Does God have eyes?

They are distinct forms of the same entity. The form that one takes does not necessarily change one's ontology. That is why God can appear in different forms to individuals on earth (which is to say a different "jurisdiction" using your terminology) in the Hebrew Bible without ceasing to be God. The forms do not allow the fullness of God to be visible to those to whom he appears.
This is a misleading view of scripture, and seems to be rooted in paganism (the idea that gods can morph from one form to another whilst concealing their true form). This does not apply to the Hebrew God. In order to manifest himself on earth, the Logos had to be "sent" - i.e. go out from God. All manifestations of "God" in the OT are angelic.

The text says that they thought he was making himself "God," not that he was "asserting the authority of God". This is clearly a different idea than making himself equal to God.
They are obviously referring to same idea.

John 20 says that Jesus had/has a God and that he was also God. That is in the New Testament, and you ignore it because you don't like what it means.
The God/Father of Jesus is YHWH (true God), whilst Thomas was referring to God in the Elohim sense (John 10:34-36) and Ps 45:6 (Elohim used as a term of address to the Son/King). That much seems to be irrefutable.

I am on record in many places saying that I don't believe we have enough information to know the precise nature of God and his relationship to Jesus. I don't think it matters. What is 100% wrong is to deny that Jesus is called God, as you do, when that is exactly what the text says.
I allow only for Jesus the man to be "called God of me" in the Elohim sense, per Thomas and per John 10:34-36 and per Ps 45:6.

Your confounding of Jesus with the God the Father, just because of Thomas's words, is otherwise misconceived.

And, again, if God is used in to refer to the totality of persons who are said to be God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit)
That would be an artifical usage in the NT.

then it would be a mistake to say that "the Father" is the totality of God.
You are alluding to the irreconcilability of philosophical [reasoning/usage of "God"] with the language of the NT, but using Thomas's words to justify the introduction of such philosophy. I don't accept that Thomas used "God" in an orthodox/Catholic Trinitarian sense and I don't accept the bible engages in philosophy.

This is true even in your conception of God where the Son somehow depends upon God. If you exclude that portion of divinity which the Son possesses from consideration with "the Father," he isn't "God" in a full sense either since a portion of his divinity abides in Jesus. You don't seem to grasp the intricacies of this. However, this does not forbid one from calling "the Father" or Jesus or the Holy Spirit God, for the New Testament does this very thing as I have pointed out to you.

The trouble seems to be that you aren't able to see the flaws in your reasoning, and you aren't able to understand what I've told you about my own views. In every case, your shortcomings are the problem.
I can see now what you are striving to achieve, which is the justification of Trinitarian philosophy on the basis of Thomas's words, and I categoricallty reject it. "God" has two senses in the NT, one is YHWH (the Father), and one is Elohim (see John 10:34-36). These are not necessarily identical, and they diverge to a certain extent. Both have to be accomodated and accepted for what they are, without seeking to introduce novelties, such as God's form morphing between spirit and flesh (which is definitely heretical).
 
