Jesus is God?

[Mark2020]

Jesus was a god just as Moses and other men were gods, though not to be confused with Jehovah God.

:no:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html

John 8:58 - Before Abraham ...

This and the rest have already been discussed and refuted...

 

[Mark2020]

If a person speaks his opinion without proof it is not proof.

You asked for my opinion, which I gave you. He happens to have the same opinion.

 

[tripleog2010]

In the writings of the bible, Christ makes the claim that he is the messiah, or God in the flesh. If it isn't true, then he was a liar. A good person doesn't lie. Or the other possibility is someone just made it up. But there cannot be any doubt that the Gospels and some of the epistles definitely point and state that Christ is the messiah.

 

[outhouse]

In the writings of the bible, Christ makes the claim that he is the messiah, or God in the flesh. If it isn't true, then he was a liar. A good person doesn't lie. Or the other possibility is someone just made it up. But there cannot be any doubt that the Gospels and some of the epistles definitely point and state that Christ is the messiah.

oh please post the script

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Any human being claiming to be a messiah, prophet, or god or gods son, is obviously a lire, in this day and age we can discriminate that claim, i dont think that jesus was son of god or anything special, what new teachings did he bring to this world that did not already exist?

 

[outhouse]

Any human being claiming to be a messiah, prophet, or god or gods son, is obviously a lire, in this day and age we can discriminate that claim, i dont think that jesus was son of god or anything special, what new teachings did he bring to this world that did not already exist?

I agree that he was a mortal man. This is a given.


He was a teaher of judaism though that was in the right place at the right time and place in need of a new religion. he started a movement that has been part of everyday life for millions.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I agree that he was a mortal man. This is a given.


He was a teaher of judaism though that was in the right place at the right time and place in need of a new religion. he started a movement that has been part of everyday life for millions.

As I said before he is not god, therefore I disagree that Jesus is God. Just answering the question in the post

 

[outhouse]

As I said before he is not god, therefore I disagree that Jesus is God. Just answering the question in the post

Thats fine, I feel the same way

 

[Me Myself]

:no:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/121296-john-1-1-anarthrous-theos-big.html


This and the rest have already been discussed and refuted...

We were ALL in the begining actually

 

[URAVIP2ME]

We were ALL in the begining actually

Even Jesus was 'in the beginning' according to Revelation 3v14 B.

Only God, according to Psalm [90v2], was 'BEFORE' the beginning.

In other words, created pre-human heavenly Jesus was not before the beginning as the un-created everlasting God was before the beginning.

 

[Mark2020]

Revelation 3v14 B.

:no:

Complete Word Study Dictionary:

ἀρχή ... "the beginning of the creation" means the active beginning of the creation, the One who caused the creation, referring to Jesus Christ not as a created being, but the One who created all things (Joh 1:3).

Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains

ἀρχή, ῆς f: one who or that which constitutes an initial cause—‘first cause, origin.’ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ‘the origin of what God has created’ Re 3:14. It is also possible to understand ἀρχή in Re 3:14 as meaning ‘ruler’.

Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains

ἀρχή (arch&#275...
3. first cause, the origin (Rev 3:14), for another interp, see next; 4. ruler, governor, usually in the normal human sphere (Lk 12:11, 20:20; Col 1:16; Tit 3:1; Rev 3:14), for another interp of Revelation’s verse, see prior

Jesus was not before the beginning

:no:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Actually ἦν is imperfect verb (continuous) which means that the Word had been existing before "the Beginning"

Word Pictures in the New Testament

Was (ἠν [ēn]). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of εἰμι [eimi] to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (ἐγενετο [egeneto], became) appears in verse 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in 8:58 “before Abraham came (γενεσθαι [genesthai]) I am” (εἰμι [eimi], timeless existence).

 

[Muffled]

You asked for my opinion, which I gave you. He happens to have the same opinion.

I asked for an explication. here is the definition:
ex·pli·cate

verb \ˈek-splə-ˌkāt\
ex·pli·cat·edex·pli·cat·ing




Definition of EXPLICATE

transitive verb
1
: to give a detailed explanation of

2
: to develop the implications of : analyze logically

— ex·pli·ca·tion \ˌek-splə-ˈkā-shən\noun

That sounds to me like a request for proof not for an opinion.

 

[Muffled]

Any human being claiming to be a messiah, prophet, or god or gods son, is obviously a lire, in this day and age we can discriminate that claim, i dont think that jesus was son of god or anything special, what new teachings did he bring to this world that did not already exist?

Your statement that something is obvious reveals that you have no proof to back up your claim. It is not obvious to me so it is evidently not obvious.

