Is Jesus God?

[Hockeycowboy]

I’m not too sure what you mean by “ separate events”. I believe Jesus is God, not a separately created event. Col 1:18 states Jesus is preeminent…not in “some”, “most” or “[other]” things”, as some might claim or spuriously interject, but in all things. That’s quite a statement from Paul given the status of God in Christian life.

Since I don’t see these verses describing Christ as a created event but as a statement of his preeminence, your question might best be answered by those who do. For instance…if first born always means first created, how was Jesus “first born of the dead” when he was neither the first to die nor the first to be resurrected? You can then apply whatever logic they use with “first born of the dead” to analyze their understanding of “first born of creation.”

Jesus was "first-born from the dead," in that he was the first one resurrected to spirit life.

All the other prior resurrections, people were brought back to human life.

 

[Oeste]

Jesus was "first-born from the dead," in that he was the first one resurrected to spirit life.

All the other prior resurrections, people were brought back to human life.

Thanks Hockeycowbowy. I can see how this would appear to be a reasonable conclusion if one actually believes people are raised as spirit creatures.

However it still sounds more like a haunting than a resurrection to me, and I can't help think of the pagan concept that spirits of deceased inhabited the areas of their demise...especially when they died violently.

Also, it makes me wonder why Jesus would bother to move the stone seal from the entrance to his tomb, and what he did with his body afterwards. It seems to me that if he arose a spirit creature his body would stay exactly where it was.

 

[james2ko]

Sure, not a problem. See post #1757:

1. I don't see where I attempted to show eternal and everlasting were interchangeable using synonyms. You were the one illogically proposing they were equivalent, but not similar. I went on to demonstrate in point 1 how equivalent is a synonym of similar source. You get your facts confused more often than not. Case in point--- discussing Rev 3:14 on another thread, in a desperate attempt to prove me wrong, you erroneously quoted Daniel Wallace's objective genitive definition, when we were discussing the subjective genitive. see point 8 here

And of course, I wouldn't want to forget your challenge in post 1711: And then there was post 1727:

2. I dug up post 1757 to prove how you have a knack for creating false arguments. I don't have time to dig for more posts. Next time please post a link to the actual post(s).

Is this sufficient?

3. No. Actually one scriptural example should be suffice.

No, not "based on some philosophical theory"but on a standard English dictionary, just like I stated numerous times before. "Eternal" and "Everlasting" are English words, not Greek, so English definitions will apply. Neither word is redefined by the Greek. The translator's job is to find an applicable word in the target language, based on the context and usage in the source. That's it. The translator doesn't redefine English when he translates. . If the English word or words had multiple definitions before the translation, they will still have multiple definitions after.

4. Imposing theoretical, standard English definitions on a Greek word will eventually lead to doctrinal confusion. That is precisely what you are doing.

Let's recap here James, because I sense the goal posts changing. I was talking about Hebrew, not Greek scripture, Isaiah 9:6 to be exact, with Moorea944 when you first brought your objection about the definition of Everlasting and Eternal. I'll address this later in my post. However, this is not a question of "elevating" one language over the other. It's simply a matter of best practice in translation.

If a source and target language have a singular etymology for a word, that's great! But if the source word has one word that can be defined variably in the target, that does not mean the source language gets to redefine the target. While there is certainly inspired scripture, there is no "inspired language" that takes precedence over other languages, which appears to be what you're arguing for here.

5. Neither does it mean that we redefine the source (Greek or Hebrew) language's definition by creating a doctrinal position based on the target (English) language's definition, which is what you are doing.

Okay then....so do the Jews need to redefine their lexicons to fit the Greek, or should the Greeks have defined theirs to fit the Hebrew? And what happens to our English lexicon once the dust settles?

6. We need to define words in their source language's context before assigning a target language definition. If an accurate target definition cannot be found, I believe it should be left untranslated. This will encourage more diligent study. But the majority of the time, the closest target language term is inserted, which can and has led to doctrinal confusion. Case in point--there are three different Greek terms translated "hell" (tartaroo, hades, gehenna) even though the three Greek terms have totally different meanings.

