Is Jesus God?

[outhouse]

Why does it matter to you? You don't believe that God exists to impart knowledge and guide his people into truth.

Doesn't have anything to do with when the book was started or finished.

You don't know? or just going to claim moses wrote it at what exact date?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Is a different god then Yahweh

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god,

According one of the references: "Gnuse takes a further bold step in setting the emergence of monotheism in a wider intellectual context: he argues brilliantly that the interpretation of Israel's development as both an evolutionary and revolutionary process corresponds to categories of contemporary evolutionary thought in the biological and palaeontological sciences"

So Gnuse argues from the premise that there is no God and then argues that Israel (like everything) developed in an evolutionary fashion. No surprise there. Like I said, if atheist start with the their faulty belief that there is no God; the possibilities of theories are limitles, random, and obviously without concrete certainty. They are in the camp of "Who said it or did it first? Answer: "I guess [fill in the blank] said it\did it but I'm not certain; but believe me, I'm not like them, I have another agenda." I've hear this line of arguments so many times its pathetic when they hide their biased and corrupted beliefs and theories behinds educational degrees and credentials.

I'll go with the premise that God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to return to his way of worship the same way that Adam and Noah worshipped their monotheistic God, Yahweh.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Also, I don't see the connection between the Jehovah's reference and my question. I do side with the Jehovah's Witness in how they read scripture that Jesus died for all as God's Son. My OP, though, has both sides. I just thought it was interesting that both sides have good points. Yet, they both cant be true.

You can disregard my other post.

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.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

I'm not sure, but do you realize that it's the same word twice (Theos)? It's merely inflected differently because of the two distinct grammatical usages. It is normal that when we refer generically to a greek word that we tend to refer to it using the nominative case, which is why in english we would tend to just say we're talking about the word "theos". "Ton" is the article and is also simply presented in the same case as the noun that it's modifying.

Θεός (Theos) - 2nd declension nominative (the subject of a clause)
Θεόν (Theon) - 2nd declension accusative (the direct object of a clause)

See for example Appendix:Ancient Greek second declension - Wiktionary

Or, for another example, It's still the same word in verse 6 which says Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ Θεοῦ ("There was a man sent from God"), where it's now in the genitive case (Θεοῦ) because that's the normal case used for an object of the preposition "from" (παρα). Or in John 9:24 when the religious leaders are questioning the man healed of blindness, and say that he should give glory "to God" (Δὸς δόξαν τῷ Θεῷ). Here Theos is in the dative case, as the object of the preposition "to". It's all the same word, and the way the root changes based on the grammatical case does not reflect any particular semantic difference as far as there being "two different Gods". Not as a matter of grammar. Note also that it's not a question of the presence or absence of the article determining the semantic meaning either, since you will agree 1:6 is not referring to Jesus or the Logos but to the Father, and does not include the article. "para theou" and not "para tou theou".

However, in addition to the grammatical usages of the word THEOS \ THEON the Greek translators took into account the arduous task of distinguishing Yahweh God Almighty from any other god. Taking into the context of each of hundred plus verses that has the phrase "TON THEON", every time, (I mean every single time) they made sure that only that phrase "TON THEON" referred only to YAHWEH God Almighty, never to Jesus Christ or any other man or false god. So it's more than just grammatical usage that has been done here in the Greek New Testament. It is like the English translators took the arduous task of distinguishing the phrase "the lord" from the phrase "the LORD" when referring to any man, king, angel, Jesus Christ, and YAHWEH God Almighty. The context of each verse reveals a much more distinction between the two deities. What a revelation! Somebody better tell somebody about this Good News! -- Happy Sabbath and Shabbath Shalom! And Happy New Year's Eve!

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Doesn't have anything to do with when the book was started or finished.
You don't know? or just going to claim moses wrote it at what exact date?

We know how it was done; however, believers like us would be wasting our time explaining to atheists like you on how Yahweh, the God Almighty, guided Moses in those days during the Exodus from Egypt. Holy, holy holy is Yahweh God Almighty: Who was, and is, and is to come.

 

[Nietzsche]

We know how it was done; however, believers like us would be wasting our time explaining to atheists like you on how Yahweh, the God Almighty, guided Moses in those days during the Exodus from Egypt. Holy, holy holy is Yahweh God Almighty: Who was, and is, and is to come.

