God and Jesus
- Started
- Last post
- 532 Responses
- kaiyohtee0
there is more to life than humanity.
infact, I am of the opinion that we are not humanity.humanity is just too diverse.
humanity is an idea. a word. a concept.but I am a human being.
paradox anyone?
- wadafa0
I'm trying to remove my statements from theistic biblical arguments...but there's lots of conversation in the bible and that does not nessesarily lead to a final conclusion or any sort of 'a matter of fact' when it comes to God and Jesus
- wadafa0
no paradox just insight
- PonyBoy0
Alirght then what does John 1:1 mean Pony?
Mimio
(Dec 4 05, 18:48)
---Any Bible reference offered as proof must be understood in the context of the consistent teaching of the entire Bible. Very often the true meaning of such a text is clarified by the context of surrounding verses.
The following is exerpts from an essay which lays out the understanding behind the translations and meaning of John 1:1.
Also take note that John 1:1 is the ONLY time that you can get confused...
there are other 'proof' scriptures out there according to the Catholic Church of which the Bible also clarifies if you take the rest of the corresponding scripture into your reasoning...
... now for the long quote that shows the truth behind John 1:1...
AT JOHN 1:1 the King James Version reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Trinitarians claim that this means that "the Word" (Greek, ho lo'gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself.
Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person
Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the King James Version says, "The Word was with God." Someone who is "with" another person cannot be the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God.
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: "and the word was a god." The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: "and a god was the word." The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: "and the Word was a divine being." La Bible du Centenaire, L'Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: "and the Word was divine." The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: "and of a divine kind was the Word." Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: "and the Word was a god." New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: "and the Word was a God." The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: "and godlike kind was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun the·os' (god). The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was ("and the Word [lo'gos] was with God [a form of the·os']"). This first the·os' is preceded by the word ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God ("and the Word was with [the] God").
On the other hand, there is no article before the second the·os' at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, "and god was the Word." Yet we have seen that many translations render this second the·os' (a predicate noun) as "divine," "godlike," or "a god." On what authority do they do this?
The Koine Greek language had a definite article ("the"), but it did not have an indefinite article ("a" or "an"). So when a predicate noun is not preceded by the definite article, it may be indefinite, depending on the context.
The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions "with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning." As the Journal notes, this indicates that the lo'gos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: "The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os'] cannot be regarded as definite."
So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was "divine," "godlike," "a god," but not Almighty God. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called "the Word" in his role as God's Spokesman, was an obedient subordinate sent to earth by his Superior, Almighty God.
There are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article "a" when translating Greek sentences with the same structure. For example, at Mark 6:49, when the disciples saw Jesus walking on water, the King James Version says: "They supposed it had been a spirit." In the Koine Greek, there is no "a" before "spirit." But almost all translations in other languages add an "a" in order to make the rendering fit the context. In the same way, since John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could not be God but was "a god," or "divine."
Joseph Henry Thayer, a theologian and scholar who worked on the American Standard Version, stated simply: "The Logos was divine, not the divine Being himself." And Jesuit John L. McKenzie wrote in his Dictionary of the Bible: "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'"
- PonyBoy0
wadafa... you couldn't be more wrong... the Bible must be read and then understood in it's entirety...
... once you do that - the only true conclusion is that Jesus was a spiritual creature who was the first creation of his Father - Yahweh (Jewish pronounciation)... Jesus eventually was sent to earth when God needed to make it clear that He alone is a just God. Mankind was in the hole because of one Perfect man's sin (Adam)... to balance that - another man had to die.
What better person to use to prove you mean what you say than your OWN SON... AND your first creation?
On a side note - I don't really care what Mohammad had to say about Jesus - Jesus never spoke of him... and the Bible never mentions him - therefor to a christian... Mohammad is of no consequence.
- Mimio0
Man..you run into more JW's on this board than you'd think. With all these JW designers you would expect better publication design on that bloody Watchtower.
- PonyBoy0
Yahweh (Jewish pronounciation)...
that was wrong... that's the pronounciation based on the Hebrew text which uses no vowels and actually spells the name of God as YHWH.