We were talking about "Eternal" and "Everlasting" The context was in Hebrew, not Greek:I made this post in 1631 and Moorea944 responded in 1632: At this point we were talking about Eternal as used in Isaiah 9:6, and not "aionios". In fact, "aionios" wasn't mentioned until I brought it up, in a much later post: I then responded to Moore944 in post 1662, and you first responded to me on post 1674

You've made every effort to change this to a discussion of "aionios", and then to champion Greek language definitions above all others. I just don't see why. I don't know of any scholar that takes your approach to translation, and if we ever did restrict English to its ancient Greek counterpart, I think our language would shortly be as dead as Kione Greek and Latin.

7. Sorry but I don't have the time to dig and find all of your posts. Nevertheless, it really doesn't matter which biblical source language you choose, neither one of these two English terms correctly define the source language definition from which they were translated.

It doesn't matter if the English words have an equivalent word in modern, Kione, or Classical Greek. English words are first and foremost defined in English. Neither "eternal" or "everlasting" are Greek words.

8. But those English words are used to translate a Greek term that is missing the "forever in the past" connotation . That connotation was contrived and assigned to the English terms by philosophers and scholars.

Also, I think the only thing being “squeezed” here is the term “philosopher”, a line of attack I find interesting since no “philosophical” definition was given. So here’s my question: What if he wasn’t a credentialed theologian with a degree in philosophy but a credentialed theologian with a degree in hospitality? Would your argument be that it’s just “… a hotel clerk’s theoretical English definition”?

9. You posted a theologian/philosopher's definition of eternal and everlasting. And now you are denying it?

Also, why do you consider his definition “theoretical” when our lexicon defines eternal and everlasting definitively? Did he postulate another definition outside the scope of it's normal, conventional English usage? The only thing necessary to prove his definitions are "fact" rather than "theory" is an English dictionary. If you don't accept English dictionaries as factual definitions of English words, I really don't know what to say.

10. The English definition of everlasting and eternal do not correctly reflect the Greek or Hebrew term's definition. Hence the English terms are theoretical representations of the Greek term

If you want a definition of an English word, go to an English dictionary. If you want a definition of a Greek word like "aionios" then go to Kione Greek dictionary. There's no need to mix the two and claim the Greek superior to the English. Once you find word definitions in both dictionaries look at the context. If they agree, there's a high probability of a match.

11. The problem here is the two English words (everlasting, eternal) do not correctly reflect the Greek term's definition. Yet you insist the two words are distinctly accurate representations of the Greek term.

That would simply make "aionios" interchangeable with "eternal" and "everlasting". It does not make the English words "eternal" and "everlasting" interchangeable. That's a huge leap in logic.

12. No leap in logic here. The original contextual definition of the Greek and Hebrew term does not connote eternity in the past.

Look, “gay” has two meanings in English, the first referring to sexual identity, the other to mood, such as “happy”. When translated in Swahili, it’s “mahoga” and “furaha” respectively. That does not mean “mahoga” and furaha are now interchangeable in Swahili.

13. The Greek term aionos has only one definition in Greek referring to time, which you are comparing to an English term (gay) with two definitions. You're comparing apples to oranges.

There was no "invention" because English is not a language derived from Kione Greek. The "original meaning" of "eternal" and "everlasting" are derived from Latin, not Greek.

14. The problem is not the origin. It is their inexact representation of their corresponding Greek and Hebrew terms

But I'm not stating we should insert "eternal" or "everlasting" into Greek scripture. I'm stating the English words eternal and everlasting are similar but not equivalent.

15. And I demonstrated how "similar and equivalent" are synonyms. Thus the unanswered question remains: "If you agree that we are suppose to derive our theology from the lexicological use of the original language and not the English, why do you insist on inserting a theoretical definition of two English words, derived from Latin, into the Greek text??

Your assertion, at best, would make the Greek aionios interchangeable with two English words. It does not make the two English words interchangeable. That's how advertisers get in trouble. See above on "gay".

16. Not sure how you come up to that bizarre conclusion, when I've been claiming all along the Greek term does not accurately depict the two English terms.Your logic would suggest the bible was originally written in English.[/quote]

 

[J_Quriashy]

Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it.


As we all know, God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God.

 

[james2ko]

Thanks Hockeycowbowy. I can see how this would appear to be a reasonable conclusion if one actually believes people are raised as spirit creatures. However it still sounds more like a haunting than a resurrection to me, and I can't help think of the pagan concept that spirits of deceased inhabited the areas of their demise...especially when they died violently. Also, it makes me wonder why Jesus would bother to move the stone seal from the entrance to his tomb, and what he did with his body afterwards. It seems to me that if he arose a spirit creature his body would stay exactly where it was.