Last edited:
This is a misleading view of scripture, and seems to be rooted in paganism (the idea that gods can morph from one form to another whilst concealing their true form). This does not apply to the Hebrew God. In order to manifest himself on earth, the Logos had to be "sent" - i.e. go out from God. All manifestations of "God" in the OT are angelic.
Your view isn't in alignment with what is said in the Hebrew bible or the New Testament. You do have a penchant for denying the parts of scripture you don't like.
They are obviously referring to same idea.
They obviously aren't. Claiming to be God or presenting yourself as God is different from acting in God's authority.
The God/Father of Jesus is YHWH (true God), whilst Thomas was referring to God in the Elohim sense (John 10:34-36) and Ps 45:6 (Elohim used as a term of address to the Son/King). That much seems to be irrefutable.
Hardly. This remains wishful thinking on your part.
I allow only for Jesus the man to be "called God of me" in the Elohim sense, per Thomas and per John 10:34-36 and per Ps 45:6.
Yep. Contrary to all sense and reason.
Your confounding of Jesus with the God the Father, just because of Thomas's words, is otherwise misconceived.
I'm clearly not doing that. I have consistently distinguished "the Father" and Jesus. You are saying things you know aren't true.
That would be an artifical usage in the NT.
That cannot be demonstrated with the information we have.
You are alluding to the irreconcilability of philosophical [reasoning/usage of "God"] with the language of the NT, but using Thomas's words to justify the introduction of such philosophy. I don't accept that Thomas used "God" in an orthodox/Catholic Trinitarian sense and I don't accept the bible engages in philosophy.
I haven't used any philosophy in regard to Jn. 20:28. I have said plainly that John records, and thereby approves of, Thomas's statement that Jesus is "God". You are unwilling to accept what John wrote and instead try to dilute the word into a sense that isn't truly "God" even though that is what he clearly was before his incarnation.
I can see now what you are striving to achieve, which is the justification of Trinitarian philosophy on the basis of Thomas's words, and I categoricallty reject it.
You are letting your imagination run wild again. You cannot justify your remarks based on the things that I have said.
"God" has two senses in the NT, one is YHWH (the Father), and one is Elohim (see John 10:34-36). These are not necessarily identical, and they diverge to a certain extent. Both have to be accomodated and accepted for what they are, without seeking to introduce novelties,
God has several more senses than this in the New Testament. As I said countless times before, your application of John 10:34-36 has no bearing on Jesus before or after his resurrection. His very state of being in both of those passages is radically different. If you can't see that and at least acknowledge that obvious difference between the context of those three passages, you are hopeless.
such as God's form morphing between spirit and flesh (which is definitely heretical).
I don't ascribe to the view that spirit and flesh are mutually exclusive, because it is not supported by scripture. That which is spirit can manifest in a physical form. Luke 3:22 "καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ’ αὐτόν".
 
It is a possibility. When the Hebrew Bible says God is one, there is no reason to suppose that this must mean that numerically there is only one God.
Actually God is very clear that his followers must have only one God , Him.
Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
This is a false dichotomy. For example it is possible that "God" in its fullest sense refers to the joint functioning of three ontologically identical beings either individually or as some type of unity that we humans don't, or perhaps even can't, understand.
Do you mean like a triplet? For that to apply these beings cannot be Gods themselves else you will have three Gods making one God. You are assuming something that you do not or perhaps even can't understand why are you trying to explain what you do not or perhaps even can't understand to me?
My remarks were about John 1:1, why are you talking about these verses? They aren't even contextually identical.
Are you saying Jn 1:1 nullifies those verses? Those verses show that Jesus came out from God.
My words prove that you have tragically misunderstood what I wrote, even after I pointed it out to you.
Your words prove that you are not sure of anything.
For example it is possible that "God" in its fullest sense refers to the joint functioning of three ontologically identical beings either individually or as some type of unity that we humans don't, or perhaps even can't, understand.

You can't be serious. I hope "the Father" and Jesus have greater agreement than that!
The fact that you are hoping is proof that you don't know.
It's what John wrote in Jn. 1:1 and 20:28.
No, it is not, we have been through this before...You cannot replace John's words with your own and then claim he said the words that you put in.
1 Corinthians 1:10
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
...
They clearly do. Look at the underlined words and try harder.
I looked and they do not say "Jesus is God" as you claim.
He applied the term "God" directly to Jesus when he quoted what Thomas said in John 20:28 and didn't mention it as another of Thomas's mistakes.

No, he did not. Thomas said, my God and my Lord...
I have two witnesses to verify The father is God and Jesus is Lord
Paul explains this very clearly...
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Peter also explained it to us...
Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

It depends upon what "God" means in the utterance, as I have explained above.
You gave your opinion.
It's not convincing argument. What I have been arguing is irrefutable: "John" referred to Jesus as "God".
How many Gods do you have? Why would John mean Jesus is God and write this... Is Jesus a false God?
John 17:
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
There's no reason why it must.
it must else it contradicts
Do not sons typically have the same ontology as their parents?
That does not make sons their fathers. Are you your father?
He did. It's written in the gospel for all to see.
Jn wrote this in the gospel...
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
No. Your conception of this topic is too narrow for you to see the other possibilities.
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Your many possibilities reek of instability...
The scripture is what I'm using for my facts. You just don't see them for what they are.
You are funny. The scriptures are the facts...you don't use the scripture to make your own facts...
And my point was that what you wrote was factually inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. You seem to be doing this out of ignorance rather than maliciousness, though.
How so? Does the text say "Jesus is God" ? no it does not.
You have proven throughout this post that your conception of this topic is shallow and your position hasn't taken into consideration other possibilities.
Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The fact that you consider other possibilities shows that you are not convinced in your own mind.
I was referring to Jn. 1:1 and 20:28. Your remarks about the context of another passage isn't going to change the words written in another place.
But they must agree, You cannot have Jesus as God in one passage and the same Jesus as not God in another passage when you believe in one God, can you?
I said that I believe that the Jews would think that. You lack either the ability or the desire to quote me or represent my arguments accurately.
You said it as support for your own belief, these are your words...
John Milton said:
Even then, I would expect those Jews to understand that life can only be granted from God, so if Jesus can give life through his (not God's) name...he would be God just like the author claimed in the very first verse.

