What are the differences between God and Jesus Christ?

[sojourner]

I thought that we were talking about intrinsic hierarchy?

Yes, we were. And John states no “hierarchy.” John states equality.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Please don’t enter this pointless debate about children being sinful or not….

EVERYONE BORN OF THE FLESH IS SINFUL…. Because their parent down the line ends with ADAM!

False dogma !
What is the difference between a child and an adult?
One has responsibility and the other does not.
It follows that a child cannot be blamed for their deeds.

The concept of sin involves blame, does it not?

..all mankind transgresses his commandments…. Even unconsciously… SO YES! Even CHILDREN.

..so why did Jesus say
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ?

Their misdemeanors are not counted as sins. How can a newborn baby be considered as "a sinner" ?
No .. sorry .. it is not what Jesus taught.


Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. This believer's baptism is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized.
...
Anabaptists were heavily persecuted by state churches, both Magisterial Protestants and Roman Catholics, beginning in the 16th century and continuing thereafter, largely because of their interpretation of scripture, which put them at odds with official state church interpretations and local government control.
-wiki-

An example of dogma that negates common sense.
"The church" insisting that an infant needs to be baptised to be "saved" .. to be a member of the church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin.
-wiki-

Mankind has ALWAYS been inclined to sin. Adam sinned by "eating from the tree", didn't he?
..but God forgave him, as God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

I agree with the Amish in this regards. They baptise when their children become of age .. much like the Jews with their bar mitzvah.

 

[Soapy]

False dogma !
What is the difference between a child and an adult?
One has responsibility and the other does not.
It follows that a child cannot be blamed for their deeds.

The concept of sin involves blame, does it not?



..so why did Jesus say
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ?

Their misdemeanors are not counted as sins. How can a newborn baby be considered as "a sinner" ?
No .. sorry .. it is not what Jesus taught.


Anabaptists believe that baptism is valid only when candidates freely confess their faith in Christ and request to be baptized. This believer's baptism is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized.
...
Anabaptists were heavily persecuted by state churches, both Magisterial Protestants and Roman Catholics, beginning in the 16th century and continuing thereafter, largely because of their interpretation of scripture, which put them at odds with official state church interpretations and local government control.
-wiki-

An example of dogma that negates common sense.
"The church" insisting that an infant needs to be baptised to be "saved" .. to be a member of the church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin.
-wiki-

Mankind has ALWAYS been inclined to sin. Adam sinned by "eating from the tree", didn't he?
..but God forgave him, as God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

I agree with the Amish in this regards. They baptise when their children become of age .. much like the Jews with their bar mitzvah.

Wow…. God forgave Adam for his sin ….. really? Where do you read that???

And no matter how I show it to you, you still continue to think ‘by the flesh’ and ‘not by the Spirit’.

Why did you ignore the central tenet of the question:

• ‘What is the meaning of “Born of the flesh”?
• What is the meaning of “Born of the Spirit”?

You, I believe, just cannot accept being wrong!
You, I believe, just want to argue because you thought you had me in a corner only to find it is you that is blocked in a corner!

CHILDREN are born of the flesh…..!

That’s why whether:

• consciously sinning in awareness, or
• unconsciously sinning in child-like-mindedness

we ALL SIN!

‘There is sin that leads to eternal death and there is sin that does not lead to eternal death’, say the scriptures.

But ANY kind of sin is abhorrent to God!

It is through Jesus Christ that we obtain the ‘sin that does not lead to eternal death’ because Jesus PAID THE PENALTY FOR THE ETERNAL DEATH that would have come to ALL MANKIND irrespective of their conscious or unconscious sinning!

It is through Jesus Christ that we can now obtain FORGIVENESS for our conscious or unconscious sins.

You say all children are innocent… no - that is so wrong it is amazing…..!

Parents, guardians, teachers, …. are constantly CHASTISING children in mild, in medium, in harsh, manners in order to show them RIGHT FROM WRONG!

Children DO WRONG and so we show them the right!

DOING WRONG IS SINFUL…

Doing wrong is often doing what we were told not to do…!

Doing wrong is often doing something we didn’t know we shouldn’t be doing..!

