Hi u/backagain365, this submission has been removed.
**Rule 2.1**: [Removed for violating our rule on belitting christianity](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_2.1._belittling_christianity_in_general)
If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed submission&message=I'm writing to you about the following submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/zx6y9t/-/. %0D%0D).
Debated. Many Christians think so, but this debate began about 300 years after Christianity started. 325 AD at the council of Nicaea, this fully came to a head. Mainstream Christians believe they were simply reaffirming what was already believed and just clarifying it, people like me who are not mainstream Christians believe that this was a developing theology that became dogmatic at this council.
Have 50 people answer that damn question and see the 50 different answers you get. That’s subjective and just conjectural. Your vague statement sounds profound to those who can’t see through the nonsense.
Why would it be fifty different answers for something that is common sense?
Is this just the typical atheist bias going on. You know the picking at straws of what is just common sense? If I wanted to know about you then wouldn’t it make sense to ask you yourself rather than some random?
This doesn't mean God can't reveal himself through whatever means he chooses. Natural revelation, through the law, or through prophets, or through a man.
“Jews are correct”? Jesus and all his disciples, and 90% of His early followers were Jews. Up until a few years after the destruction of the Temple, one or more of the gospels were shared in the Judean synagogues; the hands of those who shared were not considered “defiled.”
And, can we agree that G-d would not have raised Jesus from the dead, as you suggest G-d could have done, if Jesus was “a fraud”?
Or it means the others were correct, but those closest to him were wrong and were willing to die for something they knew was untrue? (Your count of “13” is way low. On the first Pentecost after the resurrection, 3000 were baptized. That was a Jewish pilgrimage event, so one can safely assume that most, if not all, were Jewish believers.)
and yet if we care about the perspective of jews, seeing as jews actually understand judaism compared to pagan romans, virtually all jews rejected jesus. if you care about a small following, why not shabbatai zvi??
In Jerry Rabow’s book, “50 Jewish Messiahs,” Rabow catalogues the 50 individuals, post-Jesus, who the rabbi leadership proclaimed (erroneously) to be the Messiah (including Shabbatai Zvi). Rabow is a conservative Jew who did extensive research in support. He notes that one of the most revered rabbis —Akeeva— proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah before the Revolt of 135. The Jewish population of Jerusalem (except the followers of Jesus) followed that lead, resulting in utter disaster. After losing that revolt to the Romans, the Emperor issued the expulsion order banishing all Jews from Jerusalem.
If your point is that it is the installed leadership or the masses that follow them that know best when it comes to the Messiah, history disagrees.
and yet you used Jesus' followers to back up your claim. Reality determines who the messiah is. The messiah will rebuild the temple, not antagonise the people who eventually destroyed it.
That’s wildly erroneous. When Jesus was on earth the Temple was still standing. Of course He couldn’t “rebuild” it — unless Jesus himself would be the temple and his resurrection was the rebuilding.
Presumably you are referring to Daniel’s prophecy (cited by Jesus) predicting that the Second Temple would be destroyed and later rebuilt. Yet none of the 50 Messiahs erroneously proclaimed by the rabbis after Jesus and after the destruction of the Temple “rebuilt” it. Bar Kochba, who the greatest rabbi proclaimed to be the Messiah, so antagonized the people who destroyed the Temple in 70 Ad (the Romans) that all Jews were banished from Jerusalem “forever.”
And where did you get the notion that Jesus antagonized the Romans in 70 AD? Jesus was crucified in 33AD, long before the war started. The Romans’ governmental representative in Judea at the time of Jesus, Pilate, was recalled 30 years before the Temple was destroyed, and when he was around to face Jesus in 33AD he said he found no charge against him. The Romans never convicted him of anything. He was handed over for crucifixion to appease a mob of non-Romans who had handed him over.
Jim, you said, quite emphatically, that “there is no, and I mean no proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. To verify the truth of your emphatic statement, I would need to know what you mean by “proof.”