Are you suggesting that the ability to recognize logical proof has improved over the ages? Somehow the arguments on RF seem to indicate otherwise.

That appears to be an appropriate self evaluation.

The Kingdom of God.

 

[Muffled]

Are you saying this is my own interpretation? I guess James Moffat, professor of Greek at Oxford was speculating too, and Edgar Goodspeed, professor at Chicago.

The context is your speculation. Blasphemy can come from many reasons. Saying you're the Messiah can be seen as Blasphemy. They didn't necessarily think he was G-d, despite how Trinitarians translate John 10:33 without the Anarthrous taken into effect. You can tell what the context was by his actual charge, by declaring himself to be the son of god, and thus EQUAL, but not the same as.

You mean your context is there for one who has speculation and refuses to accept the possibility of any other context even though the actual charge in the end was NOT for declaring himself to be G-d but "A god", and "Son of G-d".

Good for you, I'll take the Professor of Greek at Oxford's opinion over yours.

So if a scholar doesn't agree with your opinion, he's wrong. To be fair, that's sort of how I see it in a way, except I actually look at other points of view with fair skepticism

No. I am saying that your translation is a speculation. Your interpretation is based on the speculation about the translation although it is more likely that your speculation is based on an a priori unfounded opinion.

I can't speak for those people and they are not on here to argue their position. If they have an apology for their work, I would like to see it.

I don't think that is what you wanted to say. Context exists. There is no speculation involved. You must think that I am speculating about the context. However you are not being specific as to what you think that is.

The context does show that the Pharisees asked Jesus if He is the Messiah. However the context does not show Jesus directly affirming it. Instead He say that He and the Father are one. When Jesus asks them why they wish to stone Him, they do not say because He has said that he is the Messiah but because "thou being a man, makest thyself (a) God. BTW equating Himself to the Father makes Him God not a god.

I don't need to speculate because the context is there.

I don't care if the Pope himself agrees with you. You still have to prove what you say. I get all my understanding from God but Istill have to prove what I say.

I don't state opinions. I provide proof. If a scholor wishes to provide his proof he is welcome to do so. Until then what a scholar says is just an opinion.

I can't imagine what can be more fair than for a person to provide proof of what they say. Anyone can say anything but few can prove what they say. Is it such a difficult standard? perhaps it is for those who have no foundation in logic but otherwise how does one arrive at the truth. If a person claims he has a green skinned alien as a friend, shall we just accept his statement or require proof?

 

[Mark2020]

: to give a detailed explanation of

I explained it and gave references with detailed explanation:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2664982-post846.html

 

[thebeloved]

The person doesn't sins , doesn't lies and that was Jesus Christ!

 

[Shermana]

BTW equating Himself to the Father makes Him God not a god.

Oh really? Your definition of 'Equate" must mean something different. Also, that was what the Pharisees said. Jesus said "The Father is Greater than I', and not just in terms of authority, as the word for "Greater" is used for "Greater than" in other places. Here's the actual definition of "Equate", anyone can see from the examples that being "Equal" does mean "being the same being", as much as you'd like to think. Did G-d give you this understanding that Equal means "the exact same being"?

Strong's Greek: 2470. ???? (isos) -- equal

Matthew 21:12

New International Version (©1984)
These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'

[quote]I get all my understanding from God but Istill have to prove what I say.

[/quote]

So once again, you are saying you are some kind of prophet who talks to G-d directly? How do you get your understanding from G-d exactly? Can you prove this? I like when people say things about proving things and then come off with whoppers like this.

I don't state opinions. I provide proof

Where's your proof that your interpretation comes from G-d himself?

I can't imagine what can be more fair than for a person to provide proof of what they say.

The subject of how to define Ego Eimi with concern to the tense-usage of "Genesthai" (usually future tense" has been well discussed already, I can go repeat what's been said by me and DP and others. As I've shown earlier, others have said "Ego Eimi" (in 2 Samuel in the Septuagint) without being thought to be G-d almighty.

Anyone can say anything but few can prove what they say. Is it such a difficult standard?

Do you apply your own logic to yourself when you make claims that "I get my understandings from G-d""?

If a person claims he has a green skinned alien as a friend, shall we just accept his statement or require proof?

How about when someone tells me that G-d tells them things?

is based on an a priori unfounded opinion.

And yours isn't because you get your understanding from G-d? What if I believe that I get MY understanding from G-d, and think that you're getting yours from a demon?

 

[Mark2020]

The subject of how to define Ego Eimi with concern to the tense-usage of "Genesthai" (usually future tense" has been well discussed already, I can go repeat what's been said by me and DP and others. As I've shown earlier, others have said "Ego Eimi" (in 2 Samuel in the Septuagint) without being thought to be G-d almighty.

You're being dishonest again.
We've already had a discussion about that where you proved that you can't read Greek, do you want me to remind you?

'genestai' is aorist infinitve, not future.
John 8:58 Greek Texts and Analysis

And I already explained that in 2 Samuel eimi wasn't used absolutely, as in John 8:58.

 

[Shermana]

Aorist Inactive (Edit: Typo: Should be Infinitive) usually implies something that WILL take place, hence a sort of "future tense".

And you failed to show any objective link that discussed this "Absolute sense" you keep referring to, gramatically. Your definition seems to be purely a Theological presumption. As in, you are saying he spoke "Absolutely" because you are presuming it was Trinitarian.

And then of course, there's the issue that Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh means I WILL BE and not so much "I Am". If you're going to say I'm wrong on that, you'll be up against Theodotion, Aquila, and numerous Hebrew scholars who all agree that the Divine name revealed to Moses is not really "I am" but "I shall/will be". So please post a link defining this "Absolute sense". Just because many translate it as "I am" does not trump Aquila and Theodotion's translation. So you're then stuck with "I am" not even meaning the Divine name.

As anyone can see, here is "Genesthai" being used to define something that WILL be. Thus, if Yashua used a verb tense that usually means "will Become/to eventually be" in the Past tense, its an indicator that his use of "I am" was past tense too. I'll take Oxford Greek professor James Moffat's opinion on this matter over yours. Luke 9:36 and 3:22 are the only cases here where it would match the use in John 8:58, and for Yashua to make sense, his tense would have to have been in past tense. Every other example on this list uses the "To become/to eventually be" form.

Greek Concordance: ???????? (genesthai) -- 37 Occurrences


Matthew 20:26 V-ANM
BIB: ὑμῖν μέγας γενέσθαι ἔσται ὑμῶν
NAS: wishes to become great
KJV: whosoever will be great among
INT: you great become let him be your
Matthew 24:6 V-ANM
BIB: Δεῖ γὰρ γενέσθαι ἀλλ' οὔπω
NAS: for [those things] must take place, but [that] is not yet
KJV: [these things] must come to pass, but
INT: it is necessary indeed to take place but not yet
Matthew 26:54 V-ANM
BIB: οὕτως δεῖ γενέσθαι
NAS: [which say] that it must happen this way?
KJV: thus it must be?
INT: thus it must be
Mark 1:17 V-ANM
BIB: ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων
NAS: Me, and I will make you become fishers
KJV: you to become fishers
INT: I will make you to become fishers of men
Mark 10:43 V-ANM
BIB: θέλῃ μέγας γενέσθαι ἐν ὑμῖν
NAS: wishes to become great
KJV: whosoever will be great among
INT: desires great to become among you
Mark 13:7 V-ANM
BIB: θροεῖσθε δεῖ γενέσθαι ἀλλ' οὔπω
NAS: [those things] must take place; but [that is] not yet
KJV: [such things] must needs be; but
INT: be disturbed it must come to pass but not yet [is]
Luke 3:22 V-ANM
BIB: ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι Σὺ εἶ
NAS: and a voice came out of heaven,
KJV: and a voice came from heaven,
INT: out of heaven came You are
Luke 9:36 V-ANM
BIB: ἐν τῷ γενέσθαι τὴν φωνὴν
NAS: the voice had spoken, Jesus
INT: as occurred the voice
Luke 21:9 V-ANM
BIB: γὰρ ταῦτα γενέσθαι πρῶτον ἀλλ'
NAS: must take place first,
KJV: must first come to pass; but the end
INT: for these things take place first but
Luke 23:24 V-ANM
BIB: Πιλᾶτος ἐπέκρινεν γενέσθαι τὸ αἴτημα
NAS: that their demand be granted.
KJV: gave sentence that it should be as they
INT: Pilate ajudged to be done the demand
John 1:12 V-ANM
BIB: τέκνα θεοῦ γενέσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν
NAS: the right to become children
KJV: power to become the sons
INT: children of God to be to those that believe
John 3:9 V-ANM
BIB: δύναται ταῦτα γενέσθαι
KJV: can these things be?
INT: can these things be
John 5:6 V-ANM
BIB: Θέλεις ὑγιὴς γενέσθαι
NAS: to him, Do you wish to get well?
KJV: unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
INT: Desire you well to become

 

[Mark2020]

Aorist Inactive usually implies something that WILL take place

:biglaugh:

It's infinite,
and you're wrong.

Seriously, you need to stop embarrassing yourself by trying to discuss Greek. You've proved before that you can't read it.