John 19:11 Gnostic?

[aion]

Hi, I'm new here. I want to ask something

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Usually "he" is referred to Judas or Caiaphas. But there could be another meaning. "He" could be the OT God, because the One who had the power to deliver Christ to Pilate was OT God.

Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws.

[Harald]

"gnosticism" was of course wrong in this, as well as in most other things. It is understood to be referring to Caiaphas, not God. Jesus as God's Son would never ever have accused God His Father of sin. It is inconceivable.


Harald

[VFarris01]

"gnosticism" was of course wrong in this, as well as in most other things.Is this the Gospel according to Harald?

What is "wrong belief," exactly.

Who is the "church" to tell us what is "right" and what is "wrong?" (I cannot wait for you to use the "pillar/ground of truth" dodge.)

It is understood to be referring to Caiaphas, not God.Obviously, it is not "understood."

Jesus as God's Son would never ever have accused God His Father of sin.Why not? What is written does not look too much like an "accusation." Look again, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

It is inconceivable.Why?

[themuzicman]

Harald is actually correct. If you read on into Acts 2, Peter clearly accuses the JEWS of handing their Messiah over to be killed, and, in fact, Jesus prophesies this very thing when talking about how Israel killed the prophets sent to them, especially in the parable where a vineyard owner sent slaves to his keepers, whom they killed, and finally killed his son, as well.

Clearly Jesus' intent here is the Jews via the High Priest.

Michael

[runecrow]

Hi, I'm new here. I want to ask something

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Usually "he" is referred to Judas or Caiaphas. But there could be another meaning. "He" could be the OT God, because the One who had the power to deliver Christ to Pilate was OT God.

Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws.

'Gnostic' is being used, to my notion, a little too general. There are many forms of gnosticism that do not contain a demi-urgic doctrine. For instance, in Ptolemy's "Letter to Flora" he writes:

The Law was ordained through Moses, my dear sister Flora, has not been understood by many persons, who have accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained it nor of its commandments. I think that this will be perfectly clear to you when you have learned the contradictory opinions about it.

Some say that it is legislation given by God the Father; others, taking the contrary course, maintain stubbornly that it was ordained by the opposite, the Devil who causes destruction, just as they attribute the fashioning of the world to him, saying that he is the Father and maker of this universe. Both are completely in error; they refute each other and neither has reached the truth of the matter.

However, the Greek word here being employed is 'paradidomai'/'delivered'. But the word is also employed in these verses (and many many more) but translated as 'betrayed':

Mt 10:4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mt 26:15 And [Judas] said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

Mt 26:21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

Mt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

Mt 26:46 Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me.

So, it is fairly clear that the King Messiah is refering to Judas Iscariot, and- as noted above- this in turn applies as well to the chief priests and elders of the house of Judah who, in turn, delivered Him to Pilate (though the implication here is of the singular type 'he'- clearly Judas Iscariot).

But were one to teach what is stated (albeit generally) in the quote's end statement, I would feel that ample evidence to regard the doctrine as plausible should be produced.

[Harald]

Why? [Farris]

Well Farris, you manifest and evident servant of Satan. Let me tell you why it is inconceivable. Jesus the Son would never have asserted/said that His Father had "sin". Why? Because "God is light, and darkness is absolutely not in him, absolutely none at all." These words written by John the apostle, 1John 1:5, are enough to shut for good the blaspheming mouth of such as have a thinking brain.

Harald

[VFarris01]

Most of the time I agree with you Mike... not this time...

Harald is actually correct. If you read on into Acts 2, Peter clearly accuses the JEWS of handing their Messiah over to be killed...Yes, Peter does accuse the Jews in Acts 2, however, this is about John 19:11 and who Jesus accuses. What Peter thought and who Peter chooses to accuse is irrelavent. Who ultimately "gave" Judas the authority to betray Jesus?

..., and, in fact, Jesus prophesies this very thing when talking about how Israel killed the prophets sent to them, especially in the parable where a vineyard owner sent slaves to his keepers, whom they killed, and finally killed his son, as well.Wrong analogy Mike. It does not fit with, "Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above." If the Jews were given the authority (by delegation) to arrest Jesus from God, who is responsible, the delegator or the delegatee?

Clearly Jesus' intent here is the Jews via the High Priest.This is what we believe is Jesus' intent... Is it?

[VFarris01]

Why? [Farris]

Well Farris, you manifest and evident servant of Satan.Was this sort of response necessary. By resorting to an ad hom you totally nullify your otherwise thoughtful response. An apology is indeed in order.

Let me tell you why it is inconceivable. Jesus the Son would never have asserted/said that His Father had "sin". Why? Because "God is light, and darkness is absolutely not in him, absolutely none at all."Are light and darkness metaphors for truth (not sin) and sin? If so, why did John not just say so in the first place instead of resorting to figurative language?

These words written by John the apostle, 1John 1:5, are enough to shut for good the blaspheming mouth of such as have a thinking brain.:huh: A question was asked for general discussion... Your opinion is no better than my opinion... unless you are God... Are you? If you are God, I defer to your "wisdom."

[Harald]

Was this sort of response necessary. By resorting to an ad hom you totally nullify your otherwise thoughtful response. An apology is indeed in order. [Farris]

It was quite necessary. My appropriate ad hominem does in no wise nullify my thought-out response. Such as are not utterly corrupted in the mind see that it is so. No apology is due in this case. The little character in your post, the one that scratches his head, has more light than you.


Harald

[Jaltus]

In context, the "one who delivered" has to mean Caiaphas/Annas rather than God. Jesus was "delivered" to Pilate by the high priest, not by God, in terms of direct narratival format. The person who responded that what Jesus said matters is not recognizing that John is writing a narrative here. You cannot take Jesus' words out of the narrative context in order to make your point. The words are in the story for a reason. You need to take into account the story aspect, and clearly that points away from God and toward the high priest.

[roddmann]

For anyone who truly loves the Lord with all his strength and mind, it is typical (visceral) to respond to someone else who says God is evil, God must have sinned, God doesn't care, God will do whatever He wants regardless of your prayers, God could wipe out evil if He is all-powerful so He is either not all powerful or He is evil, etc...

For the believer these attacks pierce their heart. So if want to hurt someone who is a believer, tell them God is a liar, didn't mean what He said, or some such thing. But don't expect anything beyond outrage and hurt. If it is a reasoned debate you seek, stay away from direct attacks on the object of one's love, the reason for their existence, just as you would stay away from telling someone their baby is ugly, their wife is fat, or their husband is a lazy, drunken idiot.

[VFarris01]

Was this sort of response necessary. By resorting to an ad hom you totally nullify your otherwise thoughtful response. An apology is indeed in order. [Farris]

It was quite necessary. My appropriate ad hominem does in no wise nullify my thought-out response. Such as are not utterly corrupted in the mind see that it is so. No apology is due in this case. The little character in your post, the one that scratches his head, has more light than you.


HaraldYour response then is, "No comment."

[Sparko]

So VFarris, are you saying that God the Father SINNED?

Is that your conclusion?

(please define the word "sin" for me while you are at it)

[VFarris01]

In context, the "one who delivered" has to mean Caiaphas/Annas rather than God. Jesus was "delivered" to Pilate by the high priest, not by God, in terms of direct narratival format. The person who responded that what Jesus said matters is not recognizing that John is writing a narrative here. You cannot take Jesus' words out of the narrative context in order to make your point. The words are in the story for a reason. You need to take into account the story aspect, and clearly that points away from God and toward the high priest.KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Who "gave" the "power" to those who arrested Jesus? The priests were not from "above" dispite being "high" nor was Pilate dispite his position in "government."

[VFarris01]

For anyone who truly loves the Lord with all his strength and mind, it is typical (visceral) to respond to someone else who says God is evil, God must have sinned, God doesn't care, God will do whatever He wants regardless of your prayers, God could wipe out evil if He is all-powerful so He is either not all powerful or He is evil, etc...

For the believer these attacks pierce their heart. So if want to hurt someone who is a believer, tell them God is a liar, didn't mean what He said, or some such thing. But don't expect anything beyond outrage and hurt. If it is a reasoned debate you seek, stay away from direct attacks on the object of one's love, the reason for their existence, just as you would stay away from telling someone their baby is ugly, their wife is fat, or their husband is a lazy, drunken idiot.YOUR kid is ugly, YOUR wife is fat or YOUR husband is a lazy, drunken idiot. What is your point?

[themuzicman]

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Who "gave" the "power" to those who arrested Jesus? The priests were not from "above" dispite being "high" nor was Pilate dispite his position in "government."

Just because one has power doesn't mean that they use it as the one who gives them power considers good and right. I think you're attributing actions to God too directly.

If I give you the power to manage my retirements with the purpose of increasing my 401(k) value, and you use that power to steal from me, that doesnt' meant that I stole from myself. It means that you abused the power given to you.

Michael

[VFarris01]

So VFarris, are you saying that God the Father SINNED?Perhaps you are still having trouble with reading comprehension... "Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws (see post #1)."

According to Gnosticism the creator of the Earth was this mean, vindictive god-wanna-be while the true "almighty" god was a kind, benevolent, forgiving god.

Is that your conclusion?I am not "concluding" anything... you are... in a jumping sort of way.

(please define the word "sin" for me while you are at it)Why? "Sin" is relative.

[VFarris01]

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Who "gave" the "power" to those who arrested Jesus? The priests were not from "above" dispite being "high" nor was Pilate dispite his position in "government."Just because one has power doesn't mean that they use it as the one who gives them power considers good and right. I think you're attributing actions to God too directly.Was it God's intention to "give" (turn over) Jesus to the "high" priests or not?

If I give you the power to manage my retirements with the purpose of increasing my 401(k) value, and you use that power to steal from me, that doesnt' meant that I stole from myself. It means that you abused the power given to you.Straw? From you? The "high" priests did exactly what God wanted; yes?

[themuzicman]

Was it God's intention to "give" (turn over) Jesus to the "high" priests or not?

God didn't give Jesus to the High Priests, nor did He give Jesus to Pilate. The High Priests arrested Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate. That's the point of the passage.

Straw? From you? The "high" priests did exactly what God wanted; yes?


The high priest (and the Romans) fulfilled the prophecies about Christ.

Michael

[Sparko]

Perhaps you are still having trouble with reading comprehension... "Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws (see post #1)."

According to Gnosticism the creator of the Earth was this mean, vindictive god-wanna-be while the true "almighty" god was a kind, benevolent, forgiving god.

I am not "concluding" anything... you are... in a jumping sort of way.

Why? "Sin" is relative.

I am just trying to understand your posts, VFarris. No need to get hostile.

You seem to be defending that interpretation that God sinned. Why? If you are defending it, then the logical conclusion is that you agree with it. If you don't agree that the passage means God sinned, then why are you arguing that it does?

So, how about a plain answer? Do you think that verse means that God sinned? and if so, how can you explain a perfect God sinning?

And the word sin is not relative. Sin has a specific meaning.

[VFarris01]

Was it God's intention to "give" (turn over) Jesus to the "high" priests or not?God didn't give Jesus to the High Priests, nor did He give Jesus to Pilate. The High Priests arrested Jesus and handed Him over to Pilate. That's the point of the passage.God had no intention for Jesus to be crucified? What would have been the point otherwise?

Straw? From you? The "high" priests did exactly what God wanted; yes?The high priest (and the Romans) fulfilled the prophecies about Christ.What was Jesus' "mission?" Was it (Jesus' reason for being on Earth) to atone for our sins or to fulfill prophecy?

[themuzicman]

God had no intention for Jesus to be crucified? What would have been the point otherwise?

Didn't say that. All I said was that God didn't hand Jesus over. The High Priest did. Again, you gotta read the narrative for what it SAYS, not for what YOU want it to say.

What was Jesus' "mission?" Was it (Jesus' reason for being on Earth) to atone for our sins or to fulfill prophecy?

It was, and his mode of accomplishing that mission was to allow them to crucify Him. There was no necessity for God (Father) to be actively involved in it.

Michael

[VFarris01]

Perhaps you are still having trouble with reading comprehension... "Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws (see post #1)."

According to Gnosticism the creator of the Earth was this mean, vindictive god-wanna-be while the true "almighty" god was a kind, benevolent, forgiving god.

I am not "concluding" anything... you are... in a jumping sort of way.

Why? "Sin" is relative.I am just trying to understand your posts, VFarris. No need to get hostile.Sorry. You have a history of not understanding my posts.

You seem to be defending that interpretation that God sinned. Why? If you are defending it, then the logical conclusion is that you agree with it. If you don't agree that the passage means God sinned, then why are you arguing that it does?You are still misunderstanding the Gnostic viewpoint. God, the "almighty" did not "sin." The lesser god (who created the Earth) sinned.

So, how about a plain answer? Do you think that verse means that God sinned? and if so, how can you explain a perfect God sinning?God did not sin perfectly?

And the word sin is not relative. Sin has a specific meaning.In your universe maybe. "Sin" depends on your point of view.

[VFarris01]

God had no intention for Jesus to be crucified? What would have been the point otherwise?Didn't say that. All I said was that God didn't hand Jesus over. The High Priest did. Again, you gotta read the narrative for what it SAYS, not for what YOU want it to say.God had no hand in any of what went on? Was it not God's intention for Jesus to be "handed" over to Pilate too?

What was Jesus' "mission?" Was it (Jesus' reason for being on Earth) to atone for our sins or to fulfill prophecy?It was, and his mode of accomplishing that mission was to allow them to crucify Him. There was no necessity for God (Father) to be actively involved in it.If all of the events surrounding the "Passion" were "preordained" how could they happen without "divine" intervention?

[Sparko]

Sorry. You have a history of not understanding my posts.

You are still misunderstanding the Gnostic viewpoint. God, the "almighty" did not "sin." The lesser god (who created the Earth) sinned.

God did not sin perfectly?

In your universe maybe. "Sin" depends on your point of view.

I think everyone has a history of not understanding your posts, VFARRIS.

You say one thing then turn around and deny it, then say it again, then deny it. You yell "strawman" at every turn, and then you make incomprehensible statements like "God did not sin perfectly" and then if we question you on THAT you deny that you meant what you said, and then you make very relativistic statements like " In your universe maybe. 'Sin' depends on your point of view" and yet deny you are a relativist.

The only conclusion I can come up with is:

1. You are a troll who is being confusing on purpose.

..or..

2. You are someone who doesn't even know what he really believes and yet is afraid to get pinned down to any viewpoint so you keep switching around.

or.. and this is my choice..

3. From what I have read from you, I am guessing that you ARE a Gnostic but are afraid to just come out and admit it. So you hint around at it, defending gnosticism where you can, but when you are called on it and asked to defend what you said, you are afraid to be labeled 'heretical' so you deny you meant what you said.

[VFarris01]

Sorry. You have a history of not understanding my posts.

You are still misunderstanding the Gnostic viewpoint. God, the "almighty" did not "sin." The lesser god (who created the Earth) sinned.

God did not sin perfectly?

In your universe maybe. "Sin" depends on your point of view.I think everyone has a history of not understanding your posts, VFARRIS.Not everyone... just those who do not understand the nature of the unreality of reality.

You say one thing then turn around and deny it, then say it again, then deny it.Have not, do not, and will not.

You yell "strawman" at every turn, and then you make incomprehensible statements like "God did not sin perfectly" and then if we question you on THAT you deny that you meant what you said, and then you make very relativistic statements like " In your universe maybe. 'Sin' depends on your point of view" and yet deny you are a relativist.In your universe... maybe.

The only conclusion I can come up with is:

1. You are a troll who is being confusing on purpose.An ad hominem? How unlike you... not.

..or..

2. You are someone who doesn't even know what he really believes and yet is afraid to get pinned down to any viewpoint so you keep switching around.I believe you are not sure what you believe and are afraid you might have to change your beliefs in favor of the truth you do not understand what you believe.

or.. and this is my choice..

3. From what I have read from you, I am guessing that you ARE a Gnostic but are afraid to just come out and admit it. So you hint around at it, defending gnosticism where you can, but when you are called on it and asked to defend what you said, you are afraid to be labeled 'heretical' so you deny you meant what you said.What is "heresy" except what we choose not to believe?

[Sparko]

What is "heresy" except what we choose not to believe?

So are you finally admitting you are Gnostic then?

[aion]

Hi, I didn't mean to incite a debate. Actually, my question has been answered by Harald. It just doesn't make sense that John accused the Father of crucifying Jesus while saying that Jesus and the Father are one.

I just think that the Gospel of John is a bit weird. It's different from the synoptic ones. John's is more 'greeky' :)

One more question though. Why did Jesus say that Caiaphas's sin was greater? There are many people involved in the crucifixion of Jesus, like Annas, the false witnesses, Herod, etc.

[VFarris01]

What is "heresy" except what we choose not to believe?So are you finally admitting you are Gnostic then?No. I am saying the "heretics" are those who say, "It is their way or the highway." "Heresy" is relative to what you choose to believe.

[Sparko]

No. I am saying the "heretics" are those who say, "It is their way or the highway." "Heresy" is relative to what you choose to believe.

why not just admit you are a gnostic VFARRIS. You seem to defend their beleifs whenever you come accross them on TWEB and some of the stuff you say sounds very Gnostic.

Just come out of the closet already.

[VFarris01]

No. I am saying the "heretics" are those who say, "It is their way or the highway." "Heresy" is relative to what you choose to believe.why not just admit you are a gnostic VFARRIS. You seem to defend their beleifs whenever you come accross them on TWEB and some of the stuff you say sounds very Gnostic.

Just come out of the closet already.Why not just admit YOU are a Gnostic SPARKO. By calling ME Gnostic affirms your theological tendancy toward Gnosticism.

Just come out of the closet already.

[Sparko]

Why not just admit YOU are a Gnostic SPARKO. By calling ME Gnostic affirms your theological tendancy toward Gnosticism.

Just come out of the closet already.

:duh: duhhhh. because I am not the one trying to say a verse says that God sinned?

:duh:

[VFarris01]

Why not just admit YOU are a Gnostic SPARKO. By calling ME Gnostic affirms your theological tendancy toward Gnosticism.

Just come out of the closet already.:duh: duhhhh. because I am not the one trying to say a verse says that God sinned?

:duh:Neither did I. You still have not solved that reading comprehension problem, A.

[Sparko]

Neither did I. You still have not solved that reading comprehension problem, A.

I think I can comprehend and read perfectly fine. You just like to wiggle around and change your stance from post to post.

I have no problem understanding other people (sane ones anyway). Sure, if you start talking about people like Michael Cadry, then no I pretty much can't follow their nonsense either. But that is because he is insane.

Are you insane? or just a troll?

[VFarris01]

I think I can comprehend and read perfectly fine.There you go thinking again.

You just like to wiggle around and change your stance from post to post.Never have, never do, never will.

I have no problem understanding other people (sane ones anyway). Sure, if you start talking about people like Michael Cadry, then no I pretty much can't follow their nonsense either. But that is because he is insane.In your opinion (MC?).

Are you insane? or just a troll?It is obvious who is the insane troll... the one who ultimately always resorts to name calling.

[Sparko]

There you go thinking again.

Never have, never do, never will.

In your opinion (MC?).

It is obvious who is the insane troll... the one who ultimately always resorts to name calling.

OK VFarris, can we start over?

I am not trying to diss you. I apologize for my sarcasm, sometimes it gets away from me and I start reacting in kind to how others react to me, and I suspect you are doing the same and it got out of hand.

I truly do want to just understand what you mean when you make some of your comments that I said are incomprehensible.

I am sure you do know what you mean when you say what you say. But I don't. And some of your stuff reads kind of strange to me. All I can do is react to what I read because I don't know what your thinking is behind your statements. So I say what I see and you get upset because it is obviously NOT what you meant. But then when I ask for clarification you seem to think I am trying to trap you in some "gotcha" and you start avoiding giving me a clear explanation. So I take that as trolling and reply with sarcasm, and the snowball starts rolling down the hill.

So let's just stop, and start over, OK?

I saw you APPARENTLY defending the verse that the OP said means God sinned. You posted what APPEARS to be a defense of that idea. It APPEARS to me that you were saying, "Yes, Jesus was saying God sinned"

When I said that, you said I had a reading comprehension problem and I responded sarcastically and things got out of hand.

So, starting over,




It is understood to be referring to Caiaphas, not God.Obviously, it is not "understood."

Jesus as God's Son would never ever have accused God His Father of sin.Why not? What is written does not look too much like an "accusation." Look again, "He that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

It is inconceivable.Why?

To me, I saw you telling Harold it is perfectly plausible that Jesus was saying that God sinned.

So I wanted clarification and asked you

"Are you saying that God sinned?"


So, please can you answer me this time without getting angry and please accept my apology for being sarcastic with you?

God Bless,

Sparko

[VFarris01]

OK VFarris, can we start over?If it makes you happy...

I am not trying to diss you. I apologize for my sarcasm, sometimes it gets away from me and I start reacting in kind to how others react to me, and I suspect you are doing the same and it got out of hand.... then you admit you started it? ... but I deny "doing the same."

I truly do want to just understand what you mean when you make some of your comments that I said are incomprehensible.It would help you immensely to quit reading into what is not there and to compare each of my posts with the others.

I am sure you do know what you mean when you say what you say. But I don't. And some of your stuff reads kind of strange to me. All I can do is react to what I read because I don't know what your thinking is behind your statements. So I say what I see and you get upset because it is obviously NOT what you meant. But then when I ask for clarification you seem to think I am trying to trap you in some "gotcha" and you start avoiding giving me a clear explanation. So I take that as trolling and reply with sarcasm, and the snowball starts rolling down the hill.Try asking questions instead of being condescending. You do not realize it (perhaps you do) but your questions are meant as traps instead of "for clarification."

So let's just stop, and start over, OK?OK.

I saw you APPARENTLY defending the verse that the OP said means God sinned. You posted what APPEARS to be a defense of that idea. It APPEARS to me that you were saying, "Yes, Jesus was saying God sinned"This is where you make your mistakes... you assume before you ask. While I was defending the notion "God sinned," it was done so from the perspective of Gnosticism not VFarrisism (that I actually believe it to be true).

When I said that, you said I had a reading comprehension problem and I responded sarcastically and things got out of hand.You either 1) had/have a reading comprehension problem or 2) you had not read post 17.

So, starting over,We have been here already...

To me, I saw you telling Harold it is perfectly plausible that Jesus was saying that God sinned.Plausible? Is it not possible?

So I wanted clarification and asked you

"Are you saying that God sinned?"Who was ultimately "responsible" for Jesus being in the position of being "turned over" to the "high" priests and Pilate and Herod?

also...

Did you happen to read post 17?

So, please can you answer me this time without getting angry and please accept my apology for being sarcastic with you?I was never "angry." I was disappointed... An apology is unnecessary, we are all sarcastic on occasion... and then there is Harald who thinks anyone who disagrees with "him" is a "servant of Satan" (see posts 6 & 9).

God Bless,Good choice.

[Sparko]

Plausible? Is it not possible?



Actually, no. God can't sin. Sin is rebellion against God. It is 'missing the mark' and God IS that Mark, Perfection.

If God could sin, he would not be perfect, and he would not be the God of the bible.

And in particular, as regards this verse, if God handed Jesus over it would not be a sin anyway, because it would be self-sacrifice and since that is what Jesus came to do (die for us) from God's perspective, his sacrifice and death on the cross is a GOOD thing. But for the people who actually handed Jesus over to be killed it would be a sin, because they meant it for evil.

Just like Joseph and his brothers. When they threw him in the well it was a sin, because they meant it for evil. But God allowed it to happen and used it for good.

[VFarris01]

Actually, no. God can't sin. Sin is rebellion against God. It is 'missing the mark' and God IS that Mark, Perfection.Whoever makes the rules... wins?

If God could sin, he would not be perfect, and he would not be the God of the bible.Why would the "perfect" God allow sin to begin with?

And in particular, as regards this verse, if God handed Jesus over it would not be a sin anyway, because it would be self-sacrifice and since that is what Jesus came to do (die for us) from God's perspective, his sacrifice and death on the cross is a GOOD thing. But for the people who actually handed Jesus over to be killed it would be a sin, because they meant it for evil.Whoever makes the rules wins?

