If Jesus is God why doesn't the Bible say so?

[SethZaddik]

.... or should be as a ' linguistic description ' in my viewpoint then God sent Jesus to 'tell and speak' for his God.
John 12:49-50 ( speak, speak, speak ); John 14:10 ( speak, speak ); John 7:16-17 ( mouth piece )

That makes sense. Jesus p was authorized (key word) to speak what God said and would say.

Like all Prophets, difference is he was created by the Word literally, of God.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

If yu can decide what words mean then you can make them mean anything you want.

 

[SethZaddik]

If yu can decide what words mean then you can make them mean anything you want.

If you know what they mean you can tell people too.

What's your point?

I didn't decide what Koine Greek words mean, Greeks did (I imagine) and they are translatable.

My point is that the word ton theon is used for God but less honorific theos(which means divine) to the Word.

What is with you and sophistry and denial of facts?

Seems like you just refuse to accept what you learned. Not wise.

 

[SethZaddik]

If yu can decide what words mean then you can make them mean anything you want.

If I decided what words meant this would be a relevant statement (maybe).

Who are you accusing of making words mean anything they want? The Catholic Church who mistranslated on purpose (obviously) John 1?

Because I assure you those definitions are real. I certainly didn't make it up if you are accusing me of lying.

 

[RESOLUTION]

The truth is the Bible doesn't say Jesus p is God. I have proven that.

I have proven he denied it himself.

I don't NEED to disprove anything you say. Anyone can SAY anything about anything but can't deny the words of the Bible say what they do.

Even if they contradict Xtian theology it is because it was made up by men and not based on the Bible.

No matter how hard you try to deny it.

I have told you that Jesus was not God he was the Son of God.
No matter how you try to deny it, I told you from the beginning. ]
Also he is the Son of God and his words were from God himself as all who speak Gods words by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Deuteronomy 18 shows that the Messiah will come from Isaac descendants as Moses did. It also shows that God himself will put his words in his mouth.
It shows that YOU and everyone no matter who they are have to obey the words of Christ.

The Christian theology is the JEWISH theology the Gentiles included in the last covenant and confirmed in the Jewish Bible and Gods teachings of the Prophets.

The Koran like it's author Mahomet are not mentioned anywhere in the bible. Not the Jewish and not the NT part of the bible.

Even when Christ returns and before you have to live with the truth that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the ONLY Messiah is come from Isaac and Jacob through Abraham and Sarah.,
Now the above truth of God is in the bible but none of your beliefs or the things you hold dear will ever come from the bible.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Truth is I don't need to "disprove anything you say" I don't feel you said anything worthy of disproving, and I actually have already.

I have proven that the Bible doesn't say that Jesus p is God.

Wasn't an issue... the bible says God himself put his own words in Christs mouth.

And that Jesus p himself denied it.

Anyone can SAY anything about anything.[/QUOTE]

But! I already told you that God did not come down in flesh, Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Are you incapable of understanding that?
You proved NOTHING,. the disciples did.

But if they deny what the Bible really says only to justify the Nicene Creed of men of Rome they have either no truth in them or are misinformed.

It is a sign of dishonesty to move the goal post and make it about SOMETHING NOT BEING DISCUSSED.
I am not Roman Catholic I am Jewish descent. As I have said the ONLY scripture, Christ and the disciples referred to was the OT.

No matter how hard you try to deny it everything I said stands true and YOU can't disprove IT.

I have proved you haven't any arguments based on scriptures and that you have been trying to preach to the converted over Christ coming in the flesh and not God.

The disciple John was a great teacher of truth on the subject you keep trying to push forward because your own beliefs are based on far less when it comes to the bible.
It isn't mentioned in the bible, No PROPHET from Ishmael and not another scripture. In truth the NT is closer to the OT and the Koran has no basis in either.

If it was possible you would, obviously. You tried and probably think you were successful but show me one thing that I said that can be denied in my OP.

I have shown that the Messiah Jesus Christ was born of the line of Isaac the only Son of Abraham whom God made a covenant with.
What more is there? God never changed his mind about that and every action and the people whom he guided were from Isaacs line from Abraham.

Do you not find it strange that you who have nothing to reflect your beliefs in the OT are strangely trying to attack the faith of people based in the NT who have more truth than failures?

