Why do peole think that Jesus was god?

a reply to: nenothtu

No, what you are doing is ascribing only one narrow meaning to a word. That's not how it works. Then acting dumb when people don't agree in only narrow definitions that don't add any context.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nenothtu

You do realize the person who agrees with you (Akragon) thinks the OT God is not God and is a fallen Angel or an ET being maybe. So ....

Yeah, I know that. What's the relevance? What Akragon believes has no more bearing on what I believe than what you believe does - he's allowed to make up his own mind, same as you are, same as I Am.

Akragon has a real theological education (book larnin' and all), and I think that at one time he may have even been a preacher, so I'm content to let him sort out his own beliefs. Truth stands on it's own, and doesn't need my support, your support, or Akragon's support. It supports itself.

a reply to: peskyhumans

You are taking two of these verses out of context. Right after John 10:29, is John 10:30 in which Jesus says that he and the Father are one.

One in essence... not one and the same... or even equal

One can not be equal to, and greater then...

In John 13:16 he is not referring to God, he is referring to his Disciples washing each others feet, so that they treat each other as equals,

He is teaching that equality....

Thus HE is the teacher/Lord/Master... and what did he say?

John 14:28 is difficult. I suppose that the Father being the Creator does have all the power, however Jesus still carries all of his authority. In fact earlier in that chapter he says that the Father will send the Holy Spirit in Jesus' name. Jesus said many times that he came in the name of the Father, to do his work. There is no doubt in my mind that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equals.

Did you read what you just typed?

there is no equality to God in any of his teaching...

only submission

a reply to: Akragon

My right arm is stronger / greater than my left. Does that mean it is not part of the same body?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It does not mean its equal to the other, or the rest either now does it?

And what about the whole... Does an arm equal the body?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It does not mean its equal to the other, or the rest either now does it?

And what about the whole... Does an arm equal the body?

I never claimed they are all equal. And no, an arm does not make up the whole body, that is my point as well. The full individual is made of different parts. All one body/individual. Same with God, different parts that make up the whole.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

now we're getting some where...

IF there is a trinity... and I mean IF because like I've been saying it certainly isn't recognised in the bible...

It is not what the current church teaches... which is said equality shoved down the peoples throats...

Reconciling Arius...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

now we're getting some where...

IF there is a trinity... and I mean IF because like I've been saying it certainly isn't recognised in the bible...

It is not what the current church teaches... which is said equality shoved down the peoples throats...

Reconciling Arius...

I could care less about what the Church teaches, only what the Bible teaches. The only way to ignore the Trinity is to ignore Bible verses you don't agree with.

Although .. I may change that .. and say it's not necessarily that they are not all "equal" .. but that the Father is clearly the "head" of the Trinity. I would have to give that a lot of consideration and study. But the Father is clearly the head of the Trinity.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I still call that progress...

Did you know that Jesus had a "God"?

originally posted by: Akragon
a WORD is essentially a sound... even a vibration
Both of which need something to create them

There are very few things we disagree about, this is probably the one thing

God doesn't have to create Himself. Calling Jesus 'The Word' is the closest in human language John could use to describe Jesus ... Jesus Who Himself said He came down from Heaven, and He backed that statement up with his miracles. (unlike others who made claims to be a prophet and produced no evidence).

In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, and The Word was God .

'The Word'. An aspect of God Himself.

As always, you are free to disagree. We'll find out for sure when we are dead.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nenothtu

No, what you are doing is ascribing only one narrow meaning to a word. That's not how it works. Then acting dumb when people don't agree in only narrow definitions that don't add any context.

Well, this is what I said:

"Hagios" - sacred, pure, morally blameless, consecrated, most holy(thing)... what sort of "sanctification" are YOU referring to? Is there another kind?

Which is the "one narrow meaning"?

"Hagiastai" is the action of making something be one of those, so I suppose it's just as narrow and singular.

Fact is, words have meanings, and we often run into trouble when we try to overly broaden them and impart meanings that are not there to begin with, which is something I try to avoid when I can.

"διαστέλλομαι" (diastellomai) is "(to) set apart", "(to) put asunder", and "(to) distinguish" - i.e. ""(to) set apart". Less commonly and more specifically, "αφοριζω" - "aphorizo" - "(to) separate", "(to) sever", "(to) cut off", "(to) ostracize" or "(to) exclude."

