Sojourner553

Yes, essentially the only historical records for a divine Jesus are in the New Testament. Christians typically "pick and choose" verses--ie
emphasizing some verses while ignoring others that don't fit what they want to "prove". Then the exercise becomes a game with words.

Of course, if one is looking for truth, one should look at the difficult verses (ie the ones usually ignored); Not to mention the social mileax or environment in which the authors of these verses lived.

Sojourner

[ September 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

If you believe everything that is written, then you must believe all the miraculous stories of Mohammed and Buddha too..

you know, to be consistent.


"One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed it--they also believed the world was flat." -- Mark Twain


Sojourner

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

davidH

Again sorry for not being able to reply sooner.

Wordsymth,

Oh please - I can't believe that you have just written this.

How in the world can you say that this is what that verse means!! Totally unbelievable..

ok....let me explain it again.

Jesus talks about the word. - "The words I say to you are not just my own."

Let take this part first of all.

The fact that he says NOT JUST MY OWN mean that the word is not only his. - This is totally obvious. ie they are his as well as someone elses.

Ok next part

Doing his work.....

you said.

No way! If this verse said this why in the world would Jesus have said

"the words I say to you are not JUST my own" ???

He would have said - They are not my own - but God's.

Jesus in the second part of the verse goes on to show that the words are also his Father's.
But nowhere in this verse does Jesus say that the words aren't his.

How you can be so mislead to see this in that verse I have no idea. But no-one else would ever buy that, because it clearly contradicts what the verse is saying.


ok I have just read through your reply.

There is one major thing that you have carefully avoided, but I'm going to ask you about it now.

Could you please explain clearly and completely what "the Word" that John is referring to as being Jesus is.

You have done well to avoid it up until now and have been very vague about it, when infact it is central to you arguememt. What was this "Word" ?

Let me show you why I ask this.

When I first asked you if it was the law, you answered.

Then you answered


Again you have avoided telling me what exactly "the Word" was. Extremely vague.

Jesus' sole purpose was to do the will of his Father. - What was this sole purpose?

And what were these teachings that were to lead the people back to the path of righteousness and salvation?

Again there is something else that you have avoided or maybe not understood what I was referring to.

You go about explaining other things in the passage which you think distinguish Jesus from God and yet you totally ignore that here - in these verses they are talking about "the Son" - Jesus.

Hang on - Isn't only God to be worshiped?

v7 - this talks about angels.

This is God speaking here. And in talking about the Son he says.

Your throne, O God

Jesus is called Yahweh. - God. Jesus is seen to be devine.

Wordsymth - you couldn't explain this verse and that is why you avoided it and tried to explain other things around this verse , claiming that I had taken it out of context.

The verse speaks for itself.

But for that matter I'll explain what you wrote about other verses in that chapter.

to this here you wrote.

The Son (which you obviously understand to be Jesus) is said to be;
1. "the radiance of God's glory."
2. the exact representation of his (God's) being

Again this verse which you have only used the last for actually supports what I have been saying all along. Jesus is seen as God.

Note the Son is not just a reflection or image of God , but is God in the fullest sense.

You bring up the last bit again.

You are right in saying that this distinguishes Jesus from the Majesty - which corresponds with the Trinity and all the other verses that I have given. But you say that the Majesty is God ie Not God the Father etc. The Bible doesn't say this - it only says Majesty and that could well be the Father - other member of the Trinity.

You misunderstand what I have been saying when I talk about the Trinity,
Jesus = Holy Spirit = Father - why, because they are God. Though they are different they are all the same.

That is why I had used the water example - to get the idea across and it does.

The word became is because when Jesus was on earth he was fully man, and about man God says,

"He made him a little lower than the angels;
Heb 2 v 7

Then read this verse in Heb 2 v 9

That is why the NT refers to Jesus being Humbled whenever he left heaven and came to earth.
So when Jesus became man, the angels were superior to him until he was ressurected. - That is what these verses are getting at.
It was only once Jesus' work on earth was finished that he was the saviour and had completed everything. That was when he inherited the name of Redeemer. (If that was the name he inherited. Bible doesn't specify in this passage)

No. That is not true, he is contrasted against angels. I think that the teaching that Jesus was actually an angel of God was starting to spread and that was why this was written.
This is clear seen in this chapter, Showing that Jesus was devine.


To this verse you wrote;

No not quite. You see his name is "the Word of God" - this verse doesn't say that he is the Word of God. There is a difference.

Now everything that Jesus said would have been the
Word of God if he was God - right? This is obvious.