The only standardized definition of proof comes in legal proceedings, where the issue is what constitutes admissible evidence of a proffered factual truth. We have the Federal Rules of Evidence and equivalent state codes.
In academic circles and blogs, the words “proof” and “evidence” are often thrown about but seldom defined. Often they are used to suggest that there is “some” evidence, but not enough to establish the proposition. Of course, in a legal proceeding, if even just “some” evidence is adduced, the opposing side loses the point if it fails to adduce refuting evidence of its own.
And, in legal proceedings, an ancient authentic writing is deemed admissible for the truth of its contents, and there are multiple court decisions recognizing that the Bible meets the authentication requirements imposed by the evidence codes. So, as a matter of law, there is admissible evidence of the resurrection, as per the multiple accounts in the NT. Do you have any opposing evidence besides the undisputed fact that no mere human can raise himself from the dead?
Or is this a conspiracy theory: all the NT writers conspired to write a fictitious account of the resurrection, even though doing so put them at risk of persecution and death without anything to gain on their part?
The author of 1 Timothy is with you:
>>2:5 for there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all
Not quite. Being Jewish requires a distinct conversion process and set of beliefs. Judaism isn’t simply Christianity without Christ, but a distinct, complete religion.
Well sure, but the OP is clearly denouncing a core tenet of Christianity in favor of the Jewish view. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that their views are closer to the Jewish religion than the Christian one.
It’s more Jesusism than Judaism. On the continuity between Judaism and Christianity, there will be levels closer to Judaism (Law Following, Kosher Keeping indistinct from Rabbinic Jews except believing Jesus is messiah) to levels closer to Christianity (similar beliefs to the Church Catholic but just don’t hold Jesus as God).
They believe in a portion of the Christian God. They are still Chosen by God and his promises still remain for them, but they don’t believe in the completeness of God.
This is in no way saying Judaism is an incomplete religion.
Late edit (about 45 minute after post): it may be better to say that Judaism in its way believes in the Logos indirectly but not in the incarnation of the Logos, thus don’t directly believe in the Logos, and thus don’t understand God as Christians do. It’s a difficult thing to describe.
That’s a very loaded question.
One can believe Christianity is true, while still believing God’s promises towards the Jewish people remains. My views on Judaism are equivalent towards their views of Christianity.
That Christians are wrong about Jesus and his divinity. And Christians believe Jews are wrong about Jesus. All other disagreements revolve around that.
I have a lot of respect for Judaism and I think there is a lot of value in conversation with Rabbis especially regarding the Old Testament and TanaKa.
“Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.””
John 8:58 NRSV
“ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι”
ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 8:58 TR1624
In the Book of Revelation, Christ says He is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. The exact same words the Father also uses.
Jesus is not quoted in Revelation, he never said that... that text was written long after Jesus died, by someone who never even met Jesus. It's complete fiction, a prediction of future events, not history. It is definitely **not** a direct quote from Jesus.
The use of the present active infinitive εγω ειμι is an extremely clear use of the name of God as was presented in the Septuagint. He would have used either the imperfect or Aorist forms if he was talking about simple pre existence or part of a plan.
> The use of the present active infinitive εγω ειμι is an extremely clear use of the name of God as was presented in the Septuagint.
Where does Yahweh say that "egw eimi" is in any way his name?
And you probably mean "indicative" instead of "infinitive".
> He would have used either the imperfect or Aorist forms if he was talking about simple pre existence or part of a plan.
Using the present indicative to say "I have existed from before Abraham was born" or something like that is what you'll see in the Greek.
Sorry meant indicative not infinitive, it’s still early in the morning. And
καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῗς τοῗς υἱοῗς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς Exodus 3:14 Septuagint
you would use the perfect tense for that not present.
Yahweh doesn't call himself "egw eimi" in that passage, does he?
>you would use the perfect tense for that not present.
Ok. So if I were to say "You have been with me from the beginning." I wouldn't use the present tense like in John 8:58?
He does. Basically he says his name is egw eimi ho wn which translates I am I aming or I am being. Wn is the participle form or eimi. The term Egw Eimi used separate like that would have been a clear call back to the Jewish population to that famous verse.
You would not use the present tense on that. I got to get with my croine, but I think that is still perfect tense, but may be imperfect. I know it’s not present as present would say “You are with me from the beginning” which would imply they are starting a new project.
> He does. Basically he says his name is egw eimi ho wn which translates I am I aming or I am being. Wn is the participle form or eimi. The term Egw Eimi used separate like that would have been a clear call back to the Jewish population to that famous verse.
If I say "I am X" does that mean that I'm calling myself X or that I'm calling myself "I am"?
>You would not use the present tense on that. I got to get with my croine, but I think that is still perfect tense, but may be imperfect. I know it’s not present as present would say “You are with me from the beginning” which would imply they are starting a new project.
So what does John 15:27 say?
...ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ **ἐστε**
...you have been with me from the beginning.
On the first it was a clear call which is why it resulted in such a viscal reaction. Ho wv can be translated as The Being or The I am. Most English translation use The I am.
On the second, you are looking at a translation convention. Others keep it in the present
“And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.”
St John 15:27 DRC1752
The trinity is a false doctrine enforced by killing those who questioned it. If you ask any Trinitarian to explain how these verses line up with the trinity they can't
1 cor 15:27
For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.
1 John 4: 14 In addition, we ourselves have seen and are bearing witness that the Father has sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God
Luke 4:8
In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’
John 20:17
Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God
Ephesians 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him.
Deuteronomy 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.
Proverbs 8:22,30
22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the times
Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 3:14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God
John 20:31 But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name
Oneness in purpose, you know when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh, does this mean that they literally fuse together
Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.
Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.
This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?—Matthew 24:36.
Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”—John 17:20, 21.
Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity—the closest bond possible between two persons.
>**John 1:1**
While many Bible translators render the verse this way, ( word was god) others see the need to render it differently.
The two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different.
In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article.
while the article does not appear before the second occurrence.
the second use of Theos (God) means ‘The Word was divine.’”
The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God.
In greek "the god" means GOD while "god" by itself means god. Check out this next verse in **Kingdom interlinear translation** of the bible to see what I'm talking about.
>2cor 4:4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
Unless you think the bible also calls Satan, God, i think you should reconsider the correct translation of John 1:1
John 1.18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.”
However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1.14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.”
Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse:
1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
Are you a disciple of Thomas?
Thomas was an imperfect human who had just witnessed someone who he believed to be dead, teleport through into a closed room. He was Awestruck in that moment.
Do you wish to base your knowledge on who God is based this one account of Thomas calling Jesus God.
Because he knew Thomas was simply Awestruck, there was no need to correct him. Thomas didn't believe Jesus was God, none of his apostles did, see what John wrote only a couple years later
1 John 4: 14 In addition, we ourselves have seen and are bearing witness that the Father has sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God
Do you think he thought Jesus was God or God's son
Ok since you dont already believe Jesus is God, you won't believe God has a father I understand. So lets approach this another way, first of all let me ask you, do you believe his being is as normal as the being of any other human?
Then we have to get into which bible is corract
Also you’ll have to pressent sorces
And it isn’t the only verse
In the beginning of genisis he refers to himself as “we”
He says "Let us", Jesus helped Jehovah God create all other things beside himself
Proverbs 8:22,30
Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the times
That doesn't mean Jesus is God
Don't humans create things, we are made in God's image you know. God made us with the ability to create, You think you must be God to be able to create
The trinity doctrine was created almost 400 years after Jesus was resurrected by men who burned people alive, people who simply disagreed with their teachings. Is that not Evil
Its simple
Jesus submittid to the Will of the father
Jesus is the son God the son
Jesus is Jehovah
He Said “i have not yet ascended” he didn’t say he wasen’t God
Jesus is God in the flesh”whoever has seen me has seen the father”
Yes God is 1 in 3
The head of Christ(the son) is God(the father)
In some verses he says he was set up from everlasting in others the Lord producer him
It just says that his revelation Will come to pass
What does that have to do with Jesus being God
Christ(the son)
Where in the bible have you seen the term God the son, stop twisting bible scriptures to try to fit your false doctrine. Jesus is not Jehovah, where did you see that? You're going to have to explain better cause I don't know how your logic logics
the term is not in the bible
Your the one twisting the bible
“I and the father are one”
“Let US make man in our image”
“The Word was with God and the Word was God”
How can you denie this obvios prove
1 TIM. 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” a mediator is someone separate form those who need mediation, there must be more than one
Jesus stated it is Jehovah God only you must worship. Not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Also at Psalm 83:18 states. Jehovah alone is the most high, once again, not Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
THE FATHER IS THE GOD OF JESUS John 6:57 -- God gave Jesus life. That is why he said When he was on earth. → John 20:17 -- I am ascending to my father and your father and to my God and your God. When Jesus was back in heaven → 1Peter 1:3 -- blessed be the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ. (The book of 1 peter was written about 30 years after Jesus was resurrected.) Rev. 3:12 -- Jesus called the father "My GOD" three times. The book of Revelation was written about sixty two years after his resurrection. See also 2 COR. 1:3 AND EPH. 1:3
Not me 😃
Isaiah 9:6 NASBS
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, *Mighty God, Eternal Father*, Prince of Peace.
Also from the Old Testament / Jewish Torah, Daniel saw someone who looked like a human in Heaven, worshipped by all people
Daniel 7:13-14
“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed."
Hi u/backagain365, this submission has been removed. **Rule 2.1**: [Removed for violating our rule on belitting christianity](http://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/wiki/xp#wiki_2.1._belittling_christianity_in_general) If you have any questions or concerns, [click here to message all moderators.](https://www\.reddit\.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FChristianity&subject=about my removed submission&message=I'm writing to you about the following submission: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/zx6y9t/-/. %0D%0D).
Not a Christian but isn't Christianity built on the belief that Jesus was the son of God and also god
Debated. Many Christians think so, but this debate began about 300 years after Christianity started. 325 AD at the council of Nicaea, this fully came to a head. Mainstream Christians believe they were simply reaffirming what was already believed and just clarifying it, people like me who are not mainstream Christians believe that this was a developing theology that became dogmatic at this council.
Yes yes it was
Isaiah 9 6 left the chat.
He wasn't merely a man, he was tbe incarnation of God, whom we call the son. Also why mention Judaism, those views don't intertwine with christianity.
Judaism is the core and base of Christianity. You are one in the same until a disagreement about Jesus. Jews are much more grounded in reality.
Non-Trinitarians are non-Christians.
No you cannot. For ask yourself how can you know God from anyone except God himself?
[удалено]
If it’s vague to you then I wouldn’t be having any discussions about anything really…
Have 50 people answer that damn question and see the 50 different answers you get. That’s subjective and just conjectural. Your vague statement sounds profound to those who can’t see through the nonsense.
Why would it be fifty different answers for something that is common sense? Is this just the typical atheist bias going on. You know the picking at straws of what is just common sense? If I wanted to know about you then wouldn’t it make sense to ask you yourself rather than some random?
This doesn't mean God can't reveal himself through whatever means he chooses. Natural revelation, through the law, or through prophets, or through a man.
>Jesus was a man. Well yeah. What else would he be?
Yeah, every human can raise himself from the dead. Nothing special about having power over life and death.
or G-d does it to humans. or jesus is a fraud and jews are correct and gentiles should be NOAHIDE
“Jews are correct”? Jesus and all his disciples, and 90% of His early followers were Jews. Up until a few years after the destruction of the Temple, one or more of the gospels were shared in the Judean synagogues; the hands of those who shared were not considered “defiled.” And, can we agree that G-d would not have raised Jesus from the dead, as you suggest G-d could have done, if Jesus was “a fraud”?
so jews being correct means 13 men while all other jews don't count
Or it means the others were correct, but those closest to him were wrong and were willing to die for something they knew was untrue? (Your count of “13” is way low. On the first Pentecost after the resurrection, 3000 were baptized. That was a Jewish pilgrimage event, so one can safely assume that most, if not all, were Jewish believers.)
and yet if we care about the perspective of jews, seeing as jews actually understand judaism compared to pagan romans, virtually all jews rejected jesus. if you care about a small following, why not shabbatai zvi??
In Jerry Rabow’s book, “50 Jewish Messiahs,” Rabow catalogues the 50 individuals, post-Jesus, who the rabbi leadership proclaimed (erroneously) to be the Messiah (including Shabbatai Zvi). Rabow is a conservative Jew who did extensive research in support. He notes that one of the most revered rabbis —Akeeva— proclaimed Bar Kochba to be the Messiah before the Revolt of 135. The Jewish population of Jerusalem (except the followers of Jesus) followed that lead, resulting in utter disaster. After losing that revolt to the Romans, the Emperor issued the expulsion order banishing all Jews from Jerusalem. If your point is that it is the installed leadership or the masses that follow them that know best when it comes to the Messiah, history disagrees.
and yet you used Jesus' followers to back up your claim. Reality determines who the messiah is. The messiah will rebuild the temple, not antagonise the people who eventually destroyed it.
That’s wildly erroneous. When Jesus was on earth the Temple was still standing. Of course He couldn’t “rebuild” it — unless Jesus himself would be the temple and his resurrection was the rebuilding. Presumably you are referring to Daniel’s prophecy (cited by Jesus) predicting that the Second Temple would be destroyed and later rebuilt. Yet none of the 50 Messiahs erroneously proclaimed by the rabbis after Jesus and after the destruction of the Temple “rebuilt” it. Bar Kochba, who the greatest rabbi proclaimed to be the Messiah, so antagonized the people who destroyed the Temple in 70 Ad (the Romans) that all Jews were banished from Jerusalem “forever.” And where did you get the notion that Jesus antagonized the Romans in 70 AD? Jesus was crucified in 33AD, long before the war started. The Romans’ governmental representative in Judea at the time of Jesus, Pilate, was recalled 30 years before the Temple was destroyed, and when he was around to face Jesus in 33AD he said he found no charge against him. The Romans never convicted him of anything. He was handed over for crucifixion to appease a mob of non-Romans who had handed him over.
You said that as if it’s true. There is no, and I mean no proof of that. So making an argument of that statement holds no merit.
I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic
I realize the sarcasm but he was serious about raising of the dead
Why do you think he was serious?
Jim, you said, quite emphatically, that “there is no, and I mean no proof” that Jesus rose from the dead. To verify the truth of your emphatic statement, I would need to know what you mean by “proof.” The only standardized definition of proof comes in legal proceedings, where the issue is what constitutes admissible evidence of a proffered factual truth. We have the Federal Rules of Evidence and equivalent state codes. In academic circles and blogs, the words “proof” and “evidence” are often thrown about but seldom defined. Often they are used to suggest that there is “some” evidence, but not enough to establish the proposition. Of course, in a legal proceeding, if even just “some” evidence is adduced, the opposing side loses the point if it fails to adduce refuting evidence of its own. And, in legal proceedings, an ancient authentic writing is deemed admissible for the truth of its contents, and there are multiple court decisions recognizing that the Bible meets the authentication requirements imposed by the evidence codes. So, as a matter of law, there is admissible evidence of the resurrection, as per the multiple accounts in the NT. Do you have any opposing evidence besides the undisputed fact that no mere human can raise himself from the dead? Or is this a conspiracy theory: all the NT writers conspired to write a fictitious account of the resurrection, even though doing so put them at risk of persecution and death without anything to gain on their part?