Just like Joseph and his brothers. When they threw him in the well it was a sin, because they meant it for evil. But God allowed it to happen and used it for good.Then "sin" is relative to who is doing the "sinning?"

[Sparko]

Whoever makes the rules... wins?

No. More like God can't sin because the very definition of sin has to do with rebelling against God and God can't rebell against his own nature.

Why would the "perfect" God allow sin to begin with?
That's a topic for another thread. But the short answer is he allowed us free will and we misused it. Rather than just destroying us outright like he had the right to do, his love and mercy are great enough that he sent Jesus to give us salvation.


Then "sin" is relative to who is doing the "sinning?"

Uh, no. Sin has to do with motive as well as action. If the motive is to do evil then it is a sin. Sin does not just refer to a specific action (although it can). For example, killing a person can be in self defence or a murder. One is a sin and the other is not. The action is the same, the guy was killed by you, but the motive (reason behind the action) was different.

When men do evil it is a sin. God allows that free action to occur. We will be held responsible for it. But that doesn't stop God from taking that evil action and turning it into something good, DESPITE what we meant it for. Nothing "relative" about it. And in no case did God DO the action, he allowed US to do it.

If God allowed the Jews to hand over Jesus to the Romans and the Romans crucified him, they DID it, not God. God just allowed it. It was a sin because they were trying to do evil and did evil. God took that evil and turned it into the best thing that ever happened for mankind.

God FIXES evil, he doesn't commit it.

So again we are at the point where I ask (slightly modified)

Do you think God can sin?

So far you haven't answered any questions, just asked more.

[VFarris01]

Whoever makes the rules... wins?No. More like God can't sin because the very definition of sin has to do with rebelling against God and God can't rebell against his own nature.Like I said... "Whoever makes the rules..."

Why would the "perfect" God allow sin to begin with?That's a topic for another thread.Free will? Possibly.

So, sin is ok if it furthers Hillary Clin---- er, God's agenda?

But the short answer is he allowed us free will and we misused it. Rather than just destroying us outright like he had the right to do, his love and mercy are great enough that he sent Jesus to give us salvation.God did not allow Pharaoh free will... The events surrounding the "Passion" lacked "free will." If "free will" is so important to God... why destroy Sodom and Gomorrah... why The Flood... why confuse languages... why...

Then "sin" is relative to who is doing the "sinning?"Uh, no. Sin has to do with motive as well as action. If the motive is to do evil then it is a sin. Sin does not just refer to a specific action (although it can). For example, killing a person can be in self defence or a murder. One is a sin and the other is not. The action is the same, the guy was killed by you, but the motive (reason behind the action) was different.This has nothing to do with "who;" it has to do with "how."

When men do evil it is a sin. God allows that free action to occur. We will be held responsible for it. But that doesn't stop God from taking that evil action and turning it into something good, DESPITE what we meant it for. Nothing "relative" about it. And in no case did God DO the action, he allowed US to do it.Did God give Pharaoh a choice or did Pharaoh harden his own heart? He who allows an "evil" action is as guilty as he who does an "evil" action.

If God allowed the Jews to hand over Jesus to the Romans and the Romans crucified him, they DID it, not God. God just allowed it. It was a sin because they were trying to do evil and did evil. God took that evil and turned it into the best thing that ever happened for mankind.He who allows an "evil" action is as guilty as he who does an "evil" action.

God FIXES evil, he doesn't commit it.If you say so. He who allows an "evil" action is as guilty as he who does an "evil" action.

So again we are at the point where I ask (slightly modified)

Do you think God can sin?

So far you haven't answered any questions, just asked more.If God can prevent evil and does nothing to stop it... what would you think? A conundrum?

[Sparko]

He who allows an "evil" action is as guilty as he who does an "evil" action.

If God can prevent evil and does nothing to stop it... what would you think? A conundrum?

Really? That's a very interesting viewpoint coming from a Christian. Would you care to explain further? If God is guilty of all of our sins, then how can he send anyone to hell for sinning? Wouldn't he have to send himself there for eternity too?

[VFarris01]

He who allows an "evil" action is as guilty as he who does an "evil" action.

If God can prevent evil and does nothing to stop it... what would you think? A conundrum?If God is guilty of all of our sins, then how can he send anyone to hell for sinning? Wouldn't he have to send himself there for eternity too?It would seem, from the "fact" God sent Himself to die for "our" sins, He was feeling guilty about something. Who's "sins" was God atoning for, our sins... or His?

Really? That's a very interesting viewpoint coming from a Christian. Would you care to explain further?Have you forgotten what I am doing?

[Sparko]

It would seem, from the "fact" God sent Himself to die for "our" sins, He was feeling guilty about something. Who's "sins" was God atoning for, our sins... or His?

Have you forgotten what I am doing?

Are you saying you are pretending to be defending Gnosticism?

But if you read above, I was asking what YOU believe. If this is not what YOU believe VFarris, then please tell me what YOU believe.

Can God sin?

If so, how?

If not, then admit that the passage cannot be saying that God sinned.

[tiffanyh]

...While I was defending the notion "God sinned," it was done so from the perspective of Gnosticism not VFarrisism (that I actually believe it to be true).



So for the benefit of the others of us who are reading this thread, VFarris, could you clarify this statement of yours? Cause, quite frankly, my head is starting to hurt after reading this thread.

It seems to me like you are saying here (above quote) that you are defending something you don't personally believe. (please confirm??)

If this is true, I'd have to wonder what you indend to accomplish by doing so. Some thoughts are that you are trying to get people to think? Or possibly you are taking the opposite position of another poster (whom possibly you took offense at), just to be argumentative? Or ... (fill in blank if I haven't guessed the appropriate reasoning, please)

I'd be interested in hearing what you actually believe that the passage in question is saying, and why, if you would be so kind? I'm not terribly interested in the perspective of gnoticism, but I would be interested in the perspective of VFarris. Thanks in advance.

[VFarris01]

It would seem, from the "fact" God sent Himself to die for "our" sins, He was feeling guilty about something. Who's "sins" was God atoning for, our sins... or His?

Have you forgotten what I am doing?Are you saying you are pretending to be defending Gnosticism?Nope. I am actively defending Gnosticism (though I am not a Gnostic).

But if you read above, I was asking what YOU believe. If this is not what YOU believe VFarris, then please tell me what YOU believe.What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality? We are using your reality this week... mine next week... and tiff's the week after that.

Can God sin?If you knew someone was going to "sin," yet allowed said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though you could have prevented it, did you "sin?"

If so, how?I am not going to cover old territory. Perhaps you might refer yourself to the previous comment...

If not, then admit that the passage cannot be saying that God sinned.I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?

[VFarris01]

...While I was defending the notion "God sinned," it was done so from the perspective of Gnosticism not VFarrisism (that I actually believe it to be true).So for the benefit of the others of us who are reading this thread, VFarris, could you clarify this statement of yours? Cause, quite frankly, my head is starting to hurt after reading this thread.Here is the conundrum...

If you knew someone was going to "sin," yet allowed said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though you could have prevented it, did you "sin?" Why does this not apply to God?

It seems to me like you are saying here (above quote) that you are defending something you don't personally believe. (please confirm??)See the previous comment...

If this is true, I'd have to wonder what you indend to accomplish by doing so. Some thoughts are that you are trying to get people to think? Or possibly you are taking the opposite position of another poster (whom possibly you took offense at), just to be argumentative? Or ... (fill in blank if I haven't guessed the appropriate reasoning, please)You are right on both counts (sort-of). While I am taking the opposite stance to make an argument, I do so in order to make us think.

Should not God, because He is God, be held to the highest of standards? Why is preventing "evil" only our responsibility; recall Pharaoh, et.al.

I'd be interested in hearing what you actually believe that the passage in question is saying, and why, if you would be so kind? I'm not terribly interested in the perspective of gnoticism, but I would be interested in the perspective of VFarris. Thanks in advance.(7) The Jews answered him, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. (8) Then when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid. (9) And he went again into the praetorium and said to Jesus, Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer. (10) Then Pilate said to him, Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to crucify you, and I have authority to release you? (11) Jesus answered, You could have no authority against Me unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin. (12) From this time, Pilate sought to release Him. But the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Here we have Jesus responding to Pilate; yes?
Who is the "authority... from above?" God?
Was it God's "plan" to "deliver" Jesus to the "high" priests, Herod, and Pilate? Yes?
Is not God suborning (encouraging) murder? Yes?

Therefore...

If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?

There you go... my "perspective."

[Sparko]

If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?

There you go... my "perspective."

Actually we don't have your perspective, we have your QUESTION.

so do you (vfarris, not Gnostic defender) think God sins if he can prevent someone from sinning and yet allows it to occur?

[VFarris01]

If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?

There you go... my "perspective."Actually we don't have your perspective, we have your QUESTION.

so do you (vfarris, not Gnostic defender) think God sins if he can prevent someone from sinning and yet allows it to occur?Did you not read post 46?

"What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality?"

My answer is a question I cannot answer...

"I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?"

and, unfortunately, I am left with...

"If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?"

I do not know.

I wish I could give you a better answer.

The key to God is being able to say, "I do not know." Can you?

[Richbee]

Hi, I'm new here. I want to ask something

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Usually "he" is referred to Judas or Caiaphas. But there could be another meaning. "He" could be the OT God, because the One who had the power to deliver Christ to Pilate was OT God.

Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws.

Welcome, but wrong straight from the get go.

Gnosticism taught that matter was evil, so that Jesus was spirit only and not in the flesh as a man.

Since God created the Earth and Man, creatures, ect, (Matter) than the God of the OT was evil.

More:



The first traces of Gnosticism arise centuries before Christianity and are rooted in the ancient religions of Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia and Persia, and in the Greek Platonic schools of philosophy. Gnostic communities existed throughout the Roman Empire, and because of the religious apathy toward traditional religion and the fascination with mystery cults, they caused some curiosity. In a sense, they were like the "new-agers" of today’s society. With the founding of our Church and the spread of Christianity, the Gnostics incorporated elements of Christianity into their beliefs. Keep in mind that each Gnostic leader supplied his own nuances to the Gnosticism.



Saunders, Fr. William. "The Gnostic Gospels." (www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws031023.htm)

[Sparko]

Did you not read post 46?

"What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality?"

My answer is a question I cannot answer...

"I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?"

and, unfortunately, I am left with...

"If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?"

I do not know.

I wish I could give you a better answer.

The key to God is being able to say, "I do not know." Can you?

I was asking what you BELIEVE not what you KNOW.

do you BELIEVE that God sins if he doesn't stop someone from sinning, and can?

I am just trying to find out if you lean toward thinking God sins in that case or not. Not what you can say for certain.

[Richbee]

"gnosticism" was of course wrong in this, as well as in most other things. It is understood to be referring to Caiaphas, not God. Jesus as God's Son would never ever have accused God His Father of sin. It is inconceivable.


Harald

I noticed that from this thread, no one clarfied just what Gnosticism was. The Law of Indentity states, that parties must agree and define just what it is that is under discussion. (Wrap your arms around the "spirit" of the discussion as it were.)

[VFarris01]

Did you not read post 46?

"What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality?"

My answer is a question I cannot answer...

"I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?"

and, unfortunately, I am left with...

"If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?"

I do not know.

I wish I could give you a better answer.

The key to God is being able to say, "I do not know." Can you?I was asking what you BELIEVE not what you KNOW.

do you BELIEVE that God sins if he doesn't stop someone from sinning, and can?

I am just trying to find out if you lean toward thinking God sins in that case or not. Not what you can say for certain.I believe, and I can say this for certain, "I DO NOT KNOW."

[aion]

I noticed that from this thread, no one clarfied just what Gnosticism was. The Law of Indentity states, that parties must agree and define just what it is that is under discussion. (Wrap your arms around the "spirit" of the discussion as it were.)

Gnosticism:
1. OT God (Ialbadoath?) is a lesser god
2. The OT God created the material world
3. The OT God created binding moral codes (Ten Commandments)
4. There exist greater God(s)
5. Humans can be gods with gnosis by liberating themselves from their physical body
6. Jesus came from the greater God(s) to reveal the gnosis for humans to be free from the OT God
7. The OT God killed Jesus, violating His own laws.

That's all I know about gnosticism. I don't know why the OT God killed Jesus though.

As Harald said, it just doesn't make sense that Jesus blamed the Father. But this verse can be used by gnostics as proof text though.

[tiffanyh]

It seems to me like you are saying here (above quote) that you are defending something you don't personally believe. (please confirm??)

See the previous comment...
I didn't really understand how the previous comment confirmed this statement, but from the rest of your text I'm going to assume that you have confirmed it, and that you are defending gnoticism as a mainly intellectual exercise, not as your own personal viewpoint of "truth". Please correct me if I'm mistaken in doing this.



If this is true, I'd have to wonder what you indend to accomplish by doing so. Some thoughts are that you are trying to get people to think? Or possibly you are taking the opposite position of another poster (whom possibly you took offense at), just to be argumentative? Or ... (fill in blank if I haven't guessed the appropriate reasoning, please)

You are right on both counts (sort-of). While I am taking the opposite stance to make an argument, I do so in order to make us think.

Should not God, because He is God, be held to the highest of standards? Why is preventing "evil" only our responsibility; recall Pharaoh, et.al.

(7) The Jews answered him, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. (8) Then when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid. (9) And he went again into the praetorium and said to Jesus, Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer. (10) Then Pilate said to him, Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to crucify you, and I have authority to release you? (11) Jesus answered, You could have no authority against Me unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin. (12) From this time, Pilate sought to release Him. But the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Here we have Jesus responding to Pilate; yes?
Who is the "authority... from above?" God?
Was it God's "plan" to "deliver" Jesus to the "high" priests, Herod, and Pilate? Yes?
Is not God suborning (encouraging) murder? Yes?

Therefore...

If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?

There you go... my "perspective."

First a question - if this is truly your perspective, and not just your point in an intellectual investigation, it seems like you do think it possible (or perhaps even true) that God sins. Am I mistaken? Now, I'm no master of logical argument, but it doesn't seem to me from your statements here that "God sinned" is the only outcome. And as I do think looking at the provided verse from an intellectual viewpoint would be interesting, I'll give it a shot.

It sort of reminds me of my children - if I watch them make a bad decision, and I know its a bad decision - and it results in harm coming to my children - well, did I directly cause harm to them? Sometimes, for example, you have to let your child turn her training wheeled bike too fast on the pavement and fall, so that she learns that indeed (as you've told her many times in the past) that turning the bike too fast might cause it to tip over. As a parent, sometimes I have to realize that my daughter, who clearly makes her own decisions (aka, I can't make them for her) will have to learn a lesson on her own. I could have stopped it, but I didn't - I allowed it to happen. By your (VFarris) logic, it seems to follow that I directly caused the hurt. (I, obviously, don't see it that way...) By virtue of her learning the lesson, she now knows that she needs to use caution when on her bike, especially when turning, and as a result she is a much safer bike rider in general.

At any rate, the passage is interesting to look at, because we do need to take it into account. So I started to think about some of the options on who Jesus may have been referring in the end of John 19:11 "...Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

The footnote in my bible says "That of Caiaphas (not Judas, who was only a means). Other verses (John 11:51, Matthew 26:3, Mark 14:53-72) on Caiaphas discuss the extensive plot to arrest Jesus and kill him.

Another option that I wanted to look at was that perhaps he was referring to mankind in general, especially as that seems to "fit" with our understanding of why He lived on earth and was crucified - to pay the penalty for all of our sins. One passage I found, which is Peter speaking to the "Men of Israel" (from earlier in the verse) seems like it might point that direction --


The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

So, in the assumption that Jesus was speaking of Caiaphas, or of the Men of Israel, what do you Ispecifically VFarris, or anyone) think he might have been trying to convey to Pilate in the John 19:11 verse?

Anyhow, just for what its worth. My "perspective" at this point is that I don't think our (mankinds) free will and sinful nature is evidence that God sins. Just as we as parents allow our children to learn and grow sometimes through their own mistakes, it appears that God does so as well for us. And the fact that God knew what the outcome would be, and yet still chose to come to earth and live among us really makes it seem like that much more of a sacrifice and display of love, rather than making me imagine evil, unhindered plans of murder.

As an aside, I hadn't realized that Gnoticism had such radical thoughts in its overall belief system (just read Aion's description). Isn't the root of the word "knowledge" or something like that?

[VFarris01]

It seems to me like you are saying here (above quote) that you are defending something you don't personally believe. (please confirm??)See the previous comment...I didn't really understand how the previous comment confirmed this statement, but from the rest of your text I'm going to assume that you have confirmed it, and that you are defending gnoticism as a mainly intellectual exercise, not as your own personal viewpoint of "truth". Please correct me if I'm mistaken in doing this.The "previous comments" was (from post 47):

"Here is the conundrum...

If you knew someone was going to "sin," yet allowed said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though you could have prevented it, did you "sin?" Why does this not apply to God?"

It is a "mental exercise" (something poor ol' Sparky seems to have oodles of problems with).

Perhaps you missed (from post 49):

""What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality?"

My answer is a question I cannot answer...

"I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?"

and, unfortunately, I am left with...

"If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?"

I do not know.

I wish I could give you a better answer.

The key to God is being able to say, "I do not know." Can you? "

If this is true, I'd have to wonder what you indend to accomplish by doing so. Some thoughts are that you are trying to get people to think? Or possibly you are taking the opposite position of another poster (whom possibly you took offense at), just to be argumentative? Or ... (fill in blank if I haven't guessed the appropriate reasoning, please)You are right on both counts (sort-of). While I am taking the opposite stance to make an argument, I do so in order to make us think.

Should not God, because He is God, be held to the highest of standards? Why is preventing "evil" only our responsibility; recall Pharaoh, et.al.

(7) The Jews answered him, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. (8) Then when Pilate heard that saying, he was the more afraid. (9) And he went again into the praetorium and said to Jesus, Where are you from? But Jesus gave him no answer. (10) Then Pilate said to him, Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to crucify you, and I have authority to release you? (11) Jesus answered, You could have no authority against Me unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin. (12) From this time, Pilate sought to release Him. But the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Here we have Jesus responding to Pilate; yes?
Who is the "authority... from above?" God?
Was it God's "plan" to "deliver" Jesus to the "high" priests, Herod, and Pilate? Yes?
Is not God suborning (encouraging) murder? Yes?

Therefore...

If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?

There you go... my "perspective."First a question - if this is truly your perspective, and not just your point in an intellectual investigation, it seems like you do think it possible (or perhaps even true) that God sins.See above... and also...

Could a "perfect" God make a mistake?

(6) And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air. For I repent that I have made them.
Oops? Why would God need to "repent?"

(18) And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.
Was "woman" an after-thought?

If God could have "made a mistake" and/or "left something important out of creation" could not God have "sinned" too?

Am I mistaken?... from a certain point of view, no.

Now, I'm no master of logical argument, but it doesn't seem to me from your statements here that "God sinned" is the only outcome. And as I do think looking at the provided verse from an intellectual viewpoint would be interesting, I'll give it a shot.It is great to see someone actually thinking for a change on Tweb.

It sort of reminds me of my children - if I watch them make a bad decision, and I know its a bad decision - and it results in harm coming to my children - well, did I directly cause harm to them? Sometimes, for example, you have to let your child turn her training wheeled bike too fast on the pavement and fall, so that she learns that indeed (as you've told her many times in the past) that turning the bike too fast might cause it to tip over. As a parent, sometimes I have to realize that my daughter, who clearly makes her own decisions (aka, I can't make them for her) will have to learn a lesson on her own. I could have stopped it, but I didn't - I allowed it to happen. By your (VFarris) logic, it seems to follow that I directly caused the hurt. (I, obviously, don't see it that way...) By virtue of her learning the lesson, she now knows that she needs to use caution when on her bike, especially when turning, and as a result she is a much safer bike rider in general.This is an excellent analogy but I believe you left out one very important consequence...

A minor abrasion is one thing, but, what if, through your "allowing" you daughter to "learn for herself," she was badly injured in one of these "training exercises?" How are you going to feel about yourself then?

... your analogy is not about allowing "sin" though, is it?

At any rate, the passage is interesting to look at, because we do need to take it into account. So I started to think about some of the options on who Jesus may have been referring in the end of John 19:11 "...Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

The footnote in my bible says "That of Caiaphas (not Judas, who was only a means). Other verses (John 11:51, Matthew 26:3, Mark 14:53-72) on Caiaphas discuss the extensive plot to arrest Jesus and kill him.I agree, this is the most likely person to whom Jesus is referring; though we can only guess... Jesus was often cryptic in His answers to people.

Another option that I wanted to look at was that perhaps he was referring to mankind in general, especially as that seems to "fit" with our understanding of why He lived on earth and was crucified - to pay the penalty for all of our sins. One passage I found, which is Peter speaking to the "Men of Israel" (from earlier in the verse) seems like it might point that direction --

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.An excellent observation! It is possible!

So, in the assumption that Jesus was speaking of Caiaphas, or of the Men of Israel, what do you Ispecifically VFarris, or anyone) think he might have been trying to convey to Pilate in the John 19:11 verse?Do you want me to guess?

Anyhow, just for what its worth. My "perspective" at this point is that I don't think our (mankinds) free will and sinful nature is evidence that God sins. Just as we as parents allow our children to learn and grow sometimes through their own mistakes, it appears that God does so as well for us. And the fact that God knew what the outcome would be, and yet still chose to come to earth and live among us really makes it seem like that much more of a sacrifice and display of love, rather than making me imagine evil, unhindered plans of murder.Well said... but remember, this is your opinion... This container is measured by weight, not by volume, some settling of the contents may have occurred during shipping.

As an aside, I hadn't realized that Gnoticism had such radical thoughts in its overall belief system (just read Aion's description).I would not call Gnosticism that radical... I actually have some sense Gnosticism was quite prevalent among early "Christianity." If you have the time and if you are interested in finding out more about what the "early" Christians believed (untainted by "ancient" and biased "historians") I suggest Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament and Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew both by Bart Ehrman.

Isn't the root of the word "knowledge" or something like that?Right. The word is "gnosis" (γνωσις, G1108), meaning "knowedge." Another word associated with the Gnostics is "sophia" (σοφία, G4678) meaning "wisdom." Interestingly, both words are quite prevalent in the NT (occurring about 50 times each).

[Cowthulu]

Gnosticism taught that matter was evil, so that Jesus was spirit only and not in the flesh as a man.[/size]

Since God created the Earth and Man, creatures, ect, (Matter) than the God of the OT was evil.

More:





I thought that was Docetism? Gnosticism was based on the concept of Gnosis which was "secret knowledge". It borrowed some from Docetism, but Docetism was the root belief in the evilness of matter.

[tiffanyh]

The "previous comments" was (from post 47):

"Here is the conundrum...

If you knew someone was going to "sin," yet allowed said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though you could have prevented it, did you "sin?" Why does this not apply to God?"

I had seen the previous comment, they just seemed only tangentially related to my question of whether you were defending a viewpoint that you believed represent truth, or one that you just knew about...


It is a "mental exercise" (something poor ol' Sparky seems to have oodles of problems with).

Ahh ok, confirmed.


Perhaps you missed (from post 49):

""What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality?"

My answer is a question I cannot answer...

"I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?"

and, unfortunately, I am left with...

"If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?"

I do not know.

I wish I could give you a better answer.


No, I didn't miss it. However sometimes your point gets lost in your many questions and "thought provoking" comments. (Please don't take that as a jab, I just see you answering a question with so many return questions sometimes that it gets difficult to see what your direct answer might be)

So I'm interested in hearing what you feel is the most likely answer to the questions I posed (and, that Sparko poses) based on the information that is available to you. I'm most definitely in the camp that says there is one reality, and I think we all do the best that we can to discover that reality given the resources available. So, our OPINION of reality may differ, but that reality is in fact absolute. While I'm glad to see that you have enough humility to acknowledge that you can't know for sure on some of these things, I'm sure you have come to some sort of conclusion - it seems you have read quite a bit especially in the area of the gnostic texts, and perhaps in other areas, and that has to at least have you making some sort of personal decision about what truth is. We're just asking what you think. So how about it? (And before you ask, YES I saw your "I don't know" answer - which to me means that you do seem to think He could have sinned, or at least you don't hold to the belief that He is without sin...)

