Jesus is not God

[Dimi95]

If context is taken into account , then the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by John 1:1 and John 1:14.

The word 'Logos' in 'Koine'(Koine means common language) - it does not mean 'Word' , but it means 'Principle of Reason'.

'Word' is just a 'weak' English version

John 1:14
"And 'the Principle of Reason' became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

If the New Testament teaches something , then it teaches that Jesus is God. Period!

Textual criticism is a branch of philology that is concerned with the identification of textual variants.

The New Testament is a matter of History,not of Textual criticism.

It would have been only a matter of textual criticism if variants showed that the stories are 'corrupted' and words were changed.
But they don't show that.

Interpretation is not according to religious dogma , but rather it is a matter of Science.
And context alone is not enough.

@Oeste

This 'talks' that you are doing , they were done like trilion times on different platforms and they don't bring anything usefull.

More and more people are realizing that 'Apologetics' does not 'work' anymore.
And i am really happy about it.

Apologetics is just 'doing things in a circle' and a waste of time.
Discussions like this for example.

You do not need more then one example,trust me.

This is an advice to you and other Christians who insist to answer over and over again.
You don't have to prove nothing to nobody.
It has been explained 'x' times.

I tried that way of explaining things and i did not listen to what i was adviced(which is science) and i had to see it for myself.

But if i didn't see why is that so,i would have never believed it,that's for sure.

You can also study Scripture in the way of Science.

 

[JerryMyers]

Oeste said:
Lol, "convincing" readers is not part of my job or the job of anyone else here.
Now go ahead... let's see if you can convince us it is.

So you are not in this thread to convince the readers reading this thread, you are here trying hard to convince yourself that Jesus is God. OK, I can understand that.

Oeste said:
You are right, but it’s not only I who have the wrong guy, I think the Trinitarians too have the wrong guy to talk about ‘Jesus is God’ on their behalf!!
What strange notions you have!
First, I haven't heard from other Trinitarians who think the same as you, so I can live and sleep at night with that. Second, I have no idea why they would want me to speak on their behalf when they can freely speak for themselves. Third, if they cannot speak for themselves, they are still free to assign someone who can.

Right again, no one in their right mind would want you to speak on their behalf.

Oeste said:
Incorrect.
It's biblical truth for everyone, not just Trinitarians.

Yes, but in the context of our discussion here, IT IS the inconvenient truth for the Trinitarians.

Oeste said:
Already answered: Hebrews 1:8 IS scripture itself and reveals Psalm 45.

You mean Hebrews 1:8 exposed itself for what it is not and revealed Psalm 45 for what it is... But I already know that.

Oeste said:
I am not sure where you live, but if you live in the US, you can align yourself with whomever you want and with any "shrinking few" you desire.

When I said “I would rather be with the ‘shrinking few’ rather than with the ‘growing majority’”, it was in the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 17:13-14. You didn’t know that??? I even quoted that passage!!

No wonder you sounded clueless and talked nonsense when you tried to explain the scripture because you cherry-picked verses and ignored context!

Oeste said:
Of course I can.

That’s it??!! Don’t just stop there, walk the talk - show us from the scripture Jesus preached the trinity in his lifetime on earth. Now, you wouldn’t want the readers here to think of you as an ‘empty vessel that makes a lot of noise’, do you??

Oeste said:
Honestly JerryMyers, I have no idea how my statement leads you to come to such a wayward conclusion. "Jesus is God for the vast majority of Christians who hold the biblical canon as true" is a truthful statement.
There is nothing there to imply the world is made up only of Christians. That would be eisegesis. It's a non-existent something you've pushed into my statement, but not something a reasonable person would ever extract from it.

The fact that you keep on ranting "Jesus is God for the vast majority of Christians…” tells us either you think this thread is intended only for Christians, or you think the world is made up of Christians only.

Oeste said:
Not at all, but as previously stated, they are all scriptural, and I don't see what's laughable about Hebrews 1:8 clearly indicating the Father stating Jesus is God.

I was not laughing at Hebrews 1:8, I was laughing at your inability to ‘explain’ your scripture!

Oeste said:
You have yet to source where we can find those scriptures you believe are truth, and which are lies. Instead, you tell us there are too many verses in our bible, so we'll have to divulge our scriptures first so you can roll it around in your head and decide whether the verse is a lie or not.

Oh-oh, here we go again, folks!
Why you keep on displaying your inability to think logically and rationally is beyond comprehension, especially when you have yet to prove me wrong on these 3 statements –

In the scripture, God Almighty never said nor implied of a ‘3-in-one’ God.
In the scripture, Jesus never said nor implied he’s God or part of a ‘3-in-1’ God.
In the scripture, Jesus never preached the trinity to his disciples or to anyone.

So, instead of giving us the ‘run-around’, just prove me wrong on the above.

Oeste said:
This sounds too much like a game of poker where the opposing player not only gets to see your cards prior to placing a bet, but also gets to tell you which cards you can keep and which must be discarded.
I'm honored you've invited me to play, and the ability to bring my own deck of cards (bible) to the table is truly comforting, but I think I'll take a pass.

You’re honored?? LOL! Are you a betting man, Oeste??
If talking about the scripture is a game of poker to you, then I can see why you would equate the bible to a deck of cards.

 

[learner Daniel]

And where is the Scripture that says this?

I mean, for something so important as identifying who God is, the Bible should be filled with such clear & unambiguous statements like you just said. But where are they? They’re not there.

You have one, John 1:1, which in most translations (written by Trinitarians) says “…and the Word was God”. But next, John says, “This one was in beginning with God.” (Who can be “with” someone, and also be the same one?) And just a few verses later, John says, “No one has ever seen God.”

Why would the Apostle write something so ambiguous? Do all translations word John 1:1 that way? No…
John 1:1 is not ambiguous at all, if you’re a Unitarian & use E. Goodspeed’s Translation,
“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”

…Or Moffat’s,
“THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”

…Or The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson,
“In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word.”

(BTW, none of these are JW.)
The question arises, ‘Why would these translators render John 1:1 this way?’
Because of Greek grammar….
Koine Greek had no indefinite articles (like “a” and “an”, in English). So as needed, when translating into English, “a” or “an” has to be supplied.

So, why add “a god” at John 1:1? So it will agree with the context!

Why do some Bibles say “divine” or “god-like”?

According to Philip B. Harner, in his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb (as in “god was the word”, and not “the word was god”) are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87. Parenthetical content, bold type, & italics are mine.)

Translators that 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.”

Because of this grammatical structure, highly acclaimed scholar and priest John L. 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.


These renderings of John 1:1,”..and the Word was a god”, “..and the Word was divine”, “..and the Word was a powerful one (non-JW 2001 translation)”, share contextual agreement with Paul’s statement at 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 where, in part, he states, “… there is actually to us one God, the Father, out of whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”

It also agrees with the Christians’ prayer @ Acts 4:24-31, where they called Jesus, God’s “Holy Servant.”

