Is Jesus God?

[outhouse]

Then you should stop making ecclesiastical/theological comments about a religion you know nothing about.

That's just it, I study this at the highest levels that can be. You have not started any school yet, have you?

 

[outhouse]

But she swings the pendulum too far. There were varying pockets of persecution, with varying intensities. There were unjust land and property confiscations and enslavement, but that still counts.

I agree. But it is based on the evidence at had,

Her major point is not that there was none, But she does show how the mythology grew around some of the historical events, and how limited the evidence really is.

Her work is sound, and I don't whole heartedly agree with all her conclusions.


Review: The Myth of Persecution (Candida Moss) | Earliest Christianity/

This guy does not hold a candle to Candida's work. She is a professor and will bust this guys chops.

 

[outhouse]

The Church was born at Pentacost.

Theological tradition, yes 50 days after Passover.

But its not historical in any way.

The gatherings did not start out of Israel. The movement originated in many places all over the Empire as people left Passover and took home the growing theology and mythology surrounding the martyrdom of the Aramaic Galilean.

There was no center for the movement. It grew from many different cores all independent of each other. The neat thing to look at is that many would gather during Passover and share traditions and discuss what was important to their particular community.

 

[outhouse]

Review: The Myth of Persecution (Candida Moss) | Earliest Christianity/

I have to bust this guys chops for a bit.

Clearly Paul persecuted some group that was identifiable as “distinct from the rest of Judaism.” If not, was he simply persecuting random Jews, without regard to their beliefs or praxis? No evidence supports this, and Moss is merely playing word games on this point.

But here Candida is correct and Tim is clearly wrong. It is not in dispute the early Hellenistic followers were still viewed as Proselytes of Judaism and Hellenistic Jews. Not Christian's.

While their belief was different them some Jews, many different sects of Jews had much more extreme belief like the Sadducees who were hated and ran the temple.

All evidence supports this. All evidence shows how different Judaism was, and how perverted the definition of Judaism was becoming.

One thing Tim and others need to realize is the Christianity evolved away from Judaism. It did not jump away or leap, it evolved. And in the beginning the two were very difficult to tell apart.


Christianity grew from the Hellenistic Proselytes divorce of cultural Judaism. Jesus just lit the match.

He was not after random Jews. There was no such thing as a typical Jew in the first century. Tim has made this mistake I believe.

 

[JM2C]

This is a personal attack, it will not be tolerated much longer.

Don’t tell me you’re gonna hit that report button again.

 

[atpollard]

Do you know why Mathew is the first book in the NT ?

Ooh, ooh, I think that I know the answer to this one ...

... As the Gospel that most strongly focuses on Jesus as the fulfillment of the OT messianic prophecies, it makes a good bridge between the OT scriptures and the NT scriptures. (Which is similar to the reason why John's Gospel is the last ... it appeals most to non-Jewish readers.)

 

[JM2C]

Yes I have.

The Canaanite origin after 1200 BC is not up for debate.
The only thing left to debate is what other Semitic people joined them after 1200 BC.

No you did not read them at all.

What your scholars were saying is the Israelites were actually the Canaanites, they DID NOT JOIN "THEM AFTER 1200 BC".
Do you understand this?

They, the Israelites, DID NOT JOIN the Canaanites “after 1200 BC” but were actually the Canaanites themselves.

“The Patriarchs, Israel ancestor’s, are typically Amorite/Canaanite pastoral nomads, tribally organized.” - Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? –William G. Dever

Read my notes again.

So, these two scholars, Finkelstein and Dever, agreed on the existence of certain people or group of people during the middle bronze, late bronze and iron ages. What they did not agree with is this certain group of people were the Israelites from the lineage of Abraham and Shem, the brother of Ham.

IOW, the Israelites did not come from Canaan/Ham as these two scholars, Finkelstein and Dever, were suggesting that they were actually Canaanites.

The Israelites came from Shem, the progenitor of the Semitic race, that is, the Israelites, and from Shem to Abraham –Genesis 11:10-27. IOW, they were all related to each other as Ham, the brother of Shem, is the father of Canaan –Genesis 9:18.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

What I told you is their history. The bible is theology book, not a history book
By study of cultural and social and physical anthropology from the best people who have written on the topic.
Israel's head archeologist can teach you very much. So can William Dever.
Brother, the real history makes the text more beautiful, it does not detract from it.
Using a literal interpretation is to use the darkest sunglasses on the best artwork with vivid colors. Your ruining it. And the sad thing is just don't have a clue of how beautiful it is.
I was once similar to you, until I got hooked on education, and once I learned a little the flood gates were opened..

