Magus55

How about this one?



Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


Here are a few links to charts and tons more quotes on Jesus being God if you'd like to take a look. There are too many for me to list.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/isJesusGod.htm

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jesusisgod.htm

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/Jehovah_is_Jesus.htm

Doctor X

Magus:

Indeed, and you have it backwards. The definite article is not used--Greek has an "implied" indefinite article. This is exemplified in "Mk's final joke"--the centurian who proclaims:

Mk has him emphasize "man" with "this" and "the."

The relevance is complex. The disciples--portrayed as fools--never "get it"--they never come out and say Junior is divine. The authors of the texts do think he is divine. The question is "when" did this tradition arise. Was it because the Jerusalem group--James, Peter, disciple-types--whom seem rather secular did not consider him divine because he never claimed to be divine? Is that a slap? "They" never considered him divine but "we" know the Truth!

Or, did Junior consider himself divine and it is all a slam against the traditional groups?

The problem with interpreting that is Junior does not come out and specify it. The concepts of "hidden gospel"--Junior telling healed slobs to hide the truth in Mk, for example--may be an explanation why the tradtion of divinity was not the popular tradition. This leads some scholars to opine that it was a Paul who created it and figures like "Mark" who put it in a text.

So what happened? Did the "real" Junior not consider himself divine?
Did he not consider himself divine and publically denied attempts to make him divine?
Did he consider himself divine and did not advertise it?
Did he consider himself divine and advertise it?

I find the last hard to sustain unless one wishes to assume that the "Jerusalem Group" suddenly started denying this after he kicked the bucket. Possible . . . I just do not find it probable--too much of a conspiracy.

Furthermore, why then would the gospel writers not have him "advertise" and then have it denied?

Then . . . one can take the "taunting"--"Hey, your a god, why do not you come off the damn cross?"--and wonder if it was because he did claim divinity and failed in his attempts to demonstrate it, and those traditions persisted.

Why all of this stuff is a mess. There is speculative evidence for a number of versions.

Now . . . what about my CHALLENGE?

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

I note that even John isn't claiming that Jesus himself actually said this.

It appears to be purely the author's personal opinion.

rlogan

Luke 10:9-11

The Kingdom of God is at Hand.

Also found in Thomas, a much better book than the Gospels. Just sayings.

So quit preachin' about the never-never land.

Javaman

I'll try to tie in all this Magus55 stuff with the thread topic...
As has been shown, he came close but did not. Religious life would be a lot easier if he just came out and said it.
Reading your original statement again, I think I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. God gets talked about, Jesus gets talked about, and a Holy Spirit (Ghost) gets talked about. Sometimes all at the same time. Keep in mind though... other supernatural beings get talked about in the Bible as well. Other "sons of God" get talked about as well. You'd have done better if you said, "The concept of the Trinity is all over the Bible."

- now the tie-in -

I doubt your claims of the triune god
From your link:
The Trinity
-God is three persons
-Each person is divine
-There is only one God.

These passages cast serious doubt on your claims given the difference in punishment:

Matthew 12
32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

and its counterpart:

Luke 12
10 "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

I've asked the question in the real world about these passages, " Your god will never forgive me if I talk bad about the Holy Ghost?"

worldling

This just John's opinion. Nothing more.

Mageth

Magus said:

Jesus is The Son of God, not a son of God. There is a difference.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Humans aren't the begotten sons of God. There is only one Son of God, and that is Jesus.

But I thought you were defending the assertion that Jesus is God. I personally have a hard time reconciling "only begotten Son of God" with the begetter being the begotten.

So far, Magus on this thread has declared Jesus to be God, and to be the (begotten) Son of God. What else was Jesus supposed to have been, Magus?

Doctor X

. . . a rather effective wide-receiver. . . .

Of course the OT speaks of the "sons of the gods"--bene elohim. I gather they do not count?

Anyways Returning to the Topic

Any more "difficult" passages?