But who cares what you believe others would think? You cannot know what others would think. Tell me what you think in light of this...
John 5:26
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Your post didn't blow anything away. It can't change the words that John wrote.
Your post cannot change the fact that Jn did not write "Jesus Is God"
John also wrote...
John 5:26
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;


I've not denied scripture does say that. I've said that it has no relevance to John referring to Jesus as God in Jn. 1:1 and 20:28.
As long as it is the same Jesus it is relevant, if Jn is referring to Jesus as God in Jn1:1 then he has to refer to Jesus as God everywhere.
 
It does a bit. Your error led to confusion on my part.
It does a lot, the person it was posted to did not complain.
This is the part I was referring to when I said it didn't pertain to Lee.
That is why I asked him
You couldn't figure that out on your own?
You couldn't figure out I was communicating with Lee?
I shouldn't be surprised since you couldn't distinguish the profiles of two different posters.
I shouldn't be surprised since u couldn't distinguish between a clone and a real profile but went ahead and assumed I cloned a profile.
 
Actually God is very clear that his followers must have only one God , Him.
Exodus 20:3
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
I think the proper approach is to recognize that God revealed more of himself and his plans as time passed and to interpret the passages that need to be interpreted with this in mind. This shouldn't, of course, reject the context of the previous passage, but it can allow previous utterances to be understood in a fuller sense that they were originally understood.
Do you mean like a triplet? For that to apply these beings cannot be Gods themselves else you will have three Gods making one God. You are assuming something that you do not or perhaps even can't understand why are you trying to explain what you do not or perhaps even can't understand to me?
The thing that I am being dogmatic about (that Jesus is referred to as "God" by John) is indisputable.
Are you saying Jn 1:1 nullifies those verses? Those verses show that Jesus came out from God.
Those verses are talking about Jesus's incarnation. Jesus/the Word did not appear to have an origin except in reference to his incarnation.
The fact that you are hoping is proof that you don't know.
The implication was that surely you would know how ridiculous what you wrote was without me having to directly express the thought. I suppose I gave you too much credit once again.
No, it is not, we have been through this before...You cannot replace John's words with your own and then claim he said the words that you put in.
I never did this. You are being dishonest as I have already pointed out to you.
I looked and they do not say "Jesus is God" as you claim.
I've already addressed this.
No, he did not. Thomas said, my God and my Lord...
Should I argue with you since Thomas technically said, "My Lord and my God"? Should I accuse you of saying something that the text doesn't say because you expressed the thought in English instead of Greek. That would be improper to do because you weren't quoting the text (no quotation marks) and the thought is expressed in that text. This is what integrity looks like. Perhaps now you can comprehend your mistake.
I have two witnesses to verify The father is God and Jesus is Lord
Paul explains this very clearly...
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Peter also explained it to us...
Acts 2:36
Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Matthew 18:16
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
John refers to Jesus/the word as "God". So what?
You gave your opinion.
I didn't even offer an opinion. I gave some different options for understanding the concept.
How many Gods do you have? Why would John mean Jesus is God and write this... Is Jesus a false God?
John 17:
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Because he was divested of his divine power at that time, to give but one possible reason among others.
it must else it contradicts
No. It would simply contradict your assumptions. The possibilities are greater than you understand.
That does not make sons their fathers. Are you your father?
I've never claimed that Jesus is "the Father" or that sons can be Fathers, so what are you talking about?
Jn wrote this in the gospel...
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
So what? You pick and choose which parts you accept and which parts you don't. Most people do.
Matthew 7:14
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Your many possibilities reek of instability...
Yes, because that is the context of that verse. :rolleyes:
You are funny. The scriptures are the facts...you don't use the scripture to make your own facts...
You aren't treating the scriptures as facts, that why I said "my facts" as opposed to whatever it is that you are doing.
How so? Does the text say "Jesus is God" ? no it does not.
No. But it does say Jesus is God as I have claimed.
Matthew 5:37
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The fact that you consider other possibilities shows that you are not convinced in your own mind.
I've told you I'm not convinced. Why are you acting like this is some great secret?
But they must agree, You cannot have Jesus as God in one passage and the same Jesus as not God in another passage when you believe in one God, can you?
Yes. You can for many different reasons.
You said it as support for your own belief, these are your words...
John Milton said:
Even then, I would expect those Jews to understand that life can only be granted from God, so if Jesus can give life through his (not God's) name...he would be God just like the author claimed in the very first verse.
I was speaking about the beliefs of the Jews. My own opinion wasn't in view. That is what I was telling you.
But who cares what you believe others would think? You cannot know what others would think.
Apparently, you think you know what I think even after I have corrected you. That's quite the double standard.
Tell me what you think in light of this...John 5:26
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Simple. It refers to Jesus's incarnation not to his existence before.
Your post cannot change the fact that Jn did not write "Jesus Is God"
I never said he wrote "Jesus is God" I said he said Jesus is God.
John also wrote...
John 5:26
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
Dealt with above. Again, this is not the bombshell you imagine it to be.
As long as it is the same Jesus it is relevant, if Jn is referring to Jesus as God in Jn1:1 then he has to refer to Jesus as God everywhere.
No. Your logic is flawed again.
 