Was "woman" an after-thought?

If God could have "made a mistake" and/or "left something important out of creation" could not God have "sinned" too?

I guess it depends on who defines sin, morality, "completeness" etc. Do the standards come from us or God initially? Are we somehow "above" Him?

I don't believe that He sinned, and the example we have been discussing in this thread doesn't change my opinion in this matter.



This is an excellent analogy but I believe you left out one very important consequence...

A minor abrasion is one thing, but, what if, through your "allowing" you daughter to "learn for herself," she was badly injured in one of these "training exercises?" How are you going to feel about yourself then?


I'd feel pretty lousy, if my child came to serious harm because I didn't step in. However, I realize that I can't always be with my child, and that my child needs to learn to make decisions. Sometimes those lessons come difficultly, and if left too long to learn can become more and more difficult/painful for the student.


... your analogy is not about allowing "sin" though, is it?


The analogy may or may not scale well up to the level of God and mankind, I guess your mileage may vary. I can see some parallels though, that help me at some level to understand why we have free will and why sin (or perhaps, evil) exists at all.

Jesus was often cryptic in His answers to people.
Ha, I just saw this. Sounds like someone we know here on TWeb ... :wink:


Do you want me to guess?

I want you to let me know what your best conclusion is based on the information you have available. It may differ from my conclusion, and it may differ from what truth really is, but I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.


I would not call Gnosticism that radical... I actually have some sense Gnosticism was quite prevalent among early "Christianity." If you have the time and if you are interested in finding out more about what the "early" Christians believed (untainted by "ancient" and biased "historians") I suggest Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament and Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew both by Bart Ehrman.
I'll note it but my reading list is sort of long right now, and before I read other texts to potentially try to learn what early Christians may have believed I'm going to finish reading my Bible from cover to cover.

[VFarris01]

The "previous comments" was (from post 47):

"Here is the conundrum...

If you knew someone was going to "sin," yet allowed said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though you could have prevented it, did you "sin?" Why does this not apply to God?"I had seen the previous comment, they just seemed only tangentially related to my question of whether you were defending a viewpoint that you believed represent truth, or one that you just knew about...Yes, I am known for my tangents.

Perhaps you missed (from post 49):

""What I believe is unimportant... I have an opinion too... but that is equally unimportant. Did you not say there can be only one reality?"

My answer is a question I cannot answer...

"I would like to say, "No," but I cannot say that because my knowledge of God is insufficient to make that determination... Do you remember the problem we had with belief systems from our earlier encounter?"

and, unfortunately, I am left with...

"If God knows someone was going to "sin," yet allows said "sin" to occur, doing nothing to prevent it, though God could have prevented it, did God "sin?" Why does this not apply to God? Because He is God?"

I do not know.

I wish I could give you a better answer.No, I didn't miss it. However sometimes your point gets lost in your many questions and "thought provoking" comments. (Please don't take that as a jab, I just see you answering a question with so many return questions sometimes that it gets difficult to see what your direct answer might be)I do not often have "direct" answers. Quite frequently I like to ask counter questions to show there are alternative "theories" on various aspects of religion, Christianity in particular. It sometimes works out, when asking questions the way I do, people better understand my "thoughts."

So I'm interested in hearing what you feel is the most likely answer to the questions I posed (and, that Sparko poses) based on the information that is available to you. I'm most definitely in the camp that says there is one reality, and I think we all do the best that we can to discover that reality given the resources available. So, our OPINION of reality may differ, but that reality is in fact absolute. While I'm glad to see that you have enough humility to acknowledge that you can't know for sure on some of these things, I'm sure you have come to some sort of conclusion - it seems you have read quite a bit especially in the area of the gnostic texts, and perhaps in other areas, and that has to at least have you making some sort of personal decision about what truth is. We're just asking what you think. So how about it? (And before you ask, YES I saw your "I don't know" answer - which to me means that you do seem to think He could have sinned, or at least you don't hold to the belief that He is without sin...)I do not have time to answer this one thoroughly. Perhaps you might read from here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=63565&page=4) (this starts @ page 4).

Was "woman" an after-thought?

If God could have "made a mistake" and/or "left something important out of creation" could not God have "sinned" too?I guess it depends on who defines sin, morality, "completeness" etc. Do the standards come from us or God initially? Are we somehow "above" Him?

I don't believe that He sinned, and the example we have been discussing in this thread doesn't change my opinion in this matter.What about Genesis 6:7?

Jesus was often cryptic in His answers to people.Ha, I just saw this. Sounds like someone we know here on TWeb ... :wink:Touché!:fencing:

So, in the assumption that Jesus was speaking of Caiaphas, or of the Men of Israel, what do you Ispecifically VFarris, or anyone) think he might have been trying to convey to Pilate in the John 19:11 verse?Do you want me to guess?I want you to let me know what your best conclusion is based on the information you have available. It may differ from my conclusion, and it may differ from what truth really is, but I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.I forgot to give you "my thoughts?"

(10) Then Pilate said to him, Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to crucify you, and I have authority to release you? (11) Jesus answered, You could have no authority against Me unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin. (12) From this time, Pilate sought to release Him. But the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Pilate was wondering why Jesus refused to defend Himself. Jesus "knew" Pilate "knew" He (Jesus) had committed no crime against Rome, however, He (Jesus) did "know" Pilate had substantial power over what could happen (crucifiction).

I would not call Gnosticism that radical... I actually have some sense Gnosticism was quite prevalent among early "Christianity." If you have the time and if you are interested in finding out more about what the "early" Christians believed (untainted by "ancient" and biased "historians") I suggest Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament and Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew both by Bart Ehrman.I'll note it but my reading list is sort of long right now, and before I read other texts to potentially try to learn what early Christians may have believed I'm going to finish reading my Bible from cover to cover.While certainly worthy of being read, I am not sure the Bible is the best "source" for finding out about "early" Christianity.

[Guerdis]

Hi, I'm new here. I want to ask something

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Usually "he" is referred to Judas or Caiaphas. But there could be another meaning. "He" could be the OT God, because the One who had the power to deliver Christ to Pilate was OT God.

Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws.

"The OT God" is the same as Christ, given that Christ is God and God is One. So, your suggestion is that Jesus handed himself over and is therefore guilty of sin.

SHRUG.

Seriously, though: The Gospel of John goes to great pains to paint Judas as a polar opposite to a true disciple. I hardly think the writer/redactor would pass up this chance to continue the trend in favor of a random Gnostic inclusion. Secondly, if it were not Judas being mentioned, it would certainly be the High Priest, given that "The Jews" are also on John's author's naughty list. Thirdly, the Gnostic nature of the FG is not really credible in the first place, so it would only be by force or fantasy that your interpretation had merit.

[VFarris01]

Hi, I'm new here. I want to ask something

KJV John 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Usually "he" is referred to Judas or Caiaphas. But there could be another meaning. "He" could be the OT God, because the One who had the power to deliver Christ to Pilate was OT God.

Gnosticism taught that the OT God killed Jesus and therefore violated His own laws."The OT God" is the same as Christ, given that Christ is God and God is One.If this is what you want to believe...

So, your suggestion is that Jesus handed himself over and is therefore guilty of sin.

SHRUG.Suicide is self murder... yes? Is murder a sin?

Seriously, though: The Gospel of John goes to great pains to paint Judas as a polar opposite to a true disciple. I hardly think the writer/redactor would pass up this chance to continue the trend in favor of a random Gnostic inclusion. Secondly, if it were not Judas being mentioned, it would certainly be the High Priest, given that "The Jews" are also on John's author's naughty list. Thirdly, the Gnostic nature of the FG is not really credible in the first place, so it would only be by force or fantasy that your interpretation had merit.Quite the opinion giver... are you not? Got any facts?

[Guerdis]

If this is what you want to believe...


To people called Christians, the Oneness of God and the divinity of Jesus are not optional.




Suicide is self murder... yes? Is murder a sin?


So now he nailed himself to the cross as well?


Quite the opinion giver... are you not? Got any facts?


Those were all facts.

How, exactly, are you an atheist's worst nightmare?

[tiffanyh]

<pardon the following brevity, but I wrote a nice long niftily formatted response, previewed the post, then closed my browser. what follows is the cliff's notes version>

While certainly worthy of being read, I am not sure the Bible is the best "source" for finding out about "early" Christianity.

1- Are you saying that the early (contemporary to Jesus' peers) writings that were NOT canonized are somehow better "sources" concerning the truth about the life and message of Jesus? Or perhaps that Dr. Ehrman's writings (the author of the book you suggested earlier) are better sources than the original documents?

2- How do you personally arrive at the conclusion regarding question #1? (aka, how do you determine which writings are authentic and true, and which are misleading or perhaps flat out wrong).

As for me, I can only absorb so much at one time, so I am going to stick to my current reading plan (cover to cover Bible) and then see where God leads me from there.

[Guerdis]

As for me, I can only absorb so much at one time, so I am going to stick to my current reading plan (cover to cover Bible) and then see where God leads me from there.


There are a number of interesting reading plans that take better advantage of the canon's content (as opposed to its layout) that you might investigate at some point. Cover-to-cover makes less sense than working through categories like "Prophets" or "Wisdom", etc.

Apart from that aside: the weird views of "unorthodox" folk*, contrary to the whisperings of their own engorged self-esteem, can't really override the tradition.

*Heretics, Idiots

[VFarris01]

If this is what you want to believe...To people called Christians, the Oneness of God and the divinity of Jesus are not optional.Not true... but if you need it to be, it is ok with me.

Suicide is self murder... yes? Is murder a sin?So now he nailed himself to the cross as well?He allowed it to happen when he could have prevented it; no?

Quite the opinion giver... are you not? Got any facts?Those were all facts.Nope... those were your opinions...

How, exactly, are you an atheist's worst nightmare?Ask an atheist named "Cygnus."

[VFarris01]

<pardon the following brevity, but I wrote a nice long niftily formatted response, previewed the post, then closed my browser. what follows is the cliff's notes version>Join the club of those who have lost lengthy (and what we would like to believe were well thought out) responses.

While certainly worthy of being read, I am not sure the Bible is the best "source" for finding out about "early" Christianity.1- Are you saying that the early (contemporary to Jesus' peers) writings that were NOT canonized are somehow better "sources" concerning the truth about the life and message of Jesus?Is there a reason we should doubt their accuracy?

Or perhaps that Dr. Ehrman's writings (the author of the book you suggested earlier) are better sources than the original documents?Perhaps...

There are "original documents" available? Who has them, these "original documents?"

2- How do you personally arrive at the conclusion regarding question #1? (aka, how do you determine which writings are authentic and true, and which are misleading or perhaps flat out wrong).Study... lots and lots of study... 2 Timothy 2:15.

I would not suppose to tell you what you should believe... that is up to you to decide.

As for me, I can only absorb so much at one time, so I am going to stick to my current reading plan (cover to cover Bible) and then see where God leads me from there.We all must start somewhere... it might as well be with the Bible... Might I suggest the "Scholars Version" when you get to the NT Gospels (they can be found in the book, The Complete Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655879/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance), edited by Robert J. Miller).

[VFarris01]

As for me, I can only absorb so much at one time, so I am going to stick to my current reading plan (cover to cover Bible) and then see where God leads me from there.There are a number of interesting reading plans that take better advantage of the canon's content (as opposed to its layout) that you might investigate at some point. Cover-to-cover makes less sense than working through categories like "Prophets" or "Wisdom", etc.This is a very workable strategy, tiff... consider using it.

Apart from that aside: the weird views of "unorthodox" folk*, contrary to the whisperings of their own engorged self-esteem, can't really override the tradition.

*Heretics, IdiotsTiff, I urge caution when given advice from those who would use the tactic of "poisoning the well (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html)."

"Poisoning the Well is not, strictly speaking, a logical fallacy since it is not a type of argument. Rather, it is a logical boobytrap set by the poisoner to tempt the unwary audience into committing an ad hominem fallacy. As with all forms of the ad hominem, one should keep in mind that an argument can and must stand or fall on its own, regardless of who makes it."

[Guerdis]

Not true... but if you need it to be, it is ok with me.


*Yawwwwn*


He allowed it to happen when he could have prevented it; no?


That still doesn't make it suicide.


Nope... those were your opinions...


That the Gospel of John takes great pains to demonize Judas and the Jews is a fact.

That the Gospel of John isn't Gnostic is a fact.

The substance of my remarks pertained to the above.

Where's the opinon?


Ask an atheist named "Cygnus."


The dreams of a certain Cygnus hardly universalize your capacity to instill fear.

[VFarris01]

Not true... but if you need it to be, it is ok with me.*Yawwwwn*Back at ya...

He allowed it to happen when he could have prevented it; no?That still doesn't make it suicide.IMO you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes suicide.

Nope... those were your opinions...That the Gospel of John takes great pains to demonize Judas and the Jews is a fact."Great pains?" Since this is not a universally accepted idea what is left is your opinion.

That the Gospel of John isn't Gnostic is a fact.Since this is not a universally accepted idea what is left is your opinion.

The substance of my remarks pertained to the above.

Where's the opinon?You answered your own question.

Ask an atheist named "Cygnus."The dreams of a certain Cygnus hardly universalize your capacity to instill fear.I never said it did... You are making an ASSUMPTION... much like your opinion of G John.

[Guerdis]

IMO you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes suicide.


In the dictionary's opinion, I don't.


"Great pains?" Since this is not a universally accepted idea what is left is your opinion.


Jn 6:71 Judas is going to betray him.
Jn 12:4 Judas is about to betray him, plus he's a thief.
Jn 13:2 Devil influences Judas' heart
Jn 13:26 Judas is a betrayer
Jn 14:22 The parenthetical "NOT Iscariot"
Jn 18:2 Judas, who betrayed him, don't forget...
Jn 18:5 In the very scene in which Judas is actively betraying Jesus, the author notes "who betrayed him" just in case we hadn't gotten the point by now.

7 verses specifically labeling Judas as a corrupt betrayer...or is that just my opinion?

The evangelist characterized Judas, and the redactor went back in and added even more anti-judas material. The defining scene for this dynamic is the John 12 passage, where Mary is anointing Jesus' feet and Judas is complaining about the money. Mary here is the good (ideal) disciple and Judas is the opposite.

This is majority-acknowledged scholarship. It probably can't be universally agreed that the sky is blue, but that doesn't validate the position of loons, or even the color-blind.


Since this is not a universally accepted idea what is left is your opinion.


The certainty of my "opinion" about the lack of gnosticity in the FG is even more sound than the one about the purpose of the Judas character. All that's required to find grounds for this "opinion" is to analyze what the Gnostics believed and then compare that to the FG. It will become quite easy then to remove that orange from the bushel of apples. In fact, it may just roll out of its own accord.


I never said it did... You are making an ASSUMPTION... much like your opinion of G John.


I presently assume that your signature is a gigantic and inaccurate brag.

[VFarris01]

IMO you have a very skewed idea of what constitutes suicide.In the dictionary's opinion, I don't.Dictionaries do not have opinions... Suicide involves intent... Jesus' intent was that he was to die.

"Great pains?" Since this is not a universally accepted idea what is left is your opinion.Jn 6:71 Judas is going to betray him.
Jn 12:4 Judas is about to betray him, plus he's a thief.
Jn 13:2 Devil influences Judas' heart
Jn 13:26 Judas is a betrayer
Jn 14:22 The parenthetical "NOT Iscariot"
Jn 18:2 Judas, who betrayed him, don't forget...
Jn 18:5 In the very scene in which Judas is actively betraying Jesus, the author notes "who betrayed him" just in case we hadn't gotten the point by now.

7 verses specifically labeling Judas as a corrupt betrayer...or is that just my opinion?It is just your opinion. While it is true Judas "betrayed" Jesus, I see nothing in these verses to suggest Judas was corrupt (except for John's label). In fact, John 13:2, 27 suggests Satan was the one responsible for the betrayal, not Judas.

That the writer of John describes Judas as a "thief" does not automatically make Judas responsible for Jesus betrayal; this is your own prejudice.

Was not Judas so despondent about being the vessel of Jesus' betrayal that he killed himself? John conveniently leaves this little fact out of his narrative; yes?

The evangelist characterized Judas, and the redactor went back in and added even more anti-judas material. The defining scene for this dynamic is the John 12 passage, where Mary is anointing Jesus' feet and Judas is complaining about the money. Mary here is the good (ideal) disciple and Judas is the opposite.Again, in your opinion.

This is majority-acknowledged scholarship.This is an Appeal to Popularity... even if everyone agreed with your opinion it would not necessarily make your opinion true.

It probably can't be universally agreed that the sky is blue, but that doesn't validate the position of loons, or even the color-blind.I expected more out of your argument than straw.

Since this is not a universally accepted idea what is left is your opinion.The certainty of my "opinion" about the lack of gnosticity in the FG is even more sound than the one about the purpose of the Judas character. All that's required to find grounds for this "opinion" is to analyze what the Gnostics believed and then compare that to the FG. It will become quite easy then to remove that orange from the bushel of apples. In fact, it may just roll out of its own accord.In your opinion, yes... not mine, among many others...

[Richbee]

I thought that was Docetism? Gnosticism was based on the concept of Gnosis which was "secret knowledge". It borrowed some from Docetism, but Docetism was the root belief in the evilness of matter.

Don't be confused. Docetism is an important part of Gnosticism.

[Guerdis]

Dictionaries do not have opinions... Suicide involves intent... Jesus' intent was that he was to die.


Way to get the point about dictionaries.

Jesus submitted to the authority of government, a principle he both preached and followed. Because he had the power to rule all of earth, cast down all his enemies, he SHOULD have? Wasn't there something somewhere about Jesus and some temptations? No, wait, that was a Bible passage. Certainly not the best source for information on this subject, according to certain athiests' nightmares.


It is just your opinion. While it is true Judas "betrayed" Jesus, I see nothing in these verses to suggest Judas was corrupt (except for John's label).


Ummm...You see, John's label is the whole point of this conversation. We're talking about Judas in the Gospel of John.


In fact, John 13:2, 27 suggests Satan was the one responsible for the betrayal, not Judas.


No, it doesn't, actually. Those are both euphemistic ways of describing Judas as doing the work/will of Satan.


That the writer of John describes Judas as a "thief" does not automatically make Judas responsible for Jesus betrayal; this is your own prejudice.


It is the redactor's prejudice, designed to cause the reader to think of Judas in a certain way.


Was not Judas so despondent about being the vessel of Jesus' betrayal that he killed himself? John conveniently leaves this little fact out of his narrative; yes?


Try to maintain focus. The important point, about the FG, which is the point of the conversation, is that Judas shows no remorse. (Likewise, Peter shows no remorse over his denial of Jesus). You can't use a separate text to claim that a character in ANOTHER text did something just as you can't use a separate text to forcibly claim that a character is not a certain way, according to the text in question. Your scholarship is weak if you do.


Again, in your opinion.


I'm just going to relax and be glad that my 'opinion' is aligned with the majority of respected scholarship.


This is an Appeal to Popularity... even if everyone agreed with your opinion it would not necessarily make your opinion true.


It's an appeal to leading scholarship, which in every community of learned people is the same as credibility. In this instance, there is not even a warranted disclaimer, for no expert of any renown looks at the Gospel of John, considers Judas and says "I could be wrong here, but I think he's a real bastard." That you are unwilling to acknowledge facts only undermines any claim you think you're making when posting citations from the holy texts at LogicalFallacies.net or whatever that site is.


I expected more out of your argument than straw.


I had no similar expectations.


In your opinion, yes... not mine, among many others...


Many other idiots.

[VFarris01]

Dictionaries do not have opinions... Suicide involves intent... Jesus' intent was that he was to die.Way to get the point about dictionaries.

Jesus submitted to the authority of government, a principle he both preached and followed. Because he had the power to rule all of earth, cast down all his enemies, he SHOULD have? Wasn't there something somewhere about Jesus and some temptations? No, wait, that was a Bible passage. Certainly not the best source for information on this subject, according to certain athiests' nightmares.Strawman... and so early in the post too... Was there not something about, "Thy will be done?"

Also it is nice for you to take my statement out of context for your own gain... I said, "While certainly worthy of being read, I am not sure the Bible is the best "source" for finding out about "early" Christianity," which was an answer to tiff's query (see the end of post 59).

Your attempts to "poison the well" only serve to undermine your credibility.

It is just your opinion. While it is true Judas "betrayed" Jesus, I see nothing in these verses to suggest Judas was corrupt (except for John's label).Ummm...You see, John's label is the whole point of this conversation. We're talking about Judas in the Gospel of John."John's point" was the whole of your argument (opinion). The Gospel of John (in the Bible) is only 25% of the the story surrounding Judas.

In fact, John 13:2, 27 suggests Satan was the one responsible for the betrayal, not Judas.No, it doesn't, actually.Yes, it does, actually.

Those are both euphemistic ways of describing Judas as doing the work/will of Satan.Euphemism? Sorry... Judas was doing the work he was destined to do according to the will of God.

That the writer of John describes Judas as a "thief" does not automatically make Judas responsible for Jesus betrayal; this is your own prejudice.It is the redactor's prejudice, designed to cause the reader to think of Judas in a certain way.So, it was John's opinion... I see...

Was not Judas so despondent about being the vessel of Jesus' betrayal that he killed himself? John conveniently leaves this little fact out of his narrative; yes?Try to maintain focus.I will, if you try to maintain some objectivity.

The important point, about the FG, which is the point of the conversation, is that Judas shows no remorse.Only if you ignore the rest of the story... Mr Harvey told me to say that...

(Likewise, Peter shows no remorse over his denial of Jesus).Again, only if you ignore the whole story.

You can't use a separate text to claim that a character in ANOTHER text did something just as you can't use a separate text to forcibly claim that a character is not a certain way, according to the text in question.The "text in question" is a small portion of the story... it is like understanding the history of WWII from the perspective of a little-old-lady from Iowa.

Your scholarship is weak if you do.Your scholarship is suspect if you do not.

Again, in your opinion.I'm just going to relax and be glad that my 'opinion' is aligned with the majority of respected scholarship.Fine... it still does not make it the right opinion. What constitutes "respected scholarship?" Those who agree with you I suppose...

This is an Appeal to Popularity... even if everyone agreed with your opinion it would not necessarily make your opinion true.It's an appeal to leading scholarship, which in every community of learned people is the same as credibility. In this instance, there is not even a warranted disclaimer, for no expert of any renown looks at the Gospel of John, considers Judas and says "I could be wrong here, but I think he's a real bastard." That you are unwilling to acknowledge facts only undermines any claim you think you're making when posting citations from the holy texts at LogicalFallacies.net or whatever that site is.No "expert of any renown" would consider GJohn as the whole story of the Passion. That you are unwilling to acknowledge facts only undermines any claim you think you are making.

I expected more out of your argument than straw.I had no similar expectations.Set your personal standards low... it will keep you from being disappointed in yourself.

In your opinion, yes... not mine, among many others...Many other idiots.Poison for the well?

[tiffanyh]

Join the club of those who have lost lengthy (and what we would like to believe were well thought out) responses.
and all because I went "shopping" for a cool smiley to help convey my point better. I love the smiley's here! :shy: :bravo:


Is there a reason we should doubt their accuracy?
Well, if certain writings contradict (note: I'm not saying they do, as I haven't personally studied them) what is known {edit: known isn't quite the right word, I can expand later if it's important...} to have happened, I'd imagine that's a reason to doubt their accuracy. I stuck with VF's terminology on purpose, I'm not saying that makes them proven false necessarily, just that it raises doubts...

However, that wasn't my question. I was querying as to whether you were hinting that perhaps there are other writings that you would consider as MORE accurate (or, to use the phrasing from the original question, better sources.) You had made the statement that the Bible wasn't perhaps the best source for finding out about early Christianity, I was curious what you would recommend as a better source, and why.