And Paul’s inspired words, “the head of the Christ is God.” - 1 Cor. 11:3

And Jesus’ prayer to His Father @ John 17:3, where Jesus addressed Him as “the only True God”, and then referring to himself as “the one whom You sent forth.”

And when Jesus cried out before he died, “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

And on, and on…

https://www.calvarychapelboston.com/Biblical%20Basis%20Trinity%20Bowman.pdf

do this a little each day by simply looking up the texts, friend.

 

[Oeste]

Hi @Dimi95,

If context is taken into account , then the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by John 1:1 and John 1:14.

I agree!

If the New Testament teaches something , then it teaches that Jesus is God. Period!

Definitely!

The New Testament is a matter of History,not of Textual criticism.

Yes, but I would say that textual criticism helps us determine if we have the correct history.

It would have been only a matter of textual criticism if variants showed that the stories are 'corrupted' and words were changed.
But they don't show that.

Exactly...I was expecting the other poster to show some manuscript evidence where certain parts of Hebrews 1:8 were missing, but there was nothing except some mental conception he has that is unavailable to the rest of us.

This 'talks' that you are doing , they were done like trilion times on different platforms and they don't bring anything usefull.

More and more people are realizing that 'Apologetics' does not 'work' anymore.
And i am really happy about it.

If I'm not mistaken, you've done quite a few of these in the past and you are (not were) very good at it.

I think they still work for many. When you witnessed in this manner, you were planting seeds, not trees in full bloom. You may not see the results now, but I think you'll be very happy you planted them later. If anything, they provide encouragement and information to others on a forum where misinformation can abound.

In fact, it was the ability of my fellow Christians to give full-throated, biblical responses that led me to re-examine my beliefs as an Arian. I began to realize "proof-texting" held limited value.

Apologetics is just 'doing things in a circle' and a waste of time.
Discussions like this for example.

It hasn't been a total waste though, and I think there will be some major impacts going forward. @learner Daniel just reposted something that made me realize that many Arians on the forum were so busy arguing against the Trinity that they didn't realize they believed Jesus was God. Once they were reminded of this, for the most part they dropped out of the discussion.

In other words, while they didn't believe in the Trinity, they actually did believe Jesus was God, and as far as it being unclear, they simply had to go to their website, where this teaching is made very clear.

You do not need more then one example,trust me.

I agree with this totally. Especially when one receives no reasonable rebuttable. Many times Christians just throw the scripture away when they are met with a rebuttal, without examining the rebuttal for a credible basis. In this instance, the "reason" given was so incredulous that I simply decided to hold ground and not offer more until the underlying premise that Hebrews 1:8 was a lie had been sufficiently evidenced.

This is an advice to you and other Christians who insist to answer over and over again.
You don't have to prove nothing to nobody.
It has been explained 'x' times.

Thank you, I've decided that I don't need to explain anymore than I have, and until the poster can give credible sources or evidence, there is no need to.

I tried that way of explaining things and i did not listen to what i was adviced(which is science) and i had to see it for myself.

But if i didn't see why is that so,i would have never believed it,that's for sure.

You can also study Scripture in the way of Science.

Science has many uses, that's for sure, but like all methods of inquiry, each will have its advantages and drawbacks. For instance, while science can tell us which mushrooms are edible, and which poison, and that we may die if we eat poison, it doesn't tell us if it's moral to poison grandma's tea, or what happens to her after she dies.

Great discourse @Dimi95, and much appreciated.

 

[JerryMyers]

Dimi95 said:

If context is taken into account , then the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by John 1:1 and John 1:14.
The word 'Logos' in 'Koine'(Koine means common language) - it does not mean 'Word' , but it means 'Principle of Reason'.
'Word' is just a 'weak' English version

Yes, ‘Koine Greek’ is a language, but a language is not the criteria when it comes to ‘context’. It can be in any language, but to understand the verse(s)/passage you are reading in context is to understand the meaning of the word(s) used and how it applies in other verse(s)/passage in the scripture.

Context is important to understand the scripture and the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by reading John 1:1 and John 1:14 OUT OF CONTEXT!

Let me explain this again...

In the English-translated Bibles today, ‘W/word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘logos’.
The word “logos”, Strong’s G3056 outlined ‘logos’ as, among others: of speech, as a word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God and its use as respect to the MIND alone - reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating.

Simply put, the term ‘Word of God’ means the word was spoken by God, only the Trinitarians twisted it and preached the ‘Word of God’ is Jesus, which is ridiculous as the term ‘Word/Logos of God’ can be found in many other passages, which if you understand ‘Word of God’ as Jesus, made those passages sounded ridiculous!

For example in Matthew 15:6, we read “you nullify the W/word (logos) of God for the sake of your tradition” which means you nullify the Command of God for the sake of your tradition, NOT that ‘you nullify Jesus, and in Hebrew 13:7 “leaders who spoke the W/word (logos) of God” which means leaders who spoke what God had spoken, NOT that the leaders who spoke Jesus!!

Dimi95 said:
John 1:14
"And 'the Principle of Reason' became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

In other words, you are saying Jesus was created by ‘the Principle of Reason’ of God Almighty.
I agree.

Dimi95 said:
If the New Testament teaches something , then it teaches that Jesus is God. Period!

The NT does NOT teach Jesus is God because Jesus himself never preached that to anyone in the scripture. If you come across any verse/passage in the scripture that shows Jesus preached himself as God to his disciples, this will be a good time to show it.

It’s only after Jesus had departed that the early church, preachers, scholars, and what have you, began to teach Jesus is God. Period!

 

[Dimi95]

Hi @Dimi95,
Yes, but I would say that textual criticism helps us determine if we have the correct history.

Not necessarily.
Archeology makes textual criticism relevant , the ruins speak of the stories of Christianity more then any Book.

If I'm not mistaken, you've done quite a few of these in the past and you are (not were) very good at it.
I think they still work for many.
When you witnessed in this manner, you were planting seeds, not trees in full bloom.

This is exactly what i was talking about.
If i am being honest , you can't find the sermon of Christianity in any forum or interpretation or any public 'place'.
Maybe it is more a 'private thing' then a public thing.

If you ask me what is the sermon then , i would only say that the sermon is within us..
Ofc that there is a biblical verse for what i said , but it can be done in other ways.
But we have Science today , and we must not forget that.

For me , the crucial thing is explaining what the Gospel are.

The NT has around 400,000 textual variants,over 99% make no difference to the meaning, and less than 1% are both meaningful and viable.

We have really studied them on large scale.