If we take the word of God and measure the NT and the Koran against the OT. The Koran has 0 POINTS in it's favour but the NT has many points in it's favour.

Christ came in the flesh..., King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Now we know Christ came in the flesh and all who are in Christ and born of the Spirit are all made one body in that Spirit.
As you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God it is irrelevant what you do believe because according to the bible you have been judged.

Deuteronomy 18:
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

Black and white from the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob comes the Messiah and God putting the words into his mouth.

We can debate all day but we have to debate with truth not made up stories and false beliefs which have nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism.
So as I said I know and the disciples knew Christ came in the flesh. But those who do as Christ did, worship one God YHWH and there none other and no other scriptures.
So when debating we have to use what is accepted as the truth.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it does say so.

 

[Muffled]

The one speaking at Proverbs 8:22 is said to be created, and Proverbs 8:31 mentions that his delight was with the sons of men. Often Proverbs 8:22-31 is made in connection to the coming Jesus. Jesus as wisdom personified.

Proverbs 30:4 ending part also asks an interesting question as to what is God's name and what is His Son's name.

I believe the Jesus as wisdom theory is baloney. It has no substance to it at all.

 

[Muffled]

Also, as the apostle John penned at Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 B that the pre-human heavenly Jesus was the beginning of the creation by God.
God is Un-created. God is from everlasting according to Psalms 90:2
So, only God was 'before' the beginning. Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

John also believed that No man can see God according to John 1:18; 1 John 4:12
Which is in harmony with Exodus 33:20. People saw Jesus and lived. People can't see God and live.

I believe your interpretation is bogus

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Those who ascribe divinity to Jesus are biggest disbelievers in his message.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

To me, Jesus is divine because the pre-human Jesus came from heaven when God sent Jesus from heaven to earth.
However, Jesus is Not God, but still thinks he has a God over him according to Revelation 3:12.
And as gospel writer John wrote about Jesus at Revelation 1:5 that Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God according to Revelation 3:14 b. Only God had No beginning according to Psalms 90:2. So, Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

 

[Clear]

Hi SethZaddik :

I wanted to first agree with your basic point you made in post #62 regarding translation as a tool of deception. While I agree with this base point, I do not think all scholars/translators consciously attempt deception, rather many of their errors of translation originate with their own pre-conceptions and this taints their translation and causes errors. (I also agree that many translators DO make conscious errors)

I also like your example of John 1:1 since it is a simple example that has been a point of argument for hundreds of years. I also agree with you that the lack of the article should be translated “…and the Word was a God” IF one does not carry any contextual baggage into the translation. However, ALL of us have "contextual baggage" which affects our personal translation and assignment of meaning.

IF one translator believes Jesus is "THE" God, and another translator believes Jesus is “A” God and a third translator believe Jesus is merely “DIVINE” but not “a God”, then all three of these translators may translate this simple, phrase differently while all believing they are rendering correct meaning.

Lastly, though I do not want to enter the debate on any side, I simply wanted to point out a very discrete error in your description of word meaning as an example of this type of translational error.

In post #104 you mentioned : “I just wanted to point out it is ton theon, not ton theoS, that is a spelling error. Everything else is exactly the same as before, it is ton theon for "God" and theos ( much less honorific) for the Word(Logos) which was "theos" or "divine"(or A lesser god than ton theon aka God).” (emphasis is mine)

This is incorrect.

Θεος (theos) θεον (theon) θεου θεοι θεους θεοις θεων ALL refer to the noun “God” in either singular or plural form. These are simply different cases (nominative, Accusative, Genitive, etc.)

θεος is NOT “much less honorific” than θεον since they are EXACTLY the same noun (merely a different case). Also, θεοσ is NOT the word for “divine”. "Divine" is an ADJECTIVE and will appear in the form of a greek ADJECTIVE (e.g. "θεικοσ", etc), while θεος is a NOUN and is not an adjective for “divine”.


My point is NOT to disagree or to agree with any other points you are making, but to point out this specific translational error while using it as an example of how translators (yourself in this case) sometimes offer incorrect information, NOT because they are trying to deceive, but because their own biases affect their translation. And, we all have biases.


SethZaddik, I am NOT trying to comment on whether any other premise you made is correct or not, (I also believe early Judeo-Christian worldviews and interpretations do not portray Jesus as his own Father...) but am only commenting on the point made in post # 104. I hope your spiritual journey in this life is good.