- pavlovs_dog0
i'm still just floored people believe that shit in this day and age.
what the fuck is wrong with you?
you want to live forever so much that all reason falls by the wayside?
i could accept the bible in some broad allegoric interpetation of a none specfic "somtehing"...
but absolte interpetation? i guess this is why scientology and mormons exsist.
people will belive fucking anything.
- PonyBoy0
Man..you run into more JW's on this board than you'd think. With all these JW designers you would expect better publication design on that bloody Watchtower.
Mimio
(Dec 4 05, 19:09)AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
I think most of the JW designers on here would agree w/you that they're not fans of ANY of the design by the Watchtower...
... the design is simple and easy to read - the idea behind all the layout is communication... and presented in as mild and humble a fashion as possible.
yeah... I'm a JW. :)
- wadafa0
I'm not just wrong PonyBoy, there is a difference between Jesus and what is written in the Bible.
"Paul (originally as Saul of Tarsus) was an admitted persecutor of Christians who might have found a more effective way to undermine the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed Jesus on several fronts, replacing Jesus' selfless teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, and distracting us from the selfless teachings of Jesus."
- pavlovs_dog0
right, the "fire and brimstone" old testament and the "hippy dippy" new testamant are consistent.
and your mother was a bigfoot.
- PonyBoy0
pav...
... I will agree with that it is hard to fathom what the bible says as true...
... but note a few scriptures directly from the Bible... about the Bible...
2 Timothy 3:16,17 -
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."2 Peter 1:20,21-
"For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. (21) For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit. "Yep... that's right... according to the writer's of the Bible... they were inspired by God to write what they wrote... kinda like a secretary dictates her bosses words and then sends out the official letter.
Oh... and once again - if you don't agree w/any of this... then you don't agree w/the Bible... but IT IS what the Bible says.
- pavlovs_dog0
i like how all the religious drones have to come up with catches for goofy ass bible versus...
why wouldn't god just say what the fuck he meant?
but no, you have to "take the bible in its entirity" where in the bible does it say that?
is god just testing us? like how he hid all those fossils?
- ants0
people will belive fucking anything.
pavlovs_dog
(Dec 4 05, 19:11)Who told you it was wrong?
You people will believe anything.
- PonyBoy0
I'm not just wrong PonyBoy, there is a difference between Jesus and what is written in the Bible.
"Paul (originally as Saul of Tarsus) was an admitted persecutor of Christians who might have found a more effective way to undermine the followers of Jesus. Perhaps he infiltrated their ranks and taught a doctrine that opposed Jesus on several fronts, replacing Jesus' selfless teaching of universal compassionate action with a selfish teaching of desire to gain a "free gift" of salvation based only on faith and completely devoid of any behavioral requirement or obedience to law, and distracting us from the selfless teachings of Jesus."
wadafa
(Dec 4 05, 19:14)that's great and all... but IT'S NOT Biblical.
If you read everything by Paul - the only conclusion you will come to is that he once hated Christs' followers... but eventually changed his tune.
Infiltration?!!! The Bible mentions NOTHING of that... that's no where to be found... nor hinted at in the Bible.
- pavlovs_dog0
allah?
- Mimio0
My goodness you parot that back just like the Knowledge book.
- pavlovs_dog0
can we end this thread on a positive note and agree that the bigfoot was just a guy running around the woods outside of tacoma washington in a gorilla suit?
- pavlovs_dog0
and...
in honor of the thread i will listen to coast to coast toinght. ...hope art bell is on.
- PonyBoy0
i like how all the religious drones have to come up with catches for goofy ass bible versus...
why wouldn't god just say what the fuck he meant?
but no, you have to "take the bible in its entirity" where in the bible does it say that?
is god just testing us? like how he hid all those fossils?
pavlovs_dog
(Dec 4 05, 19:19)Duder!!!! Once again... my quotes are directly from the Bible... If you don't choose to take them as truth... DON'T! But I'm not arguing christianity or any christian doctrine for that matter w/out backing up my point w/the Bible.
It only makes sense to have a thorough knowledge of what you're arguing... to argue the Bible... you have to have a thorough knowledge of THE BIBLE.
None of what I've read above in this thread uses any scripture to back up their points about the Bible... except Mimio about John 1:1 which I gave plenty of reference to about it's history of translation and understanding.