John 1:1c -:- Is Jesus God or a god?

[apostoli]

Hello Incrus,

Given you use both texts out of context, and these seem to be the only texts you can bring forward to support your opinion, it is obvious (from your posts) that your opinion forces you to distort or ignore even those things that are plainly explained to us in scripture. For instance: in your use of John 8:40 you are quick to cite Num 23:19 "God is not a man" but you ignore texts like Exodus 15:3 that says "God is a man".

In both cases it is readily understood that the idea conveyed in the original language is "like a man" - they are not emphatic statements. Similarly, John 8:40 (cp. John 8:17-18).

Now you want Num. 23:19 to read "God is like a man!" That's a direct VIOLATION of God's command!

Nope. Num 23:19 is saying "God is not [like] a man" and Ex 15:3 is saying "God is [like] a man".

Heb. 1:1-2 determines for me, what I should believe. In these last times, God has SPOKEN to us BY His son, Jesus Christ.

Heb 1:1-3 does indeed tell us what to believe! The prophets were merely men, to whom, in the past, God spoke in diverse ways (via angels, dreams etc). Now he speaks to us directly through his Son, through whom "[God] made the universe and everything in it. The Son reflects God's own glory, and everything about him represents God exactly'. (NLT)

Jesus says the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3). Jesus also says that God is spirit (John 4:24) and a spirit has NO flesh and bones as he (Jesus) has (Luke 24:39). These verses support God's statement in Num. 23:19 that God is NOT a MAN.

As I mentioned previously Numbers 22:35 tells us that Balaam spoke the words of the "messenger of YHWH", who spoke as God. Similarly, the "messenger of the YHWH" spoke as God to Moses at Ex 15:3. At Exodos 15:3 the KJV renders "God is a man". Does God contradict himself? Or is it your understanding that is flawed?

Read John 4:24 fully. What does Jesus mean when he says about true worshippers that they will worship in "spirit"? The same greek word "pneuma" is used to describe God and true worshippers. Is it your contention that true worshippers do not have "flesh and bones"?

To me, what God commanded Jesus to say or speak (John 12:49; Heb. 1:2) has higher authority than what God commanded the prophets to say or speak in time past (Heb. 1:1).

It is most englightening that you consistently ignore all of Heb 1:2, and verse 3 which highlights why Jesus has the higher authority.

[My opinions] are NOT "innovative modern opinions" but are TRUTHS written in the Scriptures, specifically, John 8:40 and John 17:3.

It is true that your opinion is not exclusive to the modern age - rarely do we find anything new under the sun. Similar opinion appeared in gnostic and pagan thought - thoughts that the temporally minded attempted to impose upon the early church. Which it rejected! The early church is well documented as having combated such ideas.

Can you demonstrate that your ideas are not "modern innovations", a reinterpretation of scripture to align with Islamic ideas?

As A.Paul put it at 2 Cor 5:16 "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more." (KJV) = "...Once I mistakenly thought of Christ...as though he were merely a human being. How differently I think about him now!" (NLT)

See how biased your mind is toward the DEITY of Christ?

Nope! A.Paul doesn't say how he now thought of Jesus, other than he no longer thought of him in terms of the flesh (as a mere man).

For all I know, A.Paul could have been understood by those reading his letter as talking about the theosis that he thought all believers would achieve (Eph 3:19 cp. 2 Peter 1:4), but given what he says in places like Hebrews and Colossians he may have been understood with a deeper meaning. "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them" (2 Cor 5:19)

The Today's English Version renders 2 Cor. 5:16 more clearly, thus: "No longer then, do we judge anyone by human standards. Even if, at one time we judged Christ according to human standards, we no longer do so."

The NLT & the TEV are paraphrases, that is why I also provided the KJV rendering. The three renderings are saying much the same thing. Did A.Paul at one time persecute the followers of Jesus? Have a read of 2 Cor 5:10 (We are judged according to what we have done in the body) which sets the framework of the following thoughts, which he completes at vs17 through 19 (if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come...your past failures are no longer imputed to you).