We have 5700 Greek manuscripts , 10000 latin and plus on that 200 000 Church Father letters as evidence to answer any of these 400 000 variations.
The evidence is half the variations.
Technically , it is 50%+ , so i would take that all day long as a basis for study.
Not judging anything.
Just facts.
When such numbers are there, there is little chance of guessing.
Interpretation is neccessary and in that case discovered facts become claims of truth.
That's why it is not considered a myth.
The writings are considered to be autobiographies.

You may not see the results now, but I think you'll be very happy you planted them later. If anything, they provide encouragement and information to others on a forum where misinformation can abound.

This is my issue
You start from the bottom , not from the top , that's not recommended.
Reading the stories are more of a private thing.
I avoid using them 'publicly'.

In fact, it was the ability of my fellow Christians to give full-throated, biblical responses that led me to re-examine my beliefs as an Arian. I began to realize "proof-texting" held limited value.

Yes , we are limited with guessing..
The evidence does not allow that.

And by biblical you mean that which comes from the library , right?
That's what biblical literally means in the common languages of that time.

In other words, while they didn't believe in the Trinity, they actually did believe Jesus was God, and as far as it being unclear, they simply had to go to their website, where this teaching is made very clear.

Hm...
Is the Son also the Father?
Can you answer with yes and no?
And do you think that this question has to be answered in any way except with 'yes' and 'no'?

And have you ever been asked this question by a Christian?
Simple Yes or No would be ok.
It's a matter of analysis , nothing more.

I agree with this totally. Especially when one receives no reasonable rebuttable. Many times Christians just throw the scripture away when they are met with a rebuttal

This is what i object , using Scripture.
If they don't know what it is and how it can be interpretated , then it's all a waste of time.

Good luck with the interpretatinf 400 000 variations
If you find 'the one' how to do it , you let me know , so i can slow down with studying philology and History.

Remember that not all have the same expirience and not everybody becomes aware the same way.
How people came to be 'aware'.

It is recommended that we should speak about Jesus Christ from the Gospels narratives, and that's from early Church sources.
You might not see the difference , but it is , a huge one.

, without examining the rebuttal for a credible basis. In this instance, the "reason" given was so incredulous that I simply decided to hold ground and not offer more until the underlying premise that Hebrews 1:8 was a lie had been sufficiently evidenced.

That is the problem(at least that's what i think it is), you explain them verse by verse.
The Holy Trinity is not limited to verses and interpretations.

Science has many uses, that's for sure, but like all methods of inquiry, each will have its advantages and drawbacks.

You know what i don't like in your answer?
This 'but'.
And yes , Science has many uses, that's for sure, like all methods of inquiry, each will have its advantages and drawbacks.

For instance, while science can tell us which mushrooms are edible, and which poison, and that we may die if we eat poison, it doesn't tell us if it's moral to poison grandma's tea, or what happens to her after she dies.

Actually it does , hahahaha..
Sry , but i am just being honest.
This what you wrote is funny
It's a joke in some sense.

So Social Science is not Science , that is what you are trying to say?
Don't mix the branches of science in your explenations.

Great discourse @Dimi95, and much appreciated.

Yes , i hope that we can both learn something from it.

Good chat.

 

[Dimi95]

Dimi95 said:

If context is taken into account , then the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by John 1:1 and John 1:14.
The word 'Logos' in 'Koine'(Koine means common language) - it does not mean 'Word' , but it means 'Principle of Reason'.
'Word' is just a 'weak' English version

Yes, ‘Koine Greek’ is a language, but a language is not the criteria when it comes to ‘context’.

Acrually it is.
It's the language of the original writings.

It can be in any language, but to understand the verse(s)/passage you are reading in context is to understand the meaning of the word(s) used and how it applies in other verse(s)/passage in the scripture.

No , if you have studied the methodology in History , you would never say that.

And i have given explenations

Context is important to understand the scripture and the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by reading John 1:1 and John 1:14 OUT OF CONTEXT!

Context is matter of textual criticism , not of JerryMyers.
And textual criticism is the basis and study goes further into other areas.
You are first-grade untill you realize that.

Let me explain this again...

You don't have to explain nothing.
You have to learn what is the thing that you are explaining.

In the English-translated Bibles today, ‘W/word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘logos’.
The word “logos”, Strong’s G3056 outlined ‘logos’ as, among others: of speech, as a word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God and its use as respect to the MIND alone - reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating.

No , it means Principle of Reason.
Nothing more , nothing less.
No word salads or anything like it.

If you can demonstrate any knowledge in Lexicology , let me bother to explain it.

Simply put, the term ‘Word of God’ means the word was spoken by God, only the Trinitarians twisted it and preached the ‘Word of God’ is Jesus, which is ridiculous as the term ‘Word/Logos of God’ can be found in many other passages, which if you understand ‘Word of God’ as Jesus, made those passages sounded ridiculous!

This is ad-hominem.

For example in Matthew 15:6, we read “you nullify the W/word (logos) of God for the sake of your tradition” which means you nullify the Command of God for the sake of your tradition, NOT that ‘you nullify Jesus, and in Hebrew 13:7 “leaders who spoke the W/word (logos) of God” which means leaders who spoke what God had spoken, NOT that the leaders who spoke Jesus!!

The 'logos' in Matthew is different from the 'logos' in John.
If you knew Greek , you would know that.
It has to do with grammar , something that you can't demonstrate with English translations.

You can't pick and choose what does logos mean.
The sentance and the gramnar have to do with that

Dimi95 said:
John 1:14
"And 'the Principle of Reason' became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

In other words, you are saying Jesus was created by ‘the Principle of Reason’ of God Almighty.
I agree.

This is quoting out of context.
The principle of Reason is God.
Or you have another explenation for the Principle of Reason?
The way that you interpet it tells much more about your bias

Dimi95 said:
If the New Testament teaches something , then it teaches that Jesus is God. Period!

The NT does NOT teach Jesus is God because Jesus himself never preached that to anyone in the scripture. If you come across any verse/passage in the scripture that shows Jesus preached himself as God to his disciples, this will be a good time to show it.

He teached in parables , and it seems that you don't understand what is one.
It means comparison, in simple terms.

It’s only after Jesus had departed that the early church, preachers, scholars, and what have you, began to teach Jesus is God. Period!

I don't teach , i study.
Something that you have never heard of, by your answers.

 

[Jimmy]

Without God, Jesus is nothing and without Jesus, God is nothing imo. One hand washes the other.

 

[Soapy]

I'm not seeing that in scripture.

Of course not. The Father is God though



Exactly! Any other God but God is a false God. This is why they come under judgement.


"...AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent".

I think that is what you meant to write.

(Indented text are your words)

• “I'm not seeing that in scripture.”
• “Of course not. The Father is God though”

That’s so funny because you say you don’t see ‘the Father is God’ and you immediately follow that by agreeing that the Father IS GOD!!!?????

• “Exactly! Any other God but God is a false God. This is why they come under judgement.”

No and Yes!!!!
No: ‘GOD’ is a term MEANING ‘The GREATEST’ by context … We use it in every day speech:
… ‘The judge is GOD in his courtroom’
… ‘Satan is GOD of this system of things’
… ‘The Chess Grandmaster is GOD of his game’
Replace the SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE in each of those sentences with another SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE and see what its meaning is no different!:
… ‘The judge is THE GREATEST [authority] in his courtroom’
… ‘Satan is THE GREATEST [ruler] of this system of things’
… ‘The Chess Grandmaster is THE GREATEST [of all players] of his game’

The part in bracket sets a CONTEXT…. which is followed by the end part of the claim.

Hence we can write/say:
… ‘Our God is GOD…’
Meaning: ‘Our God is GREATEST OF ALL WHOM ARE CALLED ‘GODS’’

The FALSE GODS… are those whom PAGAN NATIONS make for themselves in terms of carved, hewed.. clay, wood, rock, metal… such as with Abraham’s Father’ GODS, those BELIEVED ON as ETHEREAL (Spirit) DEITIES such those of the GODS of the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Philistines, etc. The true God PROVED to the Jews and at least one pagan nation that such ‘false God’ are useless - do not give your worship to THEM!!!

• "...AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"

Oeste, ‘ETERNAL LIFE’ depends on believing in BOTH The Father AND Jesus Christ…. Jesus Christ WHOM THE FATHER SENT!!

So, no! Jesus Christ is NOT THE FATHER nor THE GOD who SENT Jesus Christ … tautology…

————————————————

Oeste, I believe that you know full well what and why you wrote what you wrote…. My advise is to stop it and write the truth… what we are discussing is not for the dispensation of truth and Godliness…. Not for amusement and ‘devils advocacy’!!!

 

[learner Daniel]

Dimi95 said:

If context is taken into account , then the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by John 1:1 and John 1:14.
The word 'Logos' in 'Koine'(Koine means common language) - it does not mean 'Word' , but it means 'Principle of Reason'.
'Word' is just a 'weak' English version

Yes, ‘Koine Greek’ is a language, but a language is not the criteria when it comes to ‘context’. It can be in any language, but to understand the verse(s)/passage you are reading in context is to understand the meaning of the word(s) used and how it applies in other verse(s)/passage in the scripture.

Context is important to understand the scripture and the shortest way to explain how Jesus is God is by reading John 1:1 and John 1:14 OUT OF CONTEXT!

Let me explain this again...

In the English-translated Bibles today, ‘W/word’ is translated from the Greek word ‘logos’.
The word “logos”, Strong’s G3056 outlined ‘logos’ as, among others: of speech, as a word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God and its use as respect to the MIND alone - reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating.

Simply put, the term ‘Word of God’ means the word was spoken by God, only the Trinitarians twisted it and preached the ‘Word of God’ is Jesus, which is ridiculous as the term ‘Word/Logos of God’ can be found in many other passages, which if you understand ‘Word of God’ as Jesus, made those passages sounded ridiculous!

For example in Matthew 15:6, we read “you nullify the W/word (logos) of God for the sake of your tradition” which means you nullify the Command of God for the sake of your tradition, NOT that ‘you nullify Jesus, and in Hebrew 13:7 “leaders who spoke the W/word (logos) of God” which means leaders who spoke what God had spoken, NOT that the leaders who spoke Jesus!!

Dimi95 said:
John 1:14
"And 'the Principle of Reason' became flesh and made his dwelling among us."

In other words, you are saying Jesus was created by ‘the Principle of Reason’ of God Almighty.
I agree.

Dimi95 said:
If the New Testament teaches something , then it teaches that Jesus is God. Period!

The NT does NOT teach Jesus is God because Jesus himself never preached that to anyone in the scripture. If you come across any verse/passage in the scripture that shows Jesus preached himself as God to his disciples, this will be a good time to show it.

It’s only after Jesus had departed that the early church, preachers, scholars, and what have you, began to teach Jesus is God. Period!

John 1
Easy-to-Read Version
Christ Comes to the World
1 Before the world began, the Word[a] was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was there with God in the beginning. 3 Everything was made through him, and nothing was made without him. 4 In him there was life, and that life was a light for the people of the world. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not defeated[c] it.

6 There was a man named John, who was sent by God. 7 He came to tell people about the light. Through him all people could hear about the light and believe. 8 John was not the light. But he came to tell people about the light. 9 The true light was coming into the world. This is the true light that gives light to all people.

10 The Word was already in the world. The world was made through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to the world that was his own. And his own people did not accept him. 12 But some people did accept him. They believed in him, and he gave them the right to become children of God. 13 They became God’s children, but not in the way babies are usually born. It was not because of any human desire or plan. They were born from God himself.

14 The Word became a man and lived among us. We saw his divine greatness—the greatness that belongs to the only Son of the Father. The Word was full of grace and truth. 15 John told people about him. He said loudly, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘The one who is coming after me is greater than I am, because he was living before I was even born.’”

16 Yes, the Word was full of grace and truth, and from him we all received one blessing after another.[d] 17 That is, the law was given to us through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son is the one who has shown us what God is like. He is himself God and is very close to the Father.[e]

John Tells About the Messiah
19 The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent some priests and Levites to John to ask him, “Who are you?” He told them the truth. 20 Without any hesitation he said openly and plainly, “I am not the Messiah.”

21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He answered, “No, I am not Elijah.”

They asked, “Are you the Prophet[f]?”

He answered, “No, I am not the Prophet.”

22 Then they said, “Who are you? Tell us about yourself. Give us an answer to tell the people who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

23 John told them the words of the prophet Isaiah:

“I am the voice of someone shouting in the desert:
‘Make a straight road ready for the Lord.’”

24 These Jews were sent from the Pharisees. 25 They said to John, “You say you are not the Messiah. You say you are not Elijah or the Prophet. Then why do you baptize people?”

26 John answered, “I baptize people with water. But there is someone here with you that you don’t know. 27 He is the one who is coming later. I am not good enough to be the slave who unties the strings on his sandals.”

28 These things all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan River. This is where John was baptizing people.

Jesus, the Lamb of God
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God. He takes away the sins of the world! 30 This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘There is a man coming after me who is greater than I am, because he was living even before I was born.’ 31 I did not know who he was. But I came baptizing people with water so that Israel could know that he is the Messiah.[g]”

32-34 Then John said this for everyone to hear: “I also did not know who the Messiah was. But the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘You will see the Spirit come down and rest on a man. He is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen this happen. I saw the Spirit come down from heaven like a dove and rest on this man. So this is what I tell people: ‘He is the Son of God.’[h]”

The First Followers of Jesus
35 The next day John was there again and had two of his followers with him. 36 He saw Jesus walking by and said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”

37 The two followers heard him say this, so they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw the two men following him. He asked, “What do you want?”