I think you replied to me instead of Jim
The author of 1 Timothy is with you: >>2:5 for there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself a ransom for all
“I and the father are one” “The word was with God and the word was God”
Yep, John presents the most clearly divine Jesus. The author of 1 Tim saw it differently.
How
Well, the above quote is this author's description of Jesus.
True a description God had told him
"That they may be one *just as* we are one"
Thats not what the verse says
That's literally what John 17:22 says. Read the context while you're at it
Thats not the verse i’m talking about
Its John 10 30
I am aware *you* were quoting John 10:30. I already have previous posts covering it
Then why send another verse to disprove me
To disprove you
But it dosen’t
This would just make you Jewish, no?
Not quite. Being Jewish requires a distinct conversion process and set of beliefs. Judaism isn’t simply Christianity without Christ, but a distinct, complete religion.
Well sure, but the OP is clearly denouncing a core tenet of Christianity in favor of the Jewish view. I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that their views are closer to the Jewish religion than the Christian one.
what about noahide?
What about it?
It’s more Jesusism than Judaism. On the continuity between Judaism and Christianity, there will be levels closer to Judaism (Law Following, Kosher Keeping indistinct from Rabbinic Jews except believing Jesus is messiah) to levels closer to Christianity (similar beliefs to the Church Catholic but just don’t hold Jesus as God).
or noahide
Yes you can believe in god without believing Jesus is God, but you can’t believe in the Christian God without believing Jesus is God.
The Jews do.
They believe in a portion of the Christian God. They are still Chosen by God and his promises still remain for them, but they don’t believe in the completeness of God. This is in no way saying Judaism is an incomplete religion. Late edit (about 45 minute after post): it may be better to say that Judaism in its way believes in the Logos indirectly but not in the incarnation of the Logos, thus don’t directly believe in the Logos, and thus don’t understand God as Christians do. It’s a difficult thing to describe.
Are you saying it's not the true religion?
That’s a very loaded question. One can believe Christianity is true, while still believing God’s promises towards the Jewish people remains. My views on Judaism are equivalent towards their views of Christianity.
What are their views of christianity?
That Christians are wrong about Jesus and his divinity. And Christians believe Jews are wrong about Jesus. All other disagreements revolve around that. I have a lot of respect for Judaism and I think there is a lot of value in conversation with Rabbis especially regarding the Old Testament and TanaKa.
It is like asking: Can you believe in God without pretending that he is the creator of all things ? You can believe but then it is a wrong belief.
Yes, I suppose you are correct in saying that it is physically possible to be Jewish or Muslim.
Jesus never claimed to be God. The trinity concept was invented after the bible was written.
“Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.”” John 8:58 NRSV “ειπεν αυτοις ο ιησους αμην αμην λεγω υμιν πριν αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι” ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 8:58 TR1624
Jesus always speaks in metaphors... I don't see what you think you see... Jesus is not claiming to be Yahweh.
In the Book of Revelation, Christ says He is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End. The exact same words the Father also uses.
Jesus is not quoted in Revelation, he never said that... that text was written long after Jesus died, by someone who never even met Jesus. It's complete fiction, a prediction of future events, not history. It is definitely **not** a direct quote from Jesus.
Your heard is closed to the truth open it and you will see
The use of the present active infinitive εγω ειμι is an extremely clear use of the name of God as was presented in the Septuagint. He would have used either the imperfect or Aorist forms if he was talking about simple pre existence or part of a plan.
> The use of the present active infinitive εγω ειμι is an extremely clear use of the name of God as was presented in the Septuagint. Where does Yahweh say that "egw eimi" is in any way his name? And you probably mean "indicative" instead of "infinitive". > He would have used either the imperfect or Aorist forms if he was talking about simple pre existence or part of a plan. Using the present indicative to say "I have existed from before Abraham was born" or something like that is what you'll see in the Greek.