This means that if apostle Paul were to judge Christ according to human standards

Nope! A.Paul did judge Jesus by human standards. In his letters he testifies that he persecuted the followers of Christ (thus Christ) many times. Forget defending doctrine and read his pastoral message at 2 Cor 5, which is highlighted in vs 12, and talks about those who find "glory in appearance, and not in heart".

This means that if apostle Paul were to judge Christ according to human standards and DISREGARD what the Holy Spirit teaches (1 Cor. 2:13), apostle Paul would NOT have written 2 Cor. 11:3-4 to warn the first-century Christians against heretical teachings of ANOTHER Jesus that he and the other apostle had NOT preached.

Indeed A.Paul warns us against opinions such as yours. At the beginning of all his letters he identifies God as the very Father of Jesus Christ! And he does so, not as a metaphor! In texts like 2 Cor 1:19 it is "the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who" is preached, not Jesus was a man!

1 Cor 2:13 amplifies the contrast between us, you see only the flesh, and are therefore deaf to the spirit. Read the text carfully and this time include verse 14 "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned."

like how Trinitarians compare Jesus to egg shell, egg white and egg yolk

I've never heard that one. It sounds like something the non-trinitarian pentecostal oneness believers would come up with (3 aspects of the same person) - these reject the Nicean faith. A Nicean (Trinitarian) wouldn't use an egg analogy, but for the sake of argument, if they did, they would start with 3 eggs (3 persons that are perceived as the same in all respects).

I won't argue that the so-called "early church" had always argued that Jesus was God because even when apostle Paul was still alive, they were already teaching ANOTHER Jesus that apostle Paul did NOT teach (2 Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-8). In fact, apostle Paul forewarned the first-century elders (Acts 20:17) that after he dies some elders from among them will speak PERVERSE things to draw disciples after them (Acts 20:29-31).

Indeed, while A.Paul was still living he combated several opposing camps. The Judaisers, who wanted to retain the Law and its practices. Those that believed Jesus was just a man, another of the prophets, a yogi, a buddha etc (gnostics). And those who believed that he was a spiritual being who wore a body like we wear clothes (the docetics). But A.Paul preached that Jesus' Father was the very God, and without metaphor, that Jesus was the very Son of God.

A.Paul's concluding prayer at 2 Corinthians tells us what his gospel entailed "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen"

The works of the devil are LIES for the devil is the father of lies. To say that the "son of God" BECAME flesh is a LIE because the TRUTH is, it is the "word" or "logos" of God that BECAME flesh. And that flesh into whom the "word" or "logos" BECAME is Jesus.

Is it your contention that A.John was doing the works of the devil when he taught "the Son of God was manifested" (1 John 3:7) ?

John 1:14 (TEV) says is "the WORD became a HUMAN BEING" - NOT "a human being BECAME a human being."

The Mormons might disagree with you, but I won't. Then again, I don't, and nor does the Church (RCC etc) hold that a human being became a human being.

That's like saying it's the human being that became a human being or it is the chick that became a chick!

Not at all. It is like Jesus being both the seed of Eve and the seed of David as prophesied. The one seed in two different respects.

John 1:14 does NOT says either that "Eve's seed BECAME David's seed." That's an ABSURD opinion!

I did not suggest that "Eve's seed BECAME David's seed". Read what I wrote. And this time don't impose your own thoughts. What does Jesus being "son of man" mean?

I didn't associate John 1:14 with my example of the seed. Though, as the Logos made flesh, became the son of man (which Jesus from time to time identified himself) there is an association. Thankyou for drawing my immediate attention to this thought.

In anycase, you used illustrations which demonstrate offences against the law of non-contradiction (logic). In turn, I used "the seed" as an illustration that something can be the same thing but in different respects (which conforms with the law of non-contradiction). Thus, logically there is nothing to preclude the very Son of God and the very son of man, being the same person. Nor, the Logos as Son of God, becoming man.

Let me ask you my friend, are you a sperm or a human being? Is it an egg you see walking on the street or a chick?

Neither! A human being is not derived exclusively from sperm. All sperm provides is one half of of the DNA, and is not essential for reproduction/replication (see below). And a chick in an egg remains a chick, and if it starts to hatch feet first one could well perceive an egg walking on the street.