They said, “Rabbi, where are you staying?” (“Rabbi” means “Teacher.”)

39 He answered, “Come with me and you will see.” So the two men went with him. They saw the place where he was staying, and they stayed there with him that day. It was about four o’clock.

40 These men followed Jesus after they had heard about him from John. One of them was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to go and find his brother Simon. Andrew said to him, “We have found the Messiah.” (“Messiah” means “Christ.”)

42 Then Andrew brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. You will be called Cephas.” (“Cephas” means “Peter.”)

43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He met Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Philip was from the town of Bethsaida, the same as Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the man that Moses wrote about in the law. The prophets wrote about him too. He is Jesus, the son of Joseph. He is from Nazareth.”

46 But Nathanael said to Philip, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from Nazareth?”

Philip answered, “Come and see.”

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said, “This man coming is a true Israelite, one you can trust.[j]”

48 Nathanael asked, “How do you know me?”

Jesus answered, “I saw you when you were under the fig tree, before Philip told you about me.”

49 Then Nathanael said, “Teacher, you are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.”

50 Jesus said to him, “Do you believe this just because I said I saw you under the fig tree? You will see much greater things than that!” 51 Then he said, “Believe me when I say that you will all see heaven open. You will see ‘angels of God going up and coming down’[k] on the Son of Man.”

 

[learner Daniel]

(Indented text are your words)

• “I'm not seeing that in scripture.”
• “Of course not. The Father is God though”

That’s so funny because you say you don’t see ‘the Father is God’ and you immediately follow that by agreeing that the Father IS GOD!!!?????

• “Exactly! Any other God but God is a false God. This is why they come under judgement.”

No and Yes!!!!
No: ‘GOD’ is a term MEANING ‘The GREATEST’ by context … We use it in every day speech:
… ‘The judge is GOD in his courtroom’
… ‘Satan is GOD of this system of things’
… ‘The Chess Grandmaster is GOD of his game’
Replace the SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE in each of those sentences with another SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVE and see what its meaning is no different!:
… ‘The judge is THE GREATEST [authority] in his courtroom’
… ‘Satan is THE GREATEST [ruler] of this system of things’
… ‘The Chess Grandmaster is THE GREATEST [of all players] of his game’

The part in bracket sets a CONTEXT…. which is followed by the end part of the claim.

Hence we can write/say:
… ‘Our God is GOD…’
Meaning: ‘Our God is GREATEST OF ALL WHOM ARE CALLED ‘GODS’’

The FALSE GODS… are those whom PAGAN NATIONS make for themselves in terms of carved, hewed.. clay, wood, rock, metal… such as with Abraham’s Father’ GODS, those BELIEVED ON as ETHEREAL (Spirit) DEITIES such those of the GODS of the Egyptians, the Hindus, the Philistines, etc. The true God PROVED to the Jews and at least one pagan nation that such ‘false God’ are useless - do not give your worship to THEM!!!

• "...AND Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent"

Oeste, ‘ETERNAL LIFE’ depends on believing in BOTH The Father AND Jesus Christ…. Jesus Christ WHOM THE FATHER SENT!!

So, no! Jesus Christ is NOT THE FATHER nor THE GOD who SENT Jesus Christ … tautology…

————————————————

Oeste, I believe that you know full well what and why you wrote what you wrote…. My advise is to stop it and write the truth… what we are discussing is not for the dispensation of truth and Godliness…. Not for amusement and ‘devils advocacy’!!!

???

 

[JerryMyers]

Dimi95 said:
Acrually it is.
It's the language of the original writings.

No, a language is NOT the criteria when it comes to ‘context’.
If it is, then all translations of the original language scripture to any other languages will render all passages in the translated scripture ‘out of context’.

Dimi95 said:
No , if you have studied the methodology in History , you would never say that.
And i have given explenations

We are not talking about ‘methodology in History’, we are talking about understanding verse(s) or passages in the proper biblical context. So, your so-called ‘explanations’ of methodology in History, are ‘out of context’ here.

Dimi95 said:
Context is matter of textual criticism , not of JerryMyers.
And textual criticism is the basis and study goes further into other areas.
You are first-grade untill you realize that.

First of all, we are NOT discussing textual criticism context, we are discussing biblical context. Try to learn the difference.

Textual criticism context is the proper study of manuscripts and texts to determine their original form and to understand how they have been transmitted over time!

Biblical context refers to the circumstances, background, and surrounding text and/or how the same phrase in the verse/passage is used in another verse/passage of the scripture.

You are not even a first-grade if you cannot tell the difference.

Dimi95 said:
You don't have to explain nothing.
You have to learn what is the thing that you are explaining.

I don’t think you even understand the things you are explaining, and you are telling me to learn what I am explaining???! What a joker!!

Dimi95 said:
No , it means Principle of Reason.
Nothing more , nothing less.
No word salads or anything like it.


Yes, the ‘Principle of Reason’ is one of the definitions ‘logos’ is associated with.

However, what is obvious here is the ‘Word/Logos of God’ is NOT exclusive to Jesus only.

Dimi95 said:
If you can demonstrate any knowledge in Lexicology , let me bother to explain it.

What are you talking about??!
Lexicology is a subfield of linguistics that focuses on the study of the lexicon, which is, of course, the complete set of words in a language. Are we trying to learn a language here???

If you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about in this thread, let me know.
Try to be yourself, ‘cos trying to sound ‘smart’ only exposed the opposite, buddy!

Dimi95 said:
This is ad-hominem.

O come on, try to show some maturity in your understanding!!

Dim95 said:
The 'logos' in Matthew is different from the 'logos' in John.
If you knew Greek , you would know that.
It has to do with grammar , something that you can't demonstrate with English translations.
You can't pick and choose what does logos mean.
The sentance and the gramnar have to do with that

‘Logos’ is a word, which was translated in the English-language bibles as ‘Word’. Grammar only comes into play when it’s part of a sentence.

As I said before, Strong’s G3056 outlined ‘logos’ as, among others: of speech, as a word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God and its use as respect to the MIND alone - reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating.

The ‘sayings of God’ as outlined in Strong’s G3056 can also be understood as a command, as it is in Matthew.

What Strong’s G3056 DID NOT outline is - it DID NOT outline ‘logos’ as a man or Jesus.

Dimi95 said:
This is quoting out of context.
The principle of Reason is God.
Or you have another explenation for the Principle of Reason?
The way that you interpet it tells much more about your bias

The 'Principle of Reason' is NOT God - that's so funny!

The 'Principle of Reason' is part of intelligence, the part which enables individuals to navigate complex situations, make informed decisions, and engage in higher-order thinking.