You do not know their history; because you rely on stories conjectured by skeptics with bias agendas.
The Holy Bible contains history and you have no proof otherwise.
Choose your best people and we have our best scholarly resources to match and counteract their theories any day.
Being the head archaeologist means nothing if his reasoning is flawed; there are equal archaeologist who would say otherwise.
And declaring that God does not exist is being blind and stupid. Let's not forget:
"The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good." (Psalm 14:1)
These fools act as though they were there when God parted the Red Sea in Egypt.
Their time machines are nothing more than a Big Bang cardboard box with crayon drawings for knobs and gears surrounded with vivid illusions.
You were nothing like me because I searched for God and found Him; you had your mind made up before you began your search to disprove God.
When I found God; He opened the flood gates of more wisdom and knowledge; you're missing out and your life-span is running out quick.

 

[Muffled]

can he save anyone ? and what from ?

I believe He saves me from sin.

 

[Muffled]

Thank you! Finally someone gets it

Jesus can fulfill his role as Messiah perfectly without being God. In fact, if Jesus was God, then it was extreme overkill in the ransom stakes. Jesus is called a ransom for the human race because he paid an equivalent price for Adam's sin. How does God equal Adam? Jesus needed to be a perfect mortal.....sinless like an unblemished lamb.....he didn't need to be Almighty God.

God is an immortal being and cannot die. Mere humans cannot kill God.
Jesus never was God and not once did he say he was.

I believe that to be true however Jesus would not be able to fulfill his role as Lord and Savior.

I believe that is a view that man is not valuable to God.

I believe this has no basis in scripture or reality.

I believe your opinion does not agree with the evidence.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Some beauty lies in truth when you find the historical core to the mythology, and understand why the authors wrote what they did when they did.
And then have greater understanding when you figure out why later authors changed and edited that text. Then later people changed it yet again.
Or the beauty in books that literally took hundreds of years to take their current form.
You only see one story, I see literally hundreds of small storied not there, and I see where a few big stories were told as one. Without this knowledge your only getting a glimpse of the past and missing the rich heritage these people left behind in text.

When you find God; then you will understand why the Biblical writers wrote under the teachings and guidance of Yahweh, The God Almighty (Holy be his name.). If God is myth to you; then all of His creation is a myth to you. And every Scriptural debate you begin will eventually end with God being real or myth to you. But your myth will turn in reality when you die. Believe that! Ready or not, there you go!

And when it came to the Holy Scripture; let us not forget to leave room for the remnant that did not follow the "other" so-call authors that changed and edited some texts. The remnant kept the true text under the hand of God. You can't catch all the scholars in one net.

You see the true story and historical account of Yahweh and His Holy People, Yishrael. You see thousands of stories from false gods; and there be many. Your problem is that you are unable to distinguish false gods from the real and true God Almighty. That is why you see false stories in any religious articles; you don't believe there is a God, period!

Without recognizing God, you're only getting tossed back and forth on the sea of lies and deceptions to where you cannot tell whether you are coming or going. And your comments will be as minute and seldom mention like other skeptics compared to the millions of believers who mentioned and praise God's Name and his Words every single day for thousands of years. I call that progress.

 

[JM2C]

Your not really allowed to come in here and post false information without sources.

You mean like this FALSE INFO that you posted?

The Canaanite origin after 1200 BC is not up for debate.

The only thing left to debate is what other Semitic people joined them after 1200 BC.

Compare that false info that you posted to your very reliable source of info and see if they harmonize.
“The Patriarchs, Israel ancestor’s, are typically Amorite/Canaanite pastoral nomads, tribally organized.” - Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? –William G. Dever.

Man, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[JM2C]

Thank you! Finally someone gets it

Jesus can fulfill his role as Messiah perfectly without being God. In fact, if Jesus was God, then it was extreme overkill in the ransom stakes. Jesus is called a ransom for the human race because he paid an equivalent price for Adam's sin. How does God equal Adam? Jesus needed to be a perfect mortal.....sinless like an unblemished lamb.....he didn't need to be Almighty God.

God is an immortal being and cannot die. Mere humans cannot kill God.

Jesus never was God and not once did he say he was.

So, why did you/jw change “and the Word was God” to “and the Word was a god”? Why would Maimonides changed the “Echad/united one” to “Yachid/an absolute one”?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Is that why Maimonides changed “echad” to “yachid” because he saw the Triune God? Is that why you/Unitarians changed “And the Word was God” to “And the Word was the God” because you/Unitarians saw the Triune God?

Abraham, Moses, EliYahu, Yahshuo, and Shaul are greater than Maimonides. And his works are subject to the original writings of his patriarchs. Just because Maimonides may have broken God's commandment of adding, changing, or removing his Holy Words does not trump the writings of the Patriarchs and the Holy Prophets who came thousands of years before Maimonides. I would liken Maimonides to a son of a Pharisee who have escaped the Destruction of A.D. 70 simply to carry on their hatred of Jesus Christ in their man-made traditons. Maimonides changes carry little weight in truth if he so much as change one jot or tittle in the original scriptures.

