source, as a scholar of the Bible should this not interest us? but perhaps the real reason is that it states categorically that ,'the word', Jesus Christ is ,'a god', not ,'the God', as in almighty God but ,'a god', or a divine being, if i was a trinitarian i would feel it quite convenient to make no comment on this as well, considering that it casts a somewhat dubious stance on my doctrine. 😀
I have no comment on that right now. The New Testament must have a hundred translations in many languages and there are thousands of extant fragments of ancient copies in many languages. It doesn't surprise me that if one goes searching through all of these he can find something that favors an atypical translation of John 1:1.
I just have no comment exce ...[text shortened]... ations to get the sense of concensus of opinion on the proper translation of the passage.
===================================
Then you don't believe in a Trinity. You believe in an Infinity, where all
believers are the Sons and Daughters of God.
==========================================
The Son is God from eternity. He was incarnated to be a man.
The believers are sons of God through salvation not from eternity. They are men glorified and swallowed up by the divine life.
And it is a corporate expression of God manifest in the flesh. No one member of the Body can express the fullness which is in the Body as a whole.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie===============================lol, yes jaywill, but alas you miss one or two little details, the scriptures were not written in English,
lol, yes jaywill, but alas you miss one or two little details, the scriptures were not written in English, they were written in Hebrew and Greek, and in not a few instances great liberties have been taken with the text, therfore its important to establish, as closely as possible what the original texts indicate, and also the Coptic text has more 'fra n this as well, considering that it casts a somewhat dubious stance on my doctrine. 😀
========================================
That is not a detail I missed or overlooked.
I am happy that there are Coptic versons of the Bible of course. Coptic is not the original language of the New Testament any more than English is.
It was also translated from Greek to Coptic. No ?
=======================================
they were written in Hebrew and Greek, and in not a few instances great liberties have been taken with the text,
=======================================
You forgot that some of Daniel is in Chaldee. See how easy it is to correct ?
=======================================
therfore its important to establish, as closely as possible what the original texts indicate, and also the Coptic text has more 'fragments', actually more complete texts than any other known source, as a scholar of the Bible should this not interest us? but perhaps the real reason is that it states categorically that ,'the word', Jesus Christ is ,'a god', not ,'the God', as in almighty God but ,'a god', or a divine being, if i was a trinitarian i would feel it quite convenient to make no
========================================
The last bonified ancient Greek translator and scholar I spoke to about it said that "a God" is much less likely the sense of the Greek in John 1:1. And he is the author of a book on Greek Grammer - "The Language of the New Testament".
You would not be able to prove to me that the God who Jesus Christ was as the Word was another God.
For one thing if that were the case then the Apostle Paul would not say that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.
Colossians 1:19 and 2:9
I think you like that example because it says "a god".
I think first came your preference pre-conceived. Then came your search for a translation matching your preference.
I'm underwhelmed. Sorry.
Do you translate ancient Greek fluently ?