Try to display some intelligence in your answers.
The way you interpreted the ‘principle of reason’ as God, tells us much more about your bias.

Dimi95 said:
He teached in parables , and it seems that you don't understand what is one.
It means comparison, in simple terms.

Yes, Jesus sometimes teaches in parables, but whether Jesus taught in parables or not is NOT a key point here. The key point here is Jesus NEVER preached (in parables or not) of himself as God to his disciples.

So, again… If you come across any verse/passage in the scripture that shows Jesus preached himself as God to his disciples, then this will be a good time to show it.

Dimi95 said:
I don't teach , i study.
Something that you have never heard of, by your answers.

It is obvious you have wasted time studying whatever you are studying as by your answers here, you learned nothing!!

Thank God you don’t teach ‘cos that would be disastrous!!

 

[JerryMyers]

John 1
Easy-to-Read Version
Christ Comes to the World
1 Before the world began, the Word[a] was there. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was there with God in the beginning. 3 Everything was made through him, and nothing was made without him. 4 In him there was life, and that life was a light for the people of the world. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not defeated[c] it.

6 There was a man named John, who was sent by God. 7 He came to tell people about the light. Through him all people could hear about the light and believe. 8 John was not the light. But he came to tell people about the light. 9 The true light was coming into the world. This is the true light that gives light to all people.

10 The Word was already in the world. The world was made through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to the world that was his own. And his own people did not accept him. 12 But some people did accept him. They believed in him, and he gave them the right to become children of God. 13 They became God’s children, but not in the way babies are usually born. It was not because of any human desire or plan. They were born from God himself.

14 The Word became a man and lived among us. We saw his divine greatness—the greatness that belongs to the only Son of the Father. The Word was full of grace and truth. 15 John told people about him. He said loudly, “This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘The one who is coming after me is greater than I am, because he was living before I was even born.’”

16 Yes, the Word was full of grace and truth, and from him we all received one blessing after another.[d] 17 That is, the law was given to us through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son is the one who has shown us what God is like. He is himself God and is very close to the Father.[e]

John Tells About the Messiah
19 The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent some priests and Levites to John to ask him, “Who are you?” He told them the truth. 20 Without any hesitation he said openly and plainly, “I am not the Messiah.”

21 They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?”

He answered, “No, I am not Elijah.”

They asked, “Are you the Prophet[f]?”

He answered, “No, I am not the Prophet.”

22 Then they said, “Who are you? Tell us about yourself. Give us an answer to tell the people who sent us. What do you say about yourself?”

23 John told them the words of the prophet Isaiah:

“I am the voice of someone shouting in the desert:
‘Make a straight road ready for the Lord.’”

24 These Jews were sent from the Pharisees. 25 They said to John, “You say you are not the Messiah. You say you are not Elijah or the Prophet. Then why do you baptize people?”

26 John answered, “I baptize people with water. But there is someone here with you that you don’t know. 27 He is the one who is coming later. I am not good enough to be the slave who unties the strings on his sandals.”

28 These things all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan River. This is where John was baptizing people.

Jesus, the Lamb of God
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God. He takes away the sins of the world! 30 This is the one I was talking about when I said, ‘There is a man coming after me who is greater than I am, because he was living even before I was born.’ 31 I did not know who he was. But I came baptizing people with water so that Israel could know that he is the Messiah.[g]”

32-34 Then John said this for everyone to hear: “I also did not know who the Messiah was. But the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘You will see the Spirit come down and rest on a man. He is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’ I have seen this happen. I saw the Spirit come down from heaven like a dove and rest on this man. So this is what I tell people: ‘He is the Son of God.’[h]”

The First Followers of Jesus
35 The next day John was there again and had two of his followers with him. 36 He saw Jesus walking by and said, “Look, the Lamb of God!”

37 The two followers heard him say this, so they followed Jesus. 38 Jesus turned and saw the two men following him. He asked, “What do you want?”

They said, “Rabbi, where are you staying?” (“Rabbi” means “Teacher.”)

39 He answered, “Come with me and you will see.” So the two men went with him. They saw the place where he was staying, and they stayed there with him that day. It was about four o’clock.

40 These men followed Jesus after they had heard about him from John. One of them was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to go and find his brother Simon. Andrew said to him, “We have found the Messiah.” (“Messiah” means “Christ.”)

42 Then Andrew brought Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of John. You will be called Cephas.” (“Cephas” means “Peter.”)

43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He met Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44 Philip was from the town of Bethsaida, the same as Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the man that Moses wrote about in the law. The prophets wrote about him too. He is Jesus, the son of Joseph. He is from Nazareth.”

46 But Nathanael said to Philip, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from Nazareth?”

Philip answered, “Come and see.”

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said, “This man coming is a true Israelite, one you can trust.[j]”

48 Nathanael asked, “How do you know me?”

Jesus answered, “I saw you when you were under the fig tree, before Philip told you about me.”

49 Then Nathanael said, “Teacher, you are the Son of God. You are the King of Israel.”

50 Jesus said to him, “Do you believe this just because I said I saw you under the fig tree? You will see much greater things than that!” 51 Then he said, “Believe me when I say that you will all see heaven open. You will see ‘angels of God going up and coming down’[k] on the Son of Man.”

You know you will have a strong case IF you can show me where God Almighty said or implied that Jesus is God OR Jesus himself said or implied that he’s God.

I cannot understand why you find the words of John or the words of others more reliable than the Words of God Almighty and/or the words of His prophet Jesus. Do you want to tell me why??

 

[Oeste]

Not necessarily.
Archeology makes textual criticism relevant , the ruins speak of the stories of Christianity more then any Book.

Archeology definitely speaks differently from any book.

And by biblical you mean that which comes from the library , right?
That's what biblical literally means in the common languages of that time.

By biblical I mean that which comes from the Christian canon. "Biblio" certainly has a global meaning of "books", but the domain of books discussed is reduced by this forum's structure (Religious Debates ->Scriptural Debates -> Biblical Debates). There are other religious organizations which espouse holy books, such as the Vedas, Dhammapada, Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita, but they most likely have their own subforums.

This is my issue
You start from the bottom , not from the top , that's not recommended.
Reading the stories are more of a private thing.
I avoid using them 'publicly'.

"From the bottom" is where many preachers start and there is no better example than Christ in the NT, as that is where he started with us.
There are many Christian faiths on display in the Forum, and each has it own introduction for those interested and new in Christ. If you are saying that "Biblical Debates" might not be the best place to start for someone new to the Christians faith, I would agree with you.

That is the problem(at least that's what i think it is), you explain them verse by verse.

Yes, because verse by verse is how I learned. Previously, it was a few verses here or there, always thrown in with a mountain of text designed to "properly frame and explain" whatever verse was being read.