--J.D.

Javaman

Re: my Matthew 12 and Luke 12 quotes. One response I've gotten from them kind of makes sense. I was told that if you speak badly of the ghosty, that, in itself, won't keep you from being forgiven... you really have to mean it. And, extrapolating, and atheist doesn't believe in the holy ghost, and cannot, therefore, speak ill of it and truly mean it.

Personally, I can't force myself to read either passage that way but, if my faith depended on it, maybe I could. If all it took for christians to leave folks alone was to call the spirit an asshat, that'd be great. Hasn't happened to me yet, though.

YHWHtruth

The Bible has nothing to hide or apologize for. The actions of God are always within the parameters of His dominant qualities of love, justice, wisdom, and power. And yes, Jesus loves children as well as righteous adults who follow him.

Concerning your scriptural reference, let's take a look at it in context, and see what the situation was. Context and other related scriptures are important in understanding Bible verses. Hopefully you are seeking the truth and not just propaganda for preconceived prejudices.

(Context is important in many situations. For example, if a hypothetical alien left his saucer and walked in to a pediatrics hospital, and saw doctors slicing and dicing small children on tables, it may very well conclude that their parents and the doctors were some kind of sadistic 'beasts', etc.)

But back to Ps 137:9. Let's add in verse 8 to get some context. Ps
137:8,9,

"O daughter of Babylon, who are to be despoiled, Happy will he be that rewards you With your own treatment with which you treated us. 9 Happy will he be that grabs ahold and does dash to pieces Your children against the crag." (NWT)

In the Bible, the word "daughter" is used around 600 times and has a variety of meanings. Many times a city is referred to as being feminine (such as a mother or daughter) and its inhabitants as her children. Notice in verse 8 that the Psalmist aid "daughter" not 'daughters' as one would expect if he was referring to all the young females of the city. (why would he be referring to just one "daughter" of some Babylonian father, when all the daughters from all the Babylonian fathers would be Israel's enemies?)

A similar reference to Babylon is recorded by the prophet Isaiah at
Isa 47:1,

"Come down and sit down in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon. Sit down on the earth where there is no throne, O daughter of the Chal·de'ans. For you will not experience again that people call you delicate and dainty." (NWT)

The Hebrew word for daughter used here in these verses is "bath", and can mean "town, village". (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary.)

Thus from the context it appears that the Psalmist is calling the whole city of Babylon a "daughter" and all of her inhabitants her "children". So the verse is not singling out just small "children", but all the inhabitants, most of which, like any city, would be
adults.

Also, the fulfillment of those words came about by the conquering of Babylon not by the Israelites, (God's true worshippers), but by a pagan, Cyrus the Great; who was a Persian and a devotee of Zoroastrianism. Although God may have used him to accomplish some purpose, it doesn't mean that God approved of all that he did. He was not an Israelite following the Mosaic Laws. What he did to all the people including small children and babies, etc., during the conquest was out of the Israelites hands.

After the conquest, he released the Israelites from their exile, thus they would be "happy" that their enemy was destroyed and they were set free.

Concerning Isa 13:16 it reads,

"and their very children will be dashed to pieces before their eyes.
Their houses will be pillaged, and their own wives will be raped."

Who will dash to pieces these children? Vs 17, the "Medes", of which Cyrus was their leader as mentioned above. These Medes would have no compassion upon "young men" or even "the fruitage of the belly". They would not "feel sorry" for them. (vs 18)

Thus this was a prophecy that the Medes were going to do to the
Babylonians. Remember, the Medes were not worshippers of the God of the Bible. The Israelites were.

Also keep in mind that "rape" was forbidden among the Israelites. According to the Law, such would not happen to nations subjugated by Israel, for the soldiers were forbidden to have sexual relations during a military campaign even with their own wives, let alone foreigners. (see 1Sa 21:5; 2Sa 11:6-11) Thus some of the activities going on here were clearly not approved by God.