That's an INANE rebutttal

Idiotic rebuttals, beget inane rebuttals.

I don't have to tell anyone HOW Jesus is the son of God or only begotten son of God. It is enough for me that Jesus said he is the son of God (John 10:36), and I believe him, and so should you. My silence does not have anything to do with what I believe.

If you believed Jesus was the Son of God you wouldn't be ashamed to preach him as being so. Your silence is deafening...

Jesus did NOT say he pre-existed, did he?

Sure did.! Numerous times. You just choose to ignore him.

And since God is in heaven, then Jesus METAPHORICALLY came from heaven

Not according to Jesus!

Of course I understand you as reading such as allegory ("Dah! it wasn't the man, Jesus, it was the..."). But the reality is that if such is allegory, so is the second coming of Christ.

You are saying it was NOT the man Jesus who came, right?

Nope!

And you are right.

Seeing I didn't say what you want to understand me as saying, you are wrong!

When Jesus said he proceeded forth and came from God, it was an allegory just as John 1:6 where John says he was SENT from God is also an allegory. You don't believe that John was LITERALLY sent from God, do you?

I believe John the Baptist was sent by God, but not directly from the presence of God. The KJV "sent from" is an interpretation of the words "ἀπεσταλμένος παρὰ" = "apestalmenos para". para means "from close proximity". In modern terminology "close to". John was "close to" God = God minded. In contrast the Logos at John 1:1 and John 1:2 is said to be "pros ton theon" = face to face with God. Jesus at John 6:46 confirms saying "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father" - which is not allegory, but an ascertion!

On the other hand, Jesus' second coming is LITERAL because Jesus said, "....all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will SEE the son of man COMING on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matt. 24:30). The angel confirms this when he said, "Men of Galilee,...This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11, 9).

Which Jesus foretold, giving his ascension as a foresign "if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (John 6:62). Notice, Jesus was saying he would return to where he had originated. If you deny his simple words, by your own citation of scripture you would be forced to deny his return, because he ascended to where he had originated as Son of God, and later returns to where he originated as Son of God made son of man.

Christians accept Jesus' words, not figuratively, not as metaphors, but literally.

You mean Trinitarians accept Jesus' words literally, not figuratively, not as metaphors IF it suits their purpose. But Trinitarians do NOT accept Jesus' LITERAL words declaring the Father as the ONLY true God because this DESTROYS their FALSE belief that Jesus is God!

Niceans (Trinitarians) take very much to heart and literally that the Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God. It is at the core of our belief!

However, we recognise that the Father does not accept idolatory in any form and for any reason. The Father does not want, and rejects all those that idolise him as a god. Likened to your paganised ideals of god!

Our Father, wants to be, through his Son, in honesty (spirit & truth), worshiped, be loved by us, as he loves us. Not through some idolatisation of him! Such idolatisation was the downfall of the Jews, who adopted the precepts of men!

Peace

[jahrule84]

This whole thing started at howto translate John 1:1, and it's so out of control kinda. I don't even get it! Some people are taking the the word "God" to mean "nature." And its like I say "In he beginning was Jason, and Jason was with the human, " because it goes on to state that Jason was also "human" you assume that the two persons are one human! It's rediculous! "The Word was with THE God," the word was also "God," two Gods. Having the same nature can't make 2=1 no matter how you swing it.

And claims that there is only one God doesn't make 2 persons into one baing anymore than Biblical claims that there is only one Lord make everbody called Lord into one being. It's simply rediculous and I can't imagine how intelligent people could cast aside their common sense to even believe in the possibility of it!

This whole thing reminds me of when people use Matt 18:20 to prove that Jesus is omnipresent. And I always have to point out that Jesus being "in their midst" is CONDITIONAL (dependent) upon if two or more gather in his name. Were he truely omnipresent (present everywhere) he would be there regardless of who or how many were gathered in whatever name, or no name at all! So at most, this would only be a CONDITIONAL presence at Matt 18:20, and since we are not everywhere, his being there still would not make him omnipresent; only scattered at a few different locations! And what happens to him when the gatheirng in his name breaks up? Suppose he vanishes. Hmmmm???