It does a lot, the person it was posted to did not complain.

That is why I asked him
You didn't ask anything. Your post was bizarre and contained information not relevant to Lee Magee.
You couldn't figure out I was communicating with Lee?
That was never the issue. Again, you couldn't figure that out on your own? Again, I'm not surprised.
I shouldn't be surprised since u couldn't distinguish between a clone and a real profile but went ahead and assumed I cloned a profile.
More accurately, I entertained the notion that Steven had done so and that would make your account the clone. I asked people with a history with him if he had such an account, because they might already know and save me the trouble from having to analyze your writing styles. I couldn't very well ask you or Steven, because if it had been a clone account you would have any reason to be honest about it. Once Steven offered his theory, It was far easier to believe that you are simply incompetent and got that info from hovering over Steven's picture in Lee's profile. A simple search of your profile for key phrases that Steven uses frequently provided enough evidence to believe that you are different people. It's not proof, but it's good enough for me.
 
cjab: [Your] view of scripture seems to be rooted in paganism (the idea that gods can morph from one form to another whilst concealing their true form). This does not apply to the Hebrew God. In order to manifest himself on earth, the Logos had to be "sent" - i.e. go out from God. All manifestations of "God" in the OT are angelic.

Your view isn't in alignment with what is said in the Hebrew bible or the New Testament. You do have a penchant for denying the parts of scripture you don't like.
How am I not in alignment with the Hebrew bible or the New Testament?

I haven't used any philosophy in regard to Jn. 20:28. I have said plainly that John records, and thereby approves of, Thomas's statement that Jesus is "God".
Since Thomas said "The God of me" in relation to another human being your remark is worthless.

You are unwilling to accept what John wrote and instead try to dilute the word into a sense that isn't truly "God" even though that is what he clearly was before his incarnation.
I chose to interpret "God" in John 20:28 by the Hebrew Elohim word, rather than by the YHWH word, but there is nothingt to prevent me from doing so. What Jesus was before his incarnation is reflected in Thomas's belief in Jesus as the Son of God.

You are letting your imagination run wild again. You cannot justify your remarks based on the things that I have said.
I have nailed down your theology pretty well and I reject it completely.

God has several more senses than this in the New Testament. As I said countless times before, your application of John 10:34-36 has no bearing on Jesus before or after his resurrection.
That's strange as Jesus himself thought it had a bearing on himself.

His very state of being in both of those passages is radically different. If you can't see that and at least acknowledge that obvious difference between the context of those three passages, you are hopeless.
You are a hopeless exegete.

I don't ascribe to the view that spirit and flesh are mutually exclusive, because it is not supported by scripture. That which is spirit can manifest in a physical form. Luke 3:22 "καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ’ αὐτόν".
The Holy Spirit also is sent out from God.
 