Clear
εισεδρτζω

P.S. Seth, I attempted to PM you regarding some early Judeo-Christian-Islamic cross-roads textual traditions I thought you might be interested in, but could not. Is there a block on receiving PMs? See you Seth

 

[Clear]

I said that I did not want to enter the discussion other than to make the point regarding a prior mistranslation. However, I almost can’t help but make another point. Though the OP refers to the lack of reference to Jesus being a God, and in context of the recent use of John 1:1, I should point out that John 1:18 in greekN 4 (a critical NA-27) reads :


Θεον ουδεις εωρακεν πωποτε μονογενης θεος ο ων εις τον κολπον του πατρος εκεινος εξηγησατο.(Greek GN-4)

No one has seen God ever, [the] only begotten GOD who is in the bosom of the father, he [explained/related/declared] him. (eng)

Also, the greek reading is a category “B” in GN-4. This means that this text of “only begotten God” is almost certainly the most original reading of all greek texts as opposed to the later text reading “only begotten son” according to the Nestle-Alland textual critics.


“Only Begotten God” is the reading of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, L syr, geor, Origen, Didymus Cyril, etc. “THE only begotten God” is the reading of P75, Sianaticus (2), 33, cop(bo) Clement (2/3) Clement (from Theodotus), Origen (gr 2/4), Eusebius (3/7) Basil (1/2) Gregory-Nyssa, Epiphanius, Serapion (1/2) and Cyril (2/4). It is typically the later and less important codices that read μονογενες Υιος (“only begotten” or Unique son”).

If the greek biblical texts are correct, one can certainly surmise that the writer was referring to a begotten God who was in the bosom of the Father, especially since I do not think any early Christian worldviews thought that God the Father was Begotten (but only the son falls into this category).

I will leave the thread participants to discuss what that might mean to their various theological models.

I wish you all well.

Clear
εισιτζφιω

I added a picture of the phrase we are discussing from Codex Sinaiticus below. It is simply a cut and paste of the phrase from their web site. The second line clearly says ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΕΣ ΘΣ (with a line above the symbol for Theos. It was later Christianity that did not know what to do with this early teaching and thus, in later translations, "only begotten SON" became the more popular version.

 

[MJFlores]

I think the bible should answer that:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Acts 2:36
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)

Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You just admitted that "Elohim" is a plural word.So why can't the one and only "God" consist of the Heavenly Father and His Son?

That's a good question.

"Elohim," as a plural noun, can also denote 'excellence to a superlative degree.' Note Judges 16:23, where the Philistines were calling their god Dagon, "Elohim". He wasn't a multiple god; they just thought that Dagon was the best.

Further evidence that "Elohim" doesn't always refer to multiple gods, is the fact that, many times, a singular verb follows its use (always when used in reference to an action of the God of Israel, Yahweh). These facts are usually overlooked (ignored?) by the 'Jesus is God' crowd.

Best wishes.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. Read that again. The Word was God. Later the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. The Word was actually Jesus in another ( spiritual ) form before He was born in a human body. Notice again, the Word was God. So when the Word was born as Jesus He was still God. The Word was with God and the Word was God so there are either two Gods or one God made up of more than one part. That is again where most people use the word God to mean the Father. But God is the Father and Word, which became Jesus. Nothing else makes sense. People have had other explanations pounded into theor heads to the point that they cannot see this simple and clear reasoning.

@lostwanderingsoul, are you aware that Koine Greek had no indefinite articles = a, an? There was no phrase like "an elephant", or "a god." So, what they had to do, if there were two elephants in the sentence... put the definite article -- "THE" -- in front of one, and leave the other without. Same syntax here. There is no "the god was the word"; only "god was the word."
Big difference! Plus, the anarthrous predicate noun comes before the subject, indicating a quality the subject has.

In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” Harner suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) [Italics are mine.] Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·osʹ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. It's interesting that translators which insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, The Jerusalem Bible and King James both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

Acclaimed Roman Catholic priest and scholar John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his 'Dictionary of the Bible', says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Bold type is mine. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

That's why these versions render John 1:1 these particular ways --

AT: “the Word was divine”;
Mo, “the Logos was divine”;
NTIV, “the word was a god.”
In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.”