John 1:1 can be translated either way, God, a god, divine, like God, whatever. Doesn't make a difference, cause it doesn't make the two into One God. Trinitarian reasoning on John 1:1 is just as futile as their reason in on Matt 18:20, that an omnipresent being was incarnated INSIDE a finite body.

[jahrule84]

How his INBELIEVING Jewishish audience would percieve his words is just as irrelevant as how JWs misunderstandingly percieve yours when you try to explain the trinity. Sure you know what I mean. See; Jesus could read the minds and hearts of people when he said "break down this temple and in three days I will raise it up," his audience misunderstaood that he was talking about the literal temple. He obviously knew their misunderstanding. Did he clarify it? No! So stop assuming what the Son of God would or would not have done (you are not him, you son't think like him either - clearly), and stop basing you belief on what foolish wicked Jews claimed about Jesus, and deal with what Jesus says about himself! John 2:18-20

You claim that when someone claims to be the Son of God that implies same nature as a man would have a son who is human like him. So since you take it that far: (1) when Luke 3:38 calls Adam the Son of God JUST AS it calls Seth the Son of Adam, would that imply to the Jews that Adam was God? Did Luke even care? (2) Since Son of God in your mind implies having the same nature as the Father, does it also imply that the Father GAVE LIFE to his son to be his BIOLOGICAL father?

Illustrations can be taken really far; how an unfaithful, apostate group of Jews understood Jesus is just as irrelevant as how they misinterpreted the rest of the Scriptures to mean that no one is to know where the Messiah is from, that healing is unlawful on the Sabbath, and that the Messiah would come as a king to destroy Roman rule as opposed to humbly being born in a stabel and riding on an ass!!!!

Go to Jesus, Not to the Jews.

[apostoli]

Hi jahrule84,

This whole thing started at howto translate John 1:1, and it's so out of control kinda. I don't even get it! Some people are taking the the word "God" to mean "nature." And its like I say "In he beginning was Jason, and Jason was with the human, " because it goes on to state that Jason was also "human" you assume that the two persons are one human! It's rediculous! "The Word was with THE God," the word was also "God," two Gods. Having the same nature can't make 2=1 no matter how you swing it.

And claims that there is only one God doesn't make 2 persons into one baing anymore than Biblical claims that there is only one Lord make everbody called Lord into one being. It's simply rediculous and I can't imagine how intelligent people could cast aside their common sense to even believe in the possibility of it!

This whole thing reminds me of when people use Matt 18:20 to prove that Jesus is omnipresent. And I always have to point out that Jesus being "in their midst" is CONDITIONAL (dependent) upon if two or more gather in his name. Were he truely omnipresent (present everywhere) he would be there regardless of who or how many were gathered in whatever name, or no name at all! So at most, this would only be a CONDITIONAL presence at Matt 18:20, and since we are not everywhere, his being there still would not make him omnipresent; only scattered at a few different locations! And what happens to him when the gatheirng in his name breaks up? Suppose he vanishes. Hmmmm???

John 1:1 can be translated either way, God, a god, divine, like God, whatever. Doesn't make a difference, cause it doesn't make the two into One God. Trinitarian reasoning on John 1:1 is just as futile as their reason in on Matt 18:20, that an omnipresent being was incarnated INSIDE a finite body.

Without hassling the moderators every second post, I can't edit what is said. I hear what you are saying. But if you investigate a little deeper, it is not Nicene (Trinitarian) teaching that you object to but the teachings of oneness pentecostals and their cohorts (independent baptist churches). The intention of post #1 was to ask "What is A.John saying?" I've encountered many interpretations. The majority of which equate the Logos and Jesus. Though even in agreement there is disagreement.

The most common conclusion (99.999999999% of denominations that identify themselves as christian) is that Jesus pre-existed as the Logos. Some think of him as an angel (JWs) others as more. The common belief is that all agree that he was the Son of God, before his incarnation as man. The main dispute is in what way was he was Son,. Begotten or made?

Incrus' and other opinion are aberrations of the truth.

Peace

[jahrule84]

Your evasion of this fact is sad because it makes Jesus appear to be a dolt who doesn't even understand the people around him or comprehend what he is speaking to them. I prefer the real Jesus revealed in the scriptures to the mockery of him you pretend exists.