How am I not in alignment with the Hebrew bible or the New Testament?
The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament both have God manifesting in bodily form. In this specific case, I was referring to the fact that when God appeared, he was often called "God" and not an"angel".
Since Thomas said "The God of me" in relation to another human being your remark is worthless.
You can't say that Jesus was a man with any certainty. He did, after all, miraculously enter a room although the door was locked.
I chose to interpret "God" in John 20:28 by the Hebrew Elohim word, rather than by the YHWH word, but there is nothingt to prevent me from doing so. What Jesus was before his incarnation is reflected in Thomas's belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
You are right. There is nothing to prevent you from holding this incorrect notion. You choose to remain wrong.
I have nailed down your theology pretty well and I reject it completely.
You misrepresent me constantly. Your hubris in the face of this is risible.
That's strange as Jesus himself thought it had a bearing on himself.
While he was a man, sure. I've never denied this.
You are a hopeless exegete.
No one could ever truthfully accuse you of being an exegete.
The Holy Spirit also is sent out from God.
It is a spirit in a physical body. It directly refutes the claim you made.
 
It does a lot, the person it was posted to did not complain.
That is why I asked him
You couldn't figure out I was communicating with Lee?
I shouldn't be surprised since u couldn't distinguish between a clone and a real profile but went ahead and assumed I cloned a profile.

John Milton asked a question, he did not jump to conclusions.
It was not unreasonable for him to ask, and it led to the puzzle being solved.

There was another poster in the KJV area who jumped to false conclusions, and started with multiple harassing wacky accusations, but that is his style.
 
Last edited:
The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament both have God manifesting in bodily form. In this specific case, I was referring to the fact that when God appeared, he was often called "God" and not an"angel".
Nonsense.

You can't say that Jesus was a man with any certainty. He did, after all, miraculously enter a room although the door was locked.
The resurrection of Jesus in the flesh is a core Christian doctrine. Deny it and you're an A* heretic.

You are right. There is nothing to prevent you from holding this incorrect notion. You choose to remain wrong.
I do not submit to your judgement.

You misrepresent me constantly. Your hubris in the face of this is risible.
Your errors are plain for all to see.

While he was a man, sure. I've never denied this.
You certainly did deny it for you said "Your application of John 10:34-36 has no bearing on Jesus before or after his resurrection. "

No one could ever truthfully accuse you of being an exegete.
I don't pretend to be one: I usually consult others better than myself, but in the case of the application of John 10:34-36 to Jesus the man, whether by Jesus or by Thomas, the fit is 100%, but which you perversely repudiate.

It is a spirit in a physical body. It directly refutes the claim you made.
Scripture says "like a dove" not in the body of a dove. Again the nuances of scripture elude you.
 
I'm getting tired of rebutting your same baseless assertions, cjab. With these remarks, I'll probably stop beating the equine remains of your assertions.
Nonsense.
I've already shown this to be true in Genesis 18. There are other places in the Hebrew Bible as well. Your assertion here has already been dealt with.
The resurrection of Jesus in the flesh is a core Christian doctrine. Deny it and you're an A* heretic.
I've never denied this. It is possible to be in the flesh and still be "God". As is demonstrated above.
I do not submit to your judgement.
I just said that's fine, but you are still wrong. The facts don't change because you reject them.
Your errors are plain for all to see.
My only error is trying to help you.
You certainly did deny it for you said "Your application of John 10:34-36 has no bearing on Jesus before or after his resurrection."
Key words: "your application". Your reading comprehension failed you.
I don't pretend to be one: I usually consult others better than myself, but in the case of the application of John 10:34-36 to Jesus the man, whether by Jesus or by Thomas, the fit is 100%, but which you perversely repudiate.
Don't be ridiculous. How many commentators agree with your understanding of John 20:28? How many agree with mine?
Scripture says "like a dove" not in the body of a dove. Again the nuances of scripture elude you.
It says the Holy Spirit descended bodily, as a dove in form. καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=σωματικός&la=greek
True to form, you ignore the words you wish weren't there.

With that, I'm done with you unless you manage to conjure an argument in place of your steady stream of ignorant assertions.
 
My only error is trying to help you.
If that's you're only error, you are conceited prattler with a fixation on being led by the majority. The majority counts for nought in the kingdom of God (Rom 11:3.4).

The vast majority of commentators are obvious to John 10:34-36, for some strange reason, probably because what Thomas said is uncontroversial contextual to the OT.