You know that Hebrew has no vowels, right? And that 'YHWH' should be in all-caps...right?

 

[outhouse]

We know how it was done;

No you factually do not. You have faith and refuse all education and knowledge on the topic due to your severe fanaticism.

however, believers like us would be wasting our time explaining to atheists like you on how Yahweh, the God Almighty, guided Moses in those days during the Exodus from Egypt. Holy, holy holy is Yahweh God Almighty: Who was, and is, and is to come.

Not one credible university in the whole world teaches this a credible history.

It can be taught as theology though. But it has not historical core. SO DONT pin it on me or on unbelievers, because its all credible education you refuse.

 

[JM2C]

You have trouble reading English.

actually your English is really NOT up to par with someone with a college degree let alone be an expert on the subject at hand.

 

[JM2C]

I have stated the same exact thing. They evolved from Canaanites for the most part.

This is not what your scholar/DEVER was saying. He was saying that the Israelites’ ancestors were the Amorites/Canaanites from the Bronze age to Iron Age, i.e., from 3100 BC to 333 BC. IOW, they/Israelites did not “evolved from Canaanites” because as Dever was saying they/Israelites were actually Canaanites.

 

[JM2C]

Dever uses the word typically, not ALL of them.

“Typically” which is commonly, consistently, mostly, naturally, customarily, generally or IOW, the Israelites were actually Canaanites because Dever says their “ancestors are typically, [i.e., commonly, consistently, mostly, naturally, customarily, generally] Amorite/Canaanite”. IOW, the Israelites did not “evolved” with the Canaanites because according to Dever the Amorites/Canaanites were actually their/Israelites ancestors. This is a very simple deductive reasoning. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

Now, the subject “ALL” is the Israelites, right? If you say, “not ALL of them”, then where the others from the “not ALL of them” came from? Hit a dead end again with your twisted theory, huh?

 

[JM2C]

AND he even tells you a Amorite possibility who were Semitic who joined the displaced Cananites.

Are you confused about the timeline?

You and your scholars were saying the Israelites did not exist until after 1200 BC

Israelites did not exist until after 1200 BC. So any character before this time period, has no historicity what so ever.

The reason for this theory is after the Canaanites displacement around 1200 BC some of the Canaanites split and form a group and they called themselves the “Israelites”.

Now, how could the “Amorites” “who were Semitic” possibly “joined the displaced Canaanites” in 1200 BC if Dever was saying that they, the Amorites/Canaanites were actually the Israelites ancestor since the Bronze age, i.e., 3100 BC? DO YOU UNDESRTAND THIS?

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

 

[JM2C]

Let break this down.

The Canaanite origins are not up for debate.Correct, no credible person fights this.

Who else joined these people?? what other Semitic people joined them????

You still do not understand, do you?

You need to concentrate on the word “Israelites” and don’t let anything confuse you. The "Israelites" is the focus of our debate. You and your scholars were saying the Israelites were actually GENETICALLY Canaanites because their ancestors from the Bronze age to Iron age were actually GENETICALLY the Amorites/Canaanites. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

I’m not trying to embarrass you but you are so deep into your baseless theory that what you are doing right now is trying to save your face from further embarrassment. It’s not gonna happen.

So, when you said, “what other Semitic people joined them?” is either you are confused about the subject/Israelites of our debate or you can’t stay focus on the subject, i.e., the Israelites.

Here we go again for the 100 times and please I will NOT repeat this again.

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

What Dever was saying is, the Israelites were actually GENETICALLY the Amorites/Canaanites because their ancestors were the Amorites/Canaanites. They became the Israelites ONLY after they split from the Canaanites and form a group called the Israelites IN THE 1200 BC ACCORDING TO YOU AND DEVER AND FINKELSTEIN.

IOW, they/Israelites did not join the Canaanites because according to Dever they were actually GENETICALLY Canaanites.

You do not JOIN the Canaanites to become a Canaanite if you are genetically a Canaanite. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

 

[lovemuffin]

However, in addition to the grammatical usages of the word THEOS \ THEON the Greek translators took into account the arduous task of distinguishing Yahweh God Almighty from any other god. Taking into the context of each of hundred plus verses that has the phrase "TON THEON", every time, (I mean every single time) they made sure that only that phrase "TON THEON" referred only to YAHWEH God Almighty, never to Jesus Christ or any other man or false god.