So how is Jesus not knowing how the people would react any more a mockery of him, than Jesus not even knowing the time of his own coming? Matt 24:36: Mark 13:32.

How is Jesus not knowing how the Jews would react anymore a sad mockery than him not even knowing the season for figs? Mark 11:12-14. Was your God ignorant of the seasons too? Ohh yeah, I know, I know, I know; he was just speaking as a man right? Classic trinitarian excuse, just as he was just speaking as a man when he didn't know how the Jews would react to calling himself the Son of God! He spoke as what he was, a man! Your own excuse backfires.

Laterz

[jahrule84]

Hi jahrule84,

Without hassling the moderators every second post, I can't edit what is said. I hear what you are saying. But if you investigate a little deeper, it is not Nicene (Trinitarian) teaching that you object to but the teachings of oneness pentecostals and their cohorts (independent baptist churches). The intention of post #1 was to ask "What is A.John saying? I've encountered many interpretations. The majority of which equate the Logos and Jesus. Though even in agreement there is disagreement.

The most common conclusion (99.999999999% of denominations that identify themselves as christian) is that Jesus pre-existed as the Logos. Some think of him as an angel (JWs) others as more. The common belief is that all agree that he was the Son of God, before his incarnation as man. The main dispute is in what way was he was Son, begotten or made.

Incrus' opinion is a aberration of the truth.

Peace

99.999999999% of the Jewhish nation, the chosen nation, rejected the Messiah and the entire NT, majority opion is irrelevant. Majority of the world is not christian, but pagan, and comparitive analysis shows that most pagans worship the same gods just under different names. In any case, more people are pleasing the devil than those pleasing God.

Aside from John 1:1, nobody questions Isa 9:6 "mighty God," nor John 20:28 "my God" etc. So there are enough passages that call Jesus God for the trinitarians to make his case, (though I still don't agree with them), making it unnecessary to keep pummling how to translate John 1:1.

You are entitiled to your opinion of Incus', just as I think the trinity is an abberation of truth.

Jesus BECAME better than the angels, so even though he is not an angel, there was a time when he was ON THEIR LEVEL. Heb 1:4

Jesus was created, as he is FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION Col 1:15; Rev 3:14
Created by being GIVEN LIFE John 5:16, 17
Created by being the onlyBEGOTTEN Son John 1:18

You are entitled to your opinon of what these words mean. But I am a realist, and its better to choose the ligical alternitive first that than the streaching of the imagination needed to deduce trinitarian conclusions.

[apostoli]

Hi Viv,

For reasons I hope are obvious to you, I will not make a point by point reply to you. But, one remark I think needs to be addressed...

And so the Bride in this world, we with Christ in us, are lesser than the Bride in the heavenly realms, or those who are in Christ. At a certain level of creation, there is no differentiation between the Son and the Bride. And likewise there is no differentiation between the Son and the Father and the Bride and the Father.

But I cannot explain this well for my experiencing of such things is quite limited.

I do not perceive the earthly or heavenly bride as distinct. Both are the same and equal in the eyes of the groom. After all, it is to the bride, to whom he gives his affection, irresepective of race or location!

Peace

[apostoli]

Hi jahrule84,

99.999999999% of the Jewhish nation, the chosen nation, rejected the Messiah and the entire NT, majority opion is irrelevant. Majority of the world is not christian, but pagan, and comparitive analysis shows that most pagans worship the same gods just under different names. In any case, more people are pleasing the devil than those pleasing God.

Aside from John 1:1, nobody questions Isa 9:6 "mighty God," nor John 20:28 "my God" etc. So there are enough passages that call Jesus God for the trinitarians to make his case, (though I still don't agree with them), making it unnecessary to keep pummling how to translate John 1:1.

You are entitiled to your opinion of Incus', just as I think the trinity is an abberation of truth.