"Hagia" is not "set apart". It means "holy", as in "Hagia Sophia".

"Bucket" dos not mean "bowl", except in perhaps an overly broad sense. We do a disservice to both if we try to merge them into one, single, overly broad definition of "being hollow"... we then don't know a bucket from a bowl, which could get somewhat embarassing at meal time.

ETA: or "drum" for that matter, since drums are hollow too. How many drums full of soup do you want for dinner? I'm on a budget - can we make it bongos instead of kettle drums? 55 gallon drums may be entirely beyond my reach...

a reply to: FlyersFan

Of course I will!

In the beginning was the word... and the word was WITH God

God was there before the word...

Even an aspect of God needs something to be an aspect of...

Much because Jesus was entitled as the "Godhead":

The word “Godhead” occurs in the King James Version only 3 times (it is not found in the NIC or NASB) Acts 17:29; Rom 1:20; Col. 2:9, and it translates slightly different each time, though closely related (In Greek- theion, theiotes, theotes). Theion means “that which is Divine,” Paul uses this word in Acts 17:29 in an address made to a heathen audience. The Greeks used it in the sense of “the Divine Being,” as a general term to designate “the Deity” apart from reference to a particular god.

This passage in Col.2:9 and one other are the most explicit statements of Christ’s deity in the New Testament. Col.2:9 “For in him dwells (lives) the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (bodily form). “God was in Christ” (2 Cor.5:19).

All that makes God who He is, is to be found in Jesus. This does not exclude that the Father is also fully God or the Holy Spirit (the Helper) is fully God. This should not be confused to a similar word in Romans 1:20, theiotes, expressing the quality of God, or divinity. It is not that certain aspects dwell in Jesus Christ in bodily form, but He by His very nature is God, the Supreme Being, our creator.

Source: What does the term Godhead mean?
This later spawned the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity:

The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold") defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.

Source: Wikipedia

-MM

originally posted by: Akragon
In the beginning was the word... and the word was WITH God
God was there before the word...

And the word WAS God. You forgot that part.
ETA .. and John said this was all 'in the beginning'.
So Jesus was God since the beginning.

I see it like God is a big chocolate chip cookie. One big cookie.
Jesus is a chunk that broke off and is separate.
He's still all chocolate chip cookie from the same original cookie.
He's separate .. yet the same.
And he could be reattached to the bigger chunk at any time.
(assuming he's a moist cookie like from Subway and not a dry Chips Ahoy type )
Or He could go do His own thing ... like go get dunked in milk (jump in a human body).

Anyways ... that's how I picture it in my head.
(Which probably makes God chuckle a bit)

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: FlyersFan

Of course I will!

In the beginning was the word... and the word was WITH God

God was there before the word...

Even an aspect of God needs something to be an aspect of...

I would disagree. God and the Word were there at the same time. In the beginning was the Word .. not God then the Word.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Surely to have a 'word' said, after all if nothing is said the word does not exist till it speaks. But to have speech you need a mouth and a mouth needs - ……. Sorry I don't follow your reasoning.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I didn't forget... remember who is actually speaking here...

This is a narrative from the author of the book... not a witness testimony of anything HE actually said

the author is trying to give the reader a perspective based on his knowledge of who Jesus was...

but the issue is... Jesus only claimed to be the "Son of God" in any of the gospels...

And is subordinate to his Father... which means he is in the very least... Less then the Father...

Equality does not exist in his words

John 3;16 pretty much sums it up."For God So loved the world ,That He gave His only Begotten Son,,that whomsoever believeth in Him Shall not perish but have everlastiing life."

John 14:6
6 Jesus also said , “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


The Trinity is common sense if you would read the entire bible and stop jumping around everywhere.
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit

a reply to: Jobeycool

John 3;16 pretty much sums it up."For God So loved the world ,That He gave His only Begotten Son,,that whomsoever believeth in Him Shall not perish but have everlastiing life."

John 14:6 6 Jesus also said , “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Where do you get a triune God from either of those verses?

in both cases Jesus points to His Father

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I would disagree. God and the Word were there at the same time. In the beginning was the Word .. not God then the Word.

You do not believe God was, before the beginning? In other words, you believe God HAD a beginning?

What then caused the beginning to begin? What was there before God that was greater than God, and so caused His beginning?

If God had a beginning, do you also believe that he then will also have an end?