 

[Evie]

Engrained is a good descriptive word. So, deeply engraved ( embedded ) in people's minds to me to the point that it is now very hard to erase such false teachings from people's minds and hearts. Rome stole the ' concepts of Christ ' twisting and changing them until faith became fraud.

Even before Rome, when un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks they adopted their theories and philosophies and began to present them as also being Scripture. That is why we see such a fusion or mixing ( religious syncretism ) of biblical with non-biblical being taught as Scripture when Not really found in Scripture. Not what the Bible really teaches.

The word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible.

 

[Evie]

People will be upset over this but it must be said. The churches of this world, lead by the great "universal" church have been feeding the people crap for 2000 years. The people have forgotten what real food is and think the crap tastes good. These are the same people who say that from Friday evening to Sunday morning are 3 days and 3 nights because of some so called language quirk. I don't care what language you use, Friday night to Sunday is not 3 days and 3 nights. In Nazi Germany there was so much propaganda that people thought Hitler was more important than God Children would report people who said bad things about Hitler to the police. Even their own parents. That's how strong propaganda can be. Now one plus one can never equal one. Right? Wrong. A man named John Doe has a wife named Jane Doe. Together they are the Doe family. One husband and one wife equals one family. One plus one equals one. There is one Father in Heaven. He has one son, Jesus. Together they are God. One Father and one son equals one God. The Father and I are one. One plus one equals one. It is time to spit out the crap and ignore the church propaganda. There is one Father, one Son and one God.

Very well put.

 

[Evie]

And to add, it is not as if the early Roman Church and its post Nicene successors are known for their honesty.

They wrote the Gospels, which are known to be anonymous by anyone who wants to know, scholars included/especially.

The "Gospel of the Hebrews" so called, has perished and the oldest Aramaic language Christian MS. is Syriac Homilies and Recognitions of Clement of Rome, the oldest dated MS. in the world period but not the oldest MS. of that book, which is as old roughly as Sainaiticus, the oldest existing Bible.

The Syriac is dated to 411/412 C.E. and was suppressed for almost 2 millennia and just translated within the past few years or so, I bought it even though I have the Greek and Latin translations already because it is from an Aramaic dialect like Jesus p and the Apostles pbut spoke and corroborates it's existence in that tongue, is also slightly different.

It has unknown events pertaining to the Jerusalem Church of James and the travels of Peter, his disciple Titus Flavius Clemens, his family and about the 12 Apostles.

It chronicles the debates of Simon Peter with Simon Magus who took over the Nazarenes of JTB from Dositheus, which rings true as they are a Gnostic religion today with priests called "Nazarenes" and always have been according to the Orthodox history too (see Panarion of Epiphanius). Simon Magus definitely could be responsible for that, the Mandaeans of today revere John the Baptist and believe the God of the Bible is malevolent, Jesus a "false Messiah" (Mandaean John book).

There are plenty of things I have a problem believing Jesus p actually said, sources outside the Bible with extra words, teachings, you never know with the Bible.

Masoretes changed "Sons of God" to "Sons of Israel" in Dt. 32, replacing "God" with "Israel" in contradiction to the original LXX "angels of God" and DSS "Sons of God."

Virgin is a mistranslation in LXX Isaiah from "almah", meaning a "young girl" having nothing to do with virginity whatsoever in the original Tanakh.

could it be that Jesus was born with a 'virginal mind'? did not have the mind of original man via inheritance like all of humanity down through the generations. the first man succumbed to seductive suggestion causing an action against the command of God. Jesus did not succumb to 'seductive suggestions' such as turning the stones to bread when He was hungry in the wilderness. His mind remained in a 'virginal state'.

 

[Evie]

Engrained is a good descriptive word. So, deeply engraved ( embedded ) in people's minds to me to the point that it is now very hard to erase such false teachings from people's minds and hearts. Rome stole the ' concepts of Christ ' twisting and changing them until faith became fraud.

Even before Rome, when un-faithful Jews began mixing with the Greeks they adopted their theories and philosophies and began to present them as also being Scripture. That is why we see such a fusion or mixing ( religious syncretism ) of biblical with non-biblical being taught as Scripture when Not really found in Scripture. Not what the Bible really teaches.

the word TRINITY DOES NOT appear anywhere in the Christian Bible. In God's Written Word. where did it come from? the Church.