Doing wrong is often not doing something we were told to do…!

Your reference to the verse about Jesus and children is simply referring to the harshness that the Jews (by this, I mean ADULTS) put on themselves and the critical way they treated each other. They committed sin in almost flagrant ways but regarded themselves as righteous at the same time. Children also FORGAVE each other very quickly…whereas the Jews held grudges and used to the LAW to wreak revenge against their neighbours.

Jesus’ message was that people should become more like the children (in God’s eyes) and forgive each other, stop judging (to condemnation), and overlook each other’s sins (because God is the judge… how can a sinner judge another sinner!).

Moses gave us HUMAN JUDGES but God prefers that we bring our problems to HIM in prayer… but because of the lack of faith they demanded a human interface.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You say all children are innocent… no - that is so wrong it is amazing…..!

Oh well .. criminal justice systems must be wrong, then

Either they are accountable for their actions, or they are not.
Naturally, young children can behave badly, but why don't we consider them responsible?

In the UK, there is a statutory presumption that no child under the age of 10 can be guilty of an offence.
The UK's legal system has its roots in the Church Parish.
There seems to be a major disagreement between religious dogma and reality.

Oh well.

Moses gave us HUMAN JUDGES but God prefers that we bring our problems to HIM in prayer

Ummm .. sorry, I don't believe in anarchy. A decent society needs police and a judicial system.

 

[Soapy]

Oh well .. criminal justice systems must be wrong, then

Either they are accountable for their actions, or they are not.
Naturally, young children can behave badly, but why don't we consider them responsible?

In the UK, there is a statutory presumption that no child under the age of 10 can be guilty of an offence.
The UK's legal system has its roots in the Church Parish.
There seems to be a major disagreement between religious dogma and reality.

Oh well.



Ummm .. sorry, I don't believe in anarchy. A decent society needs police and a judicial system.

Again, you are eluding to HUMAN LAW…

What is it you are not understanding between a faulty human system and God’s glorified system.

Human justice system has flaws up to my eyeballs. We can never know the truth of any wrongdoer and therefore we often wrongly convict… and again, human justice is often so badly executed that it’s a no wonder we do wrong and allow appeals - which are often accepted: if the justice had been tight in the beginning then there would be no need for an appeal…!

Uk law… is HUMAN LAW… the discussion is about GOD’s LAW.

GOD’S LAW says all are sinful because ALL ARE FLESH!

Im sure you cannot have been reading what I wrote and yet you seem to want to answer to what you do not know!

ULTIMATE justice is the way to clear up human INJUSTICE. So anyone wrongly convicted will gain justice this way … and anyone who thinks they have ‘got away with it’ now, will face their nightmare at this time.

As for children, human law csnnot punish them under a HUMAN GIVEN age limit… WHO IMPOSED THAT AGE LIMIT?

Remember that this is a RELIGIOUS FORUM… we are discussing CHRISTIAN religious views - and in this session, human versus Christian God-given views…

The question is about ‘Born of the flesh’ vs ‘Born of the Spirit’.

Please do not limit your thought to just the HUMAN (born of the flesh) LAW aspect!

 

[muhammad_isa]

GOD’S LAW says all are sinful because ALL ARE FLESH!

I think we must be using different definitions of sin/sinful.
Yes, of course human beings are all imperfect. Nobody is saying otherwise.
Example
------------

Adultery and fornication are major sins.
Children don't really have the maturity to understand why,
and are considered "innocent" in this regards.
The same goes with issues of wealth .. another important concept of sin.

They don't have the experience to be guilty of such sins.

Remember that this is a RELIGIOUS FORUM… we are discussing CHRISTIAN religious views - and in this session, human versus Christian God-given views.

The question is about ‘Born of the flesh’ vs ‘Born of the Spirit’.

..and there's me thinking that the topic was about
the difference between Jesus and God?

 

[DNB]

Yes, we were. And John states no “hierarchy.” John states equality.

No, he doesn't.