Perhaps... {Tiffanyh add: that Dr. Ehrman's writings might be better sources for finding out about early Christianity}

There are "original documents" available? Who has them, these "original documents?"

Ahh ok, so I guess you did answer that you would consider his papers and books better sources than the Bible on this topic, could you discuss why you think so?

And I agree, my using of the words "original documents" wasn't the best phrasing. I was speaking of the letters and other documents that were compiled into the New Testament. Obviously, something written in the last 50 years wasn't likely penned by someone who had first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ or the events that followed his death and resurrection. Recent writings on topics 2000 years ago would almost necessarily have to be about the information contained in the original documents.


Study... lots and lots of study... 2 Timothy 2:15.

I would not suppose to tell you what you should believe... that is up to you to decide.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Interesting verse. It implies that there is in fact truth, yes? Reminds me of a verse that I can't for the life of me remember the citation for, "Examine everything, hold on to what is true." There's a lot hinging on whether or not we have in fact found the truth, isn't there...

Realize (and I thought I said this before) I'm not asking you to tell me what to believe, I'm interested in finding out what you believe and more importantly WHY - so I can examine the points you make responsibly and intellectually. To me, finding out someone's opinion or beliefs is only of marginal value without knowing how they got there. You seem to have read a lot, and state that youv'e done a lot of study, I'm trying to pry into some of that and find out what conclusions it has lead you to (or what questions maybe?).

So, perhaps my question that you tried to answer here was too broad, thus the broad answer. Can you try to give some specifics, even if its not the whole story, as to what you've found in your studies that lead you to believe that certain writings (potentially Ehrman's) are better sources than others (say, perhaps, the Bible)? (Suggested examples only applicable if that is what you were saying to me with the comments about the Bible not being the best source ... feel free to insert your own examples.)


We all must start somewhere... it might as well be with the Bible... Might I suggest the "Scholars Version" when you get to the NT Gospels (they can be found in the book, The Complete Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655879/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance), edited by Robert J. Miller).
Indeed, we must. You indeed can suggest books to me, but (sorry if I start sounding like a broken record) can you let me know what might make them more valuable than what I already have? (I have a few different NIV translations that I work from.)

As to the point made in other posts that reading the Bible cover to cover isn't necessarily the best place to start from, I agree. I've done quite a few subject focused reading projects like the ones suggested, and probably read the majority of the NT and "some" of the OT already piecemeal. It's just my current project to read cover to cover. Thanks for all of the suggestions and concerns though :smile:

[Guerdis]

Also it is nice for you to take my statement out of context for your own gain... I said, "While certainly worthy of being read, I am not sure the Bible is the best "source" for finding out about "early" Christianity," which was an answer to tiff's query (see the end of post 59).


Your positions in general seem to indicate that you also do not consider the Bible to be a worthwhile source for Christian theology. I'm only working with what you give me to work with.


Your attempts to "poison the well" only serve to undermine your credibility.


I really don't cross-check my comments with the list of logical fallacies. Suit yourself if you wish to continue to assume that the violation of an arbitrary rule negates the validity of my refutations. I feel confident, though, that if all you have is a little list of rules to stand on, your positions in and of themselves have little else going for them.

A better mode would be: "In response to your claim, I have this counterclaim." If your counter is worthwhile, I might even concede a point or two. If all you do is continually refer to the list, you have done nothing to refute the meat of my arguments, but only declared a refusal to argue.

That said, I will certainly not deny my use of rhetorical strategy. I do not tend to pay careful attention to the norms of academic engagement outside actual academic writing/speechmaking. That is the difference between dialogue and debate. I'm not interested in learning what you think as a matter of academic curiosity, I'm interested in doing my best to prevent others from agreeing with you as a matter of religious principle.


"John's point" was the whole of your argument (opinion). The Gospel of John (in the Bible) is only 25% of the the story surrounding Judas.


The subject of the thread is "John 19:11 Gnostic?" not "According to other gospels, what is Judas like?" The whole of the conversation must exist within the boundary of John, or else we're pursuing a tangent. It is all well and good to pursue the tangent, but any discoveries made therein cannot be reasonably applied to the original question.

Imagine that the question was "What does John say about X"? The way to answer that question is to address John, not Matthew, Mark or Luke. In fact, it is completely irrelevant what Mt, Mk or Lk say at that point.


Euphemism? Sorry... Judas was doing the work he was destined to do according to the will of God.


Not according to the Gospel of John.


So, it was John's opinion... I see...


Finally.


I will, if you try to maintain some objectivity.


I am being objective, but I also recognize the parameters of the discussion. Normally I wouldn't be narrow. If the question was "what's Judas like?" we could use all 4 gospels, Acts, etc to answer the question. On this topic, though, Judas isn't even the issue, it's the meaning of the phrase "the one who handed me over" in the Gospel of John.

The question concerned whether or not this "one" could have been the God of the Old Testament, and the answer to that question is NO based on various things:

1. The nature of the FG (the Judas character in particular)
2. The Oneness of God
3. The incredibility of the claims re the Gnosticism of the FG


Only if you ignore the rest of the story... Mr Harvey told me to say that...Again, only if you ignore the whole story.


The entirety of the story of Jesus [According To John] is contained in the Gospel of John. The entirety of the character of Judas, which is a separate issue as I noted above, is not. In the FG, Judas nor Peter show remorse over their bad acts.


The "text in question" is a small portion of the story... it is like understanding the history of WWII from the perspective of a little-old-lady from Iowa.


You are exactly right. Unfortunately for your side of this discussion, though, the rest of the story isn't relevant to the topic. Only the FG is relevant. The bulk of our knowledge cannot reasonably answer a very specific question. EVEN, I must add, if the answer we get is by some means proven wrong elsewhere.

Example: Joe Blow writes a book and in that book makes the claim that 2+2=7. If you are asked to read the book and tell me what Joe Blow says 2+2 equals, you can't reasonably tell me "4" even though 2+2 = 4. The question pertains to what Joe Blow >says<, not what YOU >know<.


Your scholarship is suspect if you do not.


Farbeit from me to ever claim to have no room to improve. On this particular matter, though, I'm not in the least overconfident that I'm on firmer ground than you.


Fine... it still does not make it the right opinion. What constitutes "respected scholarship?" Those who agree with you I suppose...


If it's the wrong opinion, let's hear the right one. I'm not one to believe something ONLY because a lot of other people believe it. I mean, I think American Idol sucks wind. Millions disagree with me, but I really don't care what they think. I'm able to discern what is crap and what is gold, and I am likewise unafeared to go against the grain where necessary.

Surely you know what respected scholarship means. Do I really have to define this? I respect (scholarship-wise) not people who agree with me, but people who have reasonable and useful opinions. I have FREQUENTLY had my mind changed by superior opinons.

(Just for fun, I want to remind you of the argument ad hominem fallacy. Trying to negate my position by attacking my person in any way qualifies. ;) - And yes, attempting to classify my methodology and decision making as suspect is ad hominem avoidance of the actual argument. Fortunately, I don't care that much about such things, but I know you do, so instead of worrying about how I derive my opinions, just counter them with your own scholarship.)


No "expert of any renown" would consider GJohn as the whole story of the Passion. That you are unwilling to acknowledge facts only undermines any claim you think you are making.


I should tweak you again and call that a Straw Man, but I think it's more of a misunderstanding. If you re-examine what I have said, you will find that I at no time ever said that the FG was the whole gospel, only that it was the only text useful for answering a question >about the FG<.


Poison for the well?


I should have been more clear on that point. I don't think YOU are an idiot, but I do think that there are many other idiots who think things like you do. ;) Hehe.

Poison for the well? No. Too much evidence proves me right for that to have been anything but an observation of reality.

[VFarris01]

Is there a reason we should doubt their accuracy? (writings outside of the Bible)Well, if certain writings contradict (note: I'm not saying they do, as I haven't personally studied them) what is known {edit: known isn't quite the right word, I can expand later if it's important...} to have happened, I'd imagine that's a reason to doubt their accuracy. I stuck with VF's terminology on purpose, I'm not saying that makes them proven false necessarily, just that it raises doubts...

However, that wasn't my question. I was querying as to whether you were hinting that perhaps there are other writings that you would consider as MORE accurate (or, to use the phrasing from the original question, better sources.) You had made the statement that the Bible wasn't perhaps the best source for finding out about early Christianity, I was curious what you would recommend as a better source, and why.Should we not consider all early Christian texts?

There is actually even reason to doubt the accuracy of the Bible. Why? What we have in our possession (as far as manuscripts go) are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of... Not one is an original autograph (written by the author). Many, many errors have crept into what we assume is an inerrant Bible canon.

Perhaps... {Tiffanyh add: that Dr. Ehrman's writings might be better sources for finding out about early Christianity}

There are "original documents" available? Who has them, these "original documents?"Ahh ok, so I guess you did answer that you would consider his papers and books better sources than the Bible on this topic, could you discuss why you think so?Ehrman is not necessarily a source, as such; Ehrman is a noted Bible scholar and I believe his analysis of the manuscripts we have available is not tainted by an agenda (that is, a person wanting to "find" in these manuscripts what is not there to support a particular theology).

And I agree, my using of the words "original documents" wasn't the best phrasing. I was speaking of the letters and other documents that were compiled into the New Testament. Obviously, something written in the last 50 years wasn't likely penned by someone who had first hand knowledge of the life of Jesus Christ or the events that followed his death and resurrection. Recent writings on topics 2000 years ago would almost necessarily have to be about the information contained in the original documents.Well, at least information contained in the manuscripts that are available, yes.

Study... lots and lots of study... 2 Timothy 2:15.

I would not suppose to tell you what you should believe... that is up to you to decide.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

Interesting verse. It implies that there is in fact truth, yes? Reminds me of a verse that I can't for the life of me remember the citation for, "Examine everything, hold on to what is true." There's a lot hinging on whether or not we have in fact found the truth, isn't there... 2 Timothy 2:15, from the NIV (the English Standard Version is identical), not a bad translation.

Sorry to keep asking questions but, what do you believe "truth" is? I believe "truth" lies in what we choose to believe is "truth."

The verse you are searching for is:

(21) Prove all things, hold fast to the good. (22) Abstain from every appearance of evil.

Realize (and I thought I said this before) I'm not asking you to tell me what to believe, I'm interested in finding out what you believe and more importantly WHY - so I can examine the points you make responsibly and intellectually.Then ply me with all the questions you can muster... Where would you like to start?

To me, finding out someone's opinion or beliefs is only of marginal value without knowing how they got there.Are you ready for a 40 year journey (still in progress)? LOL.

You seem to have read a lot, and state that youv'e done a lot of study, I'm trying to pry into some of that and find out what conclusions it has lead you to (or what questions maybe?).Then ply me with all the questions you can muster... Where would you like to start?

So, perhaps my question that you tried to answer here was too broad, thus the broad answer. Can you try to give some specifics, even if its not the whole story, as to what you've found in your studies that lead you to believe that certain writings (potentially Ehrman's) are better sources than others (say, perhaps, the Bible)? (Suggested examples only applicable if that is what you were saying to me with the comments about the Bible not being the best source ... feel free to insert your own examples.)The Bible, as I have learned, is a small (extremely so) picture of what early Christians believe concerning God. It also contains only the so-called orthodox view of Christ; early Christians IMO did not believe Jesus was God (I have my doubt in this regard as well if you have read other posts).

Jesus was not the only anointed of God ("christ" means "anointed") 2 Samuel 23:1 (no one would dare say David was God because of this).

David was the "begotten son of God," (Psalms 2:7), If David was "the son of God;" it would then be appropriate for his heir to bear the same title; yes? Every time we see the phrase "son of God" in the NT concerning Jesus this would then be the connection (for an illustrative example, see Matthew 4:6 compared with Psalms 90:11,12).

Often "christ" and "son of God" are used in connection with each other (for an example see Mark 1:1). Was not David the anointed, son of God?

The list is exhaustive of the comparisons in this regard... In other words, I believe "orthodox" Christianity has destroyed the first century reality of who and what Jesus really was/is. It may not be the “truth” but it is the “truth” I choose to believe.

We all must start somewhere... it might as well be with the Bible... Might I suggest the "Scholars Version" when you get to the NT Gospels (they can be found in the book, The Complete Gospels (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060655879/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance), edited by Robert J. Miller).Indeed, we must. You indeed can suggest books to me, but (sorry if I start sounding like a broken record) can you let me know what might make them more valuable than what I already have? (I have a few different NIV translations that I work from.)Simply put... the Bible does not contain everything there is to know about Christianity... Search the Apocrapha (Old and New Testament), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library (of Gnostic texts), the large variety of Bible translation (in whatever language you can read; I know a little Latin and wish I could read Hebrew and Greek), commentaries, the so-called Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, even Joseph Smith... Just remember I have a 40 year head start on you, LOL.

As to the point made in other posts that reading the Bible cover to cover isn't necessarily the best place to start from, I agree. I've done quite a few subject focused reading projects like the ones suggested, and probably read the majority of the NT and "some" of the OT already piecemeal. It's just my current project to read cover to cover. Thanks for all of the suggestions and concerns though I wish you the absolute best in your search and, to borrow from Star Wars, may the "force" (God) be with you.

[John from Ebla]

David was the "begotten son of God," (Psalms 2:7), If David was "the son of God;" it would then be appropriate for his heir to bear the same title; yes? Every time we see the phrase "son of God" in the NT concerning Jesus this would then be the connection (for an illustrative example, see Matthew 4:6 compared with Psalms 90:11,12).




Yes, there were others annoited, but you can be annoited for one of many things

Yes, Christ= annoited one, just as Jesus = his human birth (Humanity) and just as LORD = to his Diety. John1:1-3,10,14 (If you reply then please show a bit of maturity, not " bla" , "bla", "Bla"

But, if you are a "Gnostic" and l dare say you are , then to you The Lord Jesus Christ is as David himself- a mere human messiah.

LORD = diety - Jesus= Humanity- Christ = annioted one, messiah

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Jesus was not the only anointed of God ("christ" means "anointed") 2 Samuel 23:1 (no one would dare say David was God because of this).

David was the "begotten son of God," (Psalms 2:7), If David was "the son of God;" it would then be appropriate for his heir to bear the same title; yes? Every time we see the phrase "son of God" in the NT concerning Jesus this would then be the connection (for an illustrative example, see Matthew 4:6 compared with Psalms 90:11,12).Yes, there were others annoited, but you can be annoited for one of many thingsThis is indeed true.

Yes, Christ= annoited one, just as Jesus = his human birth (Humanity) and just as LORD = to his Diety. John1:1-3,10,14 (If you reply then please show a bit of maturity, not " bla" , "bla", "Bla"I always reply thoughtfully... that I may seem "immature" is, I believe, a product of your imagination and your desire for me to appear as such. Take me with a grain of salt, my comments will taste better.

But, if you are a "Gnostic" and l dare say you are , ... a Christian? Yes, I consider myself a Christian.

... then to you The Lord Jesus Christ is as David himself- a mere human messiah.Bingo! Exactly what was promised by prophecy.

LORD = diety - Jesus= Humanity- Christ = annioted one, messiah
The word "lord," when translated as such, does always designate diety. The word "god," when translated as such, does not always mean "God."

[John from Ebla]

The word "lord," when translated as such, does always designate diety. The word "god," when translated as such, does not always mean "God."

Wrong, the word LORD means GOD as per the old testament "Adonia" John 1:1 The Word was GOD

When the Bible uses the phrase the ``name of God" or in the name of the Lord" it refers to His total person> One God One LORD 1Cor 8:6 and his person is Spirit One Spirit

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

The word "lord," when translated as such, does (not, vf) always designate diety. The word "god," when translated as such, does not always mean "God."Wrong, the word LORD means GOD as per the old testament "Adonia" John 1:1 The Word was GODGod's word was God... Jesus was the deliverer of the Word of God... The closeness of this association does not make Jesus God.

When the Bible uses the phrase the ``name of God" or in the name of the Lord" it refers to His total person> One God One LORD 1Cor 8:6 and his person is Spirit One SpiritYou implied "lord" always means "God." It does not... Quite a few people in the OT and NT were called "lord" without being God.

[John from Ebla]

God's word was God... Jesus was the deliverer of the Word of God... The closeness of this association does not make Jesus God.

You implied "lord" always means "God." It does not... Quite a few people in the OT and NT were called "lord" without being God.


When the Bible uses the phrase the ``name of God" or in the name of the Lord" it refers to His total person> One God One LORD 1Cor 8:6 and his person is Spirit One Spirit

Yes, there are many gods and many lord, But Paul makes it clear there is only ONE LORD GOD as per the Shema. 1Cor 8:6

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

God's word was God... Jesus was the deliverer of the Word of God... The closeness of this association does not make Jesus God.

You implied "lord" always means "God." It does not... Quite a few people in the OT and NT were called "lord" without being God.When the Bible uses the phrase the ``name of God" or in the name of the Lord" it refers to His total person> One God One LORD 1Cor 8:6 and his person is Spirit One Spirit

Yes, there are many gods and many lord, But Paul makes it clear there is only ONE LORD GOD as per the Shema. 1Cor 8:6

(5) For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), (6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I think you are forcing this to say something it does not say... it does not say Jesus is God. Take notice as to how "lord" and "god" are separated in v5. V6 says the Father is God... the ONLY God. Jesus is lord (a very special "lord" indeed)... but not God.

[John from Ebla]

(5) For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), (6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

I think you are forcing this to say something it does not say... it does not say Jesus is God. Take notice as to how "lord" and "god" are separated in v5. V6 says the Father is God... the ONLY God. Jesus is lord (a very special "lord" indeed)... but not God.


There is only One LORD GOD as per the bible saying- The LORD said or God said. and as per the Shema.

If the LORD is not God, then neither is God, Lord, because Paul said One God and One LORD- so Yes! Jesus= LORD IS GOD

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

I think you are forcing this to say something it does not say... it does not say Jesus is God. Take notice as to how "lord" and "god" are separated in v5. V6 says the Father is God... the ONLY God. Jesus is lord (a very special "lord" indeed)... but not God.There is only One LORD GOD as per the bible saying- The LORD said or God said. and as per the Shema.

If the LORD is not God, then neither is God, Lord, because Paul said One God and One LORD- so Yes! Jesus= LORD IS GODYou are still forcing the passage. This is what you want it to say... it does not.

Just because a passage somewhere else in the Bible calls God "the Lord" does not automatically, when used in connection with Jesus (or anyone) make Jesus (or anyone) God...

You are also confusing the usage of "lord" between the OT and the NT. More often than not "lord" does indeed refer to God in the NT... the key is to be able to distinguish when it does and when it does not.

For example, Matthew 10:24, "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. Is this usage of "lord" referring to God; no way!

How about Matthew 20:30-32, "And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David. And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?" It is interesting to note the two blind men did not say, "Son of God," and that they recognized Jesus as the heir of David.

Many people in the Bible were called "lord." If we were to have it your way anyone referred to as "lord" in the Bible is then God... this is simply not true.

[tiffanyh]

Should we not consider all early Christian texts?

There is actually even reason to doubt the accuracy of the Bible. Why? What we have in our possession (as far as manuscripts go) are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of... Not one is an original autograph (written by the author). Many, many errors have crept into what we assume is an inerrant Bible canon.


About considering all early texts, I think all text should be considered at some level. I'm not sure how you (VF specifically) would go about assigning the label "Christian" to the texts though, as if one set says something about Jesus and another set contradicts that something, they can't both be true. In that respect I'd say that one would be a "Christian" text and the other would be a "something else" text.

I'm not sure you really meant what you say about the accuracy of the Bible, I sort of suspect that you are overstating your doubts a bit. At least, I hope so... As I have come to understand it, the numerous (5,000+) manuscripts of the New Testament that exist today make it one of the best attested document in ancient writings.


Sorry to keep asking questions but, what do you believe "truth" is? I believe "truth" lies in what we choose to believe is "truth."


Ahh, and here (I think) lies our actual discussion in this thread. That was a very good question that you ask, and I believe an important point for us to understand about each other as we keep conversing.

My belief about truth, is that it is an objective reality and does not depend upon someone believing it or not (or even knowing it ...) to exist. I've actually been wondering what your thoughts are on the subject - I'm not sure if you are more of a relativist (truth determined by a group or society), or a subjectivist (truth defined by the perspective of the individual). I suspect the latter.

Could you expand a little more on your understanding about what truth is?


The verse you are searching for is:
1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 MKJV

Thanks, not sure why I couldn't hunt it down :)


Are you ready for a 40 year journey (still in progress)? LOL.

:eek:

Seriously though, I'm glad to see you add "still in progress" to your statement. We are promised (in the Bible) on numerous occasions that if we truly seek God we will find Him. As for me, I'm absolutely in progress, and I trust that God will be with me as I continue to grow in my faith and in knowledge about Him.


Then ply me with all the questions you can muster... Where would you like to start?

The Bible, as I have learned, is a small (extremely so) picture of what early Christians believe concerning God. It also contains only the so-called orthodox view of Christ; early Christians IMO did not believe Jesus was God (I have my doubt in this regard as well if you have read other posts).



I guess I'd vary from your conclusion here - I don't agree that every early human that had a belief concerning God were right, nor were they all Christians. So to me, this means that not all texts about Jesus or God from the period are necessarily helpful in our understanding about the truth on those matters. They would be helpful in understanding what some differing/counter claims are from the period, as there obviously were different schools of thought even then. You know, if the people who were contemporary to Jesus could still get it wrong, it just continues to convince me that people today who say that "they just needed to see a miracle to be convinced about God" are wrong.


Often "christ" and "son of God" are used in connection with each other (for an example see Mark 1:1). Was not David the anointed, son of God?

The list is exhaustive of the comparisons in this regard... In other words, I believe "orthodox" Christianity has destroyed the first century reality of who and what Jesus really was/is. It may not be the “truth” but it is the “truth” I choose to believe.

I'd hope that you choose to believe it because you actually do believe that is true, in reality.


Simply put... the Bible does not contain everything there is to know about Christianity... Search the Apocrapha (Old and New Testament), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library (of Gnostic texts), the large variety of Bible translation (in whatever language you can read; I know a little Latin and wish I could read Hebrew and Greek), commentaries, the so-called Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, even Joseph Smith... Just remember I have a 40 year head start on you, LOL.

Ok so you asked me a couple times about what questions I wanted to ask you. Rather than go to the conclusions that you reach from the sources that you accept as reliable, I'd like to understand how you evaluate your sources. Do you put differing "weights" on your sources, or are they all equal? As an example, the Gnostic texts that you mention above. Many scholars have (and continue to) rejected those texts as representing Christian truth, yet you seem to give them and their points considerable thought and acceptance. (read the next question and understand that I'm truly asking this, and with no malice in my heart as I do so...) Perhaps because they give a "different" answer than the (your term) "Orthodox Christian" answer? If you look back in those 40 years of experience and study, can you pinpoint a time or reason that you felt compelled to search wider?


I wish you the absolute best in your search and, to borrow from Star Wars, may the "force" (God) be with you.

Thanks for that. I also wish you the best in your continued search. God Bless

[VFarris01]

Should we not consider all early Christian texts?

There is actually even reason to doubt the accuracy of the Bible. Why? What we have in our possession (as far as manuscripts go) are copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of... Not one is an original autograph (written by the author). Many, many errors have crept into what we assume is an inerrant Bible canon.About considering all early texts, I think all text should be considered at some level. I'm not sure how you (VF specifically) would go about assigning the label "Christian" to the texts though, as if one set says something about Jesus and another set contradicts that something, they can't both be true.You would be suprised at how much the manuscripts of certain texts conflict within themselves. For instance, a manuscript of Matthew from the 2nd century compared to a manuscript of Matthew from the 3rd century (more on this in a moment).

In that respect I'd say that one would be a "Christian" text and the other would be a "something else" text.Not really, IMO. There are contradictions within canon gospels (M, M, L, & J), such as geneaologies, where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus went after the "nativity," etc...