I changed nothing in the Greek translation of John 1:1. Like I said: Don't take my word for it -- Trust your own eyes and read that the Greek word "TON THEON". It was written over a hundred times in the Greek translation of the New Testament. Every Bible Scholar knows that the Greek phrase "TON THEON" will always translates into "THE GOD" in the English language. It is not about denominations or religion on whose translation is correct. ln this case, it's a matter of logical reasoning with your own eyes if you choose to see those very words in the Greek language.

 

[JM2C]

I was serious with my question with everyone, though.. why does it make a difference whether or not Jesus is God?

You have to understand that it’s really not up to us on whether the Lord Jesus Christ is God or an “a god”. If we read John 1:1 in its entirety and exegetically, and not just the 3rd clause where jw altered it to “and the Word was a god”, one should be able to find out whether the Lord Jesus Christ is God or an “a god”. Until now they/jw cannot make a good argument on how they/jw came up with their alteration of John 1:1c without falling apart. They/jw will just insist that John 1:1c is an “a god” without any explanation at all. The question is, should we just believe on anything they say? The answer is NO.

 

[JM2C]

Abraham, Moses, EliYahu, Yahshuo, and Shaul are greater than Maimonides and his works is subject to the original writings of his patriarchs. Just because Maimonides broke God's commandment of adding, changing, or removing his words does not trump the Patriarchs and the Holy Prophets before him. I liken Maimonides to a son of a Pharisee who have escaped the Destruction of A.D. 70; their changes carry little weight in truth.

I changed nothing in the Greek translation of John 1:1. Like I said, don't take my word for it, trust your own eyes and read that the Greek word "TON THEON" was written over a hundred times in the Greek translation of the New Testament. Every Bible Scholar knows that the Greek phrase "TON THEON" always translates into "THE GOD" in the English language. It's not about denominations or religion; in this case, it's a matter of logical reasoning with your own eyes if you choose to see those very words in the Greek language.

What part of John 1:1 is the "TON THEON"?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Every son of Adam will bow to the Son of God, even if Yahweh were to make Yahshua (aka Jesus Christ) to be as a god the same way he did for Moses. (Exodus 7:1).
When you stand before and bow before Yahweh God Almighty, you will not see Jesus (the Son of God) sitting on God's Throne. Jesus will forever be seated on the second throne to the right of the first one; he will never sit on the first throne which belongs to Yahweh alone. HalleluYah!

This is exactly what John was saying in John 1:1-a but you and jw interpretation of “and the Word was a god” cannot fit into this verse for the very simple reason that there was no creation before the beginning. If there was no creation before the beginning, then where did the “a god” from the group of “gods” came from? We do not have that information from the bible. What we have is, “In the beginning was the Word”. The “en/was” is suggesting that “the Word” was in existence already continuously, without time limit, from eternity.

Now, if you say that an “a god” can sit right next to “The God” then what are you teaching? POLYTHEISM. IOW, an “a god” or “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS” god/s would be seating right next to “The God” is what you are teaching, and that is, POLYTHEISM.

ONLY GOD CAN SIT NEXT TO GOD AND THIS IS WHAT KING DAVID AND STEPHEN SAW IN PSALM 110:1 AND ACTS 7:55.

Whether the English translators chose to include the article "a" in their translation is beside the main point: They chose not to include the Greek word "TON" in their English translations; when they saw the word "TON" -- They ignored it. However, other English translators stayed true to their eyes and integrity and chose to translate the word "TON" in the English word "THE" as in these translations.

1. Koine Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος.
2. Greek transliteration: En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.
3. Greek to English: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word.
4. Sahidic Coptic to English: In the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word
5. Jubilee Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God

The Greek translators made a distinction between "God" and "The God" in their translations; meaning there were two Gods in this verse. However, the word Theos (god) has the same meaning as these two verses:

"And YAHWEH said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (AELHYM) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus 7:1)
"I have said, Ye [are] gods (AELHYM) and all of you [are] children of the most High." (Psalms 82:6)
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" (John 10:34)

Moses, King David, Jesus Son of God, and the Holy Prophets of Yahweh understood the word "god" in Exodus 7:1 and Psalms 82:6; and they also understood how this "god" relates righteously with Yahweh, THE GOD (TON THEON).
And that relationship is simple: The god title given to them was merely to demonstrate (to others) their supernatural powers; however, being a god does not over-throw or share the title to THE ALMIGHTY GOD, who alone is YAHWEH.