Angels are created spirit creatures (Heb 1:14), yet they can also appear as a fleshly human (Gen 19:15-16). Why couldn't a resurrected Jesus have the same form?

 

[Jabar]

Jesus was GIVEN power and authority, he did not own it.


As we all know, God is all-powerful and is independent, he needs no help from anybody. However so this is not the case with Jesus, unlike God, Jesus needs help from God, unlike God, Jesus does not own any power or any authority, rather it is given to him from God.

True.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Well, it's all made up. But I'm interested in the rationale.

At which point in the genealogy do you think the fabrication was made?
Note that the genealogy is recorded very clearly from Adam through Solomon, and Jesus right up to Heile Selassie.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Thanks Hockeycowbowy. I can see how this would appear to be a reasonable conclusion if one actually believes people are raised as spirit creatures.

However it still sounds more like a haunting than a resurrection to me, and I can't help think of the pagan concept that spirits of deceased inhabited the areas of their demise...especially when they died violently.

Also, it makes me wonder why Jesus would bother to move the stone seal from the entrance to his tomb, and what he did with his body afterwards. It seems to me that if he arose a spirit creature his body would stay exactly where it was.

You're welcome, Oeste!

And you're right, those are Pagan ideas.....hence, not truth.

As the Bible says, the dead "are conscious of nothing at all", or as versions say, the dead are "aware of nothing." (Ecclesiastes 9:5; compare Psalms 146:3-4; Genesis 3:19) I mean, it really has to be this way: if the dead are alive somewhere else, then the term 'resurrection' isn't what it is, a standing back to life.

Keep in mind, the body of Jesus had to be made to disappear, so those Jewish leaders couldn't present it as proof that he was dead. Resurrected as a spirit, as 1 Peter 3:18 states, allowed Him to appear and disappear as He did, even materializing in different bodies, where His own disciples didn't recognize him.

Take care.

 

[Notaclue]

Jesus was "first-born from the dead," in that he was the first one resurrected to spirit life.

All the other prior resurrections, people were brought back to human life.

Rev.5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts,(lives) and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

The Lamb is of the four beasts(lives).


What are your thoughts on the Lamb being of the four beasts?


Peace.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Rev.5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
6And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts,(lives) and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

The Lamb is of the four beasts(lives).


What are your thoughts on the Lamb being of the four beasts?


Peace.

Hey, notaclue, peace to you also, my friend!

I believe the account is saying that the Lamb is "in the midst of" the four beasts, taking the context at what it says.

Take care.

 

[Yoshua]

You did not refute my other claims, there was a tomb, so that Jesus could not be found by the Jews, he was in there. Why would it have been spacious and vast? It is for Jesus peace be upon him. The food he ate was to prove he was alive and physical.

• The verse of Bible says: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son Of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jonah was alive, this was a miracle. So for the sign or miracle to be full fill Jesus also had to be alive.

Hi Jabar,

I did not see any connection about the tomb (as spacious), and Jonah in relation—to prove that Jesus was alive. Maybe, this has been your Islamic thinking about Jesus. I already showed to you the scriptures that proved Jesus was truly crucified, died and resurrected (alive again). We believed the Bible as the true accounts of Jesus. Any additional information like the one you are implying would lead to false biblical narratives. You may continue to ask questions, and answer my question to my recent post reply if you may.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, there is a heaven, but not our dwelling place. OT and NT do talk about heaven, but again, we dont go there. If the bible says that Jesus will "come back" and "set up" a kingdom and stay here, then why would you want to do something else?

Hi Moorea,

Please see attached. May this bring you an understanding that there is heaven as eternal dwelling place.

http://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-heaven.html

Thanks

 

[moorea944]

Hi Moorea,

Please see attached. May this bring you an understanding that there is heaven as eternal dwelling place.

http://www.gotquestions.org/who-will-go-to-heaven.html

Thanks

Sorry, but I thought your website was absolutely awful! And it contradicts God's plan and purpose with us and the earth. Your making the bible fit your beliefs.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

I totally agree with you on this one. We will have eternal life. Christ says that he will give us our rewards and promises "when he comes back".