Jesus BECAME better than the angels, so even though he is not an angel, there was a time when he was ON THEIR LEVEL. Heb 1:4

Jesus was created, as he is FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION Col 1:15; Rev 3:14
Created by being GIVEN LIFE John 5:16, 17
Created by being the onlyBEGOTTEN Son John 1:18

You are entitled to your opinon of what these words mean. But I am a realist, and its better to choose the ligical alternitive first that than the streaching of the imagination needed to deduce trinitarian conclusions.

As you are probably aware (I've told Incrus often enough) I spent the greater part of my life defending a unitarian position. Heh! It made sense at the time. So why is it that I now defend the Trinitarian position? Well! I set out to write the definitive refutation of trinitarianism. Which made me read scripture rather than mine it. Conclusion, I am a convinced Trinitarian. Ignorance is bliss, knowledge requires one to have conviction!

Peace

[IncRus]

The common belief is that all agree that he was the Son of God, before his incarnation as man. The main dispute is in what way was he was Son, begotten or made.

Incrus' opinion is a aberration of the truth.

The TRUTH is, "begotten" means "sired." And since it was God who "sired" Jesus, then Jesus MUST necessarily have been MADE. One who is "begotten" or "sired" by someone CANNOT be a CREATOR! That's pure and simple COMMON SENSE!

To put to rest your allegation that my opinion (which is NOT my opinion at all!) is an aberration, let's ask the Bible this question: Is Jesus who was FORMED in the WOMB - "begotten but NOT made?

Listen to what the Bible says:

1. "Thus saith the Lord that MADE thee, and FORMED thee from the WOMB, which will help thee; Fear not Jacob, my SERVANT; and thou, Jesuran, whom I have CHOSEN" (Isaiah 44:2 KJV).

This verse applies to Jesus as well:

a) God likewise MADE and FORMED Jesus in the WOMB of Mary.

"Then the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will CONCEIVE in your WOMB and bring forth a son, and shall call his name JESUS" (Luke 1:30-31).

b) God CHOSE and SENT Jesus as His messenger or SERVANT.

"Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and CAME from God; nor have I come of myself, but He SENT me" (John 8:42).

2. "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that FORMED thee from the WOMB, I am the Lord that MAKETH all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF" (Isaiah 44:24).

This verse applies to Jesus as well, AND:

a) DEBUNKS the FALSE interpetation of John 1:3; Col. 1:16 and Heb1:3 that God created the world BY MEANS of Jesus.

b) REINFORCES the TRUE doctrine that Jesus is NOT the God who MAKED (created) ALL things.

3. "And now, saith the Lord that FORMED me in the WOMB to be his SERVANT, [b]to BRING Jacob[b] (renamed Israel) again to him. Though Israel be not GATHERED (bring together), yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and MY GOD shall be my strength" (Isaiah 49:5).

This verse also applies to Jesus as well:

a) God SENT Jesus "to BRING TOGETHER in one BODY all the SCATTERED people of God (John 11:51-52 TEV).

b) Jesus called God HIS God when he said, "...."Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34), and, ..."I am ascending.... to MY GOD..." (John 20:17).

In view of the above, I'm certain that the belief that Jesus is "begotten but NOT made" is totally and absurdly FALSE!

[IncRus]

[QUOTE=jahrule84;2591907]

So how is Jesus not knowing how the people would react any more a mockery of him, than Jesus not even knowing the time of his own coming? Matt 24:36: Mark 13:32.

How is Jesus not knowing how the Jews would react anymore a sad mockery than him not even knowing the season for figs? Mark 11:12-14. Was your God ignorant of the seasons too? Ohh yeah, I know, I know, I know; he was just speaking as a man right? Classic trinitarian excuse, just as he was just speaking as a man when he didn't know how the Jews would react to calling himself the Son of God! He spoke as what he was, a man! Your own excuse backfires.

Laterz

Nice post! I could not have said it any better!

[Cowthulu]

So how is Jesus not knowing how the people would react any more a mockery of him, than Jesus not even knowing the time of his own coming? Matt 24:36: Mark 13:32.

How is Jesus not knowing how the Jews would react anymore a sad mockery than him not even knowing the season for figs? Mark 11:12-14. Was your God ignorant of the seasons too? Ohh yeah, I know, I know, I know; he was just speaking as a man right? Classic trinitarian excuse, just as he was just speaking as a man when he didn't know how the Jews would react to calling himself the Son of God! He spoke as what he was, a man! Your own excuse backfires.