I'm not sure you really meant what you say about the accuracy of the Bible, I sort of suspect that you are overstating your doubts a bit. At least, I hope so... I wish I were!

As I have come to understand it, the numerous (5,000+) manuscripts of the New Testament that exist today make it one of the best attested document in ancient writings.Attested? Yes. Accurate? No. Read Ehrman. (Btw, he has a new book out called, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060738170/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance).)

Sorry to keep asking questions but, what do you believe "truth" is? I believe "truth" lies in what we choose to believe is "truth."Ahh, and here (I think) lies our actual discussion in this thread. That was a very good question that you ask, and I believe an important point for us to understand about each other as we keep conversing.

My belief about truth, is that it is an objective reality and does not depend upon someone believing it or not (or even knowing it ...) to exist. I've actually been wondering what your thoughts are on the subject - I'm not sure if you are more of a relativist (truth determined by a group or society), or a subjectivist (truth defined by the perspective of the individual). I suspect the latter.

Could you expand a little more on your understanding about what truth is?I tried to discuss this topic with Sparko. How much of your reality is objective? How much of your reality is subjective? You might be suprised to know the vast majority you what you assume is reality is subjective.

Recall Hebrews 11:1.

I made a couple of analogies on another thread:

“If someone says to you, "I have a quarter in my pocket;" for you to believe them is a function of the "trust" you have in that the person is telling you the truth, aka, "faith."

If they take the quarter from their pocket and show it to you, this is "material evidence;" faith is no longer necessary.”

and...

If you tell me your truck is “red” and someone else tells me your truck is “blue,” for me (in my little sphere of “reality”), your truck is either red or blue based on how much faith I place in the person telling me (remember, we have no material evidence of the actual color of your truck; for that matter we do not have material evidence you even have a truck).

Now, suppose I see your truck (that is, I see the material evidence). I see your truck is “red” as you told me and not “blue” as someone else told me. I no longer require faith to believe your truck is blue or red; your truck is “red” based on the material evidence.

My “reality” has been shifted from the subjective (“I HAVE FAITH you have a “red truck,” therefore, your truck is red.”) to the objective (“I SEE you have a “red” truck, therefore, your truck is red.).

Now all we have to do is discuss the shade of “red;” i.e., scarlet, maroon, cherry, apple, cherry-apple, blood, etc…, lol.

Now, carry these analogies further... Have you ever seen the Eiffel Tower, the Grand Canyon, Julius Ceasar, Mark Twain, etc... If you have never seen these things/people, how do you know these things exist apart from faith?

Are you ready for a 40 year journey (still in progress)? LOL.Seriously though, I'm glad to see you add "still in progress" to your statement.I have been, "There and Back Again: Searching For God," (A Hobbit's Tale, JRRT).

We are promised (in the Bible) on numerous occasions that if we truly seek God we will find Him.I was suprised to realized, while the Bible and other texts are useful in the search, I never had to move an inch; God was with me all along... The "journey" was and is making this discovery.

As for me, I'm absolutely in progress, and I trust that God will be with me as I continue to grow in my faith and in knowledge about Him.He already is...

Then ply me with all the questions you can muster... Where would you like to start?

The Bible, as I have learned, is a small (extremely so) picture of what early Christians believe concerning God. It also contains only the so-called orthodox view of Christ; early Christians IMO did not believe Jesus was God (I have my doubt in this regard as well if you have read other posts).I guess I'd vary from your conclusion here - I don't agree that every early human that had a belief concerning God were right, nor were they all Christians. So to me, this means that not all texts about Jesus or God from the period are necessarily helpful in our understanding about the truth on those matters. They would be helpful in understanding what some differing/counter claims are from the period, as there obviously were different schools of thought even then. You know, if the people who were contemporary to Jesus could still get it wrong, it just continues to convince me that people today who say that "they just needed to see a miracle to be convinced about God" are wrong.This is precisely the reason we need to study all of the texts we can lay our hands on.

Often "christ" and "son of God" are used in connection with each other (for an example see Mark 1:1). Was not David the anointed, son of God?

The list is exhaustive of the comparisons in this regard... In other words, I believe "orthodox" Christianity has destroyed the first century reality of who and what Jesus really was/is. It may not be the “truth” but it is the “truth” I choose to believe.I'd hope that you choose to believe it because you actually do believe that is true, in reality.Faith is a reality all its own as (hopefully) shown above. Faith does not depend on objective evidence. We believe things based on faith because we do not or have not experienced or seen the objective evidence. If one has seen or experienced the objective evidence faith becomes irrelavent.

Simply put... the Bible does not contain everything there is to know about Christianity... Search the Apocrapha (Old and New Testament), the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Library (of Gnostic texts), the large variety of Bible translation (in whatever language you can read; I know a little Latin and wish I could read Hebrew and Greek), commentaries, the so-called Early Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin, even Joseph Smith... Just remember I have a 40 year head start on you, LOL. Ok so you asked me a couple times about what questions I wanted to ask you. Rather than go to the conclusions that you reach from the sources that you accept as reliable, I'd like to understand how you evaluate your sources. Do you put differing "weights" on your sources, or are they all equal?This is a tough question to answer... the best one, I guess, is to say I compare the claims made by a source (Ehrman for instance) and its argument pro or con against (an)other source(s) and its (their) claims and evaluate how each fit the "observed" facts.

As an example, the Gnostic texts that you mention above. Many scholars have (and continue to) rejected those texts as representing Christian truth, yet you seem to give them and their points considerable thought and acceptance.I believe "many" scholars have an agenda and a "faith" they want to support... they are bias.

... (read the next question and understand that I'm truly asking this, and with no malice in my heart as I do so...) Perhaps because they give a "different" answer than the (your term) "Orthodox Christian" answer?Christianity was extremely "fluid" during its first three centuries... Those who became the "orthodox" (literally, right belief) opposed "heretics" (those the "orthodox" claimed had the wrong belief; heresy = wrong belief). The prevalent form(s) of Christianity we have today, were simply the "winners" in the "war" over Scripture and "right belief." For the best description of this I suggest Ehrman's Lost Christianities (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance).

If you look back in those 40 years of experience and study, can you pinpoint a time or reason that you felt compelled to search wider?I cannot "pinpoint" the day, month, or year, but, it was when I realized the Bible no longer appeared to fit the "observed" facts.

I wish you the absolute best in your search and, to borrow from Star Wars, may the "force" (God) be with you.Thanks for that. I also wish you the best in your continued search. God BlessBoth of us... and your family...

[John from Ebla]

You are still forcing the passage. This is what you want it to say... it does not.

Yes there are many gods and many lords

But, there is one LORD GOD as Paul say's, and as per the Bible saying, "God" said or "the Lord" said

1 Cor 6:8 One God One Lord- one is one for both. Jesus is LORD GOD in as much as God is LORD

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

You are still forcing the passage. This is what you want it to say... it does not.Yes there are many gods and many lordsQuite true... The Father is God... the "Christ" (Jesus) is lord...

But, there is one LORD GOD as Paul say's, and as per the Bible saying, "God" said or "the Lord" saidWhile God is a lord... and Jesus is a lord. Jesus is not a God... Paul never "makes" Jesus "god," as much as you would like to read it into the passage. Paul always keeps them separate.

1 Cor 6:8 One God One Lord- one is one for both. Jesus is LORD GOD in as much as God is LORDThe "Lord God" and the "lord Jesus" are two separate persons; Paul clearly distinguishes the two. One God, the Father, is not One God, the Father and the Son... this is two Gods, not one.

[John from Ebla]

Quite true... The Father is God... the "Christ" (Jesus) is lord...

While God is a lord... and Jesus is a lord. Jesus is not a God... Paul never "makes" Jesus "god," as much as you would like to read it into the passage. Paul always keeps them separate.

The "Lord God" and the "lord Jesus" are two separate persons; Paul clearly distinguishes the two. One God, the Father, is not One God, the Father and the Son... this is two Gods, not one.


Paul say One God and One LORD -not one of one and two of the other- If one is not God then the other is not Lord

1 Cor 6:8 One God One Lord- one is one for both. Jesus is LORD GOD in as much as God is LORD

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Quite true... The Father is God... the "Christ" (Jesus) is lord...

While God is a lord... and Jesus is a lord. Jesus is not a God... Paul never "makes" Jesus "god," as much as you would like to read it into the passage. Paul always keeps them separate.

The "Lord God" and the "lord Jesus" are two separate persons; Paul clearly distinguishes the two. One God, the Father, is not One God, the Father and the Son... this is two Gods, not one.Paul say One God and One LORD Exactly...

-not one of one and two of the other-Right... One is God the other is lord... you want to make the Father God and the Son God... ONLY the Father is God, (yet He can be Lord, one of many, v5)... the Son (Jesus) can ONLY be lord because he is not the Father who is the ONLY God. This does not prevent God from being "a lord" (one of many, v5) as well, it prevents Jesus from being the "supreme God."

If one is not God then the other is not LordThis is where I believe your logic is flawed...

ONE of the two IS God, the Father (the only one that can be God because if you make Jesus God as well then you have TWO gods)... this means there is only one thing left for the other to be, lord; that "lord" is Jesus.

1 Cor 6:8 One God One Lord- one is one for both. Jesus is LORD GOD in as much as God is LORDAt least get the verse right... Do not take this personally, but, if you cannot cite the right verse, I do not see how you can understand the meaning.

(5) For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), (6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
ONE God, ONE Lord... one is God, the other is Lord... not one is God, the other is "lord" God... you are making TWO gods... when ONLY ONE is spoken of and ONLY ONE is said to exist as God... this ONE God is the Father; Jesus (a "mere man") is a relative nobody by comparison.

[John from Ebla]

Exactly...

Right... One is God the other is lord... you want to make the Father God and the Son God... ONLY the Father is God, (yet He can be Lord, one of many, v5)... the Son (Jesus) can ONLY be lord because he is not the Father who is the ONLY God. This does not prevent God from being "a lord" (one of many, v5) as well, it prevents Jesus from being the "supreme God.".

Wrong! Paul said One LORD. not two. Jesus is LORD GOD just as God is LORD- one is one for both

This is where I believe your logic is flawed...

ONE of the two IS God, the Father (the only one that can be God because if you make Jesus God as well then you have TWO gods)... this means there is only one thing left for the other to be, lord; that "lord" is Jesus..

Wrong again. Paul is in agreement with the O/t Gen 1:26 ' Let us make makind in our image.." and Gen 19:24 YHWH caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven


At least get the verse right... Do not take this personally, but, if you cannot cite the right verse, I do not see how you can understand the meaning.

(5) For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), (6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live..

Do not take this personally but, wrong again! Paul is in agreemnt with John 1:1-3,10,14, Gen 1:26, and Gen 19:24, but not in agreement with the way you put it.


ONE God, ONE Lord... one is God, the other is Lord... not one is God, the other is "lord" God... you are making TWO gods... when ONLY ONE is spoken of and ONLY ONE is said to exist as God... this ONE God is the Father; Jesus (a "mere man") is a relative nobody by comparison.

Wrong again. One God and One Lord- one is one for both. If the Lord is not God because Paul say's, "One God" Then God cannot be Lord because Paul say's One Lord.

You are pick nicking what you want, saying "God is LORD but Lord is not God." That is not what Paul wrote- he new the O/T- Gen 19:24 YHWH caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[Sparko]

While God is a lord... and Jesus is a lord. Jesus is not a God... Paul never "makes" Jesus "god," as much as you would like to read it into the passage. Paul always keeps them separate.

Who do you think wrote this in Titus 2:13?

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"

[tiffanyh]

You would be suprised at how much the manuscripts of certain texts conflict within themselves. For instance, a manuscript of Matthew from the 2nd century compared to a manuscript of Matthew from the 3rd century (more on this in a moment).

So, what was your translation (do you use ESV? That's the one you quoted to me earlier) based upon, a copy of the 8th century manuscript that was copied of the 7th century manuscripts, which were copied from the 6th century manuscripts... ?? In my NIV it calls to attention in the footnotes when there are uncertainties about what the original text said, due to variances in the manuscripts or other reasons.


Not really, IMO. There are contradictions within canon gospels (M, M, L, & J), such as geneaologies, where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus went after the "nativity," etc...

contradictions, or differences? There's a significant difference between those two words. As I understand it, if we were to accept some of the gnostic texts as also "truth", then we would seriously be finding contradictions (aka, one claims "A", the other claims "not A").


I wish I were!
I wish you were too :sad: That's some pretty serious stuff for a self attested Christian to have doubts upon, imo.


Attested? Yes. Accurate? No. Read Ehrman. (Btw, he has a new book out called, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060738170/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance).)
Nothing against Dr. Ehrman, who looks to be a fairly serious academic from his bio page, but I'd rather discuss with you at this time.


I tried to discuss this topic with Sparko. How much of your reality is objective? How much of your reality is subjective? You might be suprised to know the vast majority you what you assume is reality is subjective.

I missed that discussion between you and Sparko, but it doesn't surprise me as this is a pretty foundational topic (what is truth) and really needs to be established.

You asked "How much of your reality is objective? [...] subjective?" The thing is, I'd restate that to say that there IS a reality which is objective and that my BELIEFS may not align 100% with reality/truth but that I continue to learn and grow. So my answer to your question as stated is that 100% of my reality is objective, and 100% of my reality aligns with everyone elses reality. We just have different resources available to us with which to discover the truth. And, you may be surprised to know that I understand that the vast majority of what I believe to be reality may be in fact subjective (there's nothing inherently wrong with subjectivism imo, it just doesn't define truth). However, that does nothing whatsoever to change the actual truth, which we are all striving for.


Recall Hebrews 11:1.

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.


I made a couple of analogies on another thread:

“If someone says to you, "I have a quarter in my pocket;" for you to believe them is a function of the "trust" you have in that the person is telling you the truth, aka, "faith."

If they take the quarter from their pocket and show it to you, this is "material evidence;" faith is no longer necessary.”

and...

If you tell me your truck is “red” and someone else tells me your truck is “blue,” for me (in my little sphere of “reality”), your truck is either red or blue based on how much faith I place in the person telling me (remember, we have no material evidence of the actual color of your truck; for that matter we do not have material evidence you even have a truck).

Now, suppose I see your truck (that is, I see the material evidence). I see your truck is “red” as you told me and not “blue” as someone else told me. I no longer require faith to believe your truck is blue or red; your truck is “red” based on the material evidence.

My “reality” has been shifted from the subjective (“I HAVE FAITH you have a “red truck,” therefore, your truck is red.”) to the objective (“I SEE you have a “red” truck, therefore, your truck is red.).

Now all we have to do is discuss the shade of “red;” i.e., scarlet, maroon, cherry, apple, cherry-apple, blood, etc…, lol.

Now, carry these analogies further... Have you ever seen the Eiffel Tower, the Grand Canyon, Julius Ceasar, Mark Twain, etc... If you have never seen these things/people, how do you know these things exist apart from faith?

I don't know man, maybe we're just caught up in semantics. But there's not a VF's reality and a Tiffanyh's reality, there is just REALITY. We may both only have become aware of portions of that reality, and we may be wrong about portions of it, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a truth out there, to be found. The truck in your pocket is one colour, period, despite the fact that maybe I'm wearing colored glasses when I look at it thus it appears differently. We may get caught up in a useless argument about whether the truck is rose or maroon, but if we define the rest of the parameters we will find that the pigments in the truck paint are objectively one thing and we just need to determine what in each of is causes us to view the truck in different ways.

I'm not sure how the expansion of your analogy helps, but I think I agree with you at least to a point. I haven't seen, touched, done chemical analysis or otherwise deeply and personally studied the places/objects/people that you mention above, but I do believe them to be true based upon the evidences that I have been presented and that I understand to be reliable.

Now, I could watch a movie such as the Matrix and if I didn't understand it to be not true it would cause a serious dent in my understanding of reality. Many people read Da Vinci code and because its a well written story BASED on some facts it has made it difficult for many people to differentiate between what is reality and what is Dan Brown's literary abilities. For those people, their beliefs about reality may have been warped (or not, depending on the person) but the ACTUAL REALITY (aka, the TRUTH) is still there.


He already is...
Absolutely.


This is precisely the reason we need to study all of the texts we can lay our hands on.
Perhaps, but we may need to study the texts with an understanding of them (are they fact or fiction? on what do we base that determination? etc) I do not agree by any means that we study every text equally and assimilate the claims made into our belief system as our understanding of truth.


Faith is a reality all its own as (hopefully) shown above. Faith does not depend on objective evidence. We believe things based on faith because we do not or have not experienced or seen the objective evidence. If one has seen or experienced the objective evidence faith becomes irrelavent.

Not sure where to go here really. Faith isn't a reality, its our belief that we know what reality is (or something like that.) Recall Hebrews 11:1 :tongue:


[color=black]This is a tough question to answer... the best one, I guess, is to say I compare the claims made by a source (Ehrman for instance) and its argument pro or con against (an)other source(s) and its (their) claims and evaluate how each fit the "observed" facts.

I believe "many" scholars have an agenda and a "faith" they want to support... they are bias.

Probably all scholars do to some extent. Even Dr Ehrman.

I'm more interested in your evaluations of original sources (like, the Gospels of John and Thomas) than in writings by conteporary academics.


Both of us... and your family...
Amen to that.

[tiffanyh]

Who do you think wrote this in Titus 2:13?

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"

The footnotes in my NIV say this about that verse:
"It is possible to translate this phrase"the great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ" (KJV), but the NIV rendering better represents the Greek construction. It is an explicit testimony to the deity of Christ (see Ro 9:5 and note)"

Though I don't see how you would easily come to the conclusion even in the KJV translation that Paul isn't stating that Jesus Christ is God.

For grins I'll follow the reference:

Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen"

And the accompanying note: "patriarchs. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons. Christ, who is God. One of the clearest statements of the deity of Jesus Christ found in the entire NT."

[VFarris01]

Exactly...

Right... One is God the other is lord... you want to make the Father God and the Son God... ONLY the Father is God, (yet He can be Lord, one of many, v5)... the Son (Jesus) can ONLY be lord because he is not the Father who is the ONLY God. This does not prevent God from being "a lord" (one of many, v5) as well, it prevents Jesus from being the "supreme God.".Wrong! Paul said One LORD. not two. Jesus is LORD GOD just as God is LORD- one is one for bothThank you for making my point... ONE God, One Lord... Jesus being a (the) Lord does not make him God... "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8 identifying Jesus is not translated God for a very good reason... Jesus is not God.

This is where I believe your logic is flawed...

ONE of the two IS God, the Father (the only one that can be God because if you make Jesus God as well then you have TWO gods)... this means there is only one thing left for the other to be, lord; that "lord" is Jesus...Wrong again. Paul is in agreement with the O/t Gen 1:26 ' Let us make makind in our image.." and Gen 19:24 YHWH caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven You are comparing Greek to Hebrew... If we go with your argument, you just made all humanity God... I am flattered.

At least get the verse right... Do not take this personally, but, if you cannot cite the right verse, I do not see how you can understand the meaning.(5) For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), (6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.Do not take this personally but, wrong again! Paul is in agreemnt with John 1:1-3,10,14, Gen 1:26, and Gen 19:24, but not in agreement with the way you put it.You cannot compare Greek to Hebrew in this case nor can you compare the opinion of John with the opinion of Paul... they are not even close to being the same.

ONE God, ONE Lord... one is God, the other is Lord... not one is God, the other is "lord" God... you are making TWO gods... when ONLY ONE is spoken of and ONLY ONE is said to exist as God... this ONE God is the Father; Jesus (a "mere man") is a relative nobody by comparison.Wrong again. One God and One Lord- one is one for both. If the Lord is not God because Paul say's, "One God" Then God cannot be Lord because Paul say's One Lord.ONLY ONE is God and ONLY ONE is Lord... How can they both be God is only one can be each? "Lord" in this case, no matter how much you want it mean God, does not mean God.

You are pick nicking what you want, saying "God is LORD but Lord is not God." That is not what Paul wrote- he new the O/T- Gen 19:24 YHWH caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven "YHWH" is a Hebrew word, not a Greek word... it is often translated from the Hebrew into English as "lord," but it ONLY refers to the "supreme God." No such word appears in the Greek... the translation of the Greek word (theos) is relative to the context of the passage and is often translated as either "lord" or "god" when referring to the "supreme God" but never means this when the context is not about the "supreme God."

If ONE God means "ONE GOD," then "Lord Jesus" CANNOT be God too... if God means god and Lord means god do you not now have two gods instead of one?

[VFarris01]

While God is a lord... and Jesus is a lord. Jesus is not a God... Paul never "makes" Jesus "god," as much as you would like to read it into the passage. Paul always keeps them separate.Who do you think wrote this in Titus 2:13?

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," You are using a poor translation as tiff rightly points out in post 95...

[tiffanyh]

You are using a poor translation as tiff rightly points out in post 95...

It's verbatim to my NIV wording. And the KJV wording still sounds pretty Jesus deity specific to me, anyhow...

[Sparko]

You are using a poor translation as tiff rightly points out in post 95...

Actually she pointed out that the NIV translation (which I used) was the BETTER translation and she went on to quote Romans 9:5 in which Paul says
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen"

So Paul did clearly think Jesus was God.

[tiffanyh]

You are using a poor translation as tiff rightly points out in post 95...

I know I already replied, but Sparko is right in that I was not pointing out that the translation was poor. I was pointing out that my translation (NIV, which was also what Sparko used) mentioned the fact that other translations render it differently. However, even looking at the KJV translation I can still very easily understand from the text that Paul is pointing out the deity of Jesus.

Question for you VF: What translation do you utilize? And, why do you find this translation in the NIV (which you mentioned earlier in the thread wasn't a bad translation I thought?) to be poor, specifically?

If you'd like I can start a thread to see if any of our language scholars around here want to point out what the differences are between the KJF and NIV translation of this verse and grammatically speaking why they would have taken the english wording that they did...[edit to add: Nah, I won't wait I'll go ahead and do it since now I'm curious]

[2nd edit: Found a thread here in this forum that discusses the verse and the rule used/in dispute. Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=26468).]

[VFarris01]

You would be suprised at how much the manuscripts of certain texts conflict within themselves. For instance, a manuscript of Matthew from the 2nd century compared to a manuscript of Matthew from the 3rd century (more on this in a moment).So, what was your translation (do you use ESV?I have quite a few... an excellent computer Bible is e-Sword (http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html); it is free and has 25+ English translations (with quite a few other languages), commentaries, dictionaries, maps, etc...

That's the one you quoted to me earlier) based upon, a copy of the 8th century manuscript that was copied of the 7th century manuscripts, which were copied from the 6th century manuscripts... ?? In my NIV it calls to attention in the footnotes when there are uncertainties about what the original text said, due to variances in the manuscripts or other reasons.What did I tell you before about errors in the manuscripts?

Not really, IMO. There are contradictions within canon gospels (M, M, L, & J), such as geneaologies, where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus went after the "nativity," etc... contradictions, or differences? There's a significant difference between those two words.BOTH!

As I understand it, if we were to accept some of the gnostic texts as also "truth", then we would seriously be finding contradictions (aka, one claims "A", the other claims "not A").If we did not (find contradictions) I would be suprised.

I wish I were! (about overstating my doubts about the accuracy of the Bible)I wish you were too :sad: That's some pretty serious stuff for a self attested Christian to have doubts upon, imo.I do not doubt there are inaccuracies and errors in the Bible handed down to us.

Attested? Yes. Accurate? No. Read Ehrman. (Btw, he has a new book out called, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060738170/002-4617662-3635218?v=glance).)Nothing against Dr. Ehrman, who looks to be a fairly serious academic from his bio page, but I'd rather discuss with you at this time.I am flattered my opinion means something to someone.

I tried to discuss this topic with Sparko. How much of your reality is objective? How much of your reality is subjective? You might be suprised to know the vast majority you what you assume is reality is subjective.I missed that discussion between you and Sparko, but it doesn't surprise me as this is a pretty foundational topic (what is truth) and really needs to be established.We were discussing "reality" and what reality is with regard to "faith."