The Holy Trinity is not limited to verses and interpretations.

Definitely not, but this forum appears to be limited to biblical debates and this thread as to whether Jesus is not God.

Science has many uses, that's for sure, but like all methods of inquiry, each will have its advantages and drawbacks.

You know what i don't like in your answer?
This 'but'.
And yes , Science has many uses, that's for sure, like all methods of inquiry, each will have its advantages and drawbacks.

For instance, while science can tell us which mushrooms are edible, and which poison, and that we may die if we eat poison, it doesn't tell us if it's moral to poison grandma's tea, or what happens after she dies.

Actually it does , hahahaha..
Sry , but i am just being honest.
This what you wrote is funny
It's a joke in some sense.

So Social Science is not Science , that is what you are trying to say?

No, I'm not dumping on Social Scientists, lol. All I'm saying is that while science may have a branch that addresses certain phenomena (such as society) it has not, will not and should not give us moral solutions.

As an example, when the Athenians besieged the island of Keos, it sent the island into famine. As a survival measure, the natives voted to have everyone over the age of 60 to drink a potion of hemlock to help preserve the food supply. Some historians say this was a one time event, others a traditional event, and still others an event that never occurred at all.

Whether the event occurred or didn't occur may eventually be determined by historians, but whether it would be moral or immoral to do so cannot be determined by any scientific process I am aware of. There are simply too many conceptual, legal, and ethical considerations that science has no tools to address.

Don't mix the branches of science in your explenations.

I won't, or at least try not to, but sometimes the branches can mix into a disadvantage. For example, biology, sociology, anthropology and economics were once combined into the field of eugenics, a questionable but once touted "science" that unfortunately still reverberates into modern thinking today. However, by and large, the field of science has certainly benefited mankind despite our many efforts to do the worse we can with it. The world is full of science deniers, but I'd much rather have it then be without it.

In any event, this is waaaayyyy off thread theme, and it's good to talk with you. I see you had to deal with a few misquotes and misconceptions as will I.

 

[Oeste]

(Indented text are your words)

• “I'm not seeing that in scripture.”
• “Of course not. The Father is God though”

That’s so funny because you say you don’t see ‘the Father is God’ and you immediately follow that by agreeing that the Father IS GOD!!!?????

???

@learner Daniel,

Lol, I was just as perplexed as you were!

I have no idea where @Soapy got the notion that I "...don't see the Father is God", but if there was an award for best response of the night, yours was it!

Thank you!

 

[Oeste]

Hm...
Is the Son also the Father?
Can you answer with yes and no?

Yes

Hm...
Is the Son also the Father?
Can you answer with yes and no?
And do you think that this question has to be answered in any way except with 'yes' and 'no'?

No

And do you think that this question has to be answered in any way except with 'yes' and 'no'?

Yes, depending on the context, verse, and audience, and No, depending on the context, verse and audience.

If I'm speaking with fellow trinitarians then a one word answer like "No" would suffice. Jesus is the 2nd person of the Godhead, and the Father is the 1st. If we're discussing a particular verse, like Isaiah 9:6, saying "Yes" is appropriate, as they would understand The Son is also the Everlasting Father the same way I understand it (revelatory/regenerative). However, if I'm talking with a Oneness Pentecostal, then "Yes" is insufficient, as they would think I am agreeing with their conception of how the Son is the Father (a manifestation) which is not what I would mean by a "Yes" response at all. In fact, I might say "No" to the Pentecostal and "Yes" to the trinitarian simply because the understanding of the Son and the Father are different. Same words, 'Son and Father', but entirely different meanings. The same is true when talking with Jehovah Witnesses. We may speak the same language and terms, but the meaning behind those terms can be different, which means we must identify those terms if we are to understand one another other, and do even further research to find how the author and culture may have originally defined and understood those terms. Lastly, as we all know, there is nothing that prevents NT authors from using common terms of the day in new and novel ways.

In a debate forum like this, I would almost always qualify my response, except perhaps, if it's really, really late in the morning and I need some shut eye (I've stayed very late sometimes to respond to posts, but I am also trying very hard to rid myself of this practice as I have do have to work), and I just want to get some sleep.

Sorry for the verbose response.

And have you ever been asked this question by a Christian?
Simple Yes or No would be ok.
It's a matter of analysis , nothing more.

Yes.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste, I believe that you know full well what and why you wrote what you wrote….

I am glad we can both agree on this Soapy.

My advise is to stop it and write the truth…

That's already been done.

what we are discussing is not for the dispensation of truth and Godliness….

If our discussion "is not for the dispensation of truth and Godliness" can you tell us what you believe our discussion is for?

Not for amusement and ‘devils advocacy’!!!

I am glad we can both agree that it's not for amusement and 'devils advocacy" but this doesn't tell us what you believe our discussion is for either.

 

[Soapy]

I am glad we can both agree on this Soapy.




That's already been done.



If our discussion "is not for the dispensation of truth and Godliness" can you tell us what you believe our discussion is for?



I am glad we can both agree that it's not for amusement and 'devils advocacy" but this doesn't tell us what you believe our discussion is for either.

"is not for the dispensation of truth and Godliness"
I believe strongly that the ‘not’ was a typo error…. It’s clear, and I believe you realise it as it would otherwise be pretty stupid!!

What I’m saying is that you take scriptural discussion, imo, as amusement and a joke against those truly trying to gave a fuller understanding of the scriptures.

What I’m saying is that I believe that when you see a truth written (spoken) you purposely attempt to muddy its waters. The upshot of that is that you frustrate your ‘opponent’ (yes, I include myself there), with nonsense which is exactly a ‘Devils Advocate’ approach…. You know, I deem, you are writing (speaking) falsely…

I believe you pretend to not understand the last post I sent to you because it fully claimed against you… what more could you do but deny its truth!!! Obviously you cannot even show where any of it was wrong, mistaken, false…. so you can only weakly deny it….

Oeste, I don’t know why you think I’m unaware of the things you do in the name of ‘Him who sent you’, but it’s for your benefit that I show you what I show you… if the amusement of playing devils advocate is too great for you, then I’m sorry… for you!!

 

[Dimi95]

Dimi95 said:
Acrually it is.
It's the language of the original writings.
No, a language is NOT the criteria when it comes to ‘context’.

Yes , it is.
Again , JerryMyers does not decide that.

If it is, then all translations of the original language scripture to any other languages will render all passages in the translated scripture ‘out of context’.

Hahaha
You have many translations because there are many variations in the manuscripts.
You can see that in the footnotes

If you don't have the written language to understand it , how would you translate it?
Are translationst better then the written language?

Dimi95 said:
No , if you have studied the methodology in History , you would never say that.
And i have given explenations

We are not talking about ‘methodology in History’, we are talking about understanding verse(s) or passages in the proper biblical context.