The application of Elohim by Thomas to the king of the Jews has the perfect precedent in Ps 46, where despite being addressed as Elohim, the King is acknowledged to himself have a God, as Jesus conceded in John 20:17. This of itself repudiates your "ontological" Sabellian fantasy.
 
I think the proper approach is to recognize that God revealed more of himself and his plans as time passed and to interpret the passages that need to be interpreted with this in mind.
God revealed it to the apostles through Jesus...You seem to be saying that Jesus and the apostles were insufficient.
This shouldn't, of course, reject the context of the previous passage, but it can allow previous utterances to be understood in a fuller sense that they were originally understood.
assuming that there is a fuller sense of understanding would mean the apostles missed the mark
The thing that I am being dogmatic about (that Jesus is referred to as "God" by John) is indisputable.
You are being dogmatic with what is not written in the scripture.
Those verses are talking about Jesus's incarnation. Jesus/the Word did not appear to have an origin except in reference to his incarnation.
There is no mention of incarnation here...If you read the verses you would know that Jesus came out from God which makes him not God.
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Evidently this shows that John believes that Jesus came out from God.
The implication was that surely you would know how ridiculous what you wrote was without me having to directly express the thought. I suppose I gave you too much credit once again.
There is no implication you simply hoped for something...
John Milton said:
You can't be serious. I hope "the Father" and Jesus have greater agreement than that!
I never did this. You are being dishonest as I have already pointed out to you.
Show how I am being dishonest. Did John write Jesus is God? You are being dogmatic about what is not written in the scripture
The thing that I am being dogmatic about (that Jesus is referred to as "God" by John) is indisputable.
You are being dogmatic about what is not written in the scripture
I've already addressed this.
By being dogmatic about what is not written in the scripture.
Should I argue with you since Thomas technically said, "My Lord and my God"?
You can if you wish and I would refer you to this...
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Should I accuse you of saying something that the text doesn't say because you expressed the thought in English instead of Greek.
You can if you wish and
I would refer you to this...
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
That would be improper to do because you weren't quoting the text (no quotation marks) and the thought is expressed in that text.
It wouldn't be improper, I made a claim... it is in a person's right to question the validity of what another person claims. I am able to back up what I write
This is what integrity looks like.
Then show some by posting the passage that says Jesus is God.
Perhaps now you can comprehend your mistake.
What mistake?
John refers to Jesus/the word as "God". So what?
The two witnesses show that Jesus cannot be God therefore there is a contradiction. John himself said he wrote the gospel for us to believe Jesus is the son of God.
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

If John believes that Jesus is the son of God it follows that he is not referring to Jesus as God.

I didn't even offer an opinion. I gave some different options for understanding the concept.
Those are your opinions.
Because he was divested of his divine power at that time, to give but one possible reason among others.
I asked three questions...You answered none...How many Gods do you have? Why would John mean Jesus is God and write this... Is Jesus a false God? Would you care to try again?
No. It would simply contradict your assumptions. The possibilities are greater than you understand.
please state my assumptions that the scriptures contradict. Don't just make claims support them.
I've never claimed that Jesus is "the Father" or that sons can be Fathers, so what are you talking about?
We have one God, the father. If Jesus is that one God then he must be the father. That is why I asked you how many Gods you have.
So what? You pick and choose which parts you accept and which parts you don't. Most people do.
Including you. Do you accept the passage? If you do please explain How Jesus could be the Son of God in one passage and God himself in another passage
Yes, because that is the context of that verse. :rolleyes:
And I am operating in the context of the verse....the narrow path...
You aren't treating the scriptures as facts, that why I said "my facts" as opposed to whatever it is that you are doing.
I present them as facts all the time. I say exactly what the scriptures say... You say what you assume the scriptures mean.
No. But it does say Jesus is God as I have claimed.
No, it does not you are unable to present that text.
I've told you I'm not convinced. Why are you acting like this is some great secret?
but here you are trying to convince me...
Yes. You can for many different reasons.
Show your different reasons from the scriptures...
I was speaking about the beliefs of the Jews. My own opinion wasn't in view. That is what I was telling you.
You are not making any sense ...all Jews don't believe the same things. So definitely it was your opinion.
Apparently, you think you know what I think even after I have corrected you. That's quite the double standard.
You are writing what you think, I simply elaborated a bit.
Simple. It refers to Jesus's incarnation not to his existence before.
There is no mention od incarnation...
I never said he wrote "Jesus is God" I said he said Jesus is God.
Since we are discussing the bible I am assuming that you are reading. Therefore whatever you claim he said must be in the text. Even if you have an audio bible you would be hearing the text that is written. If it is not written he did not say it in the text.
Dealt with above. Again, this is not the bombshell you imagine it to be.
So why are you running for cover?
No. Your logic is flawed again.
Support your claims with the scriptures.
 