You asked "How much of your reality is objective? [...] subjective?" The thing is, I'd restate that to say that there IS a reality which is objective and that my BELIEFS may not align 100% with reality/truth but that I continue to learn and grow. So my answer to your question as stated is that 100% of my reality is objective, and 100% of my reality aligns with everyone elses reality. We just have different resources available to us with which to discover the truth. And, you may be surprised to know that I understand that the vast majority of what I believe to be reality may be in fact subjective (there's nothing inherently wrong with subjectivism imo, it just doesn't define truth). However, that does nothing whatsoever to change the actual truth, which we are all striving for.Who am I to tell someone what their reality is anyway? After all, it is your reality.

I made a couple of analogies on another thread:

“If someone says to you, "I have a quarter in my pocket;" for you to believe them is a function of the "trust" you have in that the person is telling you the truth, aka, "faith."

If they take the quarter from their pocket and show it to you, this is "material evidence;" faith is no longer necessary.”

and...

If you tell me your truck is “red” and someone else tells me your truck is “blue,” for me (in my little sphere of “reality”), your truck is either red or blue based on how much faith I place in the person telling me (remember, we have no material evidence of the actual color of your truck; for that matter we do not have material evidence you even have a truck).

Now, suppose I see your truck (that is, I see the material evidence). I see your truck is “red” as you told me and not “blue” as someone else told me. I no longer require faith to believe your truck is blue or red; your truck is “red” based on the material evidence.

My “reality” has been shifted from the subjective (“I HAVE FAITH you have a “red truck,” therefore, your truck is red.”) to the objective (“I SEE you have a “red” truck, therefore, your truck is red.).

Now all we have to do is discuss the shade of “red;” i.e., scarlet, maroon, cherry, apple, cherry-apple, blood, etc…, lol.

Now, carry these analogies further... Have you ever seen the Eiffel Tower, the Grand Canyon, Julius Ceasar, Mark Twain, etc... If you have never seen these things/people, how do you know these things exist apart from faith?I don't know man, maybe we're just caught up in semantics. But there's not a VF's reality and a Tiffanyh's reality, there is just REALITY.Reality is relative to what we experience as reality.

Even if we are together, your reality would be different from mine... Do you recall the story of the blind men examining an elephant... one holds the tail and in his reality an elephant is a rope, another touches a leg and in his reality an elephant is a tree, and, yet another, touches the trunk and in his reality an elephant is a hose.

We may both only have become aware of portions of that reality, and we may be wrong about portions of it, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a truth out there, to be found.Perhaps.

The truck in your pocket is one colour, period, despite the fact that maybe I'm wearing colored glasses when I look at it thus it appears differently. We may get caught up in a useless argument about whether the truck is rose or maroon, but if we define the rest of the parameters we will find that the pigments in the truck paint are objectively one thing and we just need to determine what in each of is causes us to view the truck in different ways.Virtual reality does not work this way... unless we have seen (or experienced) the objective evidence any and everything in our "personal reality" is exactly what we believe it is.

I'm not sure how the expansion of your analogy helps, but I think I agree with you at least to a point. I haven't seen, touched, done chemical analysis or otherwise deeply and personally studied the places/objects/people that you mention above, but I do believe them to be true based upon the evidences that I have been presented and that I understand to be reliable.You believe those thing exist because of subjective evidence not because of objective evidence... a picture can be fake, an encyclopedia could be incorrect, a person could be lying.

Now, I could watch a movie such as the Matrix and if I didn't understand it to be not true it would cause a serious dent in my understanding of reality. Many people read Da Vinci code and because its a well written story BASED on some facts it has made it difficult for many people to differentiate between what is reality and what is Dan Brown's literary abilities. For those people, their beliefs about reality may have been warped (or not, depending on the person) but the ACTUAL REALITY (aka, the TRUTH) is still there.To quote Morpheus, "Have you ever had a dream you thought was real?" So, you would be believing Dan Brown based on faith not evidence (that is if you believed Dan Brown); yes?

This is precisely the reason we need to study all of the texts we can lay our hands on.Perhaps, but we may need to study the texts with an understanding of them (are they fact or fiction? on what do we base that determination? etc)Is the Bible, fact, fiction, or a combination of both like Dan Brown's "novel?" You do not believe the Bible is truth based on objective evidence but on faith... the Bible contains enough "evidence" to convince you the truck is blue and not red... Faith is based on trust, not evidence.

I do not agree by any means that we study every text equally and assimilate the claims made into our belief system as our understanding of truth.Neither do I.

Faith is a reality all its own as (hopefully) shown above. Faith does not depend on objective evidence. We believe things based on faith because we do not or have not experienced or seen the objective evidence. If one has seen or experienced the objective evidence faith becomes irrelavent.Not sure where to go here really. Faith isn't a reality, its our belief that we know what reality is (or something like that.) Recall Hebrews 11:1 :tongue:
My point exactly... your faith is your reality until your reality is changed by objective evidence... then that portion of your reality is actually real and not dependent on faith.

This is a tough question to answer... the best one, I guess, is to say I compare the claims made by a source (Ehrman for instance) and its argument pro or con against (an)other source(s) and its (their) claims and evaluate how each fit the "observed" facts.

I believe "many" scholars have an agenda and a "faith" they want to support... they are bias.Probably all scholars do to some extent. Even Dr Ehrman.Not probably... absolutely...

I'm more interested in your evaluations of original sources (like, the Gospels of John and Thomas) than in writings by conteporary academics.Again, we do not have the "original" of GJohn or GThomas; we have copies, of copies, of copies... They are books, not unlike The DaVinci Code, and any "claims" they make should investigated and analyzed. Can you give me some specific questions you would like me to answer? I am not the scholar Ehrman or Crossan are but I will do my best.

On post 95...

Sparko is clutching at straws as he usually does, this time with Titus 2:13...

"Theos" here is mistranslated as "God" instead of "lord" and shows the bias of the translators... "Theos" does not always mean "god" as the "trini's" would have us believe as shown by the two gods we get in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 if both words mean "god."

Jesus is indeed "lord" of all but not God of all; there is ONLY ONE GOD...

Titus 2:13, in my opinion, should read: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great lord and savior, Jesus Christ,"

Paul does not belive Jesus is God... The word "theos" in Romans 9:5 is mistranslated... it should be translated "lord." it shows the bias of the translators... they want Jesus to be God therefore that is the way they translate the text... to suit their theology.

On post 100...

I use a number of translations... I said the NIV was "not bad;" I did not say it was perfect. While Jesus is "lord" of all things, he is not God.

[Sparko]

Sparko is clutching at straws as he usually does, this time with Titus 2:13...

"Theos" here is mistranslated as "God" instead of "lord" and shows the bias of the translators... "Theos" does not always mean "god" as the "trini's" would have us believe as shown by the two gods we get in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 if both words mean "god."

Jesus is indeed "lord" of all but not God of all; there is ONLY ONE GOD...

Titus 2:13, in my opinion, should read: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great lord and savior, Jesus Christ,"

Paul does not belive Jesus is God... The word "theos" in Romans 9:5 is mistranslated... it should be translated "lord." it shows the bias of the translators... they want Jesus to be God therefore that is the way they translate the text... to suit their theology.


:lmbo: time to nominate you for another screwball award.

the greek word for "lord" is not "theos" it is "kurios"

"theos" can never be translated as "lord"

so excuse us if we go with the real translators of the bible instead of your twisted nonsense.

[VFarris01]

:lmbo: time to nominate you for another screwball award.

the greek word for "lord" is not "theos" it is "kurios"

"theos" can never be translated as "lord"

so excuse us if we go with the real translators of the bible instead of your twisted nonsense.I am without access to my Greek translation of the NT so I, unfortunately, am going from an obviously very poor memory. BTAIM, I am of the opinion the Bible has been altered over the centuries (the earliest NT manuscripts date to the 3rd century, I believe, with small fragments that may be as recent as the early 2nd century) to support a belief Jesus is God.

[tiffanyh]

Hey, I haven't the time for an in depth response, though I'm not sure one is really warranted if we can't agree that there is an objective reality to be found, that we can call the truth. Just a few notes though for now, and perhaps later I'll dive back in ...
1- I am trying hard to keep the discussion on topic and not personal, and for the most part you seem to be doing so as well (at least in regards to me) but please don't use a response to me as a forum to slam or insult someone else. Please?

2- Oh, I can't remember what my second point was. :blush:

[VFarris01]

Hey, I haven't the time for an in depth response, though I'm not sure one is really warranted if we can't agree that there is an objective reality to be found, that we can call the truth.We call the truth what we believe is the truth... I can tell you I live in Ohio but you cannot know for sure I live in Ohio unless you see me, see my house, see my family, see my dogs, etc. Can this reality be found out objectively? Sure, if you are willing to take a trip to Ohio... otherwise you have faith I live in Ohio because you trust what I have told you, "I live in Ohio." The Bible is an entirely different mammal. How are you going to go back to the first century and "see" Jesus, "hear" Jesus, or "touch" Jesus? You cannot... therefore the only way you can know objectively if Jesus is who he is claimed to be by all sides is at the "Judgement." This "objective reality" will be found but not in our lifetime... unfortunately.

1- I am trying hard to keep the discussion on topic and not personal, and for the most part you seem to be doing so as well (at least in regards to me)...You are (seem to be) a very nice person... Others here are sheep in wolf's, er, wolves in sheep's clothing... waiting to devour whomever disagrees with them.

... but please don't use a response to me as a forum to slam or insult someone else. Please?This was not my intent... Sparky had posted (#93) to me in about Titus, we were both involved by your response in #95... I stated my reality concerning Sparky... he has the same "reality" about me.

2- Oh, I can't remember what my second point was. :blush:You will remember I am sure...

[John from Ebla]

Thank you for making my point... ONE God, One Lord... Jesus being a (the) Lord does not make him God... "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8 identifying Jesus is not translated God for a very good reason... Jesus is not God.

You are comparing Greek to Hebrew... If we go with your argument, you just made all humanity God... I am flattered.

You cannot compare Greek to Hebrew in this case nor can you compare the opinion of John with the opinion of Paul... they are not even close to being the same.

ONLY ONE is God and ONLY ONE is Lord... How can they both be God is only one can be each? "Lord" in this case, no matter how much you want it mean God, does not mean God.

"YHWH" is a Hebrew word, not a Greek word... it is often translated from the Hebrew into English as "lord," but it ONLY refers to the "supreme God." No such word appears in the Greek... the translation of the Greek word (theos) is relative to the context of the passage and is often translated as either "lord" or "god" when referring to the "supreme God" but never means this when the context is not about the "supreme God."

If ONE God means "ONE GOD," then "Lord Jesus" CANNOT be God too... if God means god and Lord means god do you not now have two gods instead of one?

When the the bible from start to finish say's "God" said or "The Lord" said- and Paul tells us One God and One LORD, it makes sense " Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4

What does not make sense is your "Bla Bla Bla" trying to say there are two LORDs and that one is God and one is Not.

Sorry, Wrong again You are twisting every word in the bible by saying Bla bla bla. Your are typical JW, Knock Knock

Kind regards
John from Ebla

[VFarris01]

Thank you for making my point... ONE God, One Lord... Jesus being a (the) Lord does not make him God... "Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8 identifying Jesus is not translated God for a very good reason... Jesus is not God.
You are comparing Greek to Hebrew... If we go with your argument, you just made all humanity God... I am flattered.

You cannot compare Greek to Hebrew in this case nor can you compare the opinion of John with the opinion of Paul... they are not even close to being the same.

ONLY ONE is God and ONLY ONE is Lord... How can they both be God iF (correction, vf) only one can be each? "Lord" in this case, no matter how much you want it mean God, does not mean God.

"YHWH" is a Hebrew word, not a Greek word... it is often translated from the Hebrew into English as "lord," but it ONLY refers to the "supreme God." No such word appears in the Greek... the translation of the Greek word (theos) is relative to the context of the passage and is often translated as either "lord" or "god" when referring to the "supreme God" but never means this when the context is not about the "supreme God."

If ONE God means "ONE GOD," then "Lord Jesus" CANNOT be God too... if God means god and Lord means god do you not now have two gods instead of one?

When the the bible from start to finish say's "God" said or "The Lord" said- and Paul tells us One God and One LORD, it makes sense " Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4

What does not make sense is your "Bla Bla Bla" trying to say there are two LORDs and that one is God and one is Not.

Sorry, Wrong again You are twisting every word in the bible by saying Bla bla bla. Your are typical JW, Knock KnockNo, the "trinity" is wrung out of scripture because this is what you, as a trini-, want it to say... it does not. You continue to use Hebrew to justify Greek... it does not work that way. You continue to use two words to justify one word, "god" and "lord," it does not work that way; "god" does not equal "lord." Paul distinguishes as much in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. You use errant scripture such as 1 John 5:7 KJV that is unknown in Greek texts... You have been misled by mistakes compounded almost expotentially throughout the centuries.

[John from Ebla]

No, the "trinity" is wrung out of scripture because this is what you, as a trini-, want it to say... it does not. You continue to use Hebrew to justify Greek... it does not work that way. You continue to use two words to justify one word, "god" and "lord," it does not work that way; "god" does not equal "lord." Paul distinguishes as much in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. You use errant scripture such as 1 John 5:7 KJV that is unknown in Greek texts... You have been misled by mistakes compounded almost expotentially throughout the centuries.

Your are a JW because you make no sense.

When the the bible from start to finish say's "God" said or "The Lord" said- and Paul tells us One God and One LORD, it makes sense " Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4

Your "Bla Bla Bla" is trying to say there are two LORDs and that one is God and one is Not, Is the teaching of JW- knock Knock

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

No, the "trinity" is wrung out of scripture because this is what you, as a trini-, want it to say... it does not. You continue to use Hebrew to justify Greek... it does not work that way. You continue to use two words to justify one word, "god" and "lord," it does not work that way; "god" does not equal "lord." Paul distinguishes as much in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. You use errant scripture such as 1 John 5:7 KJV that is unknown in Greek texts... You have been misled by mistakes compounded almost expotentially throughout the centuries.Your are a JW because you make no sense.I am not a JW; I have never even attended a JW congregation. Not making sense is not limited to JWs anyway... read your own posts.

When the the bible from start to finish say's "God" said or "The Lord" said- and Paul tells us One God and One LORD, it makes sense " Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord! -" Deuteronomy 6:4

Your "Bla Bla Bla" is trying to say there are two LORDs and that one is God and one is Not, Is the teaching of JW- knock KnockThe OT uses two words, "eloheem" (most often translated as "God") and "jehhovaw" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "jehhovaw" also means "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Bible Dictionary).

This would then render your verse in Deuteronomy to read: "Hear, O Israel: The the eternal one our God is one who has always existed:"

The Greek uses two words, "thehos" (most often translated as "God") and "kooreeos" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "kooreeos" also means "master" or "one who has control" (see Thayer).

This would then render your verse in 1 Corinthians to read: "For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth (as there are many gods and many masters {or, "many who have control," VF}), but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one master {or, "one who has control," VF} Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him."

There is a difference between the Greek and the Hebrew... the words you want to mean the same thing do not mean the same thing. There is ONLY ONE God, the Father. The title given to Jesus by the word "kooreeos" in 1 Corinthians (and elsewhere) does not indicate divinity... it indicates authority.

[John from Ebla]

I am not a JW; I have never even attended a JW congregation. Not making sense is not limited to JWs anyway... read your own posts.

The OT uses two words, "eloheem" (most often translated as "God") and "jehhovaw" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "jehhovaw" also means "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Bible Dictionary).

This would then render your verse in Deuteronomy to read: "Hear, O Israel: The the eternal one our God is one who has always existed:"

The Greek uses two words, "thehos" (most often translated as "God") and "kooreeos" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "kooreeos" also means "master" or "one who has control" (see Thayer).

This would then render your verse in 1 Corinthians to read: "For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth (as there are many gods and many masters {or, "many who have control," VF}), but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one master {or, "one who has control," VF} Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him."

There is a difference between the Greek and the Hebrew... the words you want to mean the same thing do not mean the same thing. There is ONLY ONE God, the Father. The title given to Jesus by the word "kooreeos" in 1 Corinthians (and elsewhere) does not indicate divinity... it indicates authority.


So now we have to ask VFarris01- which Lord is which throughout the New Testament? LORD IS LORD and the same LORD though out the whole of the New Testament- and there is only One LORD and he is the LORD GOD of the O/T

"Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord" Deuteronomy 6:4 Did you read it? ONE LORD

It did not say 'God your Lord is One God" it said The LORD your God is ONE LORD and Paul agrees ONE LORD (1Cor 8:6)

JW, your wrong again.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[apostoli]

Hi Sparko,

Paul never "makes" Jesus "god," as much as you would like to read it into the passage. Paul always keeps them separate.
Who do you think wrote this in Titus 2:13?

"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,"Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" (KJV)

I think everyone here knows Titus 2:13 is one of the disputed texts. Now rather than wade through Greek grammars and debate the Granville Sharp rule on an isolated text, lets have a look at A.Paul's letter to Titus and see if there is any validity to VFarris01 statement.

1:1 Paul a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ
1:4 Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior
2:10-11 the doctrine of God our Savior. For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men.
3:4-7 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that they might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

As you can see A.Paul does differentiate between who God is and who Jesus Christ is.

Now some will run off and accuse me of making two Saviors. And I would have to remark that A.Paul does lead to an opinion that there are two Saviors but in a particular context: Titus 1:2-3, 2:11 we have the promise of God , who in due times has manifested his word thus "God, [is] our Savior" because he is the source and cause of the salvation plan. Then from Titus 1:4,2:13-14 we have Jesus, "who gave himself for us that we might be redeemed", so by paticipation he is our Savior.

Though VFarris01 often shows a curious scholarship in his posts. There is validity in his observation that A.Paul always differentiate between who God is and who Jesus is. This distinction is particularly evident in texts such as Ephesians 3:15-15.

Here are a couple of links that might be of interest:

The King James Bible Page - Defending Titus 2:13
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_tit2_13.html

Titus 2 - Parallel Greek New Testament (5 greek; 1 latin; 9 english)
http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B56C002.htm

[VFarris01]

I am not a JW; I have never even attended a JW congregation. Not making sense is not limited to JWs anyway... read your own posts.

The OT Hebrew uses two words, "eloheem" (most often translated as "God") and "jehhovaw" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "jehhovaw" also means "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Bible Dictionary).

This would then render your verse in Deuteronomy to read: "Hear, O Israel: The the eternal one our God is one who has always existed:"

The NT Greek uses two words, "thehos" (most often translated as "God") and "kooreeos" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "kooreeos" also means "master" or "one who has control" (see Thayer).

This would then render your verse in 1 Corinthians to read: "For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth (as there are many gods and many masters {or, "many who have control," VF}), but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one master {or, "one who has control," VF} Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him."

There is a difference between the Greek and the Hebrew... the words you want to mean the same thing do not mean the same thing. There is ONLY ONE God, the Father. The title given to Jesus by the word "kooreeos" in 1 Corinthians (and elsewhere) does not indicate divinity... it indicates authority.So now we have to ask VFarris01- which Lord is which throughout the New Testament? LORD IS LORD and the same LORD though out the whole of the New Testament- and there is only One LORD and he is the LORD GOD of the O/T Your problem is you are comparing apples to oranges.

The word "jehhovaw," translated "lord" at various places in the OT, means "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" in Hebrew.

The word "kooreeos," translated "lord" at various places in the NT, means "master" or "the one who has control" in Greek.

The words clearly do not mean the same thing as much as you want them to.

"Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord" Deuteronomy 6:4 Did you read it? ONE LORDThe OT uses two words, "eloheem" (most often translated as "God") and "jehhovaw" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "jehhovaw" also means (and IS the Hebrew definition) "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Bible Dictionary).

This would then render your verse in Deuteronomy to read: "Hear, O Israel: The the eternal one our God is one who has always existed:"

As much as you would like to deny it "Jehhovaw" is mistranslated throughout the OT and should be translated as "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (or something similar) as pointed out by BD&B.

It did not say 'God your Lord is One God" it said The LORD your God is ONE LORD and Paul agrees ONE LORD (1Cor 8:6)The Greek uses two words, "thehos" (most often translated as "God") and "kooreeos" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "kooreeos" also means "master" or "one who has control" (see Thayer).

This would then render your verse in 1 Corinthians to read: "For though there are those who are called gods, whether in Heaven or in earth (as there are many gods and many masters {or, "many who have control," VF}), but there is to us only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one master {or, "one who has control," VF} Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we by Him."

As much as you would like to deny it "kooreeos" is mistranslated throughout the NT and should be translated as "master" or "the one who has control" (or something similar) as pointed out by Thayer.

[John from Ebla]

Your problem is you are comparing apples to oranges.

The word "jehhovaw," translated "lord" at various places in the OT, means "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" in Hebrew.

The word "kooreeos," translated "lord" at various places in the NT, means "master" or "the one who has control" in Greek.

The words clearly do not mean the same thing as much as you want them to.

The OT uses two words, "eloheem" (most often translated as "God") and "jehhovaw" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "jehhovaw" also means (and IS the Hebrew definition) "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Bible Dictionary).

This would then render your verse in Deuteronomy to read: "Hear, O Israel: The the eternal one our God is one who has always existed:"

Wrong it does not say that- throw your JW bible away- and the word in greek is not spelt koooreeos, and neither is jehhovaw in Hebrew- they did not have J.

Do you know what One is? One is ONE "Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord" Deuteronomy 6:4 Did you read it? ONE LORD

Paul agrees in 1Cor8:6 One Lord - now look at what you are doing, God Lord + Jesus Lord = 2

One Lord and the Lord is GOD (Deuteronomy 6:4) (1 Cor 8:6)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Your problem is you are comparing apples to oranges.

The word "jehhovaw," translated "lord" at various places in the OT, means "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" in Hebrew.

The word "kooreeos," translated "lord" at various places in the NT, means "master" or "the one who has control" in Greek.

The words clearly do not mean the same thing as much as you want them to.

The OT uses two words, "eloheem" (most often translated as "God") and "jehhovaw" (most often translated as "lord"). However, "jehhovaw" also means (and IS the Hebrew definition) "the existing one" or "the one who always existed" (see Brown, Driver, and Briggs' Bible Dictionary).

This would then render your verse in Deuteronomy to read: "Hear, O Israel: The the eternal one our God is one who has always existed:"Wrong it does not say that -Yes, it does.

- throw your JW bible away -The Bible says what it says though various words are incorrectly rendered in various translations... even the one the JWs use... which I do not.

... and the word in greek is not spelt koooreeos, and neither is jehhovaw in Hebrew- they did not have J.I used phonetic spellings from Thayer... there is nothing wrong with it...

Do you know what One is? One is ONE "Hear, Oh Isreal, the Lord thy God is ONE Lord" Deuteronomy 6:4 Did you read it? ONE LORD

Paul agrees in 1Cor8:6 One Lord - now look at what you are doing, God Lord + Jesus Lord = 2

One Lord and the Lord is GOD (Deuteronomy 6:4) (1 Cor 8:6)Reposting the same misconception... ignore the facts... again...

[John from Ebla]

Yes, it does.

The Bible says what it says though various words are incorrectly rendered in various translations... even the one the JWs use... which I do not.

I used phonetic spellings from Thayer... there is nothing wrong with it...

Reposting the same misconception... ignore the facts... again...


How can One Lord be two- can you count? God Father Lord 1 + Lord Jesus 1 = 2 you don't make sense

There is no eternal in (Deuteronomy 6:4) and it agrees with (1 Cor 8:6) Everyone knows what the Shema is, ONE LORD

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Yes, it does.

The Bible says what it says though various words are incorrectly rendered in various translations... even the one the JWs use... which I do not.

I used phonetic spellings from Thayer... there is nothing wrong with it...

Reposting the same misconception... ignore the facts... again...How can One Lord be two- can you count? God Father Lord 1 + Lord Jesus 1 = 2 you don't make sense

There is no eternal in (Deuteronomy 6:4) and it agrees with (1 Cor 8:6) Everyone knows what the Shema is, ONE LORDThe word "Jehovah" in Deuteronomy 6:4 translate as "lord" does not mean "lord" in Hebrew; it means "the eternal one."