John 17:3 (NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

 

[Soapy]

I think we must be using different definitions of sin/sinful.
Yes, of course human beings are all imperfect. Nobody is saying otherwise.
Example
------------

Adultery and fornication are major sins.
Children don't really have the maturity to understand why,
and are considered "innocent" in this regards.
The same goes with issues of wealth .. another important concept of sin.

They don't have the experience to be guilty of such sins.



..and there's me thinking that the topic was about
the difference between Jesus and God?

Have you not witnessed that all threads stray from their topics…

I try many many times to stick to the topic but eventually the responders go their own way with their en question off the back of any little nugget of disagreement.

Such is the case here!

My reference was to the EXPLICIT momentary topic brought up by another poster who was so awfully wrong that I couldn’t resist the temptation to set him straight…

But you have a good point about sticking to the thread topic… BUT DUE TO SIN IN US - we stray from the path of truth and righteousness seeing that we are born of the flesh!

And as for the thread title… it seems that no trinitarian is able to post any truthful evidence of the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS and GOD. They dare not do so since doing so undermines their belief … telling the truth undermines their belief… so the topic is almost spent …. So let it be open house on any other topics drawn by contributors to this thread…. I’m fine with it (it happens ALWAYS!)

((There was another forum I was in where certain people would step in and delete responses that didn’t fit the thread topic… you can see that it would cause much angst seeing that if even a small part was off-topic the whole response was deleted including the actual relevant part !!!

 

[sojourner]

No, he doesn't.

John 17:3 (NIV)
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Try John 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh and lived among us ... John [the baptizer] testified to him [Jesus]. Equality.

 

[DNB]

Try John 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh and lived among us ... John [the baptizer] testified to him [Jesus]. Equality.

First of all, look up the word antanaclasis.

Secondly, assuming that you believe that the 'word' is Jesus exclusively (which it is not), who's God in John 1:1, is it the trinity collectively, or is it the Father?
If the former, how does this read: ...and the word was with the trinity, and the word was the trinity.
If the latter, how does this read: ...and the word was with the father, and the word was the father.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Try John 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ... and the Word became flesh and lived among us ... . Equality.

1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God..
- John 1-

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.
Within Hellenistic Judaism, Philo (c.  20 BC – c.  50 AD) adopted the term 'Logos' into Jewish philosophy.
In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason') is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The concept derives from John 1:1 ...

The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure—Jesus Christ—to confirm the faith of their communities.

John [the baptizer] testified to him [Jesus]..

Immediately, the language and style of the Gospel of John contradicts the traditional attribution of the text to John the son of Zebedee. We know from internal evidence, based on its complex Greek composition, that the author of this gospel had advanced literacy and training in the Greek language. Yet, from what we know of the biography of John the son of Zebedee, it would rather improbable that he could author such a text. John was a poor, rural peasant from Galilee, who spoke Aramaic. In an ancient world where literary training was largely restricted to a small fraction of rich, educated elite, we have little reason to suspect that an Aramaic-speaking Galilean peasant could author a complex Greek gospel.

..so who wrote the Gospel of John, and why?
It is so different from the other Gospels,
that we need to answer that question, imo.
We cannot simply state "It is in the Bible, and so is the word of God".
We ALL know that there were many different beliefs circulating in the first few centuries following Jesus' ascension.
Furthermore, the political situation was extremely volatile.

Bart Erhman and other historians should not be immediately dismissed .. faith should not be based on one or two verses of an anonymous text.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Penultimately as an opener: How does Jesus Christ, as God, decide when he wants to be MAN and NOT GOD!?
.

Like all of us, Christ is human until he realizes his ultimate connection with everything else on the cross (the intersection between the micro and the macro; individual and whole).

He becomes God at the point of death when his razor-brain can no longer slice up the Universe into small, palatable chunks to digest into a useful model of reality.

As a mythic figure of an enlightened person, Christ had an understanding of this, and he recognized divinity in all of us. So he managed to be like other gods (the Greek Pan is my usual reference) and unify the beast/god (id/superego) into a divine human (the ego, as the undifferentiated psyche).

 

[sojourner]

who was so awfully wrong that I couldn’t resist the temptation to set him straight…

So glad that the world has blessed access to You, who has THE answers to the mystery of God! (Where answers are not required...)

no trinitarian is able to post any truthful evidence of the DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JESUS and GOD.