Now lets go down a few verses in Revelation 19 and see what they say.
They are still talking about Jesus.

Ok are there any other verses in Revelation speaking of a sharp sword coming out of the mouth of Jesus?

Yes there is.

Again in this first chapter Jesus shows himself to be God.
But anyway, is there any other passage in the NT about a sharp double edeged sword?

Yes.

Get the picture? The words out of Jesus mouth are the words of God ie the Word of God.

That was why John can refer to Jesus in the way that he did in John one - because everything that Jesus said was the "Word of God"

Then in this other verse I put down;

And to this here you wrote;

Ok so you say that this is because it is a Title that is only for Jesus.

That is a Title that is used only for God, and the fact that it is used for Jesus shows that he was God.
It is crystal clear.


There is another problem to your interpretation that Jesus was the Word of God.
Let me explain;

You said that the Word basically meant the commandments and some other laws and things that Jesus taught.
Yet how come in verse 1 the Word is described as being God?

How can God's laws and commands for us - which he made, be God? Surely they would only have been with him - but they couldn't be God - only the Words of God.

Then there is the problem with verse 2.

Why is the Word described as HE being with God in the beginning?
Remember this cannot be referring to Jesus because it is referring to "In the beginning" and Jesus was only the Word when he was annointed here on earth according to you.
If it was referring to the Word of God /teachings of God, then it would have been written "THEY"
Would it not?

It was interesting also reading your answer to this;

And you wrote;

Yes I would be "the cripple". But this doesn't answer my question.
You said that Jesus was "the Word" - the Word isn't something that you can naturally be - like "the cripple", and you said that Jesus was the embodiment of the Word.
But if the Bible says that Jesus was given the Word, then it can't mean that he was the embodiment of the Word - right?

You wrote this;

Why in the world does this make Jesus the Word of God? It doesn't - if this where so there would be no relation between Jesus and the Word. All Jesus would be able to do would be to hear what God was saying and speak the Word - or know the Word and be able to share it. But it in no way makes Jesus the "Word".

Surely you can see this?
If what you say is true, then John has no reason whatsoever to call Jesus "the Word" because he clearly isn't.

What I showed in John 1 also reinforces this - your theory is wrong.

Here is another passage;

Again note - who being in very nature God.
Jesus was God.

Didn't consider equality with God something to be grasped.
- This shows that he didn't consider the status and privileges that inevitably follow being in very nature God "something to be grasped"
ie. The glory Jesus had with his Father before he came and lived as a man (John 17 v 5)
"But made himself nothing" - left all the glory behind and came to us.

I haven't got anymore time to answer everything you wrote, but I'll put this up now anyway.

Wordsymth, I think you will find that your theory is contary to scripture.

You know it may well have been people like yourselves promoting these sort of theories that mislead people and caused all the trouble that happened between groups each believing that they were correct and not discussing anything.
This debate here is a fine example of how the early Christians could have become divided each believing that they were right.

Oh yeah, one more thing Wordsymth.

you wrote;

hmmm interesting. You and Nogo are completely differing here - Nogo is saying that many were "annointed of God" and that he doesn't see that as anything special distinguishing Jesus.
He also gives a few examples.

I would agree with Nogo on this issue that others in the OT and also NT were annointed.

So if Jesus was not the only one who recieved the Word of the LORD, then why are none of the other prophets called "the Word"?
The question still stands because I still think that Jesus was not the only one who the Word of the Lord came to.

If you disagree maybe Nogo could post here to and show you why he thinks Jesus wasn't the only annointed one.

Ok, I'm gonna have to leave it here for the moment.
Sorry about not getting to answer your questions Nogo but I will as soon as I can - plus some of the answers and other stuff to think about are in this post too.

Also about the word "Only" will try and find the greek and what it means to see, though in fact it makes little difference as I will show later.

Also Wordsymth you asked about more references to Israel being the vine/vineyard and God the Gardener.

Isaiah 5 v 1-5, 7
Ezekial 19 v 10 - 14
Ps 80 v 8-16

John 6 v 35,40
John 7 v 38
etc.

The point I was trying to make was, Why would a man ask people to believe in him to have eternal life?
He would rather point them to God because what is the point in anyone believing in him? Sure they could believe what he was saying about God, but if he never claimed anything about himself (which you say he didn't) then why did he ask people to believe in him?

Have to go.
Cya.

