Someone believe that the Lord Jesus is not God, but the Son of God.Why?

[Bible_Gazer]

You need to get an up to date modern English version to actually understand what the English says.

John 1:18 (NIV)
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

Heb 1:3 (NIV)
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Well I don't believe in the NIV bible and you don't believe the the KJV..... so I guess that ends our conversation on this topic...sorry

 

[Bible_Gazer]

No I am not saying Jesus is God because he is spirit, soul and body.

Jesus was always God (see John 1:1).

Nobody can see your spirit or mine. It is invisible. It leaves the body at death and goes to be with God, but the body goes into the earth to become dust (Ecclesiastes 12:7).

Since when did the Spirit of God make Jesus a God? Jesus was THE God (John 1:1, 'The Word was God', i.e. Jesus the Word was THE God.

So are you a Mormon who believes human beings become gods?

You are promoting very unorthodox theology in your post.

Oz

not mormonite

Well If Jesus body was not a God, so it must be his spirit dwelling in him right, so that would make Jesus God by indwelling spirit not by flesh birth.

 

[OzSpen]

not mormonite

Well If Jesus body was not a God, so it must be his spirit dwelling in him right, so that would make Jesus God by indwelling spirit not by flesh birth.

not mormonite

Well If Jesus body was not a God, so it must be his spirit dwelling in him right, so that would make Jesus God by indwelling spirit not by flesh birth.

No, Jesus body was his fleshly body. Where is the biblical evidence for your view that Jesus spirit is God? I urge you not to try to understand the hypostatic union in terms you are using. It would be better to investigate how this is explained in an article such as, 'What is the hypostatic union?'

You seem to be struggling to explain how the divine and human are combined in the life of Jesus. This has been discussed throughout church history as the hypostatic union.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

Well I don't believe in the NIV bible and you don't believe the the KJV..... so I guess that ends our conversation on this topic...sorry

Not true, I do believe in the KJV, I just know its an inferior English translation compared to modern versions. Now if you want to get him to the Greek I'll be more than happy to oblige, however the Greek will show what the NIV does.
So are you telling us that you're a KJVOer?

 

[Bible_Gazer]

No, Jesus body was his fleshly body. Where is the biblical evidence for your view that Jesus spirit is God? I urge you not to try to understand the hypostatic union in terms you are using. It would be better to investigate how this is explained in an article such as, 'What is the hypostatic union?'

You seem to be struggling to explain how the divine and human are combined in the life of Jesus. This has been discussed throughout church history as the hypostatic union.

Oz

I read the hypostatic thing theroy.
a quote from it: The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time.
It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding

They, who wrote this, sound like they really don't know, they are assuming because of lack of understanding.

I do believe Jesus preexisted.
The start of this topic asked why those do not believe they are the same person.
Here is my little part about it.

You see in Hebrews 5:7 says that Jesus prayed unto him the could save him from death.
The next verse 8 = says he learned obedience = who did he obey
next verse 9 = being made perfect - what did he lack
​a high priest verse 1 - God can't be a high priest to offer things to a God

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

If Jesus is the God man being the same forever not separate, we have a problem with these verses.

 

[Bible_Gazer]

Not true, I do believe in the KJV, I just know its an inferior English translation compared to modern versions. Now if you want to get him to the Greek I'll be more than happy to oblige, however the Greek will show what the NIV does.
So are you telling us that you're a KJVOer?

I am a KJV diehard....I stick to one bible... switching back and forth to many other versions is confusion, because they are not alike.

Do you stick to the NIV as the final say so completely.


NIV luke 2:33The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. v48 says his parents
So the NIV really explain who the father is of Jesus ?
KJV says Joseph and his mother

There is a person on another site who believe that Joseph was Jesus natural father, if you read this part in the NIV it would prove their point.
Maybe this is where he it got it from.

Just one of many differences why I don't except NIV

It does make it hard for people to agree on scriptures when they don't use the same bible version completely, not jumping around to others.

 

[StanJ]

I am a KJV diehard....I stick to one bible... switching back and forth to many other versions is confusion, because they are not alike.
Do you stick to the NIV as the final say so completely.
NIV luke 2:33[/size]The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. v48 says his parents[/size]
So the NIV really explain who the father is of Jesus ?[/size]
KJV says Joseph and his mother [/size]
There is a person on another site who believe that Joseph was Jesus natural father, if you read this part in the NIV it would prove their point.
Maybe this is where he it got it from.
Just one of many differences why I don't except NIV[/size]
It does make it hard for people to agree on scriptures when they don't use the same bible version completely, not jumping around to others.[/size]

The Greek language uses the word πατήρ (patēr), which means father not Joseph. What the COE translators did 400 years ago is of no concern to me. They were not the ones inspired, the Greek version was. I do stick to the NIV, and rarely use other translations. I would not care what translation somebody uses as long as it is an accurate one, and there are many accurate ones in today's modern English. The fact is that anybody with an elementary school education would know exactly what father in the context of the verse, would refer to. Legally Joseph was the father of Jesus, and Jesus submitted himself accordingly.
Trying to justify your position by using a single verse is a tad disingenuous, when the majority of modern day Greeks scholars confirm that there are much better English translations that should be used in lieu of the KJV.
You didn't answer my direct question though. Do you believe the KJV is inspired, or do you believe the Greek text is inspired?

 

[Bible_Gazer]

The Greek language uses the word πατήρ (patēr), which means father not Joseph. What the COE translators did 400 years ago is of no concern to me. They were not the ones inspired, the Greek version was. I do stick to the NIV, and rarely use other translations. I would not care what translation somebody uses as long as it is an accurate one, and there are many accurate ones in today's modern English. The fact is that anybody with an elementary school education would know exactly what father in the context of the verse, would refer to. Legally Joseph was the father of Jesus, and Jesus submitted himself accordingly.
Trying to justify your position by using a single verse is a tad disingenuous, when the majority of modern day Greeks scholars confirm that there are much better English translations that should be used in lieu of the KJV.
You didn't answer my direct question though. Do you believe the KJV is inspired, or do you believe the Greek text is inspired?

Yes I do believe KJV is an inspired book - so did you say NIV is not inspired ? Why don't you use the inspired Greek instead of NIV ?
How many Greek bible translation are there, which one do you use ?
I think KJV group was 400 years closer to the Greek understanding than modern Greek scholars are today.
So name some modern English bible that are accurate all the way thru, and you know that it to be true and inspired.

 

[StanJ]

Yes I do believe KJV is an inspired book - so did you say NIV is not inspired ? Why don't you use the inspired Greek instead of NIV ?
How many Greek bible translation are there, which one do you use ?
I think KJV group was 400 years closer to the Greek understanding than modern Greek scholars are today.
So name some modern English bible that are accurate all the way thru, and you know that it to be true and inspired.

Well that's interesting, because the original translators didn't think it was inspirational. They said it was translated from the original Greek text. 400 years later we have more Greek text then they did, and our English language is much different then the Elizabethan language that is used in the KJV.
No English translation is inspired, and that includes the KJV and NIV. The inspiration is in the Greek text and the Hebrew text and as long as they are properly translated, there is close to the original as can be. It is a well known fact by the majority of scholars today that the KJV is not close to the original Greek text and that people assign interpretations to it that are not correct. It's not a matter of being closer to the Greek understanding in terms of years, it's a matter of having more understanding with the Greek actually says given the addition of all the texts we now have. If you believe that the 50 some odd scholars from the Church of England that translated the KJV were any more proficient in the Greek language than our current day scholars, then you are sadly misinformed.
If you agree that the Greek was the inspired language, then why equivocate about it now by saying that Joseph is more accurate than father?
There are many modern English translations that are accurate but you have to actually want to read them to find out. The fact that you think the KJV is inspired when Paul himself was referring to the Hebrew Old Testament, means you really don't understand biblical hermeneutics whatsoever. Maybe you can show us with facts as to how the KJV is inspired over and above any other modern English translation?

 

[OzSpen]

Yes I do believe KJV is an inspired book - so did you say NIV is not inspired ? Why don't you use the inspired Greek instead of NIV ?
How many Greek bible translation are there, which one do you use ?
I think KJV group was 400 years closer to the Greek understanding than modern Greek scholars are today.
So name some modern English bible that are accurate all the way thru, and you know that it to be true and inspired.

Bible_Gazer,

When 2 Tim 3:16 was written, 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God...', were the KJV and NIV around? Therefore, which Scripture is inspired of God?

Which Greek NT do you read?

You claim, 'I think KJV group was 400 years closer to the Greek understanding than modern Greek scholars are today'. From where did you gain that information?

How many Greek MSS were used by Erasmus in compiling the Textus Receptus? in which centuries were they dated?

What are the dates of the writing of the Sinaiticus MSS and Vaticanus MSS used in the United Bible Society Greek text of today?

Which is closer to the original texts of the NT - those from the Textus Receptus or Sinaiticus?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I am a KJV diehard....I stick to one bible... switching back and forth to many other versions is confusion, because they are not alike.

Which edition of the KJV do you use? Do you use the original 1611 edition, complete with Apocrypha?