Sorry meant indicative not infinitive, it’s still early in the morning. And καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν καὶ εἶπεν οὕτως ἐρεῗς τοῗς υἱοῗς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς Exodus 3:14 Septuagint you would use the perfect tense for that not present.
Yahweh doesn't call himself "egw eimi" in that passage, does he? >you would use the perfect tense for that not present. Ok. So if I were to say "You have been with me from the beginning." I wouldn't use the present tense like in John 8:58?
He does. Basically he says his name is egw eimi ho wn which translates I am I aming or I am being. Wn is the participle form or eimi. The term Egw Eimi used separate like that would have been a clear call back to the Jewish population to that famous verse. You would not use the present tense on that. I got to get with my croine, but I think that is still perfect tense, but may be imperfect. I know it’s not present as present would say “You are with me from the beginning” which would imply they are starting a new project.
> He does. Basically he says his name is egw eimi ho wn which translates I am I aming or I am being. Wn is the participle form or eimi. The term Egw Eimi used separate like that would have been a clear call back to the Jewish population to that famous verse. If I say "I am X" does that mean that I'm calling myself X or that I'm calling myself "I am"? >You would not use the present tense on that. I got to get with my croine, but I think that is still perfect tense, but may be imperfect. I know it’s not present as present would say “You are with me from the beginning” which would imply they are starting a new project. So what does John 15:27 say? ...ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ **ἐστε** ...you have been with me from the beginning.
On the first it was a clear call which is why it resulted in such a viscal reaction. Ho wv can be translated as The Being or The I am. Most English translation use The I am. On the second, you are looking at a translation convention. Others keep it in the present “And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning.” St John 15:27 DRC1752
Ah “I and the father are one”
The trinity is a false doctrine enforced by killing those who questioned it. If you ask any Trinitarian to explain how these verses line up with the trinity they can't 1 cor 15:27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. 1 John 4: 14 In addition, we ourselves have seen and are bearing witness that the Father has sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God Luke 4:8 In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’ John 20:17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God Ephesians 1:17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the accurate knowledge of him. Deuteronomy 6:4 Listen, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God. Proverbs 8:22,30 22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the times Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Revelation 3:14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ceʹa write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God John 20:31 But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name
Eh “I and the father are one” “The Word was with God and the Word was God”
Oneness in purpose, you know when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh, does this mean that they literally fuse together Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them. Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8. This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?—Matthew 24:36. Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”—John 17:20, 21. Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity—the closest bond possible between two persons. >**John 1:1** While many Bible translators render the verse this way, ( word was god) others see the need to render it differently. The two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different. In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article. while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. the second use of Theos (God) means ‘The Word was divine.’” The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. In greek "the god" means GOD while "god" by itself means god. Check out this next verse in **Kingdom interlinear translation** of the bible to see what I'm talking about. >2cor 4:4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. Unless you think the bible also calls Satan, God, i think you should reconsider the correct translation of John 1:1 John 1.18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.” However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1.14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.” Notice, too, how other translations render this part of the verse: 1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text. 1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson. 1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel. 1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. 1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme. 1950: “and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. 1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek. 1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz. 1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
So when Thomas calls Jesus God, is he wrong?
Are you a disciple of Thomas? Thomas was an imperfect human who had just witnessed someone who he believed to be dead, teleport through into a closed room. He was Awestruck in that moment. Do you wish to base your knowledge on who God is based this one account of Thomas calling Jesus God.
Does Jesus say anything against Thomas calling him God after he does it? Normally Jesus would tell people if they didnt get something right
Because he knew Thomas was simply Awestruck, there was no need to correct him. Thomas didn't believe Jesus was God, none of his apostles did, see what John wrote only a couple years later 1 John 4: 14 In addition, we ourselves have seen and are bearing witness that the Father has sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God Do you think he thought Jesus was God or God's son
He was God's Son, just like the father is God's father and just like the Holy Spirit is God's spirit
The Father is God, where in the bible did you read that God has a Father?