The word "koreos" in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 does not mean "lord" in Greek; it means "master" or "the one who has control."

Clearly, "Jehovah" does not mean "koreos."

One God, The Eternal One.

One Master, Jesus.

... this is exactly what Paul means.

[Sparko]

VFarris, you need to really get a good interlinear bible. You clearly don't know hebrew or greek.

Try this.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/

In the OT the name of God was YHWH. The jews were superstitious about pronouncing or even writing his name out. Later translations took the vowels from "Adonai" (Lord) and put them in the missing vowel parts of YHWH. That is how the name Yehovah came to be. The J letter was a later english addition, Hebrew doesnt have a J sound. So Deut 6L4 actually reads:

Hear, o Israel, YHWH our God is one YHWH.

But since Trinitarians maintian monotheism and YHWH is considered the tripersonal God, we agree with that verse. The three persons are a Tri-unity. One God, One YHWH.

And Kurios can mean "Lord" or "Master" or even "Sir" - it can be used to address nobles or it can mean a substitute for saying "God" - just like we use it today. We will call a nobleman a "lord" but we also call God, "Lord"



And again, Paul does say that Jesus is God and Savior in Titus 2:13. Peter says the same, and Paul says it again in Romans.

Thomas calls him both "God" and "Lord"

[VFarris01]

VFarris, you need to really get a good interlinear bible. You clearly don't know hebrew or greek.

Try this.

http://www.studylight.org/isb/

In the OT the name of God was YHWH. The jews were superstitious about pronouncing or even writing his name out. Later translations took the vowels from "Adonai" (Lord) and put them in the missing vowel parts of YHWH. That is how the name Yehovah came to be. The J letter was a later english addition, Hebrew doesnt have a J sound. So Deut 6L4 actually reads:

Hear, o Israel, YHWH our God is one YHWH.

But since Trinitarians maintian monotheism and YHWH is considered the tripersonal God, we agree with that verse. The three persons are a Tri-unity. One God, One YHWH.

And Kurios can mean "Lord" or "Master" or even "Sir" - it can be used to address nobles or it can mean a substitute for saying "God" - just like we use it today. We will call a nobleman a "lord" but we also call God, "Lord"

And again, Paul does say that Jesus is God and Savior in Titus 2:13. Peter says the same, and Paul says it again in Romans.

Thomas calls him both "God" and "Lord" What a bunch of Nazi, er, "trinitarian" propaganda (lies work best when there is just enough truth in them to make them believable).

:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo:

While I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, do me a favor Sparky... never respond to one of my posts ever again.

[John from Ebla]

What a bunch of Nazi, er, "trinitarian" propaganda (lies work best when there is just enough truth in them to make them believable).

:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo:

While I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, do me a favor Sparky... never respond to one of my posts ever again.


Why don't you go back to school and learn about "J" and the English language. You are the one making lies and stop responding to our post. After that, learn a bit of Hebrew to know they had no W for YHWH- They have yod-heh-vav-heh. Adonia is what they said. The bimbo's that made YHWH did take the vowels from Adonia and came up with YAHWAH. What a stuff up- no W in Hebrew and a made up name.

:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo:

Read Heb 1:8 about the Son " Your Throne , O God is forever. Oops, l forgot you follow JW, they have it as "Your throne is your God forever"
:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo

Come back when you have something more constructive to say.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Why don't you go back to school and learn about "J" and the English language. You are the one making lies and stop responding to our post. After that, learn a bit of Hebrew to know they had no W for YHWH- They have yod-heh-vav-heh. Adonia is what they said. The bimbo's that made YHWH did take the vowels from Adonia and came up with YAHWAH. What a stuff up- no W in Hebrew and a made up name.

Read Heb 1:8 about the Son " Your Throne , O God is forever. Oops, l forgot you follow JW, they have it as "Your throne is your God forever"

Come back when you have something more constructive to say.What a bunch of Nazi, er, "trinitarian" propaganda (lies work best when there is just enough truth in them to make them believable).

:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo:

I am not a JW... they have a few things incorrect yet... but at least they believe... rightfully... as did the writers of the NT... that Jesus was not God.

While I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, do me a favor John from Elba... never respond to one of my posts ever again.

[Sparko]

What a bunch of Nazi, er, "trinitarian" propaganda (lies work best when there is just enough truth in them to make them believable).

:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo:

While I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, do me a favor Sparky... never respond to one of my posts ever again.


Are you calling me a liar, VFARRIS?

OOH lookie I am responding to your post!!! eeeeee.

[John from Ebla]

What a bunch of Nazi, er, "trinitarian" propaganda (lies work best when there is just enough truth in them to make them believable).

:lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo::lol::rofl::lmbo:

I am not a JW... they have a few things incorrect yet... but at least they believe... rightfully... as did the writers of the NT... that Jesus was not God.

While I enjoy a good laugh as much as the next person, do me a favor John from Elba... never respond to one of my posts ever again.

Do me a favour and don't repsond to my post- is there a special rule for you, or is it just your way of having the last say. Grow up and discuss with maturity. Jesus is the son of God and he is God

Kind regards
John from Ebla

[VFarris01]

And again, Paul does say that Jesus is God and Savior in Titus 2:13.:lol: Paul did not write the "pastoral letter" of Titus :lol:. Your lack of knowledge of the "scriptures" is revealing of how deeply you have been drawn into the cult of trinitarianism.

Peter says the same, and Paul says it again in Romans.Nope. Wrong again... You are 0 for 3.

Thomas calls him both "God" and "Lord"Thomas who?

[VFarris01]

Jesus is the son of God and he is GodJesus is the son of God the same as you and I are the sons of God... but Jesus ain't no God... if Jesus is God, you and I are God too.

[Sparko]

:lol: Paul did not write the "pastoral letter" of Titus :lol:. Your lack of knowledge of the "scriptures" is revealing of how deeply you have been drawn into the cult of trinitarianism.

Nope. Wrong again... You are 0 for 3.

Thomas who?

Thomas who? :lmbo:

And Paul DID write the pastorals and he did write romans and he did say Jesus was God, despite your what your liberal wacko sources like Crossan say.

Well, VFarris01, after months of dodging and pretending to be a fundamentalist/orthodox Christian, your true colors are finally showing. You are a just a liberal relativist neo-gnostic Arian heretic.

:rofl:

[VFarris01]

:lol: Paul did not write the "pastoral letter" of Titus :lol:. Your lack of knowledge of the "scriptures" is revealing of how deeply you have been drawn into the cult of trinitarianism.

Nope. Wrong again... You are 0 for 3.

Thomas who?Thomas who?I am/was assuming you mean either GThomas or the apostle Thomas. Either way you are wrong... 0 for 4 and 0 for 5... I bet you were the last one picked on the playground for baseball...

And Paul DID write the pastorals...:lmbo:Not according to Biblical scholars without an agenda to support...

... and he did write romans...I agree...

... and he did say Jesus was God,...:lmbo:Not according to Biblical scholars without an agenda to support...

... despite your what your liberal wacko sources like Crossan say.:lmbo:... as if this attempt to poison the well proves the "sources" are wrong....

[Sparko]

I am/was assuming you mean either GThomas or the apostle Thomas. Either way you are wrong... 0 for 4 and 0 for 5... I bet you were the last one picked on the playground for baseball...

John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

And in greek it actually reads literally: "The Lord of me and the God of me"



Not according to Biblical scholars without an agenda to support...
Crossan doesn't have an agenda to support? :lmbo: the guy is a complete loonie. The entire Jesus Seminar is a joke. It is nothing BUT bias and agenda. Crossan says that Jesus never resurrected. His body was eaten by wild dogs. Do you agree with THAT? How can anyone deny the resurrection and still be a Christian?

as if this attempt to poison the well proves the "sources" are wrong....

did you wearn a new term, wittle farris-warris? how cute. cootchie, cootchie, coo.

Dominic Crossan is not a reliable source at all. He is a joke. ...hmm. actually you kinda DO fit the same mold... I guess it is understandable why you would quote him.

[VFarris01]

I am/was assuming you mean either GThomas or the apostle Thomas. Either way you are wrong... 0 for 4 and 0 for 5... I bet you were the last one picked on the playground for baseball... John 20:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=20&verse=28&version=31&context=verse)
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

And in greek it actually reads literally: "The Lord of me and the God of me":lol: ... a mistake uncorrected by the passage of time... You would be suprised at what the people who copied the NT did to support what they thought the Bible should say... Not that much unlike what you are trying to do now...

Not according to Biblical scholars without an agenda to support...Crossan doesn't have an agenda to support? the guy is a complete loonie. The entire Jesus Seminar is a joke. It is nothing BUT bias and agenda.... In your opinion...

Crossan says that Jesus never resurrected.Crossan does not believe Jesus was God... Dead men do not come back to life.

His body was eaten by wild dogs. Do you agree with THAT?The RCs eat Jesus at every Mass... do you agree with THAT? :lol:

How can anyone deny the resurrection and still be a Christian?The "resurrection of Jesus" was not what Christianity was about... that came later...

... as if this attempt to poison the well proves the "sources" are wrong...Dominic Crossan is not a reliable source at all. He is a joke. ...hmm. actually you kinda DO fit the same mold...Your opinion is noted and rejected as being unreliable because you are a joke.

I guess it is understandable why you would quote him.I did? Where? When?

What about Bart Ehrman?

[Sparko]

:lol: ... a mistake uncorrected by the passage of time... You would be suprised at what the people who copied the NT did to support what they thought the Bible should say... Not that much unlike what you are trying to do now...

ah, so you method is to just say that anything you don't want to believe about the bible was just some uncorrected error? How convenient.

Got any evidence?

The more I read from you Vfarris the more heterodox you become. You say you are an atheists worst nightmare but you don't hold the bible to be inerrant, nor believe anything the bible says is true if you feel you don't want to believe it. Even God's existence is relative to you. Exactly how did you give this Atheist nightmares? You have no authority or basis to argue for God or Christianity becaus you yourself have rejected it all as a bunch of mistakes that went uncorrected. If I were an atheist I would think of you as an ally. Your arguments sound suspiciously just like theirs do.






Crossan does not believe Jesus was God... Dead men do not come back to life.

What do YOU believe? If you agree with Crossan then you are no more Christian than he is, If you disagree with him, then you are saying that his opinion is worthless drivel.

BTW, Jesus raised several people to life after they died, didn't he? Lazarus for one.

If Jesus was not resurrected, then Christianity is a false faith and our faith is useless and we are still being condemned for our sins.

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.(NIV)

Is this more uncorrected error?




The "resurrection of Jesus" was not what Christianity was about... that came later...

:lmbo:

Without the resurrection there would BE no Christianity. The Apostles were ready to hang it all up after Jesus died, until he appeared to them again in his glorified body.

Your opinion is noted and rejected as being unreliable because you are a joke.

right.. funny how everyone else on this board but your other wacko buddy Pythagoras think you are nothing but a troll..





So, VFarris01, do you think Jesus resurrected or remained dead?

[VFarris01]

:lol: ... a mistake uncorrected by the passage of time... You would be suprised at what the people who copied the NT did to support what they thought the Bible should say... Not that much unlike what you are trying to do now...ah, so you method is to just say that anything you don't want to believe about the bible was just some uncorrected error? How convenient.The Bible (NT) we have today is far from containing the exact intent of the original authors... if you believe it does you are beyond left field... oh, I forgot... no one picks you to play baseball...

Got any evidence?Read some of Ehrman's work... if you dare...

The more I read from you Vfarris the more heterodox you become.Why thank you... thank you very much... at least in my theological outlook I worship only ONE God... you worship three.

You say you are an atheists worst nightmare but you don't hold the bible to be inerrant, nor believe anything the bible says is true if you feel you don't want to believe it.Do you mean like the parts you ignore explicitly stating Jesus is just a man and nothing more?

The Bible is not inerrant... if the Bible was inerrant we would not have so much variation in the GREEK manuscripts or even in the translations we presently possess.

Even God's existence is relative to you.Quite the contrary... I believe God exists... just not as you suppose.

Exactly how did you give this Atheist nightmares?Evidently I am a Sparky's worst nightmare :lol:. You, on the other hand, are a pimple in the pubescence of life.

You have no authority or basis to argue for God or Christianity becaus you yourself have rejected it all as a bunch of mistakes that went uncorrected.Not all of the "mistakes" present in the NT are because of transcription error... some parts of it were changed on purpose!

If I were an atheist I would think of you as an ally. Your arguments sound suspiciously just like theirs do.The Bible is unnecessary to a discussion of the existence of God. You may need the Bible as a crutch to support your argument; I do not.

Crossan does not believe Jesus was God... Dead men do not come back to life.What do YOU believe? If you agree with Crossan then you are no more Christian than he is, If you disagree with him, then you are saying that his opinion is worthless drivel.You are fall on the floor funny:lmbo:. Because one believes someone is correct in one area does not mean one must agree with them in everything.

BTW, Jesus raised several people to life after they died, didn't he? Lazarus for one.It says so in the NT, if you believe in that sort of thing...

If Jesus was not resurrected, then Christianity is a false faith and our faith is useless and we are still being condemned for our sins.

<insert quote from 1 Corinthians 15:12-19>

Is this more uncorrected error?Perhaps... Paul could be rather persuasive I understand...

The "resurrection of Jesus" was not what Christianity was about... that came later...Without the resurrection there would BE no Christianity. The Apostles were ready to hang it all up after Jesus died, until he appeared to them again in his glorified body.If this is what you wish to believe... have at it...

Your opinion is noted and rejected as being unreliable because you are a joke.right.. funny how everyone else on this board but your other wacko buddy Pythagoras think you are nothing but a troll..Thank you again... anyone who believes in ONLY ONE GOD has my vote.

So, VFarris01, do you think Jesus resurrected or remained dead?Dead men usually remain dead...


I like how you avoid the comments you do not want to deal with...

Do the RCs eat Jesus at every Mass?

Is Ehrman a reliable NT scholar or not?

How about Wettstein?

[Sparko]

The Bible (NT) we have today is far from containing the exact intent of the original authors... if you believe it does you are beyond left field... oh, I forgot... no one picks you to play baseball...

Read some of Ehrman's work... if you dare...

Why thank you... thank you very much... at least in my theological outlook I worship only ONE God... you worship three.

Do you mean like the parts you ignore explicitly stating Jesus is just a man and nothing more?

The Bible is not inerrant... if the Bible was inerrant we would not have so much variation in the GREEK manuscripts or even in the translations we presently possess.

Quite the contrary... I believe God exists... just not as you suppose.

Evidently I am a Sparky's worst nightmare :lol:. You, on the other hand, are a pimple in the pubescence of life.

Not all of the "mistakes" present in the NT are because of transcription error... some parts of it were changed on purpose!

The Bible is unnecessary to a discussion of the existence of God. You may need the Bible as a crutch to support your argument; I do not.

You are fall on the floor funny:lmbo:. Because one believes someone is correct in one area does not mean one must agree with them in everything.

It says so in the NT, if you believe in that sort of thing...

Perhaps... Paul could be rather persuasive I understand...

If this is what you wish to believe... have at it...

Thank you again... anyone who believes in ONLY ONE GOD has my vote.

Dead men usually remain dead...


I like how you avoid the comments you do not want to deal with...

Do the RCs eat Jesus at every Mass?

Is Ehrman a reliable NT scholar or not?

How about Wettstein?


Wow so you reject the bible, deny that Jesus is God and deny that He rose from the dead.

Exactly what DO you believe that allows you to call yourself a Christian at all? If you can't trust the bible, you can't trust that any of the words or teaching of Christ are accurate, so you can't follow them. You must not believe in any of the miracles he performed, since mere men can't do miracles. You don't believe what his followers and apostles wrote about him since it was changed from copy to copy and even 'on purpose'

So what do you base any of your beliefs on? What authority do you believe? Why do you even believe someone named Jesus even existed at all? Maybe the whole thing is a sham? How can you know?

Why do you call yourself Christian?

And I am not being mocking here, Vfarris, I am being sincere and really want to know how you can believe anything about Jesus and call yourself a Christian?

[VFarris01]

The Bible (NT) we have today is far from containing the exact intent of the original authors... if you believe it does you are beyond left field... oh, I forgot... no one picks you to play baseball...

Read some of Ehrman's work... if you dare...

Why thank you... thank you very much... at least in my theological outlook I worship only ONE God... you worship three.

Do you mean like the parts you ignore explicitly stating Jesus is just a man and nothing more?

The Bible is not inerrant... if the Bible was inerrant we would not have so much variation in the GREEK manuscripts or even in the translations we presently possess.

Quite the contrary... I believe God exists... just not as you suppose.

Evidently I am a Sparky's worst nightmare :lol:. You, on the other hand, are a pimple in the pubescence of life.

Not all of the "mistakes" present in the NT are because of transcription error... some parts of it were changed on purpose!

The Bible is unnecessary to a discussion of the existence of God. You may need the Bible as a crutch to support your argument; I do not.

You are fall on the floor funny:lmbo:. Because one believes someone is correct in one area does not mean one must agree with them in everything.

It says so in the NT, if you believe in that sort of thing...

Perhaps... Paul could be rather persuasive I understand...

If this is what you wish to believe... have at it...

Thank you again... anyone who believes in ONLY ONE GOD has my vote.

Dead men usually remain dead...


I like how you avoid the comments you do not want to deal with...

Do the RCs eat Jesus at every Mass?

Is Ehrman a reliable NT scholar or not?

How about Wettstein?

Wow so you reject the bible...Not all of it... just the parts having been show, in all probability, to not correspond to what the authors meant/intended...

... deny that Jesus is God...There is only ONE God... and He was never a "mere" man named Jesus.

... and deny that He rose from the dead.Where else but in the Bible do you have "knowledge" of someone returning from the dead?

Exactly what DO you believe that allows you to call yourself a Christian at all?I believe there is a God and it is that God which is spoken of in the Bible...

If you can't trust the bible, you can't trust that any of the words or teaching of Christ are accurate, so you can't follow them.While portions of the Bible passed down to us cannot be trusted to accurately conveying the intent of the writer, quite a bit of it, I believe, can be trusted.

You must not believe in any of the miracles he performed, since mere men can't do miracles.It depends on your definition of "miracle" does it not?

You don't believe what his followers and apostles wrote about him since it was changed from copy to copy and even 'on purpose'The fact the text of the NT contains accidental transcription errors and intentional changes in various places does not mean I do not believe Jesus' followers wrote about him.

So what do you base any of your beliefs on?Faith.

What authority do you believe?Who's "authority" do I need to believe in God?

Why do you even believe someone named Jesus even existed at all?The same reason I believe someone named George Washington existed... faith.

Maybe the whole thing is a sham?It very well could be...

How can you know?By the same mechanism as you... faith.

Why do you call yourself Christian?Because I am.

And I am not being mocking here, Vfarris...Other of your posts would suggest otherwise; yes?

I am being sincere and really want to know how you can believe anything about Jesus and call yourself a Christian?If you were really "sincere" I would not be continually exposed to your slap-in-the-face rhetoric.


I still await answers to these questions:

Do the RCs eat Jesus at every Mass?

Is Ehrman a reliable NT scholar or not?

How about Wettstein? Metzger?

[Sparko]

Not all of it... just the parts having been show, in all probability, to not correspond to what the authors meant/intended...

How do you determine which parts are "accurate" and which parts have been "altered"???


While portions of the Bible passed down to us cannot be trusted to accurately conveying the intent of the writer, quite a bit of it, I believe, can be trusted.

Again, how do you know which parts can be trusted?

The fact the text of the NT contains accidental transcription errors and intentional changes in various places does not mean I do not believe Jesus' followers wrote about him.

They wrote he rose from the dead. Do you believe that? They wrote he raised other people from the dead, do you beleive that? How about changing water into wine? How about feeding 5000 with a few fish and loaves of bread? Walking on water?


Who's "authority" do I need to believe in God?

IF you can't trust what the bible says, then you are being your own authority. You just decide what parts you want to believe and what parts to reject as "errors" - you have a smorgasbord faith.




I still await answers to these questions:

Do the RCs eat Jesus at every Mass?

I am not a Catholic. Go ask one of them.

[VFarris01]

Not all of it... just the parts having been show, in all probability, to not correspond to what the authors meant/intended...How do you determine which parts are "accurate" and which parts have been "altered"???Do you believe the NT we have today accurately reflects the message the writers intended? Do you not believe the NT was altered to suit the prevailing beliefs of the early transcribers.

While portions of the Bible passed down to us cannot be trusted to accurately conveying the intent of the writer, quite a bit of it, I believe, can be trusted.Again, how do you know which parts can be trusted?Do you believe the NT we have today accurately reflects the message the writers intended? Do you not believe the NT was altered to suit the prevailing beliefs of the early transcribers.

The fact the text of the NT contains accidental transcription errors and intentional changes in various places does not mean I do not believe Jesus' followers wrote about him.They wrote he rose from the dead. Do you believe that?Do I believe they wrote this? Yes. Am I under an obligation to believe it happened? No.

They wrote he raised other people from the dead, do you beleive that?Do I believe they wrote this? Yes. Am I under an obligation to believe it happened? No.

How about changing water into wine?Do I believe they wrote this? Yes. Am I under an obligation to believe it happened? No.

How about feeding 5000 with a few fish and loaves of bread?Do I believe they wrote this? Yes. Am I under an obligation to believe it happened? No.

Walking on water?Do I believe they wrote this? Yes. Am I under an obligation to believe it happened? No.

Who's "authority" do I need to believe in God?IF you can't trust what the bible says, then you are being your own authority.How so? Who's "authority" do I need to believe in God? Last time I checked I only needed God's permission to believe in Him... however, do I actually need His permission to believe He exists?

You just decide what parts you want to believe and what parts to reject as "errors" - you have a smorgasbord faith.Do you mean the way you decide which parts to believe and not to believe? Why do you ignore the passages that explicitly state Jesus is and always was a human... never God?


I still await answers to these questions:

Is Ehrman a reliable NT scholar or not?

How about Wettstein? Metzger?

[Sparko]

Do you believe the NT we have today accurately reflects the message the writers intended? Do you not believe the NT was altered to suit the prevailing beliefs of the early transcribers.

I already answered this. Because we do have so many copies, we can reconstruct what the original authors said within a few percentages of completely accurate and even when we can't determine which variant was the original we can determine which areas are still in question. And it isn't any of the important parts. We are talking a few words and spellings and a few verses that don't appear in all copies.

So yeah I am very confident that the bible we have today accurately reflects what the original writers put down on parchment and the meaning is preserved.

I also believe they were inspired by God to write what they did and that the bible is God's message to us and we should get our teachings and doctrines from it. It is my authority of what doctrines to adhere to and how to live my life with regards to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and the prophets.



How so? Who's "authority" do I need to believe in God? Last time I checked I only needed God's permission to believe in Him... however, do I actually need His permission to believe He exists?

No you don't need any permission to believe he exists. But without accurate information about him how do you know who God is, what he is like, what sin is, who Jesus is, what salvation is, what doctrines to follow and what to reject? If you just decide on your own what you want to believe and just pick random bits from the bible that you happen to like while tossing out the bits that you don't like then you don't have Christianity, you have VFarrisism.



Do you mean the way you decide which parts to believe and not to believe? Why do you ignore the passages that explicitly state Jesus is and always was a human... never God?

Because they don't say that. Show me one verse that explicitly states that Jesus was a human and never God. I have shown you verses that state explicitly that Jesus was God, such as titus 2:13.


I still await answers to these questions:

Is Ehrman a reliable NT scholar or not?

How about Wettstein? Metzger?

Bruce Metzger yes. The others I have not read.

[VFarris01]

Do you believe the NT we have today accurately reflects the message the writers intended? Do you not believe the NT was altered to suit the prevailing beliefs of the early transcribers.I already answered this. Because we do have so many copies, we can reconstruct what the original authors said within a few percentages of completely accurate and even when we can't determine which variant was the original we can determine which areas are still in question. And it isn't any of the important parts. We are talking a few words and spellings and a few verses that don't appear in all copies.