Sojourner553

Hi David,


If Jesus were an all-powerful member of a Trinity, why is he weak as a human? You probably suscribe to the view this was temporary. But shouldn't Jesus still have known that the "End" would not occur during the lifetime of his contemporaries, etc, etc.


BTW:Ever have a chance to "check this out"?

You sound like such a nice person by the way. My intent is to demonstrate there are "other" ways to interpret your points/verses because I would prefer to see you become one of those "tolerant" liberal Christians rather than an 'intolerant' fundi Christian.

But to answer your question: Surely you have noticed that EVERY religion promises-- in exchange for belief --that a person will have eternal life. This is the same "promise" one finds in Islam, Buddhaism, and yes the Greek mystery (pagan) religions that first started this post.

One example:


Most people have a yearning-- a "need" to feel a part of something greater than themself. Afterall, humans are pretty puny when it comes down to it: As one example: Who knows when we'll be in a building and an airplane flown by a fundamentalist zealot will fly into us and destroy everything. Just one example of course out of a zillion possibilities. Some people keep good luck charms for this.

Every person in every culture has feared dying. Do you think Christians were the first to fear dying??? There were many salvation/internal life religions PRIOR to Christianity to fill this need.


Atheists don't like the idea either by the way -- they have just chosen not to throw away their intellect and accept unquestioning a fantasy that says they will live forever. Atheists have some things: Honesty for one! I have seen some Christians resort to dishonesty to try and answer my challenges-- which I realized was more of a desparate act to keep their faith than their "choosing" to be dishonest. Still, I appreciated that I could be totally honest.

Again, keep your belief. But realize that Christianity is not unique in its promises nor its reported miracles. I would also recommend you pick up a history of Christianity book sometime to see what horrors were done in the name of religion! Of course there have always been good Christians. The problem was the public (then and now) could not distinguish between a "good" Christian leader and a "bad" one. {No lightening bolts come down from heaven you know to help out on this}.

Take care,


Sojourner

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Radorth

I came to become a Christian neither to live forever or for fear of death. As far as honesty goes, some folks here have begun to complain loudly about mine, so it looks like I won't fit in well here. Atheists seem to create surprisingly small boxes for us, perhaps because their world-view (and defending the record of atheist societies) hinges on Christian failures and "intellectual inferiority" rather than a more efficacious philosophy.

I guess Sunday is "comparative goodness" day around here.

Yep, it's "comparative goodness" day- between this and the other thread.

Actually Christianity is totally unique- the only religion ever which imputes righteousness where there was none. Can you name another? I would be very interested. I still feel totally dependent on the grace of God for salvation after 30 years as a Christian.

Radorth

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

NOGO

DavidH,

Please explain this verse.

In particular who are his companions?

Apikorus

There are many religions which could be labeled as "totally unique", each for its own (totally unique) reasons. On the other hand, while a movement such as Christianity must on many levels be considered sui generis, one can hardly deny that Christianity had borrowed from other traditions as well (most obviously, Judaism).

I don't find the Christian concept of righteousness to be coherent or compelling, but I know many people who do so. Live and let live.

ex-preacher

It's true, Christianity is the only religion which teaches that a totally vile person, such as Adolf Hitler, can be forgiven for anything and go to heaven if he believes the right thing, while somone who is good, say Anne Frank, will spend an eternity in hell for believing the wrong thing. What a beautiful religion.

Vinnie

ex-p, I made a new thread in response to your comments as i haven't been following this one:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000606" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000606</a>

Vinnie

NOGO

Nonsense!
Most things in our society do not hinge on Christian failures. Democracy is one. Individual rights protected by law. The right to believe whatever you want ie freedom of religion, free-thinking, freedom of assembly, the right to a trial etc.

These ARE all in opposition to Christianity to be sure, in the sense that Christianity defended the opposite.
Christianity has defended the authority of God through the church. It has also forced one and all to believe the same thing under threat of physical harm. Has taken away the freedom of speech and of assembly etc.

Now none of these things exist today in opposition to Christianity they exist because people have fought and died to get them.

I will give you an example from your Bible.

Paul was saying how he himself persecuted Christians for their beliefs and at some point the Jews present became furious with him and wanted to kill him.

Paul was arrested but managed to save himself by appealing to his citizenship. He was a Roman and as such he could not be beaten without a trial.

RIGHTS PROTECTED BY LAW.

In the Israel of those days Paul would have been killed. Israel in those days was like Saudi Arabia or Iran of today. The Bible was the law of the land. No freedom of speech nor of thought, nor of religion, while as a Roman Paul could preach whatever he wanted. ( and he does say so himself, forget where )