There is no difference between God and Jesus. There are differences between Son and Father (as well as similarities).

 

[sojourner]

First of all, look up the word antanaclasis.

Secondly, assuming that you believe that the 'word' is Jesus exclusively (which it is not), who's God in John 1:1, is it the trinity collectively, or is it the Father?
If the former, how does this read: ...and the word was with the trinity, and the word was the trinity.
If the latter, how does this read: ...and the word was with the father, and the word was the father.

The literary device only serves to strengthen the idea that the Word is God.

Your post is a straw man, because it assumes facts not in evidence. The passage states that
1) the Word was God
2) the Word became human
3) the human the Word became was Jesus

That’s what the passage says, and it’s very compelling in establishing Jesus’ divinity and the oneness in essence of Father and Son. And there’s not one thing you can do to change those facts as presented by the text.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That’s what the passage says, and it’s very compelling in establishing Jesus’ divinity and the oneness in essence of Father and Son. And there’s not one thing you can do to change those facts as presented by the text.

"In the beginning was the logos[word]"
"In the beginning was the reason"
"In the beginning was a philosophical concept"

In the beginning was God [ no doubt at all ! ]

"And the logos was made flesh.."

Who is saying this? Not Jesus .. he didn't speak about a logos.

 

[Soapy]

So glad that the world has blessed access to You, who has THE answers to the mystery of God! (Where answers are not required...)


There is no difference between God and Jesus. There are differences between Son and Father (as well as similarities).

Like I said, no Trinitarians dare admit the truth (Similarities was not asked for!)

 

[Soapy]

The literary device only serves to strengthen the idea that the Word is God.

Your post is a straw man, because it assumes facts not in evidence. The passage states that
1) the Word was God
2) the Word became human
3) the human the Word became was Jesus

That’s what the passage says, and it’s very compelling in establishing Jesus’ divinity and the oneness in essence of Father and Son. And there’s not one thing you can do to change those facts as presented by the text.

What does, ‘The word was God’, mean?

‘The word was God - and the word that was God, was with God!’

Please explain the claim.

 

[DNB]

The literary device only serves to strengthen the idea that the Word is God.

Your post is a straw man, because it assumes facts not in evidence. The passage states that
1) the Word was God
2) the Word became human
3) the human the Word became was Jesus

That’s what the passage says, and it’s very compelling in establishing Jesus’ divinity and the oneness in essence of Father and Son. And there’s not one thing you can do to change those facts as presented by the text.

Reread the meaning of antanaclasis, ...your exegesis leaves a lot to be desired.
Don't be hyper-literal in your hermeneutics, when the passage does not warrant it - that's a very amateurish mistake

 

[Soapy]

Reread the meaning of antanaclasis, ...your exegesis leaves a lot to be desired.
Don't be hyper-literal in your hermeneutics, when the passage does not warrant it - that's a very amateurish mistake

“antanaclasis”…. I like it!

This is exactly what I stated in my own way (I didn’t know about the word, ‘Antanaclasis’).

‘God’ is a TITLE…
‘GOD’ is an Adjective (a Superlative Adjective)
(Bold caps just for different usage)

Therefore:

• ‘In the beginning was the word [of God (title)]
  
• ‘And the word [of God (title)] was GOD (S.A.)
• ‘And the word [of God (title)] was with God’

You can see how this works when you apply it you, say:

• “And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people who received God’s message were called ‘gods,’” (John 10:35)

Here, you can see how replacing the the ‘gods’ with suitable superlative adjectives gives a truly valid rendering:

• “And you know that the Scriptures cannot be altered. So if those people who received God’s message were called ‘Mighty Ones / Heroes / Judges / Magistrates, Majestic ones, Powerful Ones, etc.’

Indeed, the holy angels of God were called ‘Mighty ones’ (S.A.: GODS).

Check out any response to: ‘How can the word of God be God and bd with God?’

That will be very interesting!!

 

[sojourner]

Like I said, no Trinitarians dare admit the truth (Similarities was not asked for!)

Your response isn’t cogent to my post.