So yeah I am very confident that the bible we have today accurately reflects what the original writers put down on parchment and the meaning is preserved.

I also believe they were inspired by God to write what they did and that the bible is God's message to us and we should get our teachings and doctrines from it. It is my authority of what doctrines to adhere to and how to live my life with regards to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, and the prophets.I admire your faith... because this is all your beliefs are based on... nothing more... Misguided and misplaced IMO, but I do admire it.

How so? Who's "authority" do I need to believe in God? Last time I checked I only needed God's permission to believe in Him... however, do I actually need His permission to believe He exists?No you don't need any permission to believe he exists. But without accurate information about him how do you know who God is...Not much to know... being there is ONLY ONE...

... what he is like...Lemme see, "God," the definition of which is...

... what sin is...What is sin? Did this not have something to do with "violating" God's law? There are 10 or 11 of them... depending on who you ask...

... who Jesus is...Do you mean that guy "sacrificed" for our sins? Do I need to know more?

... what salvation is...He who believes in God and is baptized will be saved; no?

... what doctrines to follow and what to reject?Jesus' teaching promoted no "doctrine." The doctrines you follow are those of men, not God.

If you just decide on your own what you want to believe and just pick random bits from the bible that you happen to like while tossing out the bits that you don't like then you don't have Christianity, you have VFarrisism.Does someone else decide for you? Do you not decide what you will believe, what parts you accept and what parts you reject? Even you do not practice "Christianity;" you practice Sparkyism...

Do you mean the way you decide which parts to believe and not to believe? Why do you ignore the passages that explicitly state Jesus is and always was a human... never God?Because they don't say that. Show me one verse that explicitly states that Jesus was a human and never God. I have shown you verses that state explicitly that Jesus was God, such as titus 2:13.Back to the "proof" verses again... that is funny... "Ol' Reliable... I don't recon I ever told you about Ol' Reliable before..." (from Walt Disney's, The Fox and the Hound, in case I am accused of not citing my quotes again.)

Paul did not write Titus... it is a forgery in Ehrman's and other scholar's opinions (Lost Christianities (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195141830/104-8500331-7690330?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance), p9).

Bruce Metzger yes. The others I have not read.I sincerely hope you can find the time to do so (read Wettstein and Ehrman).

[VFarris01]

I made a mistake in the last post...

... "Ol' Reliable... I don't recon I ever told you about Ol' Reliable before..." (from Walt Disney's, The Fox and the Hound, in case I am accused of not citing my quotes again.)The correct quote and source is:

"As my grand pappy, Old Reliable, used to say... Don't recollect if I've ever mentioned Old Reliable before... (from Walt Disney's, The Lady and the Tramp.)

I apologize for any confusion this may have created... :lol:

[John from Ebla]

I sincerely hope you can find the time to do so (read Wettstein and Ehrman).


Why, isn't "Wettstein and Ehrman" human theology and not scripture (what the apostles intended to write) - you seem to contradict yourself

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[John from Ebla]

Why, isn't "Wettstein and Ehrman" human theology and not scripture (what the apostles intended to write) - you seem to contradict yourself

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Sorry,

My post should read: Why, isn't "Wettstein and Ehrman" human theology - you seem to contradict yourself. Wettstein and Ehrman are not scripture (What the apostles intended to write)

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Sparko]

I admire your faith... because this is all your beliefs are based on... nothing more... Misguided and misplaced IMO, but I do admire it.

hrm... thank you?

Not much to know... being there is ONLY ONE...

How do you know he is YHWH and not Brahma? or Odin? You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?

Lemme see, "God," the definition of which is...

What is sin? Did this not have something to do with "violating" God's law? There are 10 or 11 of them... depending on who you ask...

How do you know that sin is violating Gods law and that there "are 10 or 11 of them?" - You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?


Do you mean that guy "sacrificed" for our sins? Do I need to know more?

How do you know that? You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?

He who believes in God and is baptized will be saved; no?

How do you know that? You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?

Jesus' teaching promoted no "doctrine." The doctrines you follow are those of men, not God.

All of the teachings of Jesus ARE doctrines, Vfarris. Like the golden rule, spread the gospel, be baptised, give to the poor, love your neighbor, etc.

But how do you know they were not just made up? How do you know which ones to follow and which ones are just added later? Which words and actions are Jesus' and which are later additions? If you don't believe the bible is accurate and authorative then it might as well be a paperback novel in the fiction section of the bookstore for as much good as it does you. If you can't trust ALL of the bible, then you can't trust ANY of bible. Because there is no way to tell which bits are true and which are fiction. How far would you trust a friend who randomly told you lies and you couldn't tell which of his statements were true and which were lies? You would not trust anything he said.



Does someone else decide for you? Do you not decide what you will believe, what parts you accept and what parts you reject? Even you do not practice "Christianity;" you practice Sparkyism...

I believe what the bible teaches. I think it is the final authority on Christianity and God. If any man says something is true, and it contradicts the bible, then the bible always gets my vote. Sola Scriptura.




Paul did not write Titus... it is a forgery in Ehrman's and other scholar's opinions (Lost Christianities (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195141830/104-8500331-7690330?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance), p9).


Again, that is some people's OPINION. Most bible scholars believe the pastorals were written by Paul. The evidence that they were not written by Paul is pretty weak and circumstantial, like he used words in the pastorals that he didn't use elsewhere. Whooptie-doo. I use new words all the time. The only reason the theory came about that Paul did not write the pastorals was to discredit the pastorals because they support a few essential doctrines of the church. Can you say "agenda?"


I sincerely hope you can find the time to do so (read Wettstein and Ehrman).

And I sincerely hope you will take the time to read some contra articles that show that the pastorals are authentically Pauline but perhaps scribed by Luke.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html
[A technical discussion on Pseudonymity]
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/pastorals.html
For our newest edition of the essay, however (July 1998), we would like to express our further allegiance - having now looked at the evidence in more detail - to a thesis promulgated in various degrees by Moule, Quinn, Wilson and others: That the Pastorals were the work of Luke, writing under the authority (and we would add, with the direction of) the Apostle Paul. We will discuss this in more detail as we progress

[VFarris01]

I sincerely hope you can find the time to do so (read Wettstein and Ehrman).Why, isn't "Wettstein and Ehrman" human theology and not scripture (what the apostles intended to write) - you seem to contradict yourself.

Why, isn't "Wettstein and Ehrman" human theology and not scripture (what the apostles intended to write) - you seem to contradict yourself.Sorry,

My post should read: Why, isn't "Wettstein and Ehrman" human theology - you seem to contradict yourself. Wettstein and Ehrman are not scripture (What the apostles intended to write)John, quit responding to my posts... you make absolutely no sense.

Johann Wettstein and Bart Ehrman (http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html) are (Wettstein lived in the 1700's) experts in Greek NT manuscripts. Should I go to my ENGLISH Bible to interpret the GREEK source (manuscripts) from which it was derived or should I go to an expert in this field of research?

[VFarris01]

I admire your faith... because this is all your beliefs are based on... nothing more... Misguided and misplaced IMO, but I do admire it.hrm... thank you?No, really and sincerely... anyone with the faith to believe the Bible is inerrant (totally without contradiction) and was inspired by God absolutely has my admiration... you have real faith.

Not much to know... being there is ONLY ONE...How do you know he is YHWH and not Brahma? or Odin?Is faith a concept totally foreign to you?

You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?Right.

Lemme see, "God," the definition of which is...

What is sin? Did this not have something to do with "violating" God's law? There are 10 or 11 of them... depending on who you ask...How do you know that sin is violating Gods law and that there "are 10 or 11 of them?"Faith is a concept totally foreign to you.

- You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?Correct.

Do you mean that guy "sacrificed" for our sins? Do I need to know more?How do you know that?Ah, ... faith?

You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?Check.

He who believes in God and is baptized will be saved; no?How do you know that?I am having a really tough time understanding why you have not idea of the concept of faith.

You can't trust the bible, it was just written by men and not inspired by God, and it was changed over and over, right?Yes.

Jesus' teaching promoted no "doctrine." The doctrines you follow are those of men, not God.All of the teachings of Jesus ARE doctrines, Vfarris.That is funny... :lmbo: ... but if it is what you choose to believe...

Like the golden rule, spread the gospel, be baptised, give to the poor, love your neighbor, etc.Except for "spread the gospel" and "be baptized" these sound like tenants of almost every religion...

But how do you know they were not just made up?If it defies reason... it was made up IMO... Have you ever heard of "creative input (liberty)?"

How do you know which ones to follow and which ones are just added later?If it supports Jesus being "god," it was added IMO... There can be only ONE God...

Which words and actions are Jesus' and which are later additions?Personally? I reject anything that supports Jesus is God... Jesus was not, is not, and will not be "god;" there can be only ONE God. I reject "miracles" like raising people from the dead (it defies reason).

If you don't believe the bible is accurate and authorative then it might as well be a paperback novel in the fiction section of the bookstore for as much good as it does you.Straw... from you? Amazing...

If you can't trust ALL of the bible, then you can't trust ANY of bible.Why not? It contains some pretty good stuff IMO.

Because there is no way to tell which bits are true and which are fiction. How far would you trust a friend who randomly told you lies and you couldn't tell which of his statements were true and which were lies? You would not trust anything he said.More straw?... from you? Amazing...

Does someone else decide for you? Do you not decide what you will believe, what parts you accept and what parts you reject? Even you do not practice "Christianity;" you practice Sparkyism...I believe what the bible teaches. I think it is the final authority on Christianity and God."I believe..." "I think..." You sound convinced :lol: ... got anything you know?

If any man says something is true, and it contradicts the bible, then the bible always gets my vote. Sola Scriptura.The world is round and "spins" on its axis. The Earth circles the Sun... Is your name Galileo by any chance?

Paul did not write Titus... it is a forgery in Ehrman's and other scholar's opinions (Lost Christianities (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195141830/104-8500331-7690330?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance), p9).Again, that is some people's OPINION. Most bible scholars believe the pastorals were written by Paul.When someone disagrees with you they have an opinion... but when someone's opinion agrees with you it is the height of theological thought... how ironic...

The evidence that they were not written by Paul is pretty weak and circumstantial, like he used words in the pastorals that he didn't use elsewhere. Whooptie-doo. I use new words all the time. The only reason the theory came about that Paul did not write the pastorals was to discredit the pastorals because they support a few essential doctrines of the church. Can you say "agenda?"Did you ever consider the reason Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy are included in the NT canon is to support an "agenda?" I thought not...

Do you know the real reason certain books were omitted from the NT canon? They were left out because they contradicted the "agenda" of the compliers.

I sincerely hope you can find the time to do so (read Wettstein and Ehrman).And I sincerely hope you will take the time to read some contra articles that show that the pastorals are authentically Pauline but perhaps scribed by Luke. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html) [A technical discussion on Pseudonymity] http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/pastorals.html (http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/pastorals.html) For our newest edition of the essay, however (July 1998), we would like to express our further allegiance - having now looked at the evidence in more detail - to a thesis promulgated in various degrees by Moule, Quinn, Wilson and others: That the Pastorals were the work of Luke, writing under the authority (and we would add, with the direction of) the Apostle Paul. We will discuss this in more detail as we progressLet me see... read Ehrman who professes no "agenda" (in fact,he at one time believed very much as you do, and I once did, that the Bible was without error, until he examined the Greek (and Latin) manuscripts for himself) vs a "think tank," without doubt having an "agenda," or "Mr. Never had an original thought in his life," JPH, who also without doubt has an "agenda." ... I will get right on that...

[Sparko]

No, really and sincerely... anyone with the faith to believe the Bible is inerrant (totally without contradiction) and was inspired by God absolutely has my admiration... you have real faith.

Is faith a concept totally foreign to you?

Right.

Faith is a concept totally foreign to you.

Correct.

Ah, ... faith?

Faith is fine, but you need something to have faith in. If you can't trust the bible, then what do you have faith in? What is the basis for your beliefs? Did you just wake up one morning with all of your beliefs planted solidly in your head? Did someone teach you what to believe? If you don't trust the bible then that means you have no faith in it. You have no way of determining which parts of the bible are true and which are 'error' other than your own imagination.



Check.

I am having a really tough time understanding why you have not idea of the concept of faith.

I think you think that faith is just believing whatever you want for no reason whatsoever. That is blind faith. I have reasonable faith based on evidences and study.


If it supports Jesus being "god," it was added IMO... There can be only ONE God...

Personally? I reject anything that supports Jesus is God... Jesus was not, is not, and will not be "god;" there can be only ONE God. I reject "miracles" like raising people from the dead (it defies reason).

If God is real, you don't think he can raise someone from the dead? How weak is your God?

Yep I was right, you just have a smorgasbord religion, you just pick and choose what bits are palatible to you and discard the rest. Good luck with that.



Let me see... read Ehrman who professes no "agenda" (in fact,he at one time believed very much as you do, and I once did, that the Bible was without error, until he examined the Greek (and Latin) manuscripts for himself) vs a "think tank," without doubt having an "agenda," or "Mr. Never had an original thought in his life," JPH, who also without doubt has an "agenda." ... I will get right on that...

There is actually a thread about his book over in biblical languages, why don't you go over there and ask about him?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65611

[VFarris01]

No, really and sincerely... anyone with the faith to believe the Bible is inerrant (totally without contradiction) and was inspired by God absolutely has my admiration... you have real faith.

Is faith a concept totally foreign to you?

Right.

Faith is a concept totally foreign to you.

Correct.

Ah, ... faith?Faith is fine, but you need something to have faith in.... I need the Bible to do this? Was not Christianity of the 1st century orally delivered? Please try harder.

If you can't trust the bible, then what do you have faith in?WHY is the Bible necessary for faith? As I recall, the early "church" lacked a NT in which to "place their trust," their faith resided in what they were told, not what they read. This statement is true even today; no?

What is the basis for your beliefs?Faith.

Did you just wake up one morning with all of your beliefs planted solidly in your head?You are sounding more and more like JfE with every post.

Did someone teach you what to believe?You are asking this question as if no one taught you the "doctrines" you are supposed to believe in :lmbo:.

If you don't trust the bible then that means you have no faith in it.One more time... Since when does rejecting part of something automatically mean rejecting all of it?

You have no way of determining which parts of the bible are true and which are 'error' other than your own imagination.I am sure Ehrman and Metzger, among others experts, would disagree with you. "Miracles" are a part of your imagination, not mine.

Check.

I am having a really tough time understanding why you have not idea of the concept of faith.I think you think that faith is just believing whatever you want for no reason whatsoever. That is blind faith. I have reasonable faith based on evidences and study.My faith is not "blind;" your faith, on the other hand, is blind if you accept the Bible at face value... blind to the accidental errors and intentional changes made to it over the centuries.

If it supports Jesus being "god," it was added IMO... There can be only ONE God...

Personally? I reject anything that supports Jesus is God... Jesus was not, is not, and will not be "god;" there can be only ONE God. I reject "miracles" like raising people from the dead (it defies reason).If God is real, you don't think he can raise someone from the dead? How weak is your God?My God (one of ONE I worship) can raise people from the dead... Your "god" (one of three you worship), Jesus, could not because he was not, is not, and will not ever be... God.

Yep I was right, you just have a smorgasbord religion, you just pick and choose what bits are palatible to you and discard the rest. Good luck with that.As if you do not do the same thing...:lmbo:... what a hoot... You keep right on believing a "mere" man can raise the dead and walk on water... I will believe something not requiring a vivid imagination... you might as well believe in orcs, gobblins, trolls, and Hobbits...

Let me see... read Ehrman who professes no "agenda" (in fact,he at one time believed very much as you do, and I once did, that the Bible was without error, until he examined the Greek (and Latin) manuscripts for himself) vs a "think tank," without doubt having an "agenda," or "Mr. Never had an original thought in his life," JPH, who also without doubt has an "agenda." ... I will get right on that...There is actually a thread about his book over in biblical languages, why don't you go over there and ask about him? http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...ead.php?t=65611 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/s...ead.php?t=65611) I have seen the thread...

As if I care what JPH has an opinion on...

[John from Ebla]

Since my name was mentioned l thought l would make a reply.

... I need the Bible to do this? Was not Christianity of the 1st century orally delivered? Please try harder....

Yes, but they had the Hebrw sciptures that said "Let us make man in Our Image" Gen 1:26 and "The Lord God caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord God in heaven Gen 19:24 consistent with the new testament- but of course, not with you.

...
WHY is the Bible necessary for faith? As I recall, the early "church" lacked a NT in which to "place their trust," their faith resided in what they were told, not what they read. This statement is true even today; no?....

They were Jews and they had the written words about the Messiah King of Isreal- and Guess what- The ones that beleived he was the "l am" followed him- they ones that did not, picked up the stones.


...
You are sounding more and more like JfE with every post. Most Christians sound the same. What are you? a JW

...
You are asking this question as if no one taught you the "doctrines" you are supposed to believe in :lmbo:

The teaching of the New testament. What do you base your faith on, the Muslim god?

...
One more time... Since when does rejecting part of something automatically mean rejecting all of it?:

You reject the part the gives salvation? Did Jesus rise on the third day?

...
My faith is not "blind;" your faith, on the other hand, is blind if you accept the Bible at face value... blind to the accidental errors and intentional changes made to it over the centuries.

My God (one of ONE I worship) can raise people from the dead... Your "god" (one of three you worship), Jesus, could not because he was not, is not, and will not ever be... God

What do you think of demons believing God is one? Just as you do

...
As if you do not do the same thing...:lmbo:... what a hoot... You keep right on believing a "mere" man can raise the dead and walk on water... I will believe something not requiring a vivid imagination... you might as well believe in orcs, gobblins, trolls, and Hobbits...

l see, your god is imaginative, not real. He sits somewhere out side of the universe and can't do anything.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Since my name was mentioned l thought l would make a reply.Proving my point :lmbo: ... thank you.

... I need the Bible to do this? Was not Christianity of the 1st century orally delivered? Please try harder...Yes, but they had the Hebrw sciptures that said "Let us make man in Our Image" Gen 1:26 and "The Lord God caused to descend upon the peoples of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the Lord God in heaven Gen 19:24 consistent with the new testament- but of course, not with you.:huh: :lolo:Take your stupidity here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65778).

... WHY is the Bible necessary for faith? As I recall, the early "church" lacked a NT in which to "place their trust," their faith resided in what they were told, not what they read. This statement is true even today; no?...They were Jews and they had the written words about the Messiah King of Isreal- and Guess what- The ones that beleived he was the "l am" followed him- they ones that did not, picked up the stones.Those of the Jews who followed Jesus did so because they believed he was the heir to the throne of David... not God.

... You are asking this question as if no one taught you the "doctrines" you are supposed to believe in :lmbo:The teaching of the New testament.From whom did you get the NT? I absolutely 100% gurantee it was not God.

What do you base your faith on, the Muslim god?:huh: The Muslims worship the same god worshipped by the Jews... Christians worship that god plus two more gods :yes:.

... One more time... Since when does rejecting part of something automatically mean rejecting all of it?You reject the part the gives salvation?I do?

Did Jesus rise on the third day?According to the Bible you hold so inerrant, Jesus rose from the dead on the second day.

... My faith is not "blind;" your faith, on the other hand, is blind if you accept the Bible at face value... blind to the accidental errors and intentional changes made to it over the centuries.

My God (one of ONE I worship) can raise people from the dead... Your "god" (one of three you worship), Jesus, could not because he was not, is not, and will not ever be... God.What do you think of demons believing God is one? Just as you do.:huh: :lolo:

... As if you do not do the same thing...:lmbo:... what a hoot... You keep right on believing a "mere" man can raise the dead and walk on water... I will believe something not requiring a vivid imagination... you might as well believe in orcs, gobblins, trolls, and Hobbits...l see, your god is imaginative, not real. He sits somewhere out side of the universe and can't do anything.:huh: :lolo:God can sit wherever He wants to.

[John from Ebla]

Proving my point :lmbo: ... thank you.

:huh: :lolo:Take your stupidity here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65778)...

Sticks and stones may break my bones but "word" may never hurt me. When are you going to show some maturity?


Those of the Jews who followed Jesus did so because they believed he was the heir to the throne of David... not God..

Hmm John10:33b "you a mere man make yourself out to be God" l understand your point- those that thought he was a mere man (as you do) picked up the stones. (This part was added in- Correct? Yes or No )

Should it read "You a mere man make yourself out to be the Messiah" If so, even the O/T will be against you.


From whom did you get the NT? I absolutely 100% gurantee it was not God...

A guarantee from you? You need to do better than that. Prove it by the O/T, that is what the apostles had. Why do you find me stupid for quoting the O/T? Is it because Gnostics cannot accept it?



:huh: The Muslims worship the same god worshipped by the Jews... Christians worship that god plus two more gods :yes:....

You finally tell us you not a Christian- and l am yet to hear a Jew say that their (Jewish) Yahwah is the same as their enemy (Muslims) Alla :lol:


According to the Bible you hold so inerrant, Jesus rose from the dead on the second day.:....

Sorry, scriptures say on the thrid day, Jesus said on the thrid day and the O/T tells us about the thrid day.



:huh: :lolo:God can sit wherever He wants to.

Are you sure it's not where VFarris01 wants him to sit. You said, "He can sit where ever he wants to" so why can't he be in the Word that was God and because flesh? Is it because Gnostics cannot accept this?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Proving my point :lmbo: ... thank you. :huh: :lolo:Take your stupidity here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65778)...Sticks and stones may break my bones but "word" may never hurt me. When are you going to show some maturity?... as soon as you show some understanding of the Bible...

Those of the Jews who followed Jesus did so because they believed he was the heir to the throne of David... not God...Hmm John10:33b "you a mere man make yourself out to be God" l understand your point- those that thought he was a mere man (as you do) picked up the stones. (This part was added in- Correct? Yes or No )This is one of those passages, I have referred to, specifically stating Jesus was a man... not God.

Should it read "You a mere man make yourself out to be the Messiah"Why should it? The context of the passage suggests Jesus is comparing himself with God and this is what the Jews seem to understand Jesus is saying... he is not... If you take the time to actually read GJohn (instead of picking out "proof" texts) you will find that almost everything Jesus says is misunderstood by the Jews (and the apostles) in GJohn.

If so, even the O/T will be against you.The OT never says the "messiah" will be "God" in the "flesh;" if you think it does you are :lolo:.

From whom did you get the NT? I absolutely 100% gurantee it was not God...A guarantee from you? You need to do better than that. Prove it by the O/T, that is what the apostles had. Why do you find me stupid for quoting the O/T? Is it because Gnostics cannot accept it?The OT never says the "messiah" will be "God" in the "flesh;" if you think it does you are :lolo:. Mis-quoting (taking "proof texts" out of their context) the OT is not the same as proving something with the OT.

:huh: The Muslims worship the same god worshipped by the Jews... Christians worship that god plus two more gods :yes:...You finally tell us you not a Christian-...:huh: I did? :no:

... and l am yet to hear a Jew say that their (Jewish) Yahwah is the same as their enemy (Muslims) Alla Listen closer... they do... Also, the Muslims call God, ALLAH and there is no "Y," "H," or "W" in the Hebrew alphabet :lol:.

According to the Bible you hold so inerrant, Jesus rose from the dead on the second day.:.Sorry, scriptures say on the thrid day, Jesus said on the thrid day and the O/T tells us about the thrid day.The Scriptures say a lot of things... If Jesus was buried on a Friday (evening) and raised from the dead on a Sunday (morning) that is two days, even in kindergarten math. When counting cycles of things you cannot count the time it begins as one cycle. Friday evening to Saturday evening, one day, Saturday evening to Sunday morning one day... 1 + 1 = 2... not three.

:huh: :lolo:God can sit wherever He wants to.Are you sure it's not where VFarris01 wants him to sit. You said, "He can sit where ever he wants to" so why can't he be in the Word that was God and because flesh? Is it because Gnostics cannot accept this?:huh: :lolo:Is it because you cannot accept God is one being and not one being made up of three beings? You have been so indoctrinated into this cult lie you cannot extract yourself from it.