Jesus is the Son of his God

[Muna]

Trinity extremists banned the use of made.

Ok, that was sort of funny

 

[ScottA]

Trinity extremists banned the use of made.

"Became."

Either way, the "image of God" is perfectly revealed.

 

[HealthyShape]

John is a Jewish monotheist.

John was a Christian monotheist. He was Jewish only in the meaning of ethnicity.

The Father created everything with Jesus in mind. That’s Jewish monotheism.

No, that is your nonsensical invention. It is neither Christian nor Jewish theology.

 

[HealthyShape]

The difference between the two translations I was comparing is a bright one.

The Geneva Bible was a work of very strict Calvinists. Even though the rendering of John 1 is a bit different in there ("that" instead of "the" and similar), it does not support your so called "Jewish monotheism" in any way. The translators were Trinitarians.

Anyway, you should verify your ideas in the Greek text. Cherry picking single pieces from various rarely used translations is obviously a sign of strong confirmation bias.

 

[soberxp]

"Became."

Either way, the "image of God" is perfectly revealed.

Was the world made through the earth or through Adam? Or The spiritual Adam?

If spiritual Adam is Jesus Christ, why not made can't be use for him? LOL.

The spiritual Adam created the dust Adam then.....

That's odd..

 

[JustMe]

Jesus says,

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

And again,

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

And here Paul says in the present

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

And Paul says in the past

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

And Paul again says in the present

Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have
your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

These appear to agree in the same theme of things

I think the main topic of this thread is, somewhat ironically, discussing so-called 'Christians' or those who claim to be on this site, addressing non-Christians about salvation through the Son of God, the Christ of his Father, to all. What you mentioned is significant and relates to this theme, although sin and freedom from it are not the primary focus based on the comments I've seen so far in this thread.

 

[JustMe]

You failed to notice Matthias denies the divinity of Jesus. How do you miss that when it is evident in the thread title.

You're defending error of immense proportions.

And we who call it out are of God and are following his direction.

I also do not believe that the Son of God is the origin of divinity. Where in the scriptures is this stated? You need a strong argument for this, as Jesus never explained how or even if he had divinity like his Father. However, the Father's spirit did inhabit the Son's spirit, enabling him to have the qualities of his Father's divinity.

 

[HealthyShape]

I also do not believe that the Son of God is the origin of divinity. Where in the scriptures is this stated?

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
J 1:18

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:18

 

[ScottA]

Was the world made through the earth or through Adam? Or The spiritual Adam?

If spiritual Adam is Jesus Christ, why not made can't be use for him? LOL.

The spiritual Adam created the dust Adam then.....

That's odd..

The world is the revealing of the man of sin, created by God.

 

[JustMe]

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
J 1:18

This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath,
but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
John 5:18

When is an argument presented, particularly one that could impact lives, simply as a single statement that lacks context and understanding? Typically, the statement acts as an introduction to the main argument.

Here are some questions I think should be addressed before making an argument:

Do you understand the background of the verse John 1:18?
Did John ever refer to Jesus as God, the God, apart from calling him the Son of God, excluding 1:18?
Why would John suddenly describe the Son of God as God, his Father? Does that make sense?
Are you familiar with the meaning and context surrounding John 1:18?

And regarding John 5:18, what does equality with God, his Father, signify? Please provide another argument.

 

[Matthias]

John was a Christian monotheist.

John’s monotheism is the same as the Messiah’s monotheism, the monotheism of Israel.

He was Jewish only in the meaning of ethnicity.

”John is as undeviating a witness as any in the New Testament to the fundamental tenet of Judaism“ - J.A.T. Robinson

No, that is your nonsensical invention. It is neither Christian nor Jewish theology. See ideal preexistence.

I haven’t invented anything. See the concept of ideal preexistence. It’s fundamental to Jewish theology.

 

[Matthias]

The Geneva Bible was a work of very strict Calvinists. Even though the rendering of John 1 is a bit different in there ("that" instead of "the" and similar), it does not support your so called "Jewish monotheism" in any way. The translators were Trinitarians.

Every English translation of John’s prologue produced prior to 1611 that was made directly from Greek is rendered in the same fashion.

The word is “it”. Jesus isn’t an it. In the prologue, John is speaking about the Father speaking the creation into existence. Everything which was created already preexisted in his mind, in his plan and purpose. It was all foreknown to him.

Anyway, you should verify your ideas in the Greek text. Cherry picking single pieces from various rarely used translations is obviously a sign of strong confirmation bias.

There are many modern translations made in the same tradition as Tyndale and others.

 

[Matthias]

No, that is your nonsensical invention.

“In later times the church, no longer perceiving the power and decisiveness of the agent-son-representative model, and having among its members men used to a more philosophical analysis, felt it necessary to go further in the direction of metaphysical identity between Jesus and the heavenly Father: released from Jewish monotheism, gentile Christians began to think of Jesus as also, in some sense God.”

(A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 173)

 

[JLB]

Hebrew elohim -> Greek theos -> English God, or god. Singular.

Hebrew elohim -> Greek theoi -> English gods. Plural.

This is not scripture.

This is a dictionary that was put together by man.

 

[JLB]

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” True.

(Genesis 1:1)

Genesis 1:1 Hebrew Text Analysis

The Hebrew word is elohim.

Hebrew elohim -> English God. Singular.

”In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth.” False.

Hebrew elohim -> English gods. Plural.

The Hebrew word elohim is always plural in form. It isn’t always plural in meaning. In fact, it is almost always singular in meaning in the Bible.

Elohim isn’t the only Hebrew word which functions this way.

Same God; Elohim


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion...
Genesis 1:26


Elohim = Plural - The eternal Godhead.

 

[Matthias]

This is not scripture.

This is a dictionary that was put together by man.

It’s basic Hebrew.

 

[JLB]

It’s basic Hebrew.

It's basically wrong.

 

[Matthias]

Same God; Elohim


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion...
Genesis 1:26


Elohim = Plural - The eternal Godhead.

It’s the Messiah’s God. It’s the first line of the Apostles’ Creed. It’s scripture. It comes from the Hebrew Bible. It is the scripture of Jewish monotheists.

Why do you write “God” in the singular form rather than in the plural form?

 

[Matthias]

It's basically wrong.

It’s the absolute truth. Every Bible translator knows that it is and translates it properly.

 

[JLB]

It’s the Messiah’s God. It’s the first line of the Apostles’ Creed. It’s scripture. It comes from the Hebrew Bible. It is the scripture of Jewish monotheists.

Why do you write “God” in the singular form rather than in the plural form?

Creed's and dictionary's are not how children of God are to study to show ourself approved.

The teachings of man will always lead you astray.