Laterz

You and Incrus still fail to see this passage from the perspective of the speaker. You claim Jesus, a practicing devout Jew would not know he was claiming to be God. A simple cultural norm that he would have been very familiar with. Every Jew there got it, yet somehow to you Jesus was ignorant of a simple fact. It has nothing to do with omniscience as you mis-characterize it. The point is Jesus knew when he was speaking that he was claiming to be God. Predicting their reaction has nothing to do with it.

You and Incrus' false Jesus you pretend exists doesn't even understand the words that he speaks. The real Jesus was quite capable of basic communication skills and knew quite well what he was saying.

Nice post! I could not have said it any better!

Given your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension, this is of little surprise.

[IncRus]

Hi jahrule84,

As you are probably aware (I've told Incrus often enough) I spent the greater part of my life defending a unitarian position. Heh! It made sense at the time. So why is it that I now defend the Trinitarian position? Well! I set out to write the definitive refutation of trinitarianism. Which made me read scripture rather than mine it. Conclusion, I am a convinced Trinitarian. Ignorance is bliss, knowledge requires one to have conviction!

Peace

What kind of knowledge is that which makes seemingly intelligent people IGNORANT of the TRUE meaning of the simple word "ONLY," as in "..."that they may know YOU (Father), the ONLY true God?"

Jim Jones and David Koresh, may their tribe decrease, gave their people this kind of knowledge that allowed them to have the conviction to commit suicide with them.

Entering the wide gate and the broad way that leads to destruction, where MANY go in (Matt. 7:13), after having been warned, is definitely suicide.

[IncRus]

The point is Jesus knew when he was speaking that he was claiming to be God. Predicting their reaction has nothing to do with it.

The real Jesus was quite capable of basic communication skills and knew quite well what he was saying.

If Jesus knew when he said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36) and "God is his Father" (John 5:18) that he was CLAIMING to be God....,

....why did he say to the Father (John 17:1), "....that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God" (John 17:3)?

....and why did Jesus say "my father and your Father, and to my God and your God" (John 20:17)?

....and why did Jesus cry out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" (Mark 15:34)?

Please bear in mind that the REAL Jesus who you say knew he was claiming to be God when he said John 10:30; John 10:36 and John 5:18, is the SAME Jesus who said John 17:3; John 20:17 and Mark 15:34 and......

.......as you say, was quite capable of basic communication skills and knew quite well what he was saying.

Given your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension, I would not be surprised if you are UNABLE to defend your IRRATIONAL position that Jesus "knew he was claiming to be God when he said these things."

[apostoli]

Hello IncRus,

What promise to Eve and to David are you talking about?.

You are kidding me, aren't you? The promise to Eve and the final promise to David are core to the Christian belef, and for that matter the Judaic belef in the coming Messiah which the Christian belef is founded upon! And you don't know what they are! Unbelieveable! No wonder you are so attracted to pagaism!

Peace

[Cowthulu]

If Jesus knew when he said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) and "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36) and "God is his Father" (John 5:18) that he was CLAIMING to be God....,

....why did he say to the Father (John 17:1), "....that they may know YOU, the ONLY true God" (John 17:3)?

....and why did Jesus say "my father and your Father, and to my God and your God" (John 20:17)?

....and why did Jesus cry out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" (Mark 15:34)?

Because these aren't contradictions as you have repeatedly been shown. You are too stubborn to admit your error.

Please bear in mind that the REAL Jesus who you say knew he was claiming to be God when he said John 10:30; John 10:36 and John 5:18, is the SAME Jesus who said John 17:3; John 20:17 and Mark 15:34 and......

.......as you say, was quite capable of basic communication skills and knew quite well what he was saying.

Absolutely. What's your excuse? With your poor interpretation he just wanted the Jews to try to kill him by blaspheming.

Given your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension, I would not be surprised if you are UNABLE to defend your IRRATIONAL position that Jesus "knew he was claiming to be God when he said these things."

My position is completely rational, your inability to understand it due to your own pre-conceived blinders does not dis-credit it at all.