John Milton asked a question, he did not jump to conclusions.
He asked a question and Jumped to a conclusion...

John Milton said:
Ah, are you a Steven Avery clone account? That would explain so much!
https://forums.carm.org/members/steven-avery.448/
It was not unreasonable for him to ask, and it led to the puzzle being solved.
Never said it was unreasonable to ask...After the question, the statement implies that it is a clone account and it would explain so much.
He thinks it was you.
There was another poster in the KJV area who jumped to false conclusions, and started with multiple harassing wacky accusations, but that is his style.
But baited by John Milton.
 
I chose to interpret "God" in John 20:28 by the Hebrew Elohim word, rather than by the YHWH word, but there is nothingt to prevent me from doing so. What Jesus was before his incarnation is reflected in Thomas's belief in Jesus as the Son of God.
How do you explain those passages in which the NT authors use the OT scriptures that speak of YHWH, the LORD, and apply them to Jesus? In effect, they equate Jesus with YHWH. Implying that before his incarnation Jesus was YHWH.
Here's one as an example but there are others:

Joel 2: 28-32
Then afterward
I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29 Even on the male and female slaves,
in those days I will pour out my spirit.
30 I will show portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. 31 The sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. 32 Then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved,


Romans 10:9-13
because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one believes with the heart, leading to righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, leading to salvation. 11 The scripture says, “No one who believes in him will be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
 
You are not an authority
and you are?
In the NT, Elohim translates to God (see John 10:34-36).,
I already said that
as does YHWH
YHWH does not translate to God. It is the Name of God
(e.g. God the Father is the same as YHWH the Father). Therefore you are wrong.
That is not how translation works...YHWH is the proper name for our God. Elohim is a title and can be ascribed to anyone even men and idols.
Shows you are not very bright: Merriam Webster "divine: " of, relating to, or coming directly from God" (exactly per my definition).

Therefore God himself is not divine. But if you are in a relationship with God or of God or sent by God you are divine...

Cambridge says...connected with or like God or a god:
Not sure you are qualified to converse with me. You need to develop skills in rationality and discernment.
says the one who does not know Elohim is a title and YHWH is the name of God.
CJB
I appeared to Avraham, Yitz’chak and Ya‘akov as El Shaddai, although I did not make myself known to them by my name, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [Adonai].
 
I'm giving you the same final screed I gave, cjab, unless you come up with some arguments that haven't already been dispatched.
God revealed it to the apostles through Jesus...You seem to be saying that Jesus and the apostles were insufficient.
My remarks pertained to how I understand passages like the one you were quoting that appear to be in tension with some other parts of scripture, particularly the New Testament. Once again, I'm completely puzzled by one of your claims. In this case you said I "seem to be saying that Jesus and the apostles were insufficient." You have no justification for this remark.
assuming that there is a fuller sense of understanding would mean the apostles missed the mark
I don't know how you arrived at this conclusion.
You are being dogmatic with what is not written in the scripture.
It's there for all to see as it has been since I quoted it for all to see.
There is no mention of incarnation here...If you read the verses you would know that Jesus came out from God which makes him not God.
John 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
John 16:27
For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God.

Evidently this shows that John believes that Jesus came out from God.
This just shows that you have no business posting in the Biblical Languages forum. John 8:42 "εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα, ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν." The verbs ἐξῆλθον and ἥκω are perfectly ordinary verbs of leaving and arriving. There is nothing in them that suggests that the word came forth from God in any other sense that he left his presence. This understanding is confirmed in the remainder of the verse where he says that God sent him "ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν."