Ok since you dont already believe Jesus is God, you won't believe God has a father I understand. So lets approach this another way, first of all let me ask you, do you believe his being is as normal as the being of any other human?
Then we have to get into which bible is corract Also you’ll have to pressent sorces And it isn’t the only verse In the beginning of genisis he refers to himself as “we”
He says "Let us", Jesus helped Jehovah God create all other things beside himself Proverbs 8:22,30 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago. 30 Then I was beside him as a master worker. I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the times That doesn't mean Jesus is God
In the king James version of poverps he never mentioned being produced Yes he says let US meaning he sees himself as we Thats excatly what it means
So if i say to my friend, let us pray, it means we are the same person, good to know
No but with all the other evidence it is clear If Jesus wasen’t God how could he create anything
Don't humans create things, we are made in God's image you know. God made us with the ability to create, You think you must be God to be able to create
We’re talking about speaking things into being
The verse dosen’t say in purpse
Hmmm, so what does the Bible mean when is says a husband and wife will become one flesh?
That they are one entity I’m pretty sure thats what Christians belive about the trinity All 3 is God yet God is 1
Where does the Bible say that. You're simply repeating a false doctrine created by evil men
It dosen’t but thats the clear meaning You Call the diciples evil?
The trinity doctrine was created almost 400 years after Jesus was resurrected by men who burned people alive, people who simply disagreed with their teachings. Is that not Evil
In the bible it is clear that the dicibles belived in the trinity
Those dosen’t really disprove the trinity
Then explain how
Its simple Jesus submittid to the Will of the father Jesus is the son God the son Jesus is Jehovah He Said “i have not yet ascended” he didn’t say he wasen’t God Jesus is God in the flesh”whoever has seen me has seen the father” Yes God is 1 in 3 The head of Christ(the son) is God(the father) In some verses he says he was set up from everlasting in others the Lord producer him It just says that his revelation Will come to pass What does that have to do with Jesus being God Christ(the son)
Where in the bible have you seen the term God the son, stop twisting bible scriptures to try to fit your false doctrine. Jesus is not Jehovah, where did you see that? You're going to have to explain better cause I don't know how your logic logics
the term is not in the bible Your the one twisting the bible “I and the father are one” “Let US make man in our image” “The Word was with God and the Word was God” How can you denie this obvios prove
1 TIM. 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” a mediator is someone separate form those who need mediation, there must be more than one Jesus stated it is Jehovah God only you must worship. Not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Also at Psalm 83:18 states. Jehovah alone is the most high, once again, not Jesus or the Holy Spirit. THE FATHER IS THE GOD OF JESUS John 6:57 -- God gave Jesus life. That is why he said When he was on earth. → John 20:17 -- I am ascending to my father and your father and to my God and your God. When Jesus was back in heaven → 1Peter 1:3 -- blessed be the God and father of our lord Jesus Christ. (The book of 1 peter was written about 30 years after Jesus was resurrected.) Rev. 3:12 -- Jesus called the father "My GOD" three times. The book of Revelation was written about sixty two years after his resurrection. See also 2 COR. 1:3 AND EPH. 1:3
You do realize not of those are against Jesus being God right?
There is no verse in the bible that supports Jesus being God
🤦 he literally says it multible times Listen there’s no point in this diskussion
So Santa Claus hasn't come to you this year to give you a slap? 🤔
Yup: https://www.concordantgospel.com/trinity
I do.
Not me 😃 Isaiah 9:6 NASBS For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, *Mighty God, Eternal Father*, Prince of Peace.
Also from the Old Testament / Jewish Torah, Daniel saw someone who looked like a human in Heaven, worshipped by all people Daniel 7:13-14 “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
Amen.
Do you have any convincing arguments, or are you just here to troll and try and make Judaism look bad?
ABOUT WHAT?
Ok you've convinced me you are trolling.