And you can do that only by textual criticism , not solo.
If you do it solo , you are like anyone who gets hands on Scripture.

If you want to speak about biblical narrative , then you should learn Koine and how Social Science deals with it.

So, your so-called ‘explanations’ of methodology in History, are ‘out of context’ here.

No , your way to dismiss that without any clarification is quote mining.

Dimi95 said:
Context is matter of textual criticism , not of JerryMyers.
And textual criticism is the basis and study goes further into other areas.
You are first-grade untill you realize that.

First of all, we are NOT discussing textual criticism context, we are discussing biblical context. Try to learn the difference.

Hahaha
Textual criticism deals with contex in general my friend , doesn't matter if it is biblical or quranic or else..

Textual criticism context is the proper study of manuscripts and texts to determine their original form and to understand how they have been transmitted over time!

We are literally discussing the text within the manuscripts , and trying to determine their original form.
I am trying to explain that to you , but you write some jumbo-mambo non-sense.

And then you present this which tells that you are wrong.

Biblical context

refers to the circumstances, background, and surrounding text and/or how the same phrase in the verse/passage is used in another verse/passage of the scripture.

You are not even a first-grade if you cannot tell the difference.

Biblical context is the texts within the manuscript that is mentioned in the previous quotation.

Dimi95 said:
You don't have to explain nothing.
You have to learn what is the thing that you are explaining.

I don’t think you even understand the things you are explaining

Friend , you wrote a bunch of non-sense about textual criticism.
More proof that you have to start from the begining.

, and you are telling me to learn what I am explaining???! What a joker!!

Yes , your explenations are factually incorrect since they represent your bias.

Dimi95 said:
No , it means Principle of Reason.
Nothing more , nothing less.
No word salads or anything like it.

Yes, the ‘Principle of Reason’ is one of the definitions ‘logos’ is associated with.

Again , this is vague.
Not one of , but the one for this particular passage.

However, what is obvious here is the ‘Word/Logos of God’ is NOT exclusive to Jesus only.

This is again quote mining.
In John it states
was the Word
was with God
Word was God.

There is no 'of'.

Dimi95 said:
If you can demonstrate any knowledge in Lexicology , let me bother to explain it.

What are you talking about??!
Lexicology is a subfield of linguistics that focuses on the study of the lexicon, which is, of course, the complete set of words in a language. Are we trying to learn a language here???

hahahaha

The term. Lexi c o l o g y has two Greek morphemes:
-lexis meaning 'word, phrase'
-logos which denotes 'learning, a department of knowledge'.

If you can demonstrate that you know what you are talking about in this thread, let me know.
Try to be yourself, ‘cos trying to sound ‘smart’ only exposed the opposite, buddy!

Exactly , so start from the begining and you can always come back and ask different questions.

Dimi95 said:
This is ad-hominem.

O come on, try to show some maturity in your understanding!!

Nothing changes
Ad-hominem

Dim95 said:
The 'logos' in Matthew is different from the 'logos' in John.
If you knew Greek , you would know that.
It has to do with grammar , something that you can't demonstrate with English translations.
You can't pick and choose what does logos mean.
The sentance and the gramnar have to do with that

‘Logos’ is a word, which was translated in the English-language bibles as ‘Word’.Grammar only comes into play when it’s part of a sentence.

You need English to explain it.
I don't.
I know Koine.
Grammar is always in play , because it is always part of a sentence.
You sound silly.

As I said before, Strong’s G3056 outlined ‘logos’ as, among others: of speech, as a word uttered by a living voice, the sayings of God and its use as respect to the MIND alone - reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating.

Buddy , i am telling you for the last time , the word Logos does have particular meaning in every sentence.
The meaning depends on the grammar and how the word is placed in that sentence.
In John 1 and John 14 is Principle of Reason.

The ‘sayings of God’ as outlined in Strong’s G3056 can also be understood as a command, as it is in Matthew.

This is what happens when yoi are limited with English.

What Strong’s G3056 DID NOT outline is - it DID NOT outline ‘logos’ as a man or Jesus.

Says JerryMayers.
Irrelevant

Dimi95 said:
This is quoting out of context.
The principle of Reason is God.
Or you have another explenation for the Principle of Reason?
The way that you interpet it tells much more about your bias

The 'Principle of Reason' is NOT God - that's so funny!

The 'Principle of Reason' is part of intelligence, the part which enables individuals to navigate complex situations, make informed decisions, and engage in higher-order thinking.[/]

Where does intelligence come from?

Try to display some intelligence in your answers.
The way you interpreted the ‘principle of reason’ as God, tells us much more about your bias.

Haha , so your principle of reason is intelligence , and where does that intelligence come from?
Where does morality come from?

Dimi95 said:
He teached in parables , and it seems that you don't understand what is one.
It means comparison, in simple terms.

Yes, Jesus sometimes teaches in parables, but whether Jesus taught in parables or not is NOT a key point here. The key point here is Jesus NEVER preached (in parables or not) of himself as God to his disciples.

Matthew 13:13 does not say so.
In most parables Jesus makes comparison , but for thosr to be discussed you need to present any knowledge in Social Science.
Because History studies the New Testament , not JerryMyers or Dimi95.
I am just using the criteria.

So, again… If you come across any verse/passage in the scripture that shows Jesus preached himself as God to his disciples, then this will be a good time to show it.

I will not discuss verses with you.
That's for sure.

Dimi95 said:
I don't teach , i study.
Something that you have never heard of, by your answers.

It is obvious you have wasted time studying whatever you are studying as by your answers here, you learned nothing!!

Good , you admit that you known nothing about what i am studying.

Thank God

you don’t teach ‘cos that would be disastrous!!

No , i don't teach.
But you do , and that is sad.

 

[Dimi95]

"From the bottom" is where many preachers start and there is no better example than Christ in the NT, as that is where he started with us.
There are many Christian faiths on display in the Forum, and each has it own introduction for those interested and new in Christ. If you are saying that "Biblical Debates" might not be the best place to start for someone new to the Christians faith, I would agree with you."

I am trying to say many things , maybe you have noticed,maybe not.
The most important is that this part of the forum needs to be divided into two sections where one group(who knows about the basics of study could discuss it normally with people who also know the basics of study) can really focus on facts and evidence not on poofy explenations.

The other part , they can do whatever they want , and talk about it however they want it.
I would certainly not participate in there.

There are rules by which we interprete pieces of History and here everything is just a mess.

That is why the part with 'history debates' is empty and the religious one is full.
The focus is here, and not there.

It would be much more productive since the discussions would be different.
It would certainly not be with 'playing ping-pong with verses'.

At best Scriptutal Debates(Biblical and Quranic etc .. debates) should be moved in the History part.

Otherwise , with time this part will become empty.

I only hope that someone can realize that and do something about it.