1:1 and 1:18 to support your stance, they're unclear at best. 'Extremely clear', that's pretty funny dude. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" ..... "Nobody's seen God, Except his Son Jesus, who is God". Yep, clear as a bell!
Here's what Jesus actually said:
John 14:28 - My Father is greater than I. (hmm)
John 20:17 - I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (I ascend to.. myself? No.)
Matthew 19:17 - And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Matthew 27:46 - My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (was Jesus schizophrenic??)
Here's what Jesus's disciples said:
1 Peter 3:21-22 - Jesus Christ; who is on the the right hand of God. (Peter, obviously)
Colossians 3:1 - Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. (Paul)
Mark 16:19 - So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. (Mark)
This shit is clear. John 1 is a tough sell, trying to prove your point.
How can you call yourself a Christian, then insinuate Jesus and all his disciples are liars?
and in between i'll throw in john 10: 30 I and the Father are one.
or how bout john 8: 58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
john 10: 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Jesus was crucified because He claimed to be God....
i am not insinuating that Jesus and His disciples were liars....
i am saying you are confused/misinformed
and if you believe Jesus was not God......and you call yourself christian.....you are once again....confused or misinformed....
This is an awesome debate. It is truly entertaining to me. This is also why I never have scripture debate.
Regarding John 8:58 - Of course Jesus existed before Abraham. ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, Jesus was there from almost the very beginning of time.
John 10:3 - "The guys who crucified Jesus said he claimed he was God"?? Dude, you're making the same insinuation Jesus's killers made.
It's very simple. JESUS HIMSELF said he was the Son of God. Jesus didn't profess he was God. He was very clear about this. NONE of his disciples thought he was God. They all understood he was the Son of God. Offspring, not one and the same. There is no denying this, or fiddling with the verbage to fit your version.
I posted seven or eight verses that most would think are very clear, and I have about 4 dozen more. You posted two verses that require a squint of the eyes and a tilt of the head to faintly understand how someone could misconstrue it as you have.
What do you make of all the scripture clearly stating otherwise? Straight from Jesus's mouth?? It's just.... rubbish?
John 6:38-40 -
For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
So either Jesus was a schizophrenic god and compulsive liar, or you've got it wrong. Seriously, read the Bible on your own. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, read it on your own and you'll soon understand how organized religion is very likely organized by Satan. You're all caught up in it bro.
you can't seem to comprehend that i have not insinuated Jesus and His disciples are liars.........YOU are the liar....
you are a jehovah's witness.....you've bought into the lie....no big deal.....many people do....
post all 4 dozen verses if you want....you are taking them all out of context.....you are an "observer of religion"....but you know nothing about the scripture you quote...
but there are people here like teo and preterist who are far smarter than i.....trying to tell you you are wrong......but you and brokeback act like i'm the only one who believes Jesus is God....
Has morningwood been banned under another user name?
I'm not saying heretical is "wrong"...I'm saying it's not orthodox, which is to say it's an outlier amongst the most rational and *useful* definition of Christian.
Is the sticking point here trying to determine what the "Son of God" actually means? Because I'm seeing 87 posting that it implies Christ and God being equal and Morningwood implying that it means they're separate.
If... IF it was John's job to clear that up, I'd say he horribly failed. Honestly. But I don't have to fight any preconceived notions that were drilled into my head by my parents or a church.
The only proof you have, Sooner87, and this is giving you very strong benefit of the doubt - is a cryptic message hidden inside a riddle, and a verse unlike almost all other Bible translations in history, retrofitted by people desperate for biblical support of their belief. And then you googled for a few more that are so far off it's simply a waste of time.
Does it not raise a red flag, in your mind? Jesus himself, the gospels, et al. straight-up saying God is the father of Jesus? No hidden meanings or encoded messages, always very direct, contextual or otherwise? Does that not put you at odds?
If you could prove the context totally turns around Jesus's words, you would. But you can't do it. Listen dude, you don't need a smart guy to translate what things mean. The bible was intended to be readable and digestable by anyone. I politely recommend you stop listening to some mealy-mouth career church zombie telling you what to believe, read the bible for yourself and make your own opinion.
And to be clear: this is not a hot topic for me, I really don't care what you believe. I respect your view but your personality begs to be ****ed with. Plus I like the easy side of arguments and you're a willing antagonist
btw...this parallels our discussion wrt God/allah.....
if you compare the nature/characteristics of Jesus/God....you must conclude they are the same
if you compare the nature/characteristics of God/allah....you must conclude they are vastly different
Jesus was half human when he was on earth. So not exactly the same as God at least during his earthly period.
Allah/God was the same diety at least until Isaac and Ishmael. It ican be reasoned that Allah/God are the same diety now but (at least according to Christians/Jews) Muslims are so far off track that God won't accept their worship of Allah..
God (according to Christianity) feels that the Jews got off track when they rejected Jesus. The Muslims got off track earlier and (according to the Jews and later Christians) and got so far off track that they refer to a false prophet and follow an unholy scripture set.
Allah could be considered a perverted (again according to Christians and Jews) definition of the JudeoChristian God.
allah didn't exist prior to ishmael.........
we are the creation of God.....allah is the creation of man...
However, Since Muslims believe in the creation story, the flood story, and everything up to Abraham and Isaac then who was the God that did all that? God/Allah did. Same diety.
In reality however, the Isaac, Ishmael, Sarah, Hagar story is one that tries to describe the genesis of two seperate cultures among the semites of that early period. During this time, the perceptions of "God" between the two cultures began to become disimilar culminating in the bible and the Koran.
You can see it differently but I just can't considering Allah is the generic word for God and that the Abrahamic faiths have a shared beginning. The Muslims certainly don't think that Allah only existed after Ishmael.
Isn't a trinity made up of three things? Three equal things?
S&G, Noah, raining hell on the Egyptians, the lion's den, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, blowing trumpets knocking down walls, killing everyone and salting earth, vengeance is mine, Solomon, David and Goliath-- OT God. NT God--love your neighbor.
His covenant with man was different . . . and then the Jews greatly expounded on the laws. That's probably as big of a change between testaments IMO.
The Allah/God debate is much more interesting
Alright, to put this another way, so that you all understand a very important thing about religious talks.
Words are approximate descriptors of all things, but particularly metaphysical things. The term Allah literally translates as "(the) God". And God, would literally translate as "Allah".
In reality that makes the terms pretty useless, as you can say that anyone who believes in God believes in Allah.
The word Allah is only as useful as the weight it carries in regards to what it represents. Carrying the full weight of what it represents, Allah can only be understood in the light of Islam, and even within Islam that term has a variety of meanings. To assert that Allah is the same God as Yahweh or the "Theos" of the New Testament is to issue a different weight by which Allah is understood. In argument this is known as "equivocation". It's not allowed.
The same can be said of saying that the Christian God is the same as Allah.
Now, to be sure, at some point in history there was a time where the ancestors of the Muslims and the ancestors of the Jews (and by extension, "Christians") were in the same family and they likely used the same term to approximately describe the same being (as much as any group of people can use a word with a common understanding). The words used today to describe each sect's particular deity stemmed from that same word, but the meanings became greatly varied and by any measure of "reality", those words approximately describe very different beings.