It is unambiguously true that almost every usage of theos in the greek NT, regardless of the case of the noun, refers to the God of Abraham. The fact that every usage of the accusative case does so is more a reflection of that more basic fact. There is no evidence it amounts to a code, there is no evidence it would be understood that way. It is a fairly unusual idea to suggest that authors would be careful but only when using the noun as the direct object of a verb. If you look at all the usages of the noun theos in the NT, it is obviously the case that they treat it, grammatically, like any other 2nd declension noun.

Besides that though, the mere fact that the accusative case always refers to the God of Abraham isn't enough to support your argument, which was about John 1:1, because in that verse it is not the meaning of "ton theon" that's in question, but the meaning of "theos" in "theos en ho logos". Your argument was that Theos/Theon denotes two different Gods, and that argument doesn't just depend on "ton theon" always meaning YHWH, it depends also on theos never meaning the same. But I've already supplied at least 2 counter-examples from this specific gospel: 1:6 and 9:24, as well as Romans 8:33.

There are many others, but I chose those examples also because they demonstrate that the presence or absence of the article is also not conclusive, which was another argument you were making, when you said that "one of the gods has a distinctive definite article "TON" ignored by some English translators (not the Greeks)". But as I've demonstrated it is not true that the article is always present when the reference to God is intended, although it is usually true that the article is absent when a more general meaning of "god" is intended. It is that asymmetry in the usage of the article, the fact that its absence is not definitive, that makes John 1:1 ambiguous.

 

[outhouse]

actually your English is really NOT up to par with someone with a college degree let alone be an expert on the subject at hand.

That may be true, but I do comprehend what people are writing, most of the time.

 

[outhouse]

You and your scholars were saying the Israelites were actually GENETICALLY Canaanites

Stop it.

No one said that. We are talking culturally, not genetically. Quit moving goal post.

They probably are genetically the same, but that is not the debate here.

m not trying to embarrass you

Your not, your doing it to yourself. You really have no business talking about things you know nothing about.

they/Israelites did not join the Canaanites

No one said that stay focused

So, when you said, “what other Semitic people joined them?” is either you are confused about the subject

You just don't have a clue what is even being debated. Israelites evolved from displaced Canaanites and other Semitic peoples whom we don't know for sure who they exactly were.

That is all Dever and Finkelstein are saying.

 

[outhouse]

Are you confused about the timeline?

You and your scholars were saying the Israelites did not exist until after 1200 BC

Are you confused?

At 1200 BC only proto Israelites existed that were semi nomadic. They were for the most part displaced Canaanites and other unknown Semitic peoples.


Thank you for trying to condense a whole book down to a sentence or two and then laughably try and semantically pick apart the words and meanings to create an argument out of nothing.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

You know that Hebrew has no vowels, right? And that 'YHWH' should be in all-caps...right?

And do you know that when you translate the Tetragrammaton into language with vowels like English, you come up with Yahweh?

 

[OneThatGotAway]

No you factually do not. You have faith and refuse all education and knowledge on the topic due to your severe fanaticism.
Not one credible university in the whole world teaches this a credible history.
It can be taught as theology though. But it has not historical core. SO DONT pin it on me or on unbelievers, because its all credible education you refuse.

Factually? Who said anything about verifiable facts? Every man on earth based their beliefs in historical events on limited evidence; and they fill in the gaps with their assumptions and beliefs. You and atheists are no different. You just use smoke and mirrors and a lot of talk with no evidence to the contrary. And you try to pawn your theories off as fact. Please! You're wasting your time trying to fool the believers of God. We know deception. You select some education and reject others. Other credible scholars and universities scoff and laugh jokers like you out of any lecture hall.

 

[Nietzsche]

And do you know that when you translate the Tetragrammaton into language with vowels like English, you come up with Yahweh?

Oh good, you're not completely clueless. So why, then, are you using it with God Almighty? "YHWH God Almighty" literally translates to "I am I am God Almighty".

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Oh good, you're not completely clueless. So why, then, are you using it with God Almighty? "YHWH God Almighty" literally translates to "I am I am God Almighty".

No more clueless than you are. You will find the answer when you read the Holy Bible. You do know what the Holy Bible is don't you? Also, look at the context in which I use that phrase; it might clue you in on something that you're not aware of. By the way, do you believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?