Something similar occurs in John 16:27-28 "ἐγὼ παρὰ [τοῦ] θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον. ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον· πάλιν ἀφίημι τὸν κόσμον καὶ πορεύομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα." You have the same verb (ἐξῆλθον) in both places. You have the same explanatory thought in both places ("I went out from my Father and have come into the world" in bold above.) Here you have the additional thought (underlined and in bold above) that hearkens back to Jn. 1:1 where it says the word was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν Jn. 1:1). There is nothing in this that suggests that Jesus "came out from God" in the mystical sense that you seem to be advocating. If that's not what you are implying, the next most likely explanation seems to be that you disagree with John 1:1 where John records that "God" was with "God". Of course, you might be suggesting a combination of the two of these or none of these. However, in any case these passages do nothing to prove your point.
There is no implication you simply hoped for something...
John Milton said:
You can't be serious. I hope "the Father" and Jesus have greater agreement than that!
I know what I intended to convey. I truly didn't imagine you would entertain the thought that the agreement of a husband and wife is comparable to that of the Father and the Son.
Show how I am being dishonest. Did John write Jesus is God? You are being dogmatic about what is not written in the scripture
Yes. He did in John 1:1 and John 20:28. I showed you this several posts ago.
You are being dogmatic about what is not written in the scripture

By being dogmatic about what is not written in the scripture.
It is written in scripture. You are ignoring it, and I've already taken you to task for your intellectual dishonesty and double standards.
You can if you wish and I would refer you to this...
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

You can if you wish and
I would refer you to this...
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
You still don't understand what I said?! I agree that what you stated was accurate because you were giving a quote. But if you held yourself to the same standard that you tried to hold me to, you would have to say that the text doesn't say that because you reversed the order of Thomas's words when you said, "my God and my Lord".
It wouldn't be improper, I made a claim... it is in a person's right to question the validity of what another person claims. I am able to back up what I write
You missed the point.
Then show some by posting the passage that says Jesus is God.
I already have.
What mistake?
The one you repeated above where you hold yourself to a different standard than you hold me.
The two witnesses show that Jesus cannot be God therefore there is a contradiction. John himself said he wrote the gospel for us to believe Jesus is the son of God.
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
You are disregarding what John says in John 1:1 and 20:28.
If John believes that Jesus is the son of God it follows that he is not referring to Jesus as God.
He did, though, in Jn. 1:1.
Those are your opinions.
That makes no sense. They are possible interpretations, and I don't have an opinion about which of them were correct.
I asked three questions...You answered none...How many Gods do you have? Why would John mean Jesus is God and write this... Is Jesus a false God? Would you care to try again?
No. I don't see them as relevant to the discussion.
please state my assumptions that the scriptures contradict. Don't just make claims support them.
I did. Your assumption is that "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." can only mean what you think that it meant. That's why I gave you other options.
We have one God, the father. If Jesus is that one God then he must be the father. That is why I asked you how many Gods you have.
There's another assumption that you have made. You are assuming that "God" only refer to "the Father". You have been given other options.
Including you.
Not that I'm aware of, and it's not been pointed out to me yet.
Do you accept the passage?
Yes.
If you do please explain How Jesus could be the Son of God in one passage and God himself in another passage
Because I don't conflate "God" as "the Father" as you do. John 1:1 mentions "God" being with "God". I don't know all that this entails, and I don't claim to, but I believe that John's statement is accurate.
And I am operating in the context of the verse....the narrow path...
So you think.
I present them as facts all the time. I say exactly what the scriptures say... You say what you assume the scriptures mean.
You mean facts like your erroneous interpretation of Jn. 8:42 and 16:27 above?
No, it does not you are unable to present that text.
I've given you two several different times.
but here you are trying to convince me...
I'm trying to convince you that the text says what the text says. I'm not trying to tell you what to do with that information.
Show your different reasons from the scriptures...
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
 
You are not making any sense ...all Jews don't believe the same things. So definitely it was your opinion.
It was a generalization, not a sweeping generalization. You are being intellectually dishonest again.
You are writing what you think, I simply elaborated a bit.
So, you are doing exactly what I claimed you were doing.
There is no mention od incarnation...
There doesn't have to be a direct mention of something for the idea to apply. This seems to be an area where your logic consistently fails you.
Since we are discussing the bible I am assuming that you are reading. Therefore whatever you claim he said must be in the text. Even if you have an audio bible you would be hearing the text that is written. If it is not written he did not say it in the text.
Even if it is not written directly in the text, it doesn't mean it is not true.
So why are you running for cover?
I'm not. I've taken your arguments behind the wood shed, and spanked them in a circle.
Support your claims with the scriptures.
I have repeatedly, but the problems I was referring to were logical problems and pertain to your intellectual failings not to scripture
 
Back
Top