However, you dual-theists, Trinitarians, and polytheists make the fatal scriptural error of twisting the meaning of John 1:1 into thinking that the oneness between Yahweh and Jesus is sharing of Almighty Yahweh God title and His total powers! The fact is that the oneness in John 1:1 has the same meaning as the oneness in the verse of John 17:11, which is written here:

"And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]." (John 17:11)​

We are one with the Father also; and that oneness is one in purpose, will, and mind NOT in title and omnipotent powers. We are one because of this ancient and pure holy commandment spoken by our Saviour:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." (Matthew 22:37)​

Doing that will make you "ONE" with Yahweh (The Almighty God Father) and Yahshuo (The Son of God).

Shabbath Shaluum

 

[atpollard]

I was serious with my question with everyone, though.. why does it make a difference whether or not Jesus is God?

The WHY depends on what Jesus was other than God.

If Jesus was a God (as in one among many) then most of the teachings in the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an are false ... all claim monotheism.

If Jesus was something great, but less than God ... like a super-angel ... then much of what he says in the Gospels and what the later writings (like Romans) says about him is either a lie or so metaphorical that we actually have no real hope in his promises. (Which could also be purely metaphorical).

If Jesus was God, then what he said is completely reliable. His promises are true and reliable. He was and is both qualified and capable of reclaiming what was His before the foundation of the world and perfecting it for His purpose and glory. That God would sacrifice everything for us raises the bar on his love, demonstrates a transformational truth and makes us 'constrained by love' to strive to follow his example.

IMHO, that is why it matters.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

The Lord Jesus Christ DID NOT TEACH ANY OF HIS DISCIPLES THAT He is “The God” nor did He say He is “The God”. Again for the 100 times, AHEM, AHEM, AHEM. “And the Word was with God” here we read two personal beings.

You're right: Jesus, the Son of God neither said nor taught anyone that he is "TON THEON" according to the Greek translation. Again for the 101st times, AHEM, AHEM, "AHELL":

1. Koine Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος.
2. Greek transliteration: En archē ēn ho Lógos, kai ho Lógos ēn pros ton Theón, kai Theós ēn ho Lógos.
3. Greek to English: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with (toward) the God, and God was the Word.
4. Sahidic Coptic to English: In the beginning existed the Word and the Word existed with the God and a god was the Word
5. Jubilee Bible: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.

Neither erasers nor crayons in the world will be able to remove the Greek word TON THEON and THEOS from John 1:1.. Clearly anyone with eyes can see that there are two different gods written here based on their spellings. One of the gods has a distinctive definite article "TON" ignored by some English translators (not the Greeks). How you choose to translate them by inclusion or exclusion is your problem not the Greek translators and other English translators. Nothing has change in the Greek writings since the last 2,000 years.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Clear said: "
There has been much discussion about the Hebrew word “Echad” אֶחָד and how one “must understand it” in a certain, particular way, before one can understand the mystery of how three individuals are really “one” individual, since the trinity are an “echad”. While I admit that it is often translated by the english word “one”, it is not a strictly numeric designation at all.

In Genesis 2:24, when a man “shall cleave unto his wife : and they shall be ONE flesh.” , the word used for "one" in this verse, IS "echad" אֶחָד

This is NOT a numeric designation, but it is a description of agreement and unity. The man and woman do NOT literally become, numerically, “one” person. They remain TWO separate individuals having different characteristics. Not only can two individuals become united in a single purpose or venture, but any size community of separate individuals can be an אֶחָד (echad).

For example, the name by which the Dead Sea Scrolls Jewish community called itself was an אֶחָד (echad) which translators tended to render by the word “community” instead of using the word "one".

My point is, that the word is not a strict numeric designation, but rather a description of a different type of union which may be used to describe the type of agreement and unity and “oneness” existing between God the Father, His Son and the Holy Ghost as completely separate individuals who are unified in their purpose. And it does this, even more easily than it can be used to somehow show that three individuals are really only one individual.
"

I think Clear made a very clear statement about Monotheism and Polytheism And this is what Deuteronomy 6:4 was saying to us.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah" the word “Elohim” being plural shows that God, i.e., [God/Father, God/Son, God/Holy Spirit described in John 10:30, John 14:16, and Acts 5:3-4] is the Lord, is more than one, yet is "ONE/Echad Jehovah". And not “Yachid” an absolute one.

I never said that Aechad (אֶחָד) is a strict numeric designation. I knew that. That is I why did not comment on that particular post. Otherwise, why would I keep posting the following verse from Jesus' own mouth:

""And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are]." (John 17:11)

I know that context is everything. That the word "one" (AECHAD) can either represent a number or a collective. With that being said, the above verse John 17:11 represent a one in collective mind, will, and purpose (might). The following word "one" represent a number:

"Hear, Yishrael: YAHWEH our God (AELHYM). YAHWEH [is] one (AECHAD)." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
"And thou shalt love YAHWEH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. (Deuteronomy 6:5)

Shabbath Shaluum