The bible knows nothing about afterlifes. Scripture tells us that you are dead until the resurrection. Show me a verse that says, when you die you go to heaven. Still waiting for that one....

So God became man and took our punishment upon Himself

False doctrine right there. God did not become a man. God does not come down to our level!!! Scripture tells us that He had a son. "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" Does this sound like God changed into a man to you? No, God was using His son to reconcile the world unto Himself. Jesus was bringing back man to God.

John says that no one has ever gone to heaven. YOU say that they do. Hebrews tells us that no one has gotten their promises yet. Jesus says in John 7, 8 and 13, when he's talking about heaven, that no one will ever follow him there.

If we really did go to Heaven, the law of Moses would be written differently. Look at the book Leviticus where is talks about the High Priest going into the Most Holy place once a year, by himself, to make atonement for the children of Israel.

Now look at Hebrews 9. It's an analogy between the two. Christ is now our High Priest who went into a better tabernacle made without hands, by himself.... IF, we do go to heaven, it would have said in Leviticus that the children of Israel followed the High Priest into the Most Holy place, but it doesnt. He goes into the tabernacle by "himself". Same with Jesus. by himself. We do not go to heaven when we die. We are dead until the resurrection.

Plus, your saying that we are judged at death? Heaven or hell? Bible says that we will be judged at his coming. Big difference!!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Why not? God became a burning bush to appear to Moses....

 

[Katzpur]

Why not? God became a burning bush to appear to Moses....

God never "became" a burning bush. His voice was heard coming from such a bush. Big difference.

 

[Katzpur]

Angels are created spirit creatures (Heb 1:14), yet they can also appear as a fleshly human (Gen 19:15-16). Why couldn't a resurrected Jesus have the same form?

He could, I'm sure, but why would it make sense for Him to do so? Why would He have intentionally deceived people by telling them that He was not merely a spirit but had a body of flesh and bones?

 

[moorea944]

Why not? God became a burning bush to appear to Moses....

Actually, He didnt. That was an angel in the bush that God was speaking through. God manifests Himself in angels. They speak for God and as if God was speaking. Same with the children of Israel. The cloud by day and fire by night. We know that an angel was in the cloud, yet the Lord looked out of the cloud. Same thing. God wasnt in the cloud, His angel was.

 

[Yoshua]

3. Christianity is not a denomination. It is a religion. No full consensus exists between the thousands of denominations and sects that comprise the Christian religion. The fact Christianity is too broad (I'm assuming you mean there are too many differing beliefs) is evidence the full truth is not privied to any single denomination.

Hi James,

Exactly! The basis is still the truth that lies inside the word of God—the Bible. Therefore we have to check if the belief adheres to the true word of God.

4. Are you admitting your interpretation is incorrect?

Can you summarize what is my interpretation that you think is incorrect?

5. Not anymore than you agree with every single thing your human mentors teach. And if you do, then you are not proving things to yourself, as the scriptures admonish.

So how come that you believed in the statement of an evangelical Trinitarian comments or message but not agree with his doctrinal beliefs?

Thanks

 

[james2ko]

Hi James, Exactly! The basis is still the truth that lies inside the word of God—the Bible. Therefore we have to check if the belief adheres to the true word of God.

1. Your answer implicates the Christian religion as the true religion. But it does not address my question.--Why are there so many different Christian denominations claiming the full truth while utilizing the same Bible---word of God---yet having different doctrines?

Can you summarize what is my interpretation that you think is incorrect?

2. Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Wallace's interpretation of Php 2:5-6 or not?

So how come that you believed in the statement of an evangelical Trinitarian comments or message but not agree with his doctrinal beliefs?

3. You keep repeating your questions, even after I've giving you an answer. Seriously, are you ok?. I'll repeat my answer--for the same reason you do not believe every single thing that comes out of your teachers' mouths. And if you do believe everything that comes out of their mouth, you are not proving things to yourself, as the scriptures admonish.

 

[james2ko]

He could, I'm sure, but why would it make sense for Him to do so? Why would He have intentionally deceived people by telling them that He was not merely a spirit but had a body of flesh and bones?

Why do you think a sinless Jesus was being deceptive at all? He instantly appeared to them in a room from thin air (Joh 20:19,26). A clear indication of his spirit form. He also appeared to them in the form of flesh and bone. The logical conclusion is he had the power to transform himself from spirit to flesh and bone and vice versa.