Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
Re-read your list you acknowledge if you see Jesus you see God then declare Jesus isn’t God. Your denying that Jesus isn’t God does not mean He isn’t God it just means you are following your own error.
It doesn't say "Jesus is God" and you've already admitted that. It might say something that you want to interpret to mean that, but it doesn't ever say "Jesus is God".
So, you can't say and you were mistaken about my splitting hairs.
So, the Bible is an IQ test?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes. And you failed.
You're nitpicking.
I'm glad you recognize that. Most of my opponents over the years won't even go that far in discussions of any topic.
False.
You seem to have missed the rest of my post. Here it is again:
| I'm also not aware of any place in John's Gospel (the passage in question notwithstanding) where "Son of Man" is recorded as being from either John himself as commentary or by someone who is speaking other than Jesus. In addition: even Matthew, Mark, and Luke record Jesus as referring to Himself in the third person as the "Son of Man," among other things. |
It might be today.
But considering that Jesus did, in fact, speak in third person, and often, and since Jesus was, in fact, completely sane, I would caution you against projecting current culture onto cultures in the past.
Well, no, you asked, and I quote your direct words:
To which I shall answer now: The fact that it is red, combined with other passages in John's gospel where it is quite clear that Jesus is speaking where he refers to himself as the Son of Man, in third person, along with the fact that not only John's gospel records Jesus as doing so, but also Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I did some searching, but I was unable to find (perhaps because my Google-fu isn't good enough) the reasoning behind why the red words are red.
Are you sure about that?
At the very least, the english seems to point out that some of the things said had not yet occurred, or were still ongoing.
Here is the text:
Spoiler
The highlighted portion is false, as Hebrews has the phrase "only begotten son":
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, - Hebrews 11:17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews11:17&version=NKJV
As to the rest of what you said, more question begging.
You're assuming your position is true, and then arguing from that assumption.
You have yet to show why it was NOT Jesus speaking, as you are the one making the positive claim that Jesus did not utter the words found in John 3:16, 18.
Again, false.
According to BLB, there are 64 verses where the phrase "in the name of" is used, most of them aren't John, and some of those are Matthew, and Luke, quoting Jesus words.
I'll let the following images speak for themselves.
And remind you that forming a doctrine on one verse is a fools errand.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, - John 3:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John3:14&version=NKJV
I don't see the problem. Perhaps you could point it out?
I don't use the NIV. I use the NKJV because it is closer to the Hebrew/Greek.
Because you say so?
They weren't?
Context please?
If you had read the entirety of John 3, you might understand the context of why Jesus would talk to Nicodemus. I recommend you start in verses 1 and 2.
Wrong book.
So what?
Did you lose focus? The point is that Jesus is using third person in the verse.
Again, so what? The point is that Jesus was using third person in the verse, and in other verses, which gives precedent for John 3:13-21 to also be seen as Jesus speaking in third person.
But it does say that Jesus is God.
You're just covering your eyes because you don't want to see it in the Bible.
Let me ask you this:
What if you're wrong?
What if, despite all the arguments you've brought to this discussion, you find out after you die that Jesus really is God?
Versus, what if you're right?
What if, despite the countless arguments and amount of evidence trinitarians have brought to support the claim that Jesus is God, it turns out that He isn't?
Lon
Well-known member
No, you just have to believe Philippians 2
No, It was written by Paul in Philippians.
True, every disciple was put to death. John 20:28 Thomas said to Jesus, "You are the Lord and You are the God of me." YOU Unitarians have to explain to God one day why you ignored His scriptures. They are this clear. Sorry. Fact, to your own ignoring demise. "This is my Son, LISTEN to Him!" You don't get to play dumb on that day.
Lon
Well-known member
Ouch! Hilltrot said if Jesus spoke of Himself in the third person, He was insane???
Lon doesn't often refer to himself in the third person, but if he ever did (like here) it is NOT the mark of insanity. It is a literary device with a purpose: "The Son of man did not come to be served, but to serve." Matthew 20:20–28 Mark 10:35–45
Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect. There is no indication John 'switched' to commentary mode. That is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL construct.
Lon
Well-known member
Lon
Well-known member
Louis Klopsch was the owner of a printing business and capable editor. The credentials behind the red letters are his ability as editor where grammar is taxed daily as well as his reliability upon scholars and theologians. While these theologians aren't named, Klopsch, as an editor had many contacts through his publishing company and enlisted their help and expertise. Among these were certainly Dr. Talmage and professors at Moody Bible Institute. Not sure if any of this is helpful, but such was the aim of my effort. In Him -Lon
If you count the times Jesus spoke about himself in the third person and the number of times he didn't, you'd see he usually did not speak about himself in the third person.
Not referring to himself in the third person.
Matthew 3:15
Matthew 4:19
Matthew 5:17-18
Matthew 5:20
Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:32
Matthew 5:34
Matthew 5:39
Matthew 5:44
Matthew 6:2
Matthew 5:9
Matthew 6:2
Matthew 6:5
Matthew 6:16
Matthew 6:25
Matthew 7:23
Matthew 8:3
Matthew 8:7
Matthew 8:10-11
Matthew 8:22
Matthew 9:2
Matthew 9:13
Matthew 9:28
Matthew 10:15-16
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 10:25
Matthew 10:27
Matthew 10:32-40
Matthew 10:42
Matthew 11:11
Matthew 11:14
Matthew 11:16
Matthew 11:21-24
Matthew 11:28-30
Matthew 12:6-7
Matthew 12:27-28
Matthew 12:31
Matthew 12:36
Matthew 12:39
Matthew 12:48-50
Matthew 13:12-13
Matthew 13:17
Matthew 14:17
Matthew 14:31
Matthew 15:24
Matthew 15:32
Matthew 16:4
Matthew 16:9-11
Matthew 16:15
Matthew 16:17-19
Matthew 16:23-25
Matthew 16:28
Matthew 17:12
Matthew 17:17
Matthew 17:20
Matthew 17:27
Matthew 18:3
Matthew 18:6
Matthew 18:10
Matthew 18:13-14
Matthew 18:18-19
Matthew 18:35
Matthew 19:9
Matthew 19:14
Matthew 19:17
Matthew 19:21
Matthew 19:23-24
Matthew 19:28
Matthew 20:22-23
Matthew 20:32
Matthew 21:2
Matthew 21:21
Matthew 21:24
Matthew 21:27
Matthew 21:29-30
Matthew 21:31
Matthew 21:43
Matthew 22:18-19
Matthew 23:34
Matthew 23:36-37
Matthew 23:39
Matthew 24:2
Matthew 24:5
Matthew 24:10
Matthew 24:25
Matthew 24:34
Matthew 24:47
Matthew 26:10-13
Matthew 26:21
Matthew 26:23
Matthew 26:29
Matthew 26:31-32
Matthew 26:34
Matthew 26:36
Matthew 26:38-40
Matthew 26:42
Matthew 26:46
Matthew 26:50
Matthew 26:53-55
Matthew 27:46
Matthew 28:10
Matthew 28:18
Matthew 28:20
Refers to himself in the third person.
Matthew 8:20
Matthew 10:23
Matthew 11:19
Matthew 12:8
Matthew 12:32
Matthew 12:41-42
Matthew 13:31
Matthew 13:41
Matthew 13:57
(Matthew 16:13-14 - interesting passage. Put's all the other references to Son of Man in a new perspective.)
Matthew 17:9
Matthew 17:22-23
Matthew 19:28
Matthew 20:18-19
Matthew 20:28
Matthew 24:30-31
Matthew 24:36-37
Matthew 24:39
Matthew 24:44
Matthew 25:31-45
Matthew 26:2
Matthew 26:24
Matthew 26:45
Matthew 26:64
I still stand by what I said Jesus did not usually refer to himself in the third person. He referred to himself in the third person only about 20% of the time.
Lon
Well-known member
Jesus didn't use it. John did. This is what I meant from the beginning.
You don't understand what begging the question is.
Begging the question is using the premise to prove the premise or in other words, using the conclusion to prove the conclusion.
Having a preconception is not "begging the question."
In this case, "the Greek words being in past tense", "the only begotten son being used by John but not Jesus", etc, is not the conclusion. The conclusion is that Jesus likely didn't say the words.
As for the rest of it, you do make good points. One good reason not to quotes other peoples's works. I'll take some time to examine more closely myself.
That's your belief. I think the TR has significant problems. The history of Erasmus and its creation leaves me to doubt it is the most accurate.
Why do you keep on saying this when immediately afterwards, I give the explanation? It makes you seem annoying and mean.
No, they weren't. Read the Gospel. By John 3, the disciples did not know all of this and in such great detail.
Jesus went out of his way to teach parables about the Kingdom to the crowds while reserving the explanations to his disciples. Why did Jesus do an about-face and tell his enemy - Nicodemus - more than his disciples? It doesn't make much sense.
The chapter break is wrong. You need to start on Chapter 2, verse 23.
Typo. Thank you for pointing it out.
The point is not that Jesus never spoke in the third person. The point is that, since he usually didn't, and John does add commentary, one has to determine where John commentary is and where Jesus' words are.
But as I mention is another discussion, I'm examining this again after reading Matthew 16:13-14.
The Bible assures that my salvation is not dependent on my stating or knowing that Jesus is the one true God or having the proper trinitarian beliefs - whatever those may be.
The New Testament and the Bible has made far more sense to me once I was willing to let go of my trinitarian beliefs and examine what the Bible actually said. It's even worse for the trinity if you read the pre-Nicene patristic fathers. If you read about the Nicene Council, the trinity idea becomes an even worse idea.
I was using a trichotomy when speaking with a Calvinist and he responded once with Jesus is ALL GOD and ALL MAN. I started to think a little bit. After that Trump Girl mentions Mary, mother of God. I actually respond against it from a protestant trinitarian view. However, after those two instances, I started looking into it. I wanted to make sure that I had the best understanding in order to properly refute Calvinism and Mariology. What I found was that I was wrong about the trinity and that it was not, in any way, Biblical.
Immediately after I saw that that was the case, I came to this forum to ask others to try to refute me. I was, quite frankly, disappointed but only for a while. So, I stopped posting about it for a while about the Bible, while I reread the Bible and for the first time as Jesus merely human. It made complete sense. I choose an interpretation of the Bible which makes sense, which doesn't require Jesus to have two wills or be eternally begotten.
Discovering the human Jesus has